Economic Analogy vs Economic Reality

How to even begin to line up the challenges facing the US economy at this time might be no real challenge to a bona fide economist but since the majority of American voters is only an “arm chair” economist at best, fundamental economics would need to be addressed and explained in such a way that the typical layman could comprehend. Since this is not likely to happen anytime soon, at least not in my lifetime given certain political realities, it would be responsible to consider what is at hand and try to make reasonable election-year choices. That is to say, whom we elect to the US House and to open US Senate seats in this election season is going to have a much more profound and lasting impact on the US economy than who is to become the next US president.

The current economic stimulus package before the House contains billions of dollars in incentives for individuals and businesses in an effort to “jump start” the economy since it is showing signs of losing momentum. So let us consider the analogy of jump-starting a car. The jumper cables in this instance could be the cash rebates that will be offered to all US taxpayers. However, even though the car will likely start with the “jump”, a problem will still exist that will require further mechanical analysis. Is the starter going bad, or do the batteries have to be replaced? The starter is obviously going to cost a bit more than simply replacing the battery but if a new battery is all that is needed, then we could say we got off cheap. But if we replace the battery in the vain hope that this is the only problem without considering all other possibilities which led to the need for a jump start in the first place, then the brand new battery and its expected life could be diminished because we replaced the battery to deal with a symptom without considering and addressing the core problem.

Well, I’m not an economist and I’m even less of a mechanic. I’m one of those who might break down on the side of the road and will raise the hood to have a look while my foot is propped up on the front bumper, but I will be pretty clueless as to what I might be looking at except that it is an engine and it is currently not working. As an “arm chair” economist who has had some college-level classes in economics and who tries to keep up with the political situation of the day, however, I will be pretty sure that there is a potential problem serious than a quick jump-start will address.

I can appreciate President Bush’s philosophy regarding the tax rebates he proposed early in his first term. The Clinton administration bragged about creating a surplus; Mr. Bush maintained that any surplus belongs back into the hands and pockets of those from whom it was taken. The government should ideally not have a budget deficit, but it also should not have a surplus of funds. To suggest that a surplus is the sign of a responsible government misses the whole point of the philosophical differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. Generally it is that the government is not inherently entitled to anything more than the public is willing to give. It is highly unlikely that the majority of Americans are OK with the US government having a surplus of funds while they continue struggling to make ends meet.

This term and this time around, the reasoning for the current rebate and incentives proposal is altogether under different circumstances but the philosophy remains the same: the economy needs the cash, not the government even if the government is facing not only a pretty hefty budget deficit but also a staggering, if incomprehensible, national debt. The blame game has been going on for years between Democrats and Republicans, but the bottom line is that the US taxpayer has done what he is supposed to do by paying the taxes. It is the US Congress that has failed. The current 18% approval rating (depending on which poll is used but was cited last night by news commentators prior to the president’s State of the Union address) is indicative of the reality that taxpayers are aware of the Congress’ failure to act responsibly. Then as if seeking to affirm the low approval rating, Congress would dare to suggest that American taxpayers will have to give up more of their hard-earned pay to make corrections, insinuating that the government needs the cash more than the working families who earned it.

The current incentives proposal before the US House has cash rebates to be paid to taxpayers, but the Senate has all but guaranteed that there will be more added to it by the time it comes before that body such as more in food stamps and an extension of unemployment benefits for those who have been out of work for too long. And that’s the rub, isn’t it? How much good will a few hundred dollars be for those who have been out of work for so long? At best, there will be groceries purchased or bills paid but the relatively small amount will be gone in less than a month. A job, on the other hand, will go a lot further and will provide much more help to the American taxpayer – and the government by way of payroll taxes – than a one-time, very expensive allocation of government funds.

I would much rather the Congress give US businesses more incentive to keep jobs in the US. I would much rather the US Department of Transportation end this experiment of allowing Mexican trucking companies to operate on US highways when US trucking companies are struggling to keep up with high fuel prices and low freight rates which will certainly be driven even lower. I would rather the Congress offer up tax incentives to US businesses according to the number of Americans who are hired or according to setting up in an already depressed region. I would much rather the US Congress seriously consider how expensive it is to do business in the US and then come to realize their part in creating this anti-business environment in an economy that demands it. Though I do not pretend to be an expert in international business, I think I would rather the Congress repeal NAFTA and let American business and consumers get back into the business of making commerce for consumption and jobs and, ultimately, additional tax revenue.

I will always welcome a little extra cash now and then. I would be much more appreciative, however, for a new job or other new opportunities. I do not ask for guarantees, but let’s be reasonable: I cannot compete with a worker in another country who can afford to work for less and whose employer is being given all sorts of incentives by the US Congress, the same Congress We The People helped to elect.

The Congress is about to offer us jumper cables. The truth, however, is that it is not the economic “battery” that needs a boost. There is something much more sinister afoot here. For the time, however, all we can do is to prop our collective foot on the US front bumper and just look under the hood, hoping that someone smarter and more experienced than we will come along with a genuine solution to a genuine problem.

The Total Package

Deuteronomy 6:1-9
Galatians 4:6-11
John 8:31-36


The biggest issue of this year’s presidential campaign seems to be health care … or health insurance … or the high cost of each … or whether the government should provide … or whether the free market should be allowed to correct itself … or the definition of “adequate health care” … or who is to blame for those who don’t have insurance, or who do not have access to adequate health care.

Truth be told, I’m not sure how to narrow it down, but this I do know: if we are to get into a discussion on a correcting a particular problem, regardless of the problem, the first constructive step would be to define the problem, isolate it to its most common denominator, and then build a solution from there. And as much as we would wish it otherwise, health care is a complex issue that will have no easy 1-2 solutions. Do we need health insurance, or do we need access to adequate and affordable health care? Then we must determine exactly what “adequate” means, and “affordable” is, of course, relative. In other words, what do we need at the core level?

Our physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual capacities are limited by our own humanity and mortality; there is only so much we can do, and we are only going to live so long. But if we are not hitting on all cylinders we are not living up to our own God-given potential. The Declaration of Independence says we were created with “unalienable rights”; the Bible suggests we were created with inherent duties and responsibilities as well as opportunities. And these opportunities come as a result of living up to our God-given potential.

We were created in a Divine Image with, I think, a specific purpose and a particular gift. We were carefully designed with something in mind. And just as the cylinders of an engine require regular maintenance in order to operate according to their design for maximum performance, so must we undergo regular, scheduled maintenance periods in which we are renewed, refreshed, and reinvigorated. The key to good health, dear friends, is maintenance because as was stated earlier, once something goes wrong a solution may be more difficult to come by.

Defining a problem is perhaps the greatest challenge because so much can be inter-related. For instance, depression can take its toll on our physical health nearly to the point of incapacity, and clinical depression is said to be a physical problem as a chemical imbalance in the body. Perpetual physical illness and chronic pain can each take their toll on the body as well as the mind and the spirit. Stress alone can cause all kinds of problems for the human person that could perhaps be treated with medication, but the medication will only take care of the symptoms caused by stress; the source of the stress itself will still exist. So even though we’ve chosen a relatively expensive treatment program (medication AIN’T cheap!), we have yet to isolate the genuine problem.

We need only to look around and read the headlines to see all sorts of stress-induced problems. The home mortgage industry is in disarray, and the consumer credit crunch is about ready to bury us all. Just trying to keep our heads above water is a full-time job in itself. We are working ourselves to death, going nowhere, and making record time in getting there because we simply cannot be satisfied with where we are, so we strive for more. In the end, the “more” turns out to be a worldly “god”, a slave driver and task master that demands satisfaction but can never be satisfied because its appetite is insatiable. And believe me when I tell you that these “gods” are C*O*N*U*M*E*R*S; they will eat us alive, sap our spirits, take our souls because we willingly give them up, and then bury what’s left of us after we’ve been all used up. Sadder still, we will have entered into such an arrangement of our own free will, blinded by our own ambitions and selfish desires.

The foundation of our faith has been spelled out to us in Deuteronomy. Paul reiterates the theme to the Galatians, and then Jesus drives it home: in a well ordered and healthful life, something must always come first. It is not a matter of rearranging priorities according to the day’s needs or as circumstances may warrant; something must always come first consistently. The Revelation directly implicates the Church at Ephesus, but we would do well to heed the warning that we have allowed our lives, and thus our well-being, to be defined by the moment – by the “gods” of this age - rather than by Divine design and intent of faith:

“Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen, repent, and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lamp stand from its place – unless you repent.” Revelation 2:4-5

The Holy Healthy Initiative of the Arkansas United Methodist Conference speaks of these points in reminding us first of our mission: to make disciples. In order to fulfill this mission, the Conference recognizes that we may be in danger of falling short of our calling and our mission because we are not “hitting on all cylinders”; that is to say, we are not working according to our Divine Design. The Initiative, however, is not about vanity. It is not about making ourselves look better to the opposite gender. It is about fine-tuning the engine so that we may go as needed and respond as called. To do this, all cylinders – physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual – must be well maintained.

At first glance putting such an emphasis on personal care can seem too inwardly focused, a little uncomfortably selfish relative to the pain and misery with which we are surrounded unless we take such care in its proper context. Jesus often went away to be ALONE. We must surely know, just as Jesus did, that there are literally hundreds of lost souls in any given area who are depending on Christians to help them even if they may be reluctant to admit it. This does not absolve us from our mission, our ministry, our calling; it just makes it a little more challenging.

In this life, in this age, in this consumer-driven society overburdened by debt and its accompanying misery which testifies to the insatiable appetite of this greedy, worldly “god” that demands more of us than we should be willing to give, we must first return to our FIRST LOVE. This is the “something” that must always come first on our list of priorities, our list of do’s, no matter what lay ahead.

It is time to give the Lord His due. It is time to cast off the shackles that are borne of greed, ambition, and worldly desires and give back to the Lord what He asks, what He is entitled to, what He ALONE paid to redeem!

WE ARE NO LONGER SLAVES! We are sons and daughters of the Living God (Galatians 4:7)! We are the “total package” that was offered first to the world in its perfection – with God’s help, we can get it back … and we must. The world is depending on us, and the Lord is waiting patiently … for now.

"I Have a Dream"

This is arguably one of the greatest speeches ever recorded. In its written form it is powerful but if you want to hear it as well, click on the title link.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by a sign stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

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

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

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

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

I have a dream today!

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

I have a dream today!

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

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

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

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

Life in Perpetuity

Isaiah 49:1-7
1 Corinthians 1:1-9
John 1:29-42


Attending funerals always brings certain thoughts to mind, not least of which is perhaps the greatest of all mysteries: what happens next, and not necessarily just beyond the grave. Answering this question, especially for those who are left to grieve, is compelling because loved ones almost always feel not only a profound sense of loss but also, I think, a lost sense of direction because of a traumatic, if often early or unexpected, interruption. In the case of the funeral I attended this week, the gentleman who was laid to rest is the father of one of my dearest friends since high school. He left behind his two sons, his three grandchildren, and his beloved wife of almost 52 years. It is she who may have a difficult time finding her footing even as his passing was not unexpected due to a long bout with cancer.

If there is to be any uncertainty in the new widow’s life, it will not be because she is not a strong person. In fact, no such statement can necessarily apply to anyone in particular because there are oftentimes circumstances that push us out of that strange but comforting sense of complacency that is borne of a hopeful yet blind notion that it will never end. Because life is but a fleeting moment in the realm of eternity, being prepared for these moments is necessary because there is no way that death will not come to us all.

I have encountered too many Christians over the years who are absolutely petrified at the thought of death; not just their own but also someone close to them. It is only when there is death or illness in the family that the reality of death really hits home. And the reasons for such fears are as varied as our opinions. Few are rational but in the mind of the one experiencing the fear and anxiety, it is as real as reality gets. There is little that anyone can do to allay these fears because it is virtually impossible to rationalize the irrational.

The Christian concept of the Lord and Heaven, however, should inhibit such fears because when we speak of the Lord and His grace, we are talking not about death but about life – even at a funeral. And life, as is said so often, is fundamental to the existence of humanity. There is life and there is death, but there is no in-between. To speak of death in the Christian vernacular, however, should be as foreign to us as any unfamiliar language.

None of this is to say that we will not hurt and grieve when we mark the passing of a loved one; not at all. From that moment life will not be the same, and it never can be because of the attachment we had with that person. Our lives are centered on a particular existence, and those lives sort of define our own being; our associations with these loved ones identify who we are. Though it may seem an unfair comparison, losing a job can be almost as traumatic because this, too, makes a statement about who we are and what we have become. Either way, I fear that we Christians have a long way to go in making peace with the reality that our lives will one day end.

When it is over, however, is it really ALL OVER? In the case of my friend, the answer is a resounding “NO”. He and his brother are both good and decent men. They were raised by good and decent parents who taught them how to love, how to live, how to work, and how to rely on their faith. The patriarch of that family is passed, but he has left behind a legacy of a life well spent as well as a life that will not end. And because he lived a life of faith and community service, his family can rest in the comfort of the REALITY of the Lord calling to this man and saying, “Well done, My good and faithful servant.”

Why, then, do we mourn? Why must our human grief disallow the reality that in the life of faith, there can be no death? Why do we know such fear that can sometimes nearly immobilize some who have become so attached to a life or a way of life so much so that anything outside that particular realm is completely alien to us? Could it be that we define ourselves, FIRST AND FOREMOST, by our worldly and man-made definitions? I am someone’s husband and father. My friend’s father was a farmer and a justice of the peace. She was a farmer’s wife, and he is the son of a farmer as well as someone’s husband and someone’s father. I was once a transportation manager but because of circumstances beyond anyone’s control, all these worldly realities are no longer true or will one day change beyond recognition. This is the one true and indisputable reality: things as we know them will come to an end sooner or later.

Is such reality restricted only to those who marry or who reproduce? Not even close -because we touch lives in a positive way NOT biologically nor physically but spiritually. Think of how a slap in the face will sting for a little bit, but words and actions cut straight to the core of our being. We are touched more profoundly by experience than by mere words. Thus is it reasonable to presume that others are as profoundly affected by what we do and say and how we live and teach by our examples. These are the things which compel people to want more of the goodness they can readily see. And these good things are perpetuated from generation to generation by spiritual strength and the courage borne of faith.

The disciples whom Jesus called to follow Him were fishermen, husbands, fathers, tax collectors, and maybe farmers. Those who chose to follow Him later were from all walks of life, but the Life shown to them has continued to this very day. Isn’t it strange how the more things change, the more they stay the same? Especially when it comes to experiences of life, we will certainly encounter traumatic events in our lives. It is absolute, and there is no escaping this inexplicable fact. However, notice how life continues to march. Notice how, no matter the evil that is still perpetrated on this earth and in this world, life somehow finds a way?

It is the way of the Lord. He is the God and author of Life, and He has chosen to perpetuate Life through a whole new Covenant. It is the Covenant for keeps. It is the Covenant of Life. It is the Covenant of Christ. And it is perpetual – and ETERNAL – Life.

Race-Baiting and the Democrats

Alright … who dissed Dr. King? We have a bona-fide, life-enhancing public discourse going on right now between Hillary and Obama with a side of Bill (Clinton) jumping into the mix here and there (although I think Bill sort of backed off after being called to account for his ‘fairy tale’ remark by Al Sharpton). The following is an edited Tongue-In-Cheek transcript of a sound-bite conversation that has been going on between Hillary and Obama. Until now, dear reader, you have had to wait until the next day’s paper to find out what one said in response to another. As a public service to the informed voter, I have assembled the latest conversation and its bits and pieces into one easy-to-read format. I hope you find it as informative as I did.

Hillary: “Yes, you did ..”
Obama: “Nuh-uh”
Hillary: “I am more …”
Obama: “Nuh-uh … me.”
Hillary: “You don’t get it …”
Obama: “Oh yeah? YOU don’t get it!”
John Edwards: “But, but …”
Hillary: “Nuh-uh … YOU!
Obama: “Oh no she didn’t!”
Bill: “She didn’t say that; I did. But that’s not what I really said. The general public is not intelligent enough to understand me. I was misquoted. I was taken out of context. I am misunderstood. I’m way more black than he is!”

Well, I think you get the point. At least I hope you got the point, that being that these two (well, three if you count John Edwards) are SERIOUS contenders for the Democratic nomination. People are actually getting in line to vote for these people and what’s worse: they both currently serve in the US Senate. To be fair, however, we must also realize that some dialogue between two or more of the Republicans can be as easily reduced to such a level, but there seems to be no current spitting match among the Republicans over who is the “blacker” candidate.

Primaries in the south will be make-or-break contests for those who are barely holding on. In fact, these early primaries may well end two or more campaigns depending on the outcome. Political campaigns operations issues are not what is at stake here, however. The fact that there has been such a low level of discourse between Hillary and Obama each trying to stake some sort of political and/or racial claim to Dr. Martin Luther King and the movement he led indicates to me that these candidates and their political operatives really do have a low opinion of the intellect of the typical American voter. It is also very clear that as each of these “top” candidates has been very pointed in accusations against President Bush as the cause for divisiveness in this county, they are doing their level best to divide voters by color. Of course each will take whatever “white” votes they can get, but they really … really …. REALLY want the “black” vote. And to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure what that is. Don’t we all essentially want the same things?

I had hoped that the certain positive thing that might come from this race with Hillary and Obama would be that color would not play into it since there is a serious contender who is not white. Yet it did, and they each fell into a public spitting match, from what I can gather, about who knew more about Dr. King’s part in the fight for civil rights. And Mr. Clinton jumped into the fray by insisting that it took a white, Democratic president to get the job done. Is he serious about trying to lead us to believe that President Johnson single-handedly passed this ground-breaking legislation? President Johnson was no more alone in this landmark than was Dr. King (let us not forget that Dr. King was not walking alone all those times). How did it come to this, and where will it go from here?

I can’t wait to see.

All Things New

Isaiah 42:1-9
Acts 10:34-43
Matthew 3:13-17


A pastor friend was once asked in class about his very favorite part of being a Methodist pastor. His quick response was, “baptizing babies”. Having had the good fortune of watching him in action, his enthusiasm for such ministry is readily apparent. It is not something he simply does as a portion of his office as pastor; the man genuinely loves offering this Sacrament of the Church and he also has a genuine love for children. For him, it is not a duty; it is both an honor and a privilege to welcome newcomers into the Body of Christ.

For baptism to be as important a part of Christian life as it is, it is also one of the sticking points between Christian denominations that causes a great deal of conflict and consternation. The nature of the Sacrament itself does not seem to be questioned. Rather, the timing and method are points on which far too many Christians simply cannot agree.

Some insist that baptism must be done by complete immersion as is presumed by the baptism of Jesus in a “river”; nothing wrong with this. There is also the general notion of the so-called “believer’s baptism” by which one would present oneself for baptism only after confessing Christ as Savior; nothing wrong here, either, except that this notion would necessarily exclude infants because they obviously cannot speak for themselves. What we must be mindful of, however, are the “whole households” that were baptized in Acts as a result of the head of that household coming to the realization of the New Covenant.

Baptizing infants can also be problematic for some because the doctrine of Original Sin comes into play in some traditions. Very simply put (perhaps overly so), this doctrine holds forth that all of mankind is born with the sin of Adam and Eve. It is only through the Sacrament of Baptism that one is restored. There are a couple of flaws with such a doctrine, at least from my own simplistic perspective, that lend to more confusion than anything else but in the end, the Sacrament of Baptism remains an Act Of God merely administered by the hands of man. When man reduces this spiritual encounter with the Divine to a doctrinal formula, it comes near to smacking of an unhealthy superstition and has the capacity, at least in the eyes of man, to diminish the nature of the Act and what is actually taking place.

That the Sacrament of Baptism is an act of God holds true regardless of the time and regardless of the method. Each of these, of course, is an act of man in response to the Lord, but they remain acts of man nevertheless. It is for this reason alone that I believe man should put away his years-old traditions and be a little more open minded about the Sacrament of Baptism. Treat it and approach it with reverence and respect, of course, but recognize that it is still by the saving grace and restorative power of the Lord alone by which man is saved. Anything else is self-serving and, thus, futile.

Rather than focus on the disagreements we Christians have about the correct timing or method of baptism, however, I would prefer that we explore the nature of baptism in the life of the Christian and Christ’s Holy Church. I would prefer that we put aside our own personal or corporate understandings of physical characteristics of the water for instance, and focus instead on the spiritual characteristics of one who is born anew. I would prefer that we dismiss the notion that there can be only one “right” method or “right” time and focus instead on the moment when the “old” is dismissed and the “new” is ushered in.

From what we know about Jesus and His conception and birth, He would be the last One needing to be baptized; yet He insisted upon it. Prior to this moment there is nothing to suggest that Jesus is any less the Christ than He is after baptism but according to what is written in Matthew, something does occur. “And when Jesus had been baptized, just as He came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to Him and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on Him. And a Voice from heaven said, ‘This is My Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” Mt 3:16-17

Gnosticism suggests that it was at this moment when Jesus became the Christ, when man spiritually aligned with the Divine and became one with Him. Even without such a notion, which flies in the face of orthodox Christian dogma, something transformative has taken place at this moment in the life of Jesus. There has been some sort of change that seems to have been visually and audibly apparent to those who were present.

It occurred to me this past week that man must never find himself static in any situation, that regardless of where we find ourselves doing whatever it is we do, we must always be mindful of velocity; it is the very nature of life itself. Forward movement. Constant and continuous evolution (and no, I do not mean Darwin’s ideas about physical evolution!). I was given a transcript of my pastor friend’s sermon this past week in which he reminded his congregation (and me) that “the moment” is never in one place, that man can and should constantly look and move and work forward because the past is gone, never to return. We can learn from the past, but we must not live there nor should we stay there. We can wish and pine for “the good ol’ days”, but spending too much time reminiscing might mean that we will miss the boat of life that is constantly moving forward.

Jesus did not need to be baptized, but the world needed to see what happened as a result of the baptism of man into the Divine; I think it may have been the “dove”. The language of Matthew speaks of the Spirit of God descending “like a dove” which would indicate more of a symbolic occurrence than the mere physical presence of a bird. It is not unlike the use of water in baptism. For being able to appreciate the truest nature of sin and all that sin represents, it would be inaccurate to suggest that any amount of water alone could wash this away.

The presence of the dove, however, goes far beyond the water and the removal of sin. The Spirit, which is represented in the dove, “alights” on the Son of Man. Since we believe that Jesus was born free from sin, the symbolism may come up far short, then, of what we think the physical act of baptism is supposed to mean for us. The act of baptism took place; this is physical. The descent of the Spirit, however, seems to have come as a result of this Act. Man is no longer alone, and the Lord has laid claim once again to His own creation that had once been separated from Him. It is the New Covenant manifest in Jesus the Christ.

“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new Spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers. You shall be My people, and I will be your God. I will deliver you from all your uncleanness.” Ezekiel 36:25-29a

Amen.

For the Sake of Change

If there is one thing politicians know, it is whatever reverberates with active voters. This particular “thing” can change from one election cycle to the next depending on what’s happening on the state or national scene. There are “experts” who are hired by political campaigns to advise candidates on how to connect with voters and potential voters. This year the catch phrase (or word) is “change”.

We have seasoned politicians all clamoring for the illustrative title, “agent of change”, and all are keenly aware of the public’s general perception of Congress and its effectiveness in dealing with everyday citizens and their particular needs. This perception is reflected in the public opinion polls which consistently show the Congress at or below the president’s own approval ratings. Americans by and large just do not believe in the Congress or the job it purports to be doing, and I don't think any political party is particularly to blame.

Political consultants are keenly aware of this fact, but these same consultants are also aware of this disturbing fact: Americans are generally ignorant of the policy development process and even more ignorant of their own members of Congress and their voting records, or even how government works. What Americans are aware of and what Americans pay attention to are sound bites, and these sound bites are more prevalent during election season. So while these presidential contenders are aware of America’s low opinion of Congress, these same members of Congress who now want to be America’s next president do not want Americans to know that the general problems America faces probably has more to do with the ineffectiveness of the US Congress than with the president himself. What’s worse: the contenders want us to believe that they can affect the “change” Americans so desperately want, the same “change” that has yet to occur from the Congress while these same people have been serving in the Congress. Now these members of Congress want us to believe that as president, they will bring the “change” so desperately sought.

The truth is, the promises of “change” that each of these candidates offer are not constitutionally possible. The president is limited in what he (or she) can do, and these wanna-be’s know it. What they are counting on, however, is that we don’t know it. This is why the “change” message seems so popular among voters. We’re all tired of the same old game, but the truth is that we have to take some responsibility for the nation’s condition, good or bad. The president cannot wave a magic wand and end wars or balance budgets without some cooperation from the Congress. And if there is one party in control of the Congress and another party in the White House, fugitaboutit. Not gonna happen. Why? Because each party wants Americans to believe that the opposing party is inherently evil and bent on the destruction of this nation.

Democrats want Americans to believe that President Bush and Republicans wanted to kick little old ladies out into the streets with their Social Security proposals. Republicans want Americans to believe that Democrats want to surrender to illegal immigrants and Middle Eastern terrorists and give them run of the country. Neither side is willing to admit that it is quite possible that Americans are a collection of individuals with different ideas about how to achieve a particular goal. Worse, Americans are willing to believe this rot. It seems that we are not happy unless we’ve found someone to blame for our lot in life, and politico's are more than willing to provide a list of fall guys.

The other presidential contenders who are not currently serving a political office are trying to convince Americans that they are the ones most likely to bring about “change” in Washington because they are trying to present themselves as “outsiders”. Well, I can’t say that Jimmy Carter’s “outsider” message carried well on several levels.

If we want “change”, genuine “change”, we have to start with the Congress. This means that NO INCUMBENT returns to office for a new term, including those who are running for president. Set members of Congress on a retirement that is entirely dependent on Social Security and their own personal savings like the rest of us, and end automatic pay increases. Then, and only then, can we look forward to serious “change”.

Joseph: a father's life

For the prominent part that Joseph must surely have played in the birth and young life of Jesus, there is not much written in scripture about him. Matthew says he is of the "house of David", but this point would seem irrelevant since Joseph is not the biological father. Yet like a responsible father, Joseph serves as provider and protector of his family.

When given an opportunity and before he is fully aware of what is happening to Mary, Joseph still chooses to treat her with respect and honor. When told of the Child's origin, he seems not to hesitate still to take responsibility for the care and the well-being of Mary and, ultimately, Jesus. For Joseph, then, the duties and responsibilities of service and honor mean something to him. He is a faithful servant of YHWH as a man, as a husband, and as a father. In spite of all this, the biblical writers chose not to give us very much information about such a man of honor and integrity, a "righteous man" whose service in his role could reveal to us a lot as to what it means to be not only a MAN of God, but also what it takes to be a REAL man.

It has been shown in certain polls that men in general are put off by the word "love" in church. The word itself has an almost feminine - or at least, less than masculine - quality to it because men don't typically think in such terms. Being referred to as a "child" or "servant" of God also seems to be another of those biblical phrases that don't seem to reverberate well with men. Being a “child” or a "servant" implies dependence and helplessness, not exactly the qualities we revere in men. I can't say that such phrases make me uncomfortable, but I also find myself almost hesitant about using them too freely especially when there are a lot of men present. Maybe it is because of my knowledge of such polls which come close to suggesting that men - in large numbers - typically stay away from church because church is not generally considered "a guy thing". I think, however, that Joseph would suggest otherwise.

Joseph was a carpenter. He worked with his hands long before power tools were even thought of! Consequently his would be the hands of a working man, calloused hands rough to the touch and with probably more splinters and cuts than we could imagine. Being a skilled tradesman, it would also be easy to imagine a muscled man who is accustomed to lifting, pushing, and pulling a lot of weight alone. This is NOT by any account a "girly" man!

This was also a man unencumbered by foolish pride, one of the so-called "seven deadly sins" that is, in my humble opinion, at the root of all sin. Think about the culture of the day; they are not married though they are betrothed (engaged), Mary is pregnant, and Joseph is not the father. Regardless of what Joseph thinks or believes about angels and dreams, he knows for a fact that this was not his child. How many men do you know would endure and persevere through such a stigma? A weaker man would have, could have, walked away choosing not to deal with what was surely a difficult and awkward situation with unforeseen obstacles and challenges, and society would have thought no less of him.

In the truest biblical sense, Joseph was the very personification of what constitutes love. Regardless of societal or cultural expectations and demands, Joseph put himself completely aside to care for Mary and, subsequently, the Child. Regardless of what he wanted for himself and his own life, Joseph put himself and his own personal needs or desires completely aside to care for Mary and her Child. In reading what little there is about Joseph, this was a man's man: a hard and hardy worker who did not seem too concerned with worldly expectations or preconceived notions of what "rights" a man in that culture could reasonably expect. An independent man capable of thinking for himself, Joseph chose not to involve a council of elders regarding Mary's then-questionable pregnancy. This, dear friends, is a man among men.

Aside from this, one must also consider the incredible faith that drove Joseph. In DREAMS he received his instructions! It would be one thing to be directly confronted while wide awake, as Mary was, by an angel who would make such pronouncements. It is another thing entirely to receive such information in one's sleep and be so compelled to act upon these dreams not for the sake of self or even for the sake of others, but for the sake of YHWH's own glory! Joseph is being asked to protect a Child who is not his own. Did he fully understand the implications? It would be impossible for us to speculate and draw any useful conclusions. Suffice it to say, he understood enough - and had faith enough - to do as he had been directed.

It must have also been a little overwhelming for a working man to be told, apparently in no uncertain terms, that the safety and care of the CHRIST Child and His mother would be entrusted to him. Imagine being asked to safeguard the Savior Of The World with no more experience than that of a carpenter. Yet without hesitation Joseph responded as a "righteous" man would. As a result, mother and Child are safe and well.

Joseph’s very brief but rather significant story has made me consider, or reconsider, many facets of my own life, and I should think that others would care enough to think more deeply and more intentionally about the role that Joseph played. We could speculate and make up “what if” stories about what might have been if Joseph had declined the role or if Joseph had not been a man of faith, but the truth is that the Lord would not have chosen someone like that and obviously didn’t. Joseph was chosen, and was chosen for a reason. To say merely that he was “of the house of David” would not be adequate consideration because he was surely not the only living descendent of David. To say that Joseph was chosen because he was a “righteous” man might also come up a little short because it is highly unlikely that he was the ONLY righteous descendent of David.

Could it be that the selection of Joseph was incidental to the selection of Mary only because they were betrothed? I suppose this is possible but while such a theory may speak volumes about Mary, it might not do enough justice to why the Lord chose Joseph. It would almost be like saying that I can only be considered a preacher as long as I serve one particular church. The church would still be a church with me or without me, but it would not remove from me my charge as a preacher. That is to say, if I am truly called to preach, then that calling is not incidental to anything; it is an intentional act of God.

We can come up with a long list of biblical characters whose lives come with a warning and disclaimer: DON’T DO THIS! Conversely there are tons of biblical characters whose lives not only served a divine purpose then but also stand now as shining examples of how true believers should conduct themselves. Yes, Joseph should serve man as a patron saint of “manly men” but regardless of gender, Joseph also stands as the patron saint of DO this, BE this, STRIVE for this.

I just don’t think Joseph was a man’s man who was afraid or squeamish about being considered a faithful “servant” or “child” of God the Holy Father. The sign he carried to make such things known was displayed by the life he freely chose to live, a live lived NOT in accordance with worldly or cultural expectations but according to the measure of his faith and willingness to serve.

I wonder if he ever knew that he served all of humanity by the quiet strength of his faith?

Merry Christmas 2007

Christmas is a lot like Good Friday and Easter in that there is very little a preacher can say that will enhance what Scripture already teaches about these Holy Days. There are great mysteries involved with each that transcend our human capacity to comprehend and while we can and must offer up praise for the birth of Messiah, can we really appreciate it for what it is? For what it means to us? For what it means to the whole world?

I've shared before the conflicts I have with our American Christmas traditions so that there must surely be some who would refer to me as "Rev. Grinch" who tries to steal the joy of Christmas! In retrospect, I think I've been a little too hard on we Christians who spend too much time and money in stores worrying about and preparing for this coming Celebration, and I don't think I've been entirely fair - especially when I look at the wonderful thing the precious children of my little congregation have done in partnering with Heifer International and leading us with their enthusiasm and purity of heart.

I think we all agree that Christmas has become too commercialized, and I think we agree that many good people lose sight of what it all means because the true value of the Holy Day is lost somewhere in one of the many financial transactions which take place. I have opined that there are too many who claim the name "Christian" who just do not get the whole Christ-centered Holy Day, including Christians who write "hate mail" to newspapers virtually cursing and spewing condemnation toward those who would dare to use a holiday greeting other than "Merry Christmas".

In spite of my disdain for the commercialization of the Holy Day and its Advent season, however, it still must be important for me - and for others who think like I do - to get over the distaste, stop focusing on what's wrong, and choose to focus instead on what's right. It is the same argument I've made for so many other issues that haunt Christianity in the public realm - that we not be so focused on the negative that we fail to celebrate all that is right; by making our case and our cause for Christ to be that of LIFE and LIBERTY, REDEMPTION and HOPE.

Ours is the case and the cause that believes not only that there is a God but that He is also the God who cares enough to do this magnificent, mysterious, and marvelous thing to send into the world a Savior as a very personal and interactive God. This is the God who freely chose to walk among us, to teach us, to heal us, to comfort us and, yes, to confront and correct us.

This is the God who could just as easily have come to us in a way more reminiscent of the images of The Revelation, with blaring horns and sword-bearing angels charging and the whole Armageddon battle thing – but chose instead to come to us as a baby; quietly and with little fanfare, not to frighten us but to offer to us the Peace we so desperately need.

And perhaps in the still of the night the earth stood still and the world silent if but for a moment to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace by reveling in that moment of pure, unadulterated peace; peace unencumbered by the works of man.

Let this be for us a season when wrongs are made right, and negatives are pushed aside in favor of positives. Let this be for us the season when hard hearts such as my own will finally come to terms with the Spirit of the Christ Mass, having been led by the faith and purity of our children to the hope and the promise of the Christ Child.

Merry Christmas, dear friends.

Seeing Is Believing

Isaiah 35:1-10
James 5:7-10
Matthew 11:2-11


When John the Baptist saw Jesus approaching to be baptized, he proclaimed for all to hear: "Behold the Lamb of God!" (John 1:29), John seemed to have reason to believe he was being approached by Messiah and that he had no doubt about who Jesus is, especially when John questions why Jesus would be asking to be baptized "when it is I who should be baptized by You" (Matthew 3:14). Also recall that Jesus and John were contemporaries, growing up in the same area maybe even as playmates. Remember, too, Gabriel's words to Zacharias that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit even before birth (Luke 1:15). As-yet-unborn baby John also "leapt with joy" upon Mary's greeting to Elizabeth (Luke 1:44).

So Jesus and John are probably not strangers to one another, but how or even when John came by the knowledge to make such a bold proclamation can only be attributed to the Holy Spirit. When Peter proclaims Jesus to be "the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16-17), Jesus tells him that he could not have come by this knowledge except through the Lord. By these proclamations, then, it is apparent that there are no physical attributes by which one can identify Messiah. There has to be more.

John is now in prison (Matthew 11:2) after having offended Herod for the last time. From prison John instructs his own disciples to go to Jesus and confirm that Jesus is indeed "the One who is to come" or if they must continue to patiently wait. Knowing that John's time on this earth was about to come to an end and having my own confidence in John’s faith, I once believed that perhaps John sent his disciples to Jesus to confirm for themselves the reality of Jesus the Messiah so that they would not be left "stranded" after John's death. I once believed that John's whole purpose as a herald, as the "voice crying in the wilderness", would be finally and completely fulfilled by his disciples learning for themselves by encountering Christ for themselves and meeting Him face to face, leaving no doubts. Now I am not so sure that this was John's intent.

Up to this point John has apparently been free to wander and preach wherever he chose to. It seems clear that Herod gave John a lot of latitude out of fear even after being directly confronted by John because of his "unlawful" marriage, so it is reasonable that John could have felt so unencumbered with his preaching among the people. There is no evidence to suggest that John ever encountered any serious challenge or opposition, and he was popular among the people as a prophet. Suddenly John finds himself in prison though he may not have been entirely aware of the circumstances that led to his arrest. Surely he must have known, though, that sooner or later Herod would finally reach the end of his rope but because of the strength of his conviction, John knew he had to keep on preaching.

So because John had relative free reign in preaching whenever and wherever he would choose and because he could seemingly challenge Herod directly and walk away untouched, it might be more reasonable to wonder if it was John himself - and not his disciples - who needed some kind of confirmation that Jesus was indeed "the One who is to come" now that he's found himself in prison, possibly knowing he would never be released, maybe suspecting he may be facing execution. John's entire recorded ministry had been focused on this very thing, announcing the coming of the Kingdom, calling the faithful to be prepared, "to make straight the path". And because he had remained relatively untouched throughout his ministry up till now, it would be easier for us to understand that now, John needed to know.

I think maybe it is easier for us to appreciate such a scenario. We read Bible stories about such big players as John the Baptist, and he becomes larger than life to us as one who can do no wrong. Because of that perception, it is difficult to think that he was as human as the rest of us and could actually come face-to-face with fear and be overcome by certain worldly realities. THAT is something I think we can all relate to, especially when we surely must know that succumbing to such fear becomes its own prison in which we feel trapped and overwhelmed, unsure of what tomorrow may bring, not even being sure if we will ever again see the light of day.

When we find ourselves so enslaved, we are desperate for solutions, anxious for any ray of hope because we find ourselves virtually immobilized. It is very hard to think rationally when we are surrounded and overtaken by fear. Everything is blown out of proportion, and nothing seems to make any sense. To think for one moment that we might be in such a state for the unforeseeable future would be hard to endure, nearly impossible. Sometimes I wonder about prisoners who are sentenced to life behind bars. Though they may well deserve such a sentence, it might almost seem merciful to execute them, sort of letting them off the hook. And this even in our modern prisons with TV and other amenities to make them as comfortable as possible!

Beyond that, however, it may well be that John found himself in a position we all surely suffer from time to time, being enslaved within a prison of doubt, not being entirely sure that our lives have been well spent or that we were in some small way able to accomplish something meaningful. It must surely be at least this challenging for those in other countries who face the threat of torture and death almost constantly because they dare to call themselves Christians. Could the fear and anxiety possibly be worth all the misery? One might wonder, maybe even such a heavy hitter as John the Baptist.

So when John bothers to ask, he is not brushed off with a simple "yes, I am He" and he is not threatened with hell-fire and brimstone if his faith falters. Instead, he is advised to look around and see what is going on. There are stories of miracles being performed, sick people suddenly well, lame people suddenly made whole. It is a most remarkable time in human history, and it is unfolding right in front of anyone who wants to see, anyone who cares to look, everyone who bothers to ask!

Freedom from whatever prison enslaves us now is but an observation and prayer away. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” Revelation 3:20-21

Christians and Self-Defense

In light of the recent attacks in Colorado in which innocent persons were viciously gunned down at a Christian gathering, discussions have begun about the morality or righteousness of armed Christians who carry loaded weapons for personal protection "just in case". Far be it from me to judge, but I am left wondering exactly how much suffering we are willing to endure for the cause of Christ. Though I don't carry a weapon, I am as guilty as many others who seek the comforts this world can offer and then reason to myself that the Holy Father has provided for my comfort and well-being. It is, of course, always good and right to give thanks to the Lord for every good thing that comes into our lives, but I sometimes wonder if we can tell the difference between what is good for our mortal bodies but not necessarily so good for our immortal souls.

I met a fellow pastor at our licensing school several years ago who commented that he had a concealed carry permit and was armed most of the time. Though I let it go, I was struck by a disciple's apparent need to trust only in himself and the state in which he was licensed to carry a loaded weapon for his well-being. The perspective changes, of course, when he mentions that he is primarily armed for his family's protection, but does the reality?

While most of us possess an intense desire to protect those we love from harm, I wonder if carrying a loaded weapon is the proper or practical course of action especially if confronted by a lone gunman, or two, bent on taking possessions from us (mugging). What would we have in our possession the value of which could be fairly compared to the inherent value of a human life, even a criminal’s? And lest we forget, we are in this particular scenario confronted by predators who are likely far more experienced in such confrontations than we would ever expect to be. Would pulling a weapon in hopes of being able to out-draw our opponent not put those whom we love, as well as other innocent bystanders, at far greater risk by invoking a gun fight? I'm not sure I know what the correct response might be, but I am relatively certain that those who confront with weapons do not necessarily mean to harm more than to overwhelm and frighten.

Years ago I had a knife put to my throat. I froze. The guy probably had no intentions of actually cutting or killing me, but he did get what he was likely after: fear. I cannot recall exactly what was going through my mind at the time, but I'm pretty sure I didn't want to die and I'm equally sure I agreed to whatever terms were presented to me at the time. I also cannot say that my response was measured or planned, but I am alive today because I did not take an already bad situation and attempt to make it worse. Of course I had regrets later. Of course I wished I had had the presence of mind to react a little more quickly but in any ensuing battle, who is to say that I still would not have been cut or killed? Or worse, who is to say that I would not have been the one to cut or kill had I gotten the upper hand? Would either outcome have been worth the struggle?

”Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Under such a situation, how would God have been glorified had I fought back? How would God have been glorified had I gotten the upper hand and actually ended that guy's life? Our society might suggest that I had every right – if not a manly obligation - to defend myself, but what will come first? In this particular case, my assailant had complete control - for that moment - over my mortal body. Not a happy memory, of course, but it is true enough. My immortal soul, on the other hand, was still owned by Another whose terms cannot be negotiated. Absent the assailant, what changes? My mortal body is indeed my own, but I have extremely limited control over the acts of another. I can take preventive measures to protect myself but if someone is determined to kill me AND is willing to go to jail or die in the process, there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, I can do to stop it. The ownership of my soul, however, never changed hands.

Peter sought to protect his Friend, and his Friend rebuked him by declaring that we "who {choose} to live by the sword will be destroyed by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Noah received a similar admonishment about the penalty for spilling the blood of another man and offers no conditions (Genesis 9:6). Our own system of justice rejects a "vigilante justice" mentality which would bring nothing but chaos and anarchy. Ours would be such a "dog-eat-dog" society in which terms of survival would be dictated by the “fittest”, leaving the weakest among us vulnerable to the terms of another. It is for the sake of order (1 Peter 2:13-14) that our society demands law enforcement by professionals who are trained extensively and in more areas than what currently presents itself.

Essentially it is that there is only so much we can do to combat evil ... by worldly means. There are, however, other measures we can take such as refusing to respond in kind, “for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head” (Romans 12:20). Repaying evil for evil? What makes our action of self-defense, which is an EQUAL though opposite reaction, righteous or morally correct? How is it that a man with evil intent is about to commit an evil act by ending my life or even the life of one I love, but my act of ending his life in self-defense is somehow not equally evil, even if I could argue that my intent was noble? I cannot control his actions, but I can control my own because I possess the capacity of will to determine my next course of action. By the same token, I will also be held accountable for my own chosen course of action if not in this life, most certainly in the life to come.

I wish it were as simple as I seem to present it. Having such faith in the presence of a direct threat, especially a grave threat against our loved ones, is a tall order for nearly everyone. Peter failed when he was directly challenged, and he physically walked with the Lord and was witness to much we seem to cast doubts upon by our own perverted sense of "progressive" theology. Reasonable minds might suggest that Peter should have suffered absolutely no lingering doubts, yet he obviously did. For some reason when he needed his faith most, he chose to flee. How could this have been, especially when it was he who was prepared to protect Jesus previously (John 18:10)?

”Whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25). So when we arm ourselves, we are making a statement to the effect that we are in fact willing (and ready!) to shed another's blood in order to "save [our] own life". What does this sort of mind set say about our profession of faith as disciples, or students, of Jesus? We would choose to "trust" Jesus for our eternal salvation, but we won't trust Him to help us across the street? Jesus chose to forego the protection He could have "called down" (Matthew 26:53) thus preserving His own mortal life, but He declined for something greater. Can it be said that such a choice was foreordained, or would it be closer to the truth to suggest that Jesus made a free will choice for the sake of something much greater, an ideal that is completely apart from the expectations of this world?

There are no easy answers for those who live under a cloud of doubt. In a world seemingly gone mad, it is easy for non-believers to wonder aloud where our God is in the midst of such chaos and suffering; it is even easier to live in fear as is evidenced by so many who choose to arm themselves. Christians must be constantly reminded, however, that this is not our Father’s world (Ephesians 2:2) and our battle is not against flesh and bone (2 Corinthians 10:3), “for the weapons of our warfare are not of this world but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)

Religion's Place in Politics

As we draw closer to the nation's first political caucus in Iowa, the campaign rhetoric heats up, names are called, accusations are made, fingers are pointed, and one can almost hear an audible "gotcha" each time a campaign launches a successful "zinger" against an opponent. Poll numbers fluctuate with each accusation and corresponding answer which serves to do nothing more than to add fuel to an already intense fire. Oddly, however, while Americans express a particular disdain for such political campaign antics, a candidate's numbers can surge after an especially brutal attack, having somehow proved that they have the gumption to stand up and answer to such attacks. Poll numbers and expressions of disdain do not always seem to correspond especially when we say we hate such behavior while simultaneously rewarding it by continually electing and re-electing these same persons over and again.

More strange, perhaps, is that most of the candidates from both parties have openly spoken of their faith and proclaimed allegiance to religion, predominately Christianity, which demands a moral standard, the commonality of a standard which prohibits "bearing false witness". Now consider Mr. Romney's latest attack against former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in which Mr. Romney stated that Gov. Huckabee attempted to establish a "special" college scholarship fund for illegal aliens. Let it be noted that as an Arkansas citizen, I was keenly aware of Gov. Huckabee's proposal. Mr. Romney's characterization of this proposal is either seriously misinformed, ignorant, or a downright lie. Considering that Mr. Romney is probably of above average intelligence and will be called upon often to render decisions based on accurate information if elected, one might think that Mr. Romney would ask more questions about a specific proposal of a political opponent before lashing out in such a careless way especially when he asked the nation to entrust to him the “most powerful office” on earth.

I suspect that Mr. Romney is simply "playing the game" because Mr. Huckabee has directly disputed this accusation, and Mr. Romney has not, to my knowledge, retracted his "accusation". A little fact-checking would provide Mr. Romney with sufficient "egg in the face" but would also require that Mr. Romney take a moral stance and admit that he was dead wrong and out of line. According to his professed Mormon faith, this would be required of him.

In spite of all this, or perhaps because of it, Mr. Romney has decided that it is in his best interest to give a speech on Thursday (12/6/07) to enlighten the nation about his Mormon faith. Considering the exchange with and about Mr. Huckabee on only one particular issue, how will he religiously or faithfully or morally explain his attack especially when he should have reasonably known that his information about Mr. Huckabee was not correct? Will it be that we will discover that Mormonism requires that its adherents deliberately mislead others? I think not, but this dilemma goes a long way toward answering a question that asks honestly: what does a politician's religious faith have to do with anything especially when they clearly do not live according to a particularly religious standard? Or has religion in America become so bastardized to the point of being completely unrecognizable? If it is true, as Mr. Paul Greenberg of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette points out, that the central metaphor of all religious belief is “revealing light”, we are left to wonder exactly what sort of religion is being revealed in political races especially when a candidate’s particular religion becomes an issue.

For the record, I am the last man on the face of this planet who has any right to stand in judgment of anyone. What I find most distressing about the references to religion is that it appears that candidates from both parties seem to be pandering to a particular crowd while they continue to tear one another apart, make misleading accusations, and accuse one another of being less than sincere. If this is how their faith informs their politicking, I shudder at how their faith may inform their job performance especially when it comes to public policy.

As a Christian, I do not feel threatened by Mr. Romney’s Mormon religion and I’m in no position to question his spiritual faith, but I have to say that I question his sense of propriety in light of his gross mischaracterization of Mr. Huckabee’s policy proposals especially when, as of this writing, Mr. Huckabee has taken the #1 spot in national polls and had been steadily gaining in the past week. Is Mr. Romney panicking? Is this indicative of how he will react to an international crisis before he gets his facts straight?

Better pray on this one.

Why is it ...

Why is it that "the woods" are always "the woods" except during deer season when they suddenly become "the deer woods" even though they never seem to become "the squirrel woods" during squirrel hunting season? I also notice that "the fields" are always fields but never seem to become "the dove fields" during dove hunting season. Same with rabbit fields. And if a "catfish pond" has bass in it, is it still a "catfish pond"? And if the water is not clear, how does one know whether there are any fish in the pond at all? Seems like one would need to know this. After all, if one is given directions to a fish pond but there are no fish in the pond, does the location or nature of the pond change, causing the seeker to be in the wrong place by virtue of changing nature of the pond? Does this now mean that with the new Arkansas alligator hunting season, the rivers will soon be "the gator rivers" during the season but will remain "the rivers" throughout the year? And why do they never seem to become "the fish rivers" even though one can fish year-round?

Just curious.

Yes, Virginia ....

Eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of New York's Sun, and the quick response was printed as an unsigned editorial Sept. 21, 1897. The work of veteran newsman Francis Pharcellus Church has since become history's most reprinted newspaper editorial, appearing in part or whole in dozens of languages in books, movies, and other editorials, and on posters and stamps.




"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

What is Right?

Does justice have a universal standard? Can justice even be defined universally, or does true justice actually depend on the context of accepted societal and cultural norms? In a society dominated by religion, can it be universally just to administer punishment according to religion values even if the guilty party is not a practitioner of that particular religion? Even if justice is truly universal, who gets to decide what is just - AND - who decides who gets to decide? And by what and whose standards would such decisions be made?

In Saudi Arabia a 19-year-old woman has been sentenced to six months in jail and 200 lashes because she violated a strict interpretation of Islamic law even though she had been raped. The rapists have been sentenced to prison as well, but the young woman is still being held at least partly responsible not for the rape itself but for her own actions in violating a law that is, incidentally, partly designed to protect women but must also surely be a reflection of Islamic cultural values. Western leaders have prevailed upon the royal family on the woman's behalf to intervene and revisit this case for the sake of justice, which is certainly a right if not a moral obligation of western nations, and the Saudi foreign minister has promised to give it another look.

Beyond this, however, does the western world have a reason, legal or otherwise, to expect the Saudi kingdom to do anything more? According to local customs and Sharia law, the woman has been sentenced and there seems to be no dispute that she was in fact out in public with a male who was not related to her. Her reasons for being with this male are irrelevant just as it is completely irrelevant that we westerners do not understand or even agree with such laws. What more can the west reasonably expect when Sharia law seems clear and understood by the population?

None of this is to suggest that the young woman was raped because she violated the law. Quite simply, she was raped by criminals just as thousands of other women around the world have been, and there is no way - according to any reasonable standard - that she deserved it or "asked for it" or "had it coming". Some western leaders have called her sentence "barbaric" and indeed it is ... according to western standards. According to local custom, however, it is the law of the land and probably comes as no surprise to citizens of the kingdom even if they might consider her sentence excessive. She was initially sentenced to only 90 lashes but was subsequently sentenced more harshly when she went public with her plight.

In the Sudan, an English woman faces possible jail time and 40 lashes for allowing her predominately Muslim elementary school students to select the name "Muhammad" for a teddy bear. Apparently it is considered to be a misuse of The Prophet's name or is somehow disrespectful to Islam itself; therefore, the western woman is to be punished according to Sharia law which goes back to one of my many original questions: how can a westerner be held responsible for violating a law that is specific to the region and the culture, especially when she maintains that she had no intent to disparage Islam, the prophet, or Muslims. "Muhammad" is a common name among Muslim males; what westerner might even suspect that attaching this name to a cute, cuddly teddy bear for the purpose of teaching children about animals could be considered disrespectful, let alone a violation of religious law?

Since 9/11, American politicians and wanna-be’s have pounded the pulpits and insisted that they will “stand up to the Saudis” especially since most of the attackers were Saudi citizens. Politicians try to convince us that they are tough enough to handle such “barbarians” but the truth is, they are as civilized as any other. It just is that they have an entirely different world perspective and sense of justice. We call something wrong such as 200 lashes or public beheadings, but they call abortion what it is and wonder where we get our own sense of values. They see homosexuality for what it is and wonder how we dare to compare our civilization and sense of right-and-wrong to theirs.

What is just? What is right? Honestly, it just depends on how and where one is raised. I think it must really be that simple. There can be external forces that may compel us to live under and abide by certain standards, but it does not necessarily mean that we would agree with it. It is clearly illegal to drive beyond the posted speed limits, but Americans don’t seem to have a problem with pushing the envelope on the interstate.

What is right? It seems to be whatever one can get away with, and that standard alone is indeed universal.

Someone Please Explain to Me ...

What is it that constitutes blasphemy? Heresy is a challenge to a more orthodox point of religious view and seems directed to the doctrinal opinions of man. Defining heresy can be problematic because man is so diverse in his understanding of spirituality and biblical principles. Heresy is an affront, then, to something established by man. Blasphemy, on the other hand, is an affront to something divinely established. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, for instance, is the "unforgivable" sin (Mark 3:29). Blasphemy is essentially the charge that thrust Jesus to His Crucifixion and ultimate death, but was Jesus actually guilty of blasphemy? According to Christianity, the answer would be "no" because of what we now believe to be true. According to the prevailing beliefs of the time, however, would Jesus' presumed guilt come closer to what would constitute heresy rather than blasphemy?

Christianity by its very nature is considered blasphemous by Islam because of the nature of the Christ. It is difficult to explain to Muslims (and probably some Christians!) about how it can be that Jesus the Christ is not His own separate person - even though He is "fully God and fully man" (according to Christian traditions and teachings - but is, rather, God personified. It is to the Muslim a blasphemous thing to equate Jesus of Nazareth with God the Father because there can be only one true God. To be "seated at the Right Hand of the Father" (Hebrews 1:3) implies two separate, though not necessarily equal, beings.

In each of these instances, then, it can be said that blasphemy in and of itself must necessarily involve a level of disrespect toward the Divine. So why is naming a teddy bear "Muhammad" considered blasphemous? Islam itself gives high regard to the Prophet and honors him as having a special place within Islam as the one who brought the Word of the Lord to the people not in attempting to found a new religion but instead to confirm previous scriptures (N.J. Dawood, Revised Translation of Koran, pg 2). "Muhammad" is a pretty common name among Muslims who are not necessarily considered to be prophets themselves, I don't suppose, and yet a non-Muslim woman is going to be subjected to 40 lashes on the charge of blasphemy because a class teddy bear got stuck with the name "Muhammad"?

How is it not blasphemous itself to give such stature to Muhammad, a prophet according to Islamic tradition but most certainly as human as Jesus, and come near to equating him with divinity by suggesting that misuse of his name is akin to violation of the Mosaic commandment which prohibits the misuse of the Divine name of the Lord? How is it that the Prophet Muhammad has, by man-made traditions and Sharia decree, become nearly as Christ-like to Islam as Jesus is to Christianity and it not be considered blasphemous? If there is a legitimate answer, I would love to hear it.

The Abyss of the Death Penalty

For years death penalty advocates have insisted that execution has a certain deterrent effect in that those who would be tempted to commit a capital crime might stop and give their intentions a second thought for fear of the consequences. And for years death penalty opponents have questioned the manner by which such conclusions can be reached since we're talking about crimes yet to be committed. Well, now there are apparently economic reports that have been floating around (yes, I said "economic" reports) for the better part of a decade in which it is "proved" that the death penalty, per inmate, prevents anywhere from 3 to 18 future murders. The New York Times article that offered the information was a little short on particulars as to how these findings were determined but did also include others who question such "economic" numbers especially considering that the death penalty itself is not an economic question.

I'm sure there will be others who will jump into the fray and find fault with such reports, including those who work in criminal justice fields and compile data according to their own specific criteria. Whether they can predict probabilities would remain to be seen, but I also wonder if deterrence in and of itself should be the focus of a death penalty-related discourse. I ask because it seems to me that there is a danger in losing ourselves and what constitutes true justice especially when we are talking about terminating a human life. A focus strictly on deterrence as a statistical probability as a means by which to justify the death penalty, I think, is a dangerous and slippery slope from which such a fall may be impossible to recover.

Conservative, evangelical Christians seem to have no problem with the death penalty as it is, and those who have suffered at the hands of such condemned persons understandably demand it. The problem as it is between these two groups is that the demand for the death penalty falls under different standards of measure though I would hope that justice served would be our ultimate goal. Evangelicals can easily point to the Bible in which the death penalty and its conditions are spelled out clearly as a matter of justice and social order; if one takes a life, one's life is required. This in its truest sense is just, as it is written. Victims can easily embrace such a notion based on a strict sense of justice, but there is more emotion involved than there is rational, unencumbered logic. And for these, there is another consideration: once a person is arrested and charged - still yet
lacking a fair and impartial trial - that person is guilty in the minds of such victims as well as the community and nothing less than death will be good or "just" enough.

The question that we must necessarily ask, however, is this: does man have the capacity to administer true justice, free from passion and free from a desire for the condemned to "suffer"; and if we do not, does it matter? Is it enough that the death penalty is spelled out in Scripture, giving us permission to excuse ourselves because "it's in the Bible" and we are therefore obeying the Lord? In trying to determine what is just, we must always bear in mind that once the execution takes place, "oops" will be too little too late. Mistakes cannot be made. Our seemingly endless appeals process may seem overbearing at times; especially for those crying for "closure", but this is an issue that requires our full attention especially when we finally render that ultimate decision.

What is bothersome about the New York Times article is the seeming attempt - by economic data - to use the death penalty not as a measure and matter of justice itself but rather as a means by which to prevent future crimes via mathematical deductions of probability. Do we really want to go there? I freely admit that I'm torn on this issue primarily because I cannot remove my emotions from my thoughts. Whenever I read of an innocent child who has been abused, molested, tortured, and then killed, it is virtually impossible for me to find any level of compassion for the accused. What's worse is that I fall into the same trap as most others: once a photograph of the accused is published, that person becomes instantly associated with the crime and just looks as guilty as the verdict we desire. My compassion for the victim - I am a parent myself - overwhelms all my senses, and I am hardly capable of passion-free, rational thought. I also cannot honestly say that any desire for "justice" even exists, let alone crosses my mind. For what that poor child suffered, I want someone to pay dearly.

For the sake of law and order, however, deterrence must necessarily be considered in terms of appropriate punishment that fits the crime. It is a by-product of the criminal justice system in that others can see that "this is what happens" if one breaks this law or that one. We could only begin to imagine what our society might look like if there were no consequences for violating the law. It would be a free-for-all on the streets, and vigilante justice would run rampant because there are enough law-abiding citizens who insist upon order. By this same reasoning, it could well be said that harsh sentences would help to maintain that order by suggesting that others would not want to "do the time" and would thus refrain from breaking the law. To suggest, however, that there is a number that can be assigned by which the deterrent effect may be measured is risky.

Criminologists will likely take exception to economic data that attempts to predict probability. Christians should likewise take exception to such data-collection efforts that may serve to do no more than to appease an otherwise guilty conscience. It is not unlike the torture question by which illegal means to extract information is employed in an effort to avoid possible future attacks. Both are likely, but there is no certain thing we can do to stop a man’s evil heart. It is what it is and we are stuck to deal with it the best way we know how, but I don’t think we should rush to execution on the mathematical probability of what may happen sometime in the future. Once we do, there can be no turning back. Into the abyss we will slide, condemned as we so easily condemn.

Not Conservative Enough

Almost since the first campaign word was spoken, the Republican presidential contenders have been competing for the title, "Most Conservative", and have been trying to present themselves in the truest tradition of the late former president Ronald Reagan who was a movement unto himself. Because President Reagan was so unique and so popular, it seems almost irreverent, and yet understandable, for present-day candidates to try and fit themselves into a mold that was, in my humble Reaganite opinion, broken long ago. This does not mean, however, that such a tradition is not worth protecting.

Candidate Mitt Romney has most recently leveled accusations against fellow Republican candidates Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani in challenging their conservative credentials relative to measures enacted or advocated in Arkansas and New York City while these men were at their respective helms as governor and mayor. Of course, Mr. Romney's accusations brought swift rebuttal from Huckabee's camp regarding the so-called "sanctuary" cities which apparently came into being under then-Governor Romney's watch in Massachusetts. Sad to say, none of these candidates for federal office has acknowledged the fact that immigration is a federal issue and that cities and states can only deal with the hand that is dealt them at any given time. Such administrators and mayors may be able to work through their state's US senators and representatives, but that is about as far as it can go. If anyone could be held politically responsible, it should be them and not the governors or mayors.

Let us not lose our focus, however. The issue itself is not immigration, illegal or otherwise, but the idea of what adequately and accurately constitutes a "true" conservative, that coveted title which seems to be the focal point of each Republican post-debate analysis. Now that these discussions, charges, and counter-charges have come to serve as a postlude to any debate topic, I have seriously begun to question exactly what being a "true" conservative really means, what being a "true" liberal really means, and whether it can be said that "moderates" really cannot seem to make up their minds. In the end, however, the question will be which one is best suited to serve as the nation's chief executive, not whether one is "more" Republican or "more" conservative than another.

18th-century statesman and philosopher Sir Edmund Burke once said, “We owe an implicit reverence to all the institutions of our ancestors.” The underlying principle associated with such thought is that we as a people, as a nation, cannot completely disconnect from our past. There is a sense of respect for successes of the past, as well as failures, which must be acknowledged and embraced rather than completely forgotten. It is entirely a philosophical consideration which maintains a certain sense of order and continuity with established standards by which to measure societal norms. These norms, lacking consistency or any link to the past, cease to exist as norms and become, instead, arbitrary standards absent any recognizable foundation.

Because these standards would tend to shift according to whoever is doing the most talking or whoever is willing to make the most noise, the danger of "pure" democracy by which the simple majority could potentially trample the rights of any minority would come to life. Witness the recent prayer meeting on the steps of the Georgia state capital during which the governor and others gathered to offer a common prayer for relief from the drought. No one was rounded up and forced to attend the prayer meeting on public property, property which belongs to the whole people and not merely a small segment of that people, yet there were also protesters nearby who took exception to such a meeting taking place on "state" property. Would such a scenario present a challenge to the perceived "separation of church and state" even if the governor or the preacher had not been present, or could it not be considered a reality that praying people still exist in this country and do not always feel compelled to hide behind a church door to offer a common prayer for a common problem?

Few conservatives want government directly involved in the business of American churches or synagogues or mosques or temples, and these most certainly do not want government involved in mandating a particular type of worship practice or advocating for or against a particular religion. Yet because of the Jeffersonian concept of the separation of church and state, which many mistakenly believe to be constitutionally mandated, these Georgia protesters - in exercising their constitutional right to protest - would deny the praying people their constitutional right to gather in peaceful assembly or in prayer or even in protest merely because they happen to be calling on a deity's name under the leadership of ordained clergy on the steps of the state capital.

Conservative leadership recognizes and even embraces this reality as it must also respect the reality that not all citizens are willing to embrace such reality. In fact it is incumbent upon conservative leadership to make sure that while citizens may certainly exercise their rights, those very rights cease to exist when such rights interfere with the rights of others. If the praying people in Georgia had somehow interfered with state business or interfered with non-believers in any way, they would have been in violation of the principles of what should constitute a “right”.

If conservative Republicans hope to gain in next year’s elections, they are going to have to go far beyond pointing out the flaws of extreme liberalism; they are going to have to sell conservatism in responsible government. In fact, they are going to have to convince a conservative like me that they have something to sell. I’m willing to listen, but I already think I know what’s wrong. Now I want to know how any of these gentlemen intend to make things right.