If John Edwards announces that he is running for President in 2008 and no one hears it, did it really happen?

Seriously, does this guy thing he has a shot, what with Barak and Hillary sparring this early in the race. Save your time and money Sen. Edwards!

A few comments/quotes from the Erre book I just finished:

This was how I understood "following Jesus": do the good things and avoid the bad things. I knew I was saved by grace, but once I became a follower of Jesus, I thought grace no longer applied. I thought it became my job to become a better person.

I've felt this to be one of the biggest problems facing the evangelical church. As we become "more churched" this seems to be our attitude, that we rise up the church ladder (and earn more love/justice/blessings/protection from God) by cleaning ourselves up, forgetting we are no better than those outside the walls. We have a lot of learning to do in this area, myself included!

It was thought you had to be "clean" before you could come to God. But Jesus called people to come to him and taught that then God would make them clean.

Another fallacy in the church, thinking that we clean ourselves up when we know that it is God that does the cleaning, it is God that turns us around, left to ourselves we are nothing but filthy rags.

We go to church, we give money, and we do all the right things - in the hope that God will never put us in a position where we actually have to trust him.

Oooh - that one hit a little close to him, I'm convicted!

Finally, I like this context as I have been thinking more of late on the differences between Jewish Apocalyptic theology (what the Jews expected from the Messiah) and Christian Apocalyptic theology (what Jesus taught). This lesson from the viewpoint of John is proper (a good preview to this would be to read Matthew 11:2-3, I had always asked myself why John would ask this question, I think the differences in apocalyptic expectations mentioned about and the text below help answer that question):

We discover what it means to overcome when we see the picture of Jesus presented to us in Revelation 5. We are told in verse 5 that "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed." These exalted titles come from Genesis 49 and Isaiah 11 and evoke a strong militaristic and nationalistic image of the Messiah of David. This is the Messiah the Jews expected, a mighty warrior king who would conquer nations and destroy the enemies of God's people. This is what John heard: he heard about the conquering Messiah. Now, verse 6 says he looked: "ThenI saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain." He heard about a lion and looked and saw a lamb. He hears about a lion that has overcome but sees a lamb that was slain. What he saw was the lamb whose sacrificial death had redeemed the people from all nations (Rev. 5:6,9-10). The Lion was also the Lamb.

I posted the Scripture below late last night after reflecting for a short time on the Erre book I referred to a day or so ago. He wrote a chapter on "The Danger of Theology" which made me skeptical at first but once I read it I felt I agreed with him. His simple premise was that theology is good and necessary but the purpose of it must be to help us know God rather than just know about Him. Again, I agree.

As I've reflected on the Scripture more throughout the day I keep thinking of a man I've respected since I came to Christ and heard him speak, Dr. Chuck Missler. This quote sums him up to perfection. The guy is a genius, I don't know his exact bio but I believe before he was a Christian he worked in the CIA, has connections with Mossad, the stuff he talks about in his speeches is so far over my head I don't even try to understand. His understanding of Scripture and his communication of that knowledge has been a blessing to me. I have the utmost respect for the guy.

But beyond his knowledge, what I really appreciate about Missler is how for him, the focus is always on knowing Jesus more. The prophecy he teaches, the way he breaks down the Word of God, everything about him is meant to help us and him know Jesus more. I've seen him breakdown in tear during his speeches due to his love of Christ and the way Jesus has transformed his life. For Chuck, the Scriptures are about knowing God, not just knowing about Him! Thanks Chuck for being an inspiration to me and countless others!

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

- Jesus, in John 5:39-40, to a group of Jews, probably religious leaders, after his healing at the pool of Bethesda and subsequent persecution at the hands of these Jews regarding his healing on the Sabbath

I began Mike Erre's "Jesus of Suburbia" last night. The title caught my eye at B&N and I read the first chapter, enjoyed it, so I bought it. At the beginning, he makes an interesting historical note regarding Luke's version of the birth of Christ, specifically the mention of Caesar Augustus, that I had not previously understood:

...Soon after this, Octavian receivefd the honorific title Augustus...he came to be known as "Savior" of the empire, bringing "peace" and "salvation." He was called "Lord" and came to be worshiped as a god on earth...His birth was called "good news" and was celebrated by a twelve-day holiday called "advent." Among his titles were: "Cosmic Savior," "Atonement for Rome's Past Sins," and "Inaugurator of the Golden Age of Peace and Security"...The propaganda spilling forth from Rome announced the "good news" of Augustus's birth and that the blessing of Caesar's kingdom was peace...

Remember, this is Caesar August they are referring to. He goes on to connect this to Luke's version of the birth of Christ:

Luke's mention of Caesar Augustus isn't incidental or minor. It sets the whole backdrop for the Christmas story...Luke wants us to know that there is a bigger stage than we realize for the birth of Jesus Christ. In one corner of this massive empire, Luke recorded for us the birth of a new king, ushering in a new and revolutionary kind of kingdom. The world lived under the rule of Caesar Augustus, yet Luke wanted us to know that hundreds of miles away, something so significant was happening that it would shake every empire and affect every life from that day to today...

He goes on to cite the account from Luke 2:8-11, 13-14.

...It was said that Caesar was Savior, Lord, and bringer of peace. His birthday was good news, and his empire was salvation. And here, in a corner of the most powerful kingdom the world has ever seen, shepherds (not priests, not rulers, not the elite) were the first to hear the good news that will be for all people...A different Savior, Lord, and King will usher in a real peace and lasting salvation...It is almost as if all of the titles applied to Caesar were applied to Jesus in order to force people to choose between them. If Jesus has been called one thing and Caesar another, people would have been tempted to believe they could worship both. But when Savior, Lord, King, gospel, peace, and salvation are specific descriptions applied to both rulers, the Christmas story forces us to chose: Who is our lord? Who is our Savior?

I had never heard this angle before, if he is correct in his historical criticism and conclusions, I really appreciate this, it's a story that needs to be told.

Since Lisa will never go to the movies with me, I was going to go to "The Good Shepherd" tonight, alone. She told me it was too weird to go by myself, I said no one else would go with me, she asked if I had asked my good friend Dan to go along? I countered that it may be weird to go alone, but weirder to ask another guy. Which is worse?

A while back I saw an ad for "How Soccer Explains the World" by Franklin Foer and though I had enjoyed the World Cup and had shunned some of my past hatred for this sport, it intrigued me, but not enough to buy it. On a late night journey to B&N Saturday night I found it, read the first chapter, and decided to buy it. Just finished it, solid book, I would recommend it. The author's stated premise is "an unlikely theory on globalization" but really had very few conclusions, at least that I could discern. I enjoyed his story-telling and the broad range of topics he tackled. A few things that struck out at me:

1) I had no idea the deep level of nationalism that still exists in Europe and around the world and the deep-seated hate these ethnic groups still hold for one another. He talked about the Serbs and Croats, Irish and Scottish, Catalans and Spaniards, etc. In America I feel we are shielded from these emotions, but he would interview various people on both sides of the spectrum in these rivalries and the reason for their hate would go back hundreds of years. The history is unbelievable. The conclusion I took from this and what surprised me was that this is a major threat to globalization, these ethnic rivalries and hatred are to subside as we modernize, as economies improve, etc. He writes, "Through the late twentieth century, liberal political thinkers...have blamed nationalism for most of modernity's evils. Tribalism in a more modern guise, they denounce it. If only we abandoned this old fixation with national identities, then we could finally get past nasty ethnocentrism, vulgar chauvinism, and blood fueding. In place of nationalism, they propose that we become cosmopolitans-shelving patriotism and submitting to government by international institutions and laws...

It's a beautiful picture, but not at all realistic...this tradition understands that humans crave identifying with a group...since modern life has knocked the family and tribe from their central positions, the nation has become the only viable vessel for this impulse...

Besides, in theory, patriotism and cosmopolitanism should be perfectly compatible. You could love your country-even consider it a superior group-without desiring to dominate other groups or closing yourself off to foreign impulses...

In theory, but not in reality!

2) He names a chapter "How Soccer Explains the Problem of Islam" and spends a great deal of time providing a history lesson on Iran, including how it was a ver modern nation up to the Islamic revolution in 1979. I had not known that, I guess I had heard of it but not to the level is ascribes. He also discusses how Iranians seek to be modern and Western, something that reminded me of a Time quote I saw quite a few years ago when Clinton visited there post-President and a sign at his speech read, "I hate America, take me there." Seems to sum up the thinking very well.

3) Finally, I was shocked at the amount of corruption that Foer uncovered and discussed. Sure I know that in every society it exists, but how blatant it seemed in modern Europe took me by surprise. One example regards the Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, who in 2003 according to Foer orchestrated the "passage of legislation granting himself blanket immunity from prosecution. He had decriminalized the offense of false accounting, which his company is accused of committing." In the margin I wrote the note, "Europe? Today?" I may expect this as commonplace today in many third-world countries, but not in Europe today, I guess I have too high of expectations for Euro-society. My Kenyan friend Japheth keeps complaining about the corruption in the Kenyan government, and it is bad, but while he views the US and Europeans governments as utopic, I try to tell him that it still exists here, though it may be illegal the politicians find ways around it. I guess I was more right than I thought.

Related to my last post, below, what little respect I had for Saddleback is not out the window. And Fox for that matter as well. I guess an independent news channel can show what it wants and I can make the decision not to stop at its location when flipping through the channels, but showing a service from Saddleback last night, that's too much for me. Then, the cause of my further disdain with Saddleback, as the cameras pan through the audience I have to look at countless ladies and gents with Santa hats on. In church! Easterbrook was all too right when he wrote "Even in modern churches, at this point Christmas celebration is 99 percent secular, 1 percent religious."

TMQ adds a voice to the Christmas discussion:

As We Read in the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Said, "Verily, Take Ye a Tree, and Place Onto It Baubles and Little Electric Lights from CVS …":

Last week Sea-Tac International Airport in Seattle briefly removed, then returned to place, all Christmas trees after being threatened with a lawsuit asserting display of the trees without symbols of other faiths violated separation of church and state. (Sea-Tac is publicly owned.) This raises a common misconception that drives TMQ crazy at this time of year -- Christmas trees are not religious symbols! Yes, you put them up at Christmas time. But ornaments on trees, Santa in the chimney, flying reindeer, chuckling elves, stockings by the fire: good luck finding these things in the Bible! (Though several generally accepted translations contain references to unicorns.) Santa is vaguely based on Saint Nicholas, a third-century Greek bishop renowned for his love of giving presents; the Christmas tree probably descends from the 16th century German custom of trimming a tree to celebrate New Year's. Even so, trees and stockings are no more part of Christian theology regarding Christmas than latkes and dreidels are part of Judaic theology about Hanukkah -- all are communal traditions with their antecedents in sociology, not religious belief. Modern observation of Christmas involves two simultaneous events: religious commemoration of the birth story of Jesus and an entirely secular festival of gift-giving centered on a pleasing children's fable about a kindly bearded sorcerer who loves little boys and girls and leaves them presents while they sleep. Airport Christmas trees and similar decorations have nothing to do with religion, everything to do with materialism. Even in modern churches, at this point Christmas celebration is 99 percent secular, 1 percent religious. This does not sit well with some Christians, including me. Be that as it may, Christmas trees and Santa Claus are not religious symbols! Unless for the church of the National Association of Manufacturers.

I've begun a post backing up my apocalyptic understanding of the world, why I feel the world is spiraling downhill and why those who constantly seek "peace in the world" are crazy. In that, I ran across this today, makes me sick:

In 2002 the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia. This year, the Dutch government decided to expand its euthanasia policy to include newborn babies. Many doctors in the Netherlands have been practicing infanticide for years, even though it was illegal, but the Dutch government has chosen not to prosecute offenders.

This past year, there have been an increasing number of human rights violations in connection with embryonic stem cell research and cloning. In the Ukraine reports have emerged of child trafficking. According to officials, a number of babies have been snatched at birth and used to harvest stem cells, tissues, and organs for sale on the black market. Also, it was revealed that poor Ukrainian women were being paid $200 to get pregnant and have abortions. The aborted babies were also exploited as a source of stem cells - the cells were being used in beauty treatments and ineffective "miracle cures"...

In ten years we are going to be watching movies about this and uttering the words, "Never Again!" But it will be too late for the natives. Can you believe we are letting this happen?

“Some of the passengers were shot by the attackers and others were burnt to death,” a U.N. statement said.

Usually when I receive email links that begin with the following I get skeptical...

Having spent three days with 11,000 professors of religion and Bible at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in Washington DC., I'm glad to be back in the peace of my Californian study. Every year, in the academy, orthodox biblical Christianity decreases in representation, while radical liberalism increases.

...thinking that the disagreements might be centered around some of the non-essentials of Christianity. But further reading of this article from Dr. Peter Jones shows otherwise. If I didn't know better I'd think Jones was crazy, but I've been a big fan of him since I randomly heard him speak of his book "Pagans in the Pews" about five years ago on the radio. I bought the book and greatly enjoyed it. Sometimes I feel many of the arguments of the proponents of the Emerging Church (and I probably include myself here, although I like the questions they are asking and focused on loving people, the theology is going from bad to worse, their biblical literacy and interpretation is brutal, and (especially Wallis) their link with politics is just too much for me) are simply cultural arguments. Not Jones, his defense of the Bible transcends cultural differences and gets to the heart of the matter, that of the struggle/battle of the two Kindgoms present in this world, the Kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God. His focus is on the promoting and defending God's Kingdom while pointing out the proponents of the Kingdom of Satan along with their fallacies and evil desires.

I was just ready to begin a post on my disdain with the Christmas holiday when I received the following email from a former professor and am reprinting it with permission.

Taking Back Christmas

Christians mimic culture more than mold it. Not always; but too often. For example, our models for church in the West have frequently reflected the corporate culture around us – many pastors thinking of themselves as CEO’s, church members referred to as “stakeholders”, and marketing methodologies taking higher priority than spiritual attentiveness.

Perhaps the “Christmas season” has suffered the same fate.

Biblically, Christmas was less a season and more an event. That event marked the antithesis of what most of us associate with Christmas today.

We spend a lot of money; Christ was born into poverty. We consider Christmas a “family time”; Mary and Joseph were displaced completely from home and family. We hang lights and ornaments and tinsel; the manger was lined simply with straw. We give inanimate objects that shine, taste good, or use batteries; God gave a person – His Son. We gather in church buildings to worship the Lord; God sent angels to the fields to announce good news.

Everything about the coming of Christ contrasts with the ways in which we “celebrate the season.” The marketing gurus have successfully seduced us to sanctify their plans. Once more we mimic culture with little more than a fleeting consideration of Christ.

I’m no saint in this regard.

My own inconsistencies shine like a floodlight amidst the tiny flashlights of other people. But I desire to be different. And the first step towards change is acknowledgment of the pathology. I need to diagnose and name the disease before beginning surgery.

My disease is sanctified secularism. Christ receives an honorable mention but is mostly excluded. And many of us have become unintentional carriers of this contagion.
The disease drives me to catalogs more than to Christ; it draws me to malls and distracts me with sales. I want presents, not Presence. Give me the latest gadget, not the ancient gospel. Sing about Santa, not the Savior. Open the wallet, but not the home.

Of course I’ll join in the carols, listen to the preaching, and add angels to the tree. It excuses the foundational secularism. However, the Christ-event which calls me to simple gratitude and humility morphs into a season of impulse-spending, binge-buying, and excess. I use sacred terms to justify myself … generosity, thoughtfulness, love, and family. But I let the marketplace, not the Master, define those terms.

I’m not alone.

I suspect the waiting list for this spiritual surgery might be long. Am I a Christmas Grinch? I’m too inculturated for that! But somewhere deep within me an authentic light pierces the darkness and beckons me to meditate more on Him. I’d actually like that. Perhaps you would, too. I know He would.
In HOPE -
David

David Timms serves in the Graduate Ministry Department at Hope International University in Fullerton, California. "In HOPE", however, is not an official publication of the University and the views expressed are not necessarily those of the Administrators or Board of the institution. "In HOPE" has been a regular e-publication since January, 2001.

As you may have noticed, my brother linked a web site in my comments section of a speech by Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Words Committee.

Drudge also posted a similar link to a blog report on the Senate hearing yesterday regarding global warming.

I strongly suggest you read both in their entirety, but if you don't wish to or don't have the time, I wanted to post a few of my favorite comments pasted from Inhofe's speech. He's sure not a fan favorite of the incoming Dem. regime:

Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation...

And it's worked!

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or humanindustrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland...

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear acoming ice age...

My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and theprojected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict...

Sounds a lot like the government, the more their big projects fail, the more money they ask for (or just take), or humanitarian aid projects like the Millenium Goals, once this fails in 25 years we'll be right back to the phase one in demanding more money for their projects that don't work.

But more importantly, it is the global warming alarmists who should be asked the question -- “What if they are correct about man-made catastrophic global warming?” -- because they have come up with no meaningful solution to their supposed climate crisisin the two decades that they have been hyping this issue. If the alarmists truly believe that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are dooming the planet, then they must face up to the fact that symbolism does not solve a supposed climate crisis...

But this symbolism may be hiding a dark side. While greenhouse gas limiting proposals may cost the industrialized West trillions of dollars, it is the effect on the developing world’s poor that is being lost in this debate...

The Kyoto Protocol’s post 2012 agenda which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions of the world like Africa, Asia and South America -- wheresome of the Earth’s most energy-deprived people currently reside. Expanding basic necessities like running water and electricity in the developing world are seen by many in the green movement as a threat to the planet’s health that must be avoided. Energy poverty equals a life of back-breaking poverty and premature death...

I could go on forever, but the point is that as stated in the WSJ editorial I mentioned a few days ago, balanced criticism is required in this and all issues. One side can't have a monopoly on the issues, and as Sheffield noted in his reporting on the Senate hearings from yesterday and the WSJ emphasized, that is exactly what the left is looking for.

To end, I've asked myself why I am so interested in this, and I believe it comes down to a religious issue. With the rise of the religious left (which I have to give the Dems credit, they learned from the 2004 election that they had to "get religious" to get seats, and they did it) has come the rise of the religious voice on these issues. I have somewhat of a problem with that, not because Christians shouldn't be involved or add a voice to social issues, but because of their linkage with the government (we know that whenever Christians partner with the gov, the Christian voice is drown out and watered down, it happened in the 80's and 90's with the religious right and now it is happened with the liberal left).

Furthermore, I see these issues being used to promote a social gospel akin to what I've been told happened in the 50's, 60's, and70's when missionaries went out and built schools, hospitals, orphanages in the name of Jesus but never actually taught people about Christ (ironically my understanding of recent mission history is that we then went to the other extreme, just preaching to people but not helping their present situation, where is the balance?). They lived in their own little enclaves away from the native people, never immersing themselves into the culture, never teaching, always maintaining control and keeping the native people in check, in slavery, so to speak. Of course, this is a vast overgeneralization, but seems to be a solid summary. Go into many a foreign country today and you'll see mission outposts everywhere, but in many regards very little remnant of the work that they did apart from hospitals and schools. (Jeffrey Tayler mentions this briefly in his book "Facing the Congo," a great story of his real-life journey down the Congo River from the origin to the Atlantic.)

My opinion, if I may, and since this is my blog I guess I may, but I am of the thinking that spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be central to our mission. We can address social issues that the Bible addresses (of which global warming and national health care don't seem to fit) under the umbrella of bringing people under the lordship of Christ. I've heard and read again and again and taken the mantra, if all we are doing if feeding or clothing the people or protecting them from diesease, we are not bettering them one bit. Everything we do must be with the purpose of bringing people to a living relationship with Christ where they are transformed into His likeness. I just don't see that from the new religious left and the issues they've placed front and center on their agenda.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Chuck Missler and his latest KHouse newsletter. While I appreciate some of his suggestions and think them proper, I do not agree with his overall outlook on Christmas. A post in the near future will summarize my thoughts on this holiday.

Christ warned us that he would cause controversy and division. But, while retailers may or may not choose to celebrate the "reason for the season", you and I are still free to express our joy to the world. There are a variety of things that Christians can do to make sure Christ is not forgotten in the flurry of gift buying and cookie baking:

Wish people a "Merry Christmas". Whether you are in the shoe aisle or the checkout line, you can put Christmas back in stores where it has been censored. It's simple, but it's friendly and cheerful, and is far less politically correct than "happy holidays".

Be Christ to people. Is there a single mother on your street? She could use help getting her children presents. What about your neighbor who just got divorced? Bring her cookies or, better yet, ask her to come bake cookies with you. Does your neighbor leave his sidewalk unshoveled? Cheerfully offer to do it for him. Open your doors to people in unconditional love. Let them know they have value. (Christmas is not the only time for demonstrating Christ's love, of course, but people are often more open to it during Christmas than they are during other times of year.)

Invite people to church. There are still scores of people in America who have no clue why Jesus came to earth. They don't understand why we sing "Oh come let us adore him", and Christmas might be the only time they are willing to enter the doors of a church. Many churches put on pageants or have Christmas Eve services that minister to believers and unbelievers alike.
Be of good cheer. Go out of your way to be kind and patient - even in hectic department stores or the mall parking lot. Depression sets in for many people during the Christmas season, and the world has a great need to know the reality of Christ's love. Simple things can bring cheer and hope to a discouraged person's otherwise unhappy day.

Go caroling. Sing praises to God all throughout your neighborhood. Not only is caroling a fun activity for your whole family, but it's a ministry. Christmas is a time of year when singing songs about Christ can bring smiles to the faces of even nonbelievers. In fact, you can invite non-Christians to go caroling with you and have hot cider at your house afterwards. Bring song sheets if you need to.

Decorate your house to glorify Christ. A Dutch woman I visited in Coeur D'Alene several years ago had built a manger scene that took up one side of her living room. It was fantastic. The stable itself stood only about six inches high - she had built the entire thing up on a table. But, she had crafted the land of Judea around it, with shepherds and sheep on the hills. She'd created a trail of sand, lined with miniature trees and bushes, for the wise men to travel down. The scene was creative and impressive in its attention to detail, and it told the Christmas story. Something like that would be great for children to create, whether on a small scale inside or a large scale outside. Families could start small, and every year add more to it.

Write a letter to a missionary. About.com's Mary Fairchild writes: "This idea is dear to my heart because I spent four years on the mission field. Receiving a letter always felt like opening a priceless gift on Christmas morning. Many missionaries are unable to travel home for the holidays, so it can be a very lonely time for them. Write a special Christmas letter to a missionary of your choice, thanking them for giving their life in service to the Lord. Trust me -- it will mean more than you can imagine!"

Jesus may not have been born on December 25, but the Christmas season is the time of year when most Americans celebrate his birth. Every December, therefore, offers a great opportunity to minister to our neighbors and to introduce them to Christ himself. He gave us the greatest Christmas gift of all. Himself.

These are things we need to be doing every day (obviously not wishing people a Merry Christmas, you get the drift), not just because the world decides to celebrate a all-too pagan holiday. Sorry Chuck, I love your work, but I just don't see eye to eye on you with this one. It's a good thing we can agree to disagree.

Suburban poor? What, those with their $200K homes, SUV's, plasma TV's...credited to the hilt...

How are we defining this?

I guess this is old news, and I shouldn't be that interested in this, but I am, it blows my mind:

As reported by the WSJ on Monday, Sens Rockefeller and Snowe sent a letter to Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson and copied all board members that they needed to in essence "start toeing the Senators' line on climate change, or else..." Going on, the review of the letter by the WSJ stated that "But its essential point is that the two Senators believe global warming is a fact, and therefore all debate about the issue must stop." Mind you, this is an elected government official stating this to a private business. How much further can we go?

To end, I like this statement:

In recent decades environmentalists have been wrong about almsot every other apocalyptic claim they've made: global famine, overpopulation, natural resource exhaustion, the evils of pesticides, global cooling, and so on. Perhaps it is useful to have a few folks outside the "consensus" asking questions before we commit several trillion dollars to any problem.

Wait, we used to think that global cooling was a problem, now global warming? Which is it?

The letter can be found here (you need to scroll about halfway down to view).

Interesting book highlighted in the WSJ today. I probably won't read it, but it definitely caught my eye.

I've just recently become aware of the Joseph Farah-Rick Warren situation as well as the Brian McLaren-Mark Driscoll online "debate," which is now very dated (you can get most of the text here). In any case, having read all of the article written by Farah and the short rebuttal by Warren, on the record I side with Farah. Being late to the McLaren-Driscoll situation, I don't know that I have all of the info but I've read the original post by McLaren, Driscoll's response, McLaren's response to that and then Driscoll's short, to the point question to McLaren. That's where I've stopped. If there is more, forgive me, I'm not aware.

Anyway, after reading this and doing a little more research on my man Driscoll (I've written here before how much I appreciated his book "Radical Reformission" and his thoughts on various topics), this info below from Wiki also hits right where I am at right now:

Brief association with Emerging Church movement:
Mark Driscoll describes his association with, and eventual distancing from the Emerging Church movement in his blog"In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network.But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake."

I like a lot of the questions the emerging network are asking and some of the paradigms they are changing, but their lack of foundational theology greatly troubles me for the exact reason Driscoll notes above.

I'm having quite a day, I'm downing my second 8" sub from Jimmy John's along with eggs and such this morning for breakfast! And I'm a little hungry for some pizza and ice cream. I might explode!

Take a look here and tell me what you see. This is unbelievable!

Finally, this makes me sick, because he is all too right!


Another Way In Which Dogs in America Live Better Than People in Parts of the Developing World:

One breakthrough in antibiotics is a class of chemicals called cephalexins, which kill both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, yet have minimal side effects. Discovered in 1948 by an Italian chemist, cephalexins – most common trade name Keflex – were not widely available until the 1970s. By the 1980s, word was out on this drug's combination of effectiveness and minimal risk. Parents began saying, "Doctor, please give my child Keflex." Why do I mention all this? First, this is Tuesday Morning Quarterback: I don't have to have a reason. Second, recently I took Geneva, the brainless Official Dog of TMQ, to the vet. And they gave her – Keflex. From miracle drug for people to pills for the dog! The problem is that in many parts of the developing world, parents still plead, "Doctor, please give my child Keflex." American parents might soon plead, "Doctor, please give my child Claforan or Cefcatacol,"
these being advanced cephalexins that work against the antibiotic-resistant germ strains found in hospitals. How long before American dogs get Cefcatacol while developing-world patients still plead for Keflex?

Another great idea from Easterbrook, I totally agree! It makes me sick whatBug Selig did in Milwaukee with the Brewers, forcing a new stadium deal funded by taxpayers' dollars, then selling the team since the new stadium increased the value of the team.


In other sports news, don't overlook that on election day, Seattle voters overwhelmingly approved an ordinance forbidding the use of public funds for NFL, NBA and MLB stadia. The proximate result might be that the NBA's SuperSonics leave the Emerald City when their current lease to play at the KeyArena expires. But sports owners beware, this might be the bow wave of an approaching trend. As recently as the 1980s, a civic-minded person could argue that some public expense was justified for pro-sports stadium construction in order to create economic activity, especially in downtown areas. Now there's so much money pouring into pro sports, and many owners are so rich, that it has become obscene to expect taxpayers to fund facilities that generate private profit for the wealthy. It's troubling, too, that with the majority of today's pro sports facilities being partially or wholly publicly funded, the owners claim proprietary rights regarding images of what happens inside. If, say, Indiana taxpayers are going to pay for the Colts' new stadium – as they are – why shouldn't anyone film or broadcast what happens within this public venue, ending the NFL's exclusive network agreements? TMQ expects this view to gain legal traction in the coming years. Pro sports commissioners: Better start planning now to pay your own stadium costs on a free-market basis.

Two articles in last week's Time caught my eye:

1) Can I be honest and say that I am concerned about the economical future of the US? Can I say I am scared? I try to balance this with the realization that I am a citizen of a different sovereign Kingdom and this world should bring no worries to Christians. Yet it does, and was reinforced last week in this Time article, I believe the end of the fat American pocketbook and balanced portfolio is about over. This whole baby-boomer retirement and drawing their assets out of the housing and stock markets worries me and could lead to a major recession. As the article states, ""New homes are selling at a slower pace, and prices have fallen. Buyers are walking away from signed deals (and their deposits) at twice last year's rate." Everyone knows
this housing boom couldn't last, how much further is can prod along is another question. Though admittedly very unknowledgeable in this area, my gut is telling me that foreclosures and prices are going to drop rapidly, with all housing take a major dip in value. We are fortunate not to have bought over our means or have concerns about being able to make the payments, but one thing I like to have is equity in a home and if prices fall that will be gone. My prayer is that I don't worry or focus too much on this, but it's a reality I believe will come and should be prepare for.

2) Who wouldn't want to read this book? It reminds me of my friend who corrected his sons when they said they wanted to be rich like Michael Jordan, he said that was fine, but he wanted to be the guy who could afford to pay Michael Jordan that kind of money. Though I don't know about his conclusion or solution, I guess I'll have to read the book to make a judgment.

FORTY MILLION DOLLAR SLAVES
WILLIAM C. RHODEN
Don't equate the fat contracts of today's African-American athletes with power, Rhoden argues in this provocative book. The white owners and agents are still calling most of the shots. Rhoden blames today's black athletes for failing to acquire real control and Michael Jordan for approaching black causes "with an apathy that borders on treason." The solution? Rhoden proposes an intersport, black-athlete trade association. That, he says, would really put the ball in the black players' hands.

I like the balance Chuck Missler places in his latest KHouse news on the church and state:

We have a responsibility to oversee our representatives, to hold them accountable, and to make our voices heard. Individual Americas, whatever their religious beliefs, are not only free but should speak out to make sure that our local and federal public servants are doing their jobs well.

Churches, however, are in a different position. If a church has not filed for a 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, then the pastors and representatives of that church may politic from the pulpit as much as they like.

...Specifically, pastors or church representatives may not use their official capacity to endorse any one candidate, nor do too much to advocate for the adoption or rejection of specific legislation. Official church newsletters or other publications may not endorse specific candidates or legislation.

I can live with that.

I just returned from the National Missionary Conference in Indy through the Church of Christ/Christian Church. Great times! Tumaini had a booth and we did a workshop (I say we, Dr. Mutunga was invited to lead one and he invited me to help, it was an honor and privilege to be a part of it). It was also a blessing to be there, see some old friends (former pastors, the dean of the college, etc.) and get reconnected to the missionary world.

I also had the opportunity to sit in on the session hosted by Dr. Alan Rabe on Humanitarian Aid. Dr. Rabe is the dean of the Ministry Dept. at Hope International and has a long track record of working with and for Feed the Children, World Vision, etc. He's worked in more countries than I know. But what I found most interesting in his session was how he picked up William Easterly's "The White Man's Burden" and noted how not only well-written it is but how honest and truthful it is when dealing with humanitarian aid. It turns out that Dr. Mutunga had recommended it to him and another friend in the audience, Dr. Robert Reese, had read it as well. What a great discussion we had afterward. Anyway, I've written my thoughts on this book before in this space, but I want to reinforce what I think is one of the best quotes of this book:

Financing consumption of a few poor people is not bad, but the Big Push (Millenium Goals, etc.) hoped for the society-wide transformation that would come from aid financing investment and growth.

In my mind (and this seemed to be agreed upon by the others) this is what separates Sachs and Bono and their paradigm from Easterly and his. Sachs is calling for major aid increases at the government level in hopes that the government will properly invest it in the countries infrastructure (roads, health care, education, etc). History has shown this doesn't happen, and I have a number of articles from Kenyan newspapers saying the same.

In making his point, Eastly presents a case study, the situation of a young girl in rural Ethiopia who every morning at sunrise gathers a load of firewood, carries it on her back for a half-day's walk to Addis Ababa, sells the firewood, then walks back to her village to present the money gained to her family for their survival (I could tell similar stories of countless children in Kenya). Does the girl want to do this the rest of her life, of course not! She wants to go to school, get an education, and better her life. There are millions like her around the world. Easterly's concern is that the Big Push can't or at least hasn't helped this girl get an education. For all of the foreign aid Kenya has received, millions still lack clean drinking water, something that the Big Push is supposed to address. The people in these countries could care less what foreign aid is going where and what governments are fighting over, they just want clean water, education, food, etc., something that in spite of all the promises they still have not received or been given access to. The answer then, in my mind and basically endorsed by Easterly, is grass roots Searchers (those who look for what the people need rather than coming in and telling the people what they need and then giving it to them, even though the people dont need it) going to the end of the earth to find out what people need, finding out how we can help them get that, then through microfinancing (or donations where necessary) assisting them to get what they need so they can move from survival up the economic ladder.

I don't believe the Sachs plan can accomplish this, but I am hopeful that the Easterly plan is exactly what the people need!

The last couple of weeks I've really enjoyed Gregg Easterbrook's "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" on ESPN.com. I rarely get through it as it must get close to 100,000 words, but skimming for some quality insight and evaluation on both the NLF and world events is worthy of my time. This week I found two interesting pieces by him on world events, the first in this post and the second in the next one. First, on raising the minimum wage, he writes:

Social Justice Goes Six-for-Six:

In the hoopla over last week's historic elections, it is important this detail not be missed: Six states held referenda on raising their minimum wage, and in all six the measures passed by big margins. Success margins ranged up to 76 percent yes in Missouri. The six-for-six success of higher minimum wage proposals tells us four things. First, Americans are a fundamentally generous people. The majority of voters who said yes to raising the minimum wage are above that wage themselves, and know higher minimums will result in higher prices for their goods and services. Second, concern with social justice is a rising trend among Christian voters. The 76 percent yes in Missouri is especially revealing because evangelical turnout was high in that state, owing to a referendum about embryonic stem cell research on the same ballot. Jesus taught that the first concern of social policy should be the needy, and in recent years, evangelical Christianity has been waking up to that teaching. (On that topic I recommend to readers the new book "Tempting Faith" by former George W. Bush aide David Kuo, an evangelical; also it's important that Rick Warren, America's most prominent Christian pastor, has recently been talking more about obligations to the needy than any other
topic.) Third, the referenda results are another indicator of how far out of touch the House and Senate were, since in 2006 the Republican leadership in both chambers worked to sabotage a higher federal minimum wage. Finally and most importantly, the vote tells us the federal minimum wage must go up.

To stop here, I am glad that people are talking of our duty, as Christians, to the needy. But to cite Scripture on this, we must discuss it in the context as our personal duty, not the government's duty, to poverty. The government has wasted millions, billions, probably trillions of dollars fighting it domestically and trillions more internationally to no avail (See John Stossel for more intellectual and humor-filled commentary). The government can't do it, it is limited. I'm all for people calling for more intervention to help the poor, but let's all do our part and not run to Uncle Sam to bail us out, or we'll be in this exact position, possibly even a worse one, in fifty years. He continues:

Today the federal minimum is just $5.15 an hour. Some states have higher minimums -- that's what the votes were about -- but others do not, and in all states local actual wages tend to shadow the federal minimum, rising when the federal number rises. It is shocking, and an indictment of Washington, that today's federal minimum wage is barely worth half the minimum of the 1960s. Expressed in today's dollars, the minimum wage would need to be $10.20 an hour to have the same value as the federal minimum of 1968. Through the 1960s, full-time work at the federal minimum wage kept a family of three above the poverty trend; today a family of three headed by a full-time minimum wage worker is [ http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/MinimumWageGraphs.pdf ]24 percent below the poverty line. Yes, teenagers from affluent families working summer jobs don't need $10 an hour -- a teen-wage exception to the minimum seems fine. But our social contract should ensure that any adult who works full time receives basic financial security, and a $10-an-hour federal minimum wage would achieve that end. A $10 federal minimum wage would increase the cost of pizza delivery. It would also increase social justice: and all Americans ought to vote for that.

Another thing I have to disagree with Easterbrook on, and I'll note and fully admit his brilliance goes far beyond anything I'll come close to in my lifetime, but he and many others in the Christian realm today are calling out for this so-called social justice. We want everyone to be equal. It's a great idea but more utopic that realistic. I've read Ehrenreich's "Nickeled and Dimed" and found it preposterous. Sure, we can double the minimum wage, but we'd better prepare to see prices skyrocket and jobs go overseas. Don't people realize that? I thought Sowell's "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" was the perfect reaction to this paradigm. We desire a sort of cosmic justice for this world but our social realm cannot produce that. As I stated above, we should help the poor, yes, but again, to think the government can do it through domestic (raising minimum wage) or international programs (Millenium Goals) is a dream. Great ideas, great vision, but simply not a reality.

First of all, what is the attraction to Joel Osteen? In my opinion, he's not all that good of a speaker, his stories seem fake, and I can't stand to look at him for more than five minutes.

Second, is it just me or are we being tricked and he is really the world's first robot? Watch him for a minute and tell me he doesn't demonstrate those tendencies?

Believe me, I have some posts ready to roll, just need to proof and post, hopefully by this weekend!

In the meantime, I came across an article on The Daily Nation, Kenya's national newspaper where the comment was made that "As shareholders in Kenya, we are being invited to invest in our own downfall as a nation." I found this very interesting and something I had never heard of, being shareholders in one's own country. Does anyone see themselves as a shareholder in America or is that more of a thing with developing countries?

Dick Morris just made a great comment on Hannity and Colmes:

…Remember, the riches 1% of Americans pay 36% of our nation’s taxes while 50% of Americans pay 3.4%. If you are going to cut taxes, you have to cut it from those who pay the most...

I have to laugh at those who think the "rich" don't pay their fair share in taxes. We surely have a progressive tax system in the US, with the rich taking on plenty of the burden.

I can vouch for this:

One million wildebeests went to Masai Mara
More than one million wildebeests have migrated to the Maasai Mara Game Reserve from Serengeti National Park this year. Lions and crocodiles killing at least 15 wildebeests daily as they crossed the river.

I think the key to the most recent post, the quote by Jan Markell, is the last sentence of the second paragraph. As I've reflected on the emerging and post-modern movements in Christian circles, this may be my biggest concern. To refresh, she writes:

...and not a word about the fact that only our Lord's return can solve these overwhelming problems...

I really applaud the desire of this movement to address some of the current issues, global hunger, AIDS, etc., but I believe we must not begin thinking that proper politics is the answer to the crises of the world. There is only one perfect political Kingdom and that is the one of our Lord Jesus Christ when He returns. It appears that these movements are trying to make the world perfect to prepare for the return of Christ, and the Bible seems to say that things are going to get worse and worse before the Lord intervenes and we usher in the millenial age (especially in my apocalyptic worldview and biblical interpretation).

Therefore, addressing these and other issues of the day is important, I would say necessary if the Spirit has given you a heart for a specific area, but we can't get mixed up into thinking that our work here will bring on the return of the Lord any quicker or delay it any longer if we do or don't address these man-made (I use this term here not to mean that an individual's sin necessarily causes them suffering but rather that the Sin of Man - Adam - is the cause of this world being out of whack - another issue for another time) issues. This is postmillenial thinking, correct?

Very well-written and balanced commentary from Jan Markell, this provides a very appropriate intro to my forthcoming post on human pain and suffering:

Also, in “Voting God’s Politics” Wallis says the Israelis are oppressing the Palestinians, not the Palestinian leaders choosing to keep their people in poverty. Wallis adds we must strengthen the U.N. and end capital punishment because it is biased towards the poor. He urges all Christians to support amnesty for illegal aliens, fight AIDS, and fight for women's rights.

What's missing here? I see not a word about a regenerated heart that would assist in the above, not a word about man's sin nature that has caused all the problems, not a word about repentance, and not a word about the fact that only our Lord's return can solve these overwhelming problems. That doesn't mean some efforts shouldn't be employed to correct some of these issues.

In the words of Joe Boyd, what I write in the following is more for me that you. I need to get some thoughts down in writing. Feel free to comment, but know that this is a process I need to go through for myself.

This is the first of what I hope will be a two-part series. The second is on the issue of pain and suffering and a reaction to a few books that my students have been reading that have very pertinent cultural issues in that I feel the need to respond to.

In light of the election yesterday, I wanted to put in writing a few thoughts on the issues, especially in light of my getting blasted for not voting. It was my conviction not to vote this year as I didn't particularly like any of the candidates,I agreed and disagreed with all of them on their various issues, and in good conscience I didn't feel comfortable voting in any specific way. I don't feel the Reps have been true to their ideals and party platform (DUH!) and on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to the beliefs of the Democratic Pary. I could have been like some people I know and not had any clue on what I was voting for but just went and filled in a couple of bubbles to say they voted, I chose not to do that. Hate me if youwant, but it what the choice I made.

In addition to getting blasted for not voting, I was told that I had to vote straight Rep anyway because of the abortion issue. Really? In the past two years or six years of the Rep dominancy of the government, what has been done to curb this issue? Sure, two conservative Supreme Court Justices were appointed, but have we heard the A-word since then in a non-election related sense? I didn't think so.

For the record, I believe abortion is wrong, it is murder, a fetus is a living, breathing baby and in an ideal world, it would not exist. We do not live in an ideal world. Do I believe it should be outlawed, yes! Do I think that realistic, no! If wemake it illegal, it will still happen, and that will break my heart. I believe as Christians it is not our duty to work through the government to get our way, rather our duty is to bring people to a living relationship with Christ in which their hearts will be changed and under the influence of the Holy Spirit working on their lives the decisions theywill make will reflect their relationship with Christ. Will a law accomplish that? I don't believe so. I've said for many years that we can't expect non-Christians to follow the law of the Bible, how can they without the working of the Spirit on theirlives. Heck, I go to the Spirit often for guidance and direction and I still fall short, we all do.

The issue in my mind, then, with abortion as with same-sex marriage and a plethora of other issues is the justification of the issue. Yes, they are wrong in the eyes of the Lord, the Bible seems to state that pretty clearly, so the problem in my mind iswith those who justify these actions. If one has an abortion (whether now if legal or forty years ago when illegal) and is repentant later and goes to Jesus for forgiveness and has a change of heart as she follows Him, He will forgive her, grace will beextended. If one is militant and radical in this process and her heart is hardened, there will be consequences for that person, both now and at Judgment.

There is a delicate balance we must take on these issues, proclaiming the truth of God's Word while also being sensitive that in a fallen world we fall short just as the next person. The only difference that I see between me and the next guy is that I realize I fall short and go to Christ for forgiveness and with full trust in my eternal salvation while the next guy might stick out his tongue at the Lord and seek to do it on his own will to no avail. We all sin, we all fall short of a holy and righteous God, no one is righteous, not even one, the sooner both Christians and non-Christians realize that and realize the love and grace awaiting us when we realize our state and repent the better we all will be.

I know this is more than you need to know, but oftentimes on the weekends I like to fall asleep in the basement on the couch. Lisa can't understand it but it is kind of serene for me, watching a little tube before calling it a night. Anyway, a few weeks ago it was around 11pm when I was readying myself for a nice snooze when one last flip through the channels brought me to two Leonard DiCaprio movies, "Gangs of New York," an old favorite of mine, and one of his I had never seen and never intended to, "The Beach." Now, I had seen the case of "The Beach" in the movie store for years and took it to be some romantic story of DiCaprio and some girl on some beach somewhere living out some utopic fantasy. BORING!

And of course if you have seen it you know that there is some of that, but I really got hooked on the story and couldn't stop watching it, trying to sleep at times to no avail. First, a quote in the opening part really struck me:

The only downer is, everyone's got the same idea. We all travel thousands of miles just to watch TV and check in to somewhere with all the comforts of home, and you gotta ask yourself, what is the point of that?

How true is that? The past three summers I've gone to Kenya and done the same thing for my teams, tried to provide for them the same amenities we find here in the States rather than trying to provide for them the experience of the country. Not anymore, that is going to be in the first trip meeting this year, that very quote and maybe even the clip from the movie to let people know that they are going to Kenya for a reason and not to make it seem like America.

Second, the story with the people on the island really got me, especially Sal. You could tell right away that there was something wrong with her and it really manifest itself throughout the movie. For her it wasn't just about having a good time on some hidden island, this island had overcome her to the point where it almost possessed her (tangent - this morning I sat down with a friend who just became pastor of a dying church to bring it back to life and one of the church members said that they need to have a Christmas program because they have one every year even though there are only about five kids in the church and they need to play Silent Night as the last song, a few years ago the old pastor played Joy to the World, he didn't last long, do you see the similarities?) to the point where she was willing to kill Richard (DeCaprio) to stay on the island, but it all backfired on her. If you haven't seen the movie, I recommend it.

Again, what I think hooked me here was the connection to our culture. We can't just enjoy things as they are, we have to organize them, make them perfect, allow them to overcome us, rule us. Like Sal, she couldn't just enjoy the beach, the freedom, the alternate experience this allowed them, she had to organize it, rule it, oversee it to a fault. In the church, we can't just gather as believers, teach, fellowship, serve, everything has to be organized and perfect or else the masses go somewhere else. Who cares? Settle down! Chill out! We mess up our priorities and get all out of whack - over non-essentials. We need to reinforce and focus on the essentials more (deity of Christ, His death as atonement for our sins, Bible as Word of God, etc) and less on the non-essentials (whether we have a Christmas program and the last song is Joy to the World - you think I'm kidding here, I'm not) or else we are going to continue to slide into relativity. I'm sick of it!

Well, I see Ted Haggard has resigned from his pastorship at New Life Christian Church after in essence being forced to leave. I think it is the right move, both for him and the church as there is no way he could continue leading that congregation and the elders had to remove him considering the details and the fact that he confessed to a lot of the allegations. Here is my hope, that though it was the right move, that there is support for him as he deals with these problems. I hope they don't just throw him to the wolves. If he is truly repentant I hope he is able to find people who will help him and his family and get him back on the right track.

This is what makes me so frustrated at modern evangelicals though. Here is a man who is the leader of two large organizations who are very anti-homesexual and while I don't know, I can assume he preached fire and brimstone from the pulpit on this topic. And now this? These people seem to lack any humility and then often times get caught up in the same sin they rant against. Doesn't that ruin the message? Some would say no, I am not sure. Couldn't we instead state that homosexuality (or whatever) is wrong, we all sin, God offers forgiveness when we choose to turn to Him, repent, and seek His help in this life. We will fall, we will sin, but He is there with unending grace if we place our trust in Him.

I guess here is what I am getting at, a year or two ago, I sat down with a good friend of mine for coffee and we asked each other the question, do we sin any less today than we did the day before we chose to follow Christ? Both of us answered no. We sin differently, we sin less outwardly, less drunkenness, less lewd language, etc. But the sin is now inward, what concerned us is that was the sin Jesus seemed to be most concerned about (Matthew 5). Our (my) conclusion was that while we tend to link the Christian life with less sin, in reality we are as dirty as ever and thankful for the grace of Christ. Though we tend to put on the facade that all is well, that we have our act together, lust, gossip, anger and many other inward sins still dominate us at times. We repent, we seek God, yet they remain. The stain is on us, we are a fallen creature, there is no escape.

Therefore, my premise of late has been that spiritual maturity may not necessarily focus entirely on obedience to Christ, as that is really impossible for us. Instead, spiritual maturity is, while still seeking to obey the Lord, also understanding right from wrong. We may not always do the right thing, but we still understand that what we do is wrong (lie, steal, cheat, covet, etc.) and we seek God for forgiveness and guidance. In the past, before we chose to follow Christ, we would have justified the behavior, now we freely admit our situation and actions or thoughts and take them to God. A few Scriptures that have brought me to this conclusion to consider as I close this post:

Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. - Hebrews 5:13-14

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. - 1 John 1:8-10

Two more things:

First, I've been in a weird place in life of late. I've been very frustrated and discontent in a lot of ways. I don't know why. I haven't been in as much fellowship or community as I would like and haven't been able to read as I wish, but otherwise things are good. I also seem to be paranoid about a lot of things as well, which is wrong, and that really frustrates me, makes me feel like my total trust is not in Christ, it's too much in this world. If I lost everything tomorrow, my focus should be that I still have Christ and this world will end, but it seems like the things of this world have been too much of a focus and trust for me of late.

On the other hand, this feeling has made me seek Christ more, to pray more, to try to understand Him more, to love people more. Though my mind may be on the things of this world, I catch myself in that mindset and repent, think about the things of Christ, and snap out of it for a little while anyway. Like I said, weird place.

Second, if I can rant for a second, a big pet peeve of mine is when people feel like they have a voice and can comment on things that they have no experience or knowledge in. I teach and coach with a guy like that, it's like he is an orthopedic surgeon who can diagnose any knee or ankle problem just by looking at it (exact quote: there's nothing wrong with that knee, I know it, I've been around basketball a long time and I know she's fine), an outdoor court specialist (that court isn't slippery, it's made for slippery weather) and an expert on the Central WI football conference (Stevens Point is terrible, they've never been good in football) even though the miniscus was torn and the ACL was partially torn, the court was like ice, and SP has a solid history of being very good in football. It's one thing to offer your opinion on something, another to act like it is your area of expertise.

Thanks for letting me do that.

I knew it had been a long time, but four weeks...WOW!

In honor of election season, I thought I'd post a little humor I found in TIME:

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, last week told listeners of his radio program, carried on 1000 stations in the US, "Yes, what Mark Foley did was wrong, but it is still important to go to the polls and let our voices be heard...Take about five people with you and vote. It would be a sin not to."

Really, a sin? Not to vote? Hmmmm, I don't remember reading that as part of the law, guess I'll have to look again.

How important is it? As important as it was when we elected Bush in 2000 and 2004?

As one of my guest lecturers in seminary said four years ago, organizations need to stick to what they do well. Focus on the Family and Dobson started to bring the family together and keep it intact, had they stuck to that they'd be in much better shape today in my mind. Instead they've lost all integrity in my mind, but who am I?

I've always had very limited music knowledge, so it doesn't surprise me that I have never heard of an artist named Moby, who Sojourners highlighted in their recent Special Issue. One comment, however, caught my eye:

Moby’s willingness to also walk the walk – evident in his ongoing commitment to simple living and so-called “Robin Hood-style philanthropy” – are indeed a unique representation of seeking, while in the spotlight, to follow Jesus – whom Moby sees as “essentially a homeless anarchist

Props to him for living simple and engaging in philanthropy, but seeing Jesus as a "homeless anarchist"? I didn't buy it (and still really don't), but when looking up the exact definition of anarchit on Dictionary.com, I found that "anarchist" is defined as one who engages in anarchy, with one of the definitions of anarchy being:

- a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

The others didn't fit him at all:

- a state of society without government or law.
- political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
- confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Interesting, like I said, when I think of Jesus, "anarchist" doesn't come to mind, but I can see it using the definition above.

I think this relates to my post last night. Some like Dallas Willard, others loathe him. I think those that loathe him do so due to his emphasis on our role in spiritual growth and maturity, thinking his focus puts too much stress on our effort, and I agree that when we look too much to our own power we are doomed. However, as the title of this blog reflect, I like balance, and I think he does possess a good amount of it. Therefore, I wanted to post this quote I read in his "The Great Omission" that I picked up last night:

We must approach current disappointments about the walk with Christ in a similar way. It too is not meant to run on just anything you give it (JPN note: his analogy a paragraph earlier focused on a the fictional tale of his neighbor who was having car problems, he thought it was a lemon, but then found out the neighbor was adding a gallon of water to each tank of gas, cars weren't meant to run on water). If it doesn't work at all, or only in fits and starts, that is because we do not give ourselves to it in a way that allows our lives to be taken over by it. Perhaps we have never been told what to do. We are misinformed about "our part" in eternal living. Or we have just learned the "faith and practice" of some group we have fallen in with, not that of Jesus himself. Or maybe we have heard something that is right-on with Jesus himself, but misunderstood it (a dilemna that tends to produce good Pharisees or "legalists," which is a really hard life.) Or perhaps we thought the "Way"we have heard seemed too costly and we have tried to economize (supplying a quart of moralistic or religious "water" now and then.)

I've been reminded and confronted of late both through reading and personal experience the large group of people who are frustrated with their faith, mad at God, etc. I may get myself in trouble here as this is sort of a rant and those are not often well-received, but most of the time I find that these are the very people who are not involved in a community of believers, have not set out on a proper study of the Bible (using the excuse that they can't understand what is written in it) and thus have not set forth a biblical worldview in their lives and heart. They are involved in things contrary to what the Word teaches and thus blame the Church or God for their misgivings. Does this world suck at times, you bet it does. Are we living as God intended, no way, not since the Fall of Man. But thankfully through Jesus we have access to the Kingdom of God, right here and right now, and the promise of heaven when we pass from this life to the next. Unfortunately, Satan is the prince of this world and in control, but God has broken into this world, redeemed His people, and offered us hope through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Thanks be to God. We get through these "life sucks" times (and I have them often) by reminding ourselves of Who is in charge here, keeping an eternal perspective, and falling back onto God's Word and the community of believers for support and encouragement. Please, no more being mad at God and the Church, it gives me a headache.

Related to this, twice in the past week (once in an email from our school's FCA coordinator remembering a student who died a year and a half ago and who had a basketball court dedicated after him and once today in an article on the Amish school shooting) I heard it said that these occurrences were God's plan. The exact text from the Amish article reads:

We think it was God’s plan and we’re going to have to pick up the pieces and keep going...

I'm sorry, I just don't buy into this thinking. Do you really think it was God's plan that a madman broke into a school, shot ten young girls, murdering five of them and turning the gun on himself, or that in CO a guy did the same, sexually assaulting six girls, killing one and himself, or the countless young girls and boys around the world who serve as sex slaves for foreign tourists, or the people living in desitute conditions in Darfur, in constant fear of death and starvation? Do you really think that God planned a 7th grade boy would come home from school perfectly healthy one Friday afternoon and be dead by 10pm? This isn't God's plan, this isn't what He had in mind when he created the world and humanity? But due to the rebellion by Satan and the Fall of Man, this is the world we live in, and being an apocalyptic-thinking person, I have to think it's going to get worse before it gets better. That brings us back to the text and conclusions I began with. Yes, there are times when I question God and how He could allow certain things to happen. But I trust in the end that all will work out, those who deserve the punishment will get it and those who put their faith, hope, and trust in Christ will get the eternal reward that was bought for them on the cross and with the resurrection of Jesus.

Did that make any sense at all?

This is ridiculous! Michael Reagan said it last year, referring to first the smoking bans around the country, then an alderwoman in DC proposed an alcohol ban, not a ban on artificial trans-fatty acids. "If the government is going to pay for your health care, they are going to tell you how to live." Well said, well said. I need to start reading my Escape Artist magazine a little closer and begin paying more attention to nations where personal freedoms are a little higher than here in the States.

In reference to the political left's continuous babbling of today's working poor, the five million more that live under the poverty line under Bush, my question is how do we define poverty in the US? In the third world, it's easy: basic shelter (grass hut), food (one meal per day) and clean drinking water. Anyone with that I am sure would not complain about their poverty. What about in the US? I don't want monetary figures, I want basic needs.

Regarding my recent post on distributing oil profit to the people of Alaska, William Easterly talks about the same thing in his book "The White Man's Burden." He is comparing levels of democracy in rich and poor societies and comparing and contasting when it tends to work and when it tends to fail, noting that it tends to fail in unequal agrarian societies because:

...it alternates between populist demagogues attempting redistribution and the rich striking back with military coups.

Hence, he notes:

"The big successful Communist revolutions occurred in poor agrarian societies, - Russia in 1917 and China in 1949 - not in industrialized countries, as Marx had predicted."

However, he goes on:

A natural resource oligarchy is particularly inimical to democracy. Oil is infamous for undermining or preventing democracy.

Why, you ask:

Oil revenues are very easy to redistribute, so wealthy and well-connected insiders who benefit from oil controlled by a dictatorship have a lot to lose from a democracy that would surely result in redistribution. Hence we get oil societies desperate to prevent democracy, ranging from the oil-rich Middle East to Africa.

He then quotes NYU politics professor Leonard Wantchekon who...

...documented systematically the association of resource wealth with autocracy in Africa...he shows that new democracies have succeeded in Africa mainly in resource-poor places such as Benin, Madagascar, adn Mali, while oil-rich states such as Algeria, Cameroon, Gabon, and Libya still have dictators. Worldwide, oil producers were on average in the worse fourth of the world's countries in democracy in 2004...

I'm not that smart of a man, but it makes sense to me. Probably another reason why force-feeding democracy into the Middle East (i.e. Iraq) will not work.

So, to answer my own question from the post, yes, it could work, but it won't. It would mean that dictator's would have to give up government control of the resources, thus "sharing" or "redistributing" it to the people and thus weakening their power structure. Not going to happen.

Did I mention how much I hate ND? They are the kind of team that plays like crap for three quarters and then scums out in the end. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

So two years ago I chaperoned Prom at my high school and was amazed when not only did the DJ play "Candy Shop" by 50 Cent but also put up the video on the big-screen.

Then last year when I chaperoned Spree and it was Kid Rock and "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy" on the big screen.

Tonight at Homecoming it was Kanye West and "Gold Digger." Have you ever seen that video? What do you think 892 high school kids at a dance are doing when that song it on and the video on the screen? Unbelievable.

I'm no prude, but I don't think that should be up there. I'm all right with the songs, but the visual encourages the licentious. Am I wrong?

I lost a lot of respect for Ohio State fans this morning. Game Day was there and here is a few of the signs I saw in the background:

Paterno: Boxers or Briefs? Depends.

Paterno: Urine our house now.

I'm all for rivalry and getting ugly with the enemy, but I think this went too far.

What if developing countries did this? Each person gets a share of the profit instead of the government hoarding it all? Would/Could it work?

I hate Notre Dame and am not a fan of Charlie Weis, but my hats off to him for opening his post-game conference yesterday with the truth: "'They deserve their just due,' Irish coach Charlie Weis said. 'I think it's important to understand that team just came and whupped us pretty good.'" No excuses, no blaming the refs or turnovers or anything, they just got whupped. Thanks Charlie!

On a totally different line, and I may be totally wrong here, but today I went into Express to look for some pants. I had found a coupon that expired almost two weeks ago, but I thought maybe they'd still honor it, maybe I should have known better, but I thought I'd give it a shot. So I go up to this clerk working the men's section and ask her if they'd still honor that coupon. She laughed at me, "No, I don't think we could do that!" if a very sarcastic tone. My response should have been, "Well, then I don't think I could shop here." Now, I know it was expired, I knew I had about a 1% chance of being allowed to use it, but I did expect more respect from a saleslady. A little, "I'm sorry sir, our store policy says...could I help you with something else..." anything other than a laugh in the face and sarcastic comment. I've never had good experience with their clothes anyway.

Props go out to the History Channel, Discovery Channel, and even CNN of late for some great TV of last. Last night I got stuck watching "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden" on CNN, then "Is Iran the next Iraq?" on the History Channel, and I know that Discovery has had some good stuff of late.

A little rant if I may as well. First, some background. Lisa and I are about as home-body as you can get. Our weekends are for laying around, cleaning, relaxing, maybe some take-out, that's about it. It's a rare event if we have something planned, it's just the way we are. We know we are the exception to the rule. For one, we are pretty cheap, so we hate going out and wasting money on stuff we don't even like, and two, we just like being home with our kids.

Having said that, as you know, Maiya started pre-school at this little Lutheran church that just has the pre-school, and it started this week so on Friday during my lunch I went to pick her up. I was the only guy there waiting for the kids, and being the eavesdropper that I am, once again overheard their conversations. One lady asked if the other was going to church this Sunday as it there was some worship event going on, with the other replying, in a very dramatic tone, "Oh no, we're going to Chicago this weekend. Then on Sunday we have to rush back to go to the Packer game. I didn't want to go, but you know my husband hates to miss a game, and I promised I would go with him..." with the other responding, "Yeah, we are heading up to the cottage this weekend, one of the last you know, then we have to rush back for..." Spare me! That's why in ten years they'll have their houses foreclosed on when inflation and energy costs rise so high that we'll have a tough time feeding ourselves much less own two homes and two cars. I guess as I hear so many saying right now, let's enjoy life, you never know what tomorrow will bring. I don't mind that attitude, but just be prepared for what the future may bring, and know Uncle Sam, which will then be run by China, will not be there to bail you out.

I hesitantly admit that I am an eavesdropper. If I'm in a coffee shop, restaurant, airport, etc. and a group next to me is talking loud enough for me to hear, often I'll tune in. I doubt I'm alone.

So our treadmill is broke at home so I went over to the school this morning to work out. After my run, while stretching, two older ladies were walking on the treadmill and I just happened to hear one of them complaining that her and her husband had been invited to some step-nephew's birthday or baptism or some sort of party. "They only invite us for the gift. We only see them 15 minutes a year, they invited 64 people to this thing, all they want is a gift...we're not going..." SO DON'T GO. I'M SURE THEY WON'T MIND! IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO WITH THAT ATTITUDE I BET THEY'D RATHER YOU STAY AWAY. WHY DO PEOPLE FEEL THEY HAVE TO ATTEND EVERYTHING THEY ARE INVITED TO. YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS LADY WANTS TO GO, SHE IS NOSY AND IT WILL KILL HER TO MISS THIS, SO SHE IS GOING TO MAKE UP FOR IT BY COMPLAINING TO EVERYONE SHE SEES! THIS DRIVES ME CRAZY!!!!!!!!

A while back I emailed the Sports Guy and suggested some sort of contest where the winner could hang with him for a day, visit the SG Mansion, provide input on an article, visit the local Starbucks with him, etc. I guess he didn't grab it, but I've got a new suggestion.

In his article today he talks a lot about his wife, how she will pick against him this year, how she argues that he makes up all of the quotes he attributes to her, but he says she made them, just has forgotten due to her college days, too many Dead and Phish concerts, etc. In light of that, I'm suggesting a contest where the winner gets to hang with the Sports Gal all day long and make fun of Bill. She can tell wild stories of how lazy he is, the truth behind the articles, are his buddies real or did he just make them up, etc. How could this miss. Screw meeting and hanging with the Sports Guy, the Sports Gal is the new thing.

Interesting day in the Nate household. Maiya had her first day of school. Granted, it's pre-school, three days a week, two and a half hours a day, but it's still her first foray into school. She liked it, didn't miss us at all. Here was the email that greeted me this morning at work, started off the day balling!

Dear World:

I bequeath to you today one little girl ... in a crispy dress ... with two blue eyes ... and a happy laugh that ripples all day long and a flash of light blonde hair that bounces in the sunlight when she runs. I trust you'll treat her well.

She's slipping out of the backyard of my heart this morning ... and skipping off down the street to her first day of school. And never again will she be completely mine. Prim and proud she'll wave her young and independent hand this morning and say "Good Bye"... and walk with little lady steps to the schoolhouse.

Now she'll learn to stand in line ... and wait by the alphabet for her name to be called. She'll learn to tune her ears to the sounds of school-bells ... and deadlines ... and she'll learn to giggle .. and gossip ... and look at the ceiling in a disinterested way when the little boy across the aisle sticks out his tongue at her.

And now she'll learn to be jealous. And now she'll learn how it is to feel hurt inside. And now she'll learn how not to cry.

No longer will she have time to sit on the front porch steps on a summer day and watch an ant scurry across the crack in a sidewalk. Nor will she have time to pop out of bed with the dawn to kiss lilac blossoms in the morning dew.

No, now she'll worry about important things.

Like grades ... and which dress to wear ... and who's best friend is whose. And the magic of books and learning will replace the magic of her blocks and dolls.

And now she'll find new heroes.

For five full years now I've been her sage and Santa Claus and pal and playmate and father and friend. Now she'll learn to share her worship with her teachers ... which is only right. But, no longer will I be the smartest man in the whole world.

Today when that school bell rings for the first time ... she'll learn what it means to be a member of a group. With all it's privileges. And it's disadvantages too.

She'll learn in time that proper young ladies do not laugh out loud. Or kiss dogs. Or keep frogs in pickle jars in bedrooms. Or even watch ants scurry across cracks in the summer sidewalk.

Today she'll learn for the first time that all who smile at her are not her friends. And I'll stand on the front porch and watch her start out on the long, lonely journey to become a woman.

So, World. I bequeath to you today one little girl ... in a crispy dress ... with two blue eyes and a happy laugh that ripples all day long .. and a flash of light blonde hair that bounces in the sunlight when she runs. I trust you'll treat her well.

Related to my last post, the Sojourners today includes the following quote:

'All bark, no bite'
"[The Sudanese government] sees the international community as all bark, no bite, and unfortunately they're right."
- Dave Mozersky, Sudan analyst for the International Crisis Group.

With the situation we find ourselves in in Iraq, Sudan is staring down the international community and winning. They are being allowed to destroy an entire people group, rape, pillage, murder, whatever they please, and we act as though we are powerless. This is a perfect time for troops to be deployed (taken from Iraq if necessary) and, as my friend Jared used to say in college, "lick balls and take names."

I finally got around to reading the 8/28/06 issue of Sojourners, "Nonviolence v. Terrorism." I had previewed it when it arrived but never had the chance to read it through. I just had that chance, and it wasn't too bad. Wallis said some good things, stressed that we are not to confuse nonviolence with appeasement (though that is often how it appears) and did get to the heart of the issue when he noted the political nature of this 21st century terrorism. Where I disagree, however, is where he cited the examples of King, Ghandi, Day, etc. and how their nonviolent tactics worked during their respectives times. My contention with that is that yes, they worked, they worked very well, but they also worked with Western nations where there seemed to be an overriding culture of morality present, maybe not that in which these people were oppressed, but a "Judeo-Christian" worldview, for lack of a better term. Once the US saw how brutally the blacks were being tortured and abused, the tide shifted. I'm not that familiar with Britain's response to Ghandi, but I would guess that it was very similar. Today, our enemy is different, they play by a different set of rules, they have a very different value of life, their end goal is the destruction of the West. So while I may agree with nonviolence as an idealogy, we are in a war (separate from the War in Iraq, which I am becoming more convinced is nothing more than a sham, I'm all for cutting loose and running, although I am worried what that would do to that nation and that region) and war is not pretty, it may take some violence at times. Diplomacy is a good goal, but I don't know how we talk with these people. It's an interesting subject and one in which I have set the goal to learn about more this fall. Your thoughts/opinions are most welcome.