The Shepherd, the sheep, the wolf, and the dog

In John 10, Jesus uses yet another set of metaphors to illustrate how things work in His kingdom:

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

There are many lessons to be drawn from this passage: Jesus' love for us, the inclusion of Gentiles in His plan, Jesus' deity...but I want to focus on the roles mentioned here: The Shepherd, the sheep, the wolf, and the one not mentioned, but surely present, the dog. I have problems from time to time getting my role straight.

It's not the Shepherd I want to be. That job is too big. I gladly cede that responsibility and sacrifice to Jesus. I don't aspire to be the wolf either, and I don't think I have been. I have no desire to harm the sheep, and I certainly don't want to engage in conflict with the Shepherd.

No, even though, clearly in this passage, I'm a sheep, I'm too often not content with that. All that following around, surrendering my will to the Shepherd all the time. "I'm smarter than that," I tell myself. What was Jesus thinking here? Who wants to be associated with sheep?

I want to be the dog!

Yep, that's right, the dog! The dog is smarter than all the sheep and acts as the "assistant" to the Shepherd. Sometimes I get myself into trouble, arrogantly assuming the Shepherd needs my assistance to "herd" those stupid sheep.

But then I wander off myself; I get lost, and I remember. If I were the dog, I wouldn't have been dumb enough to leave my master's side. If I were the dog, I'd have enough sense to find my way back to Him. But I don't.

Just like all the other sheep, I need my Shepherd to come rescue me when I wander off.

You ain't broke. Don't act like it.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ:
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
Eph 1:5 having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:
Eph 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
Eph 1:9 making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him
Eph 1:10 unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say,
Eph 1:11 in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
Eph 1:12 to the end that we should be unto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ:

Thanks so much to my new friend Gary for reminding me of the riches of a life in Christ.

Cash for Atari games

Sony executives, seeking to boost floundering software sales for their popular game consoles, have decided to emulate the federal government's "Cash for Clunkers" program. The Board of Directors voted yesterday to allocate $50 million dollars in rebate monies for customers who can trade in their old Atari 2600 games in exchange for a $20 dollar rebate after purchasing selected new PS2, PSP, or PS3 video games.

"This program obviously works," commented Sony VP of Marketing, Navin Johnson. "Look at the Cash for Clunkers program. People came to the dealerships in droves to buy their new cars. I predict sales for our new games will skyrocket over the next month."

This move is not unanimously well-thought of within Sony, however. Many who oppose this plan fear that the rebates will take away any profit made from the sales of the games.

"It's simple math," said an unnamed Sony executive.

Additionally, because only certain titles are are part of the rebate program, many fear the customers will be less than enthusiastic.

"If they could buy 'Guitar Hero' or one of our EA Sports titles, I think customers would be excited. But 'Superstar Table Tennis' and 'SimCity:Accountants' aren't going to sustain interest."

Still, early results show demand outstripping the money allocated. There's already talk of extending the program among some execs.

"Sure they're coming," countered the unnamed executive. "People think it's free money. All we're doing is flushing money down the toilet. Our sales numbers will appear to go up, but our bottom line won't show any improvement. If anything, this idea will put us under over time. You can't just give away something for nothing and stay in business."

Spirit-led into the wilderness

A little-noticed truth is found in Matthew 4:1:

1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.

What follows, of course is the account of Jesus successfully fending off the efforts of Satan to tempt him into sin, thus destroying God's plan of salvation. Many sermons and commentaries have focused on the nature of the temptations, the ability of Satan to use scripture as a weapon, and Jesus' resultant understanding of our humanity. A core revelation can be discovered in verse one, however: The Holy Spirit led Jesus into this confrontation. This truth has much to offer us as followers of Christ.

Often, we are perplexed when trials and tribulations enter our lives. More often, we assume that these trials are only negatives and must be the product of Satan. While Satan may be the author of the trial or temptation, this passage, along with the story of Job and countless other biblical examples, shows us that the Spirit often leads us toward these spiritual battles.

These times in our lives are often painful, causing us to cry out "Why" to God. All too often we don't really stick around for the answer. We breathe a sigh of relief when the crisis has passed, and resume our everyday business, ignorant of the lessons just put before us. In this brief passage, we can plainly see that God does put tumult in our lives, and He does so for very good reasons.

Where would Jesus have been without doing battle with Satan? Where would we be? Could we really sing "Jesus knows all about our troubles" without this spirit-led confrontation? No, Jesus, led by the spirit, endured Satan's blows in order to prepare Him to serve us as our savior. Of course, this was just a precursor to the final battle, in which Jesus gained final victory over death.

If the Spirit was willing to send Jesus into harm's way, should we as disciples of Christ expect any different? Of course not. We are often missing some important qualities that would enable our experiences to be as successful as Jesus'.

First, Jesus was prepared. When Satan launched his attacks on Jesus, Jesus was armed with spiritual armor, most importantly, the sword of the word of God. When Satan thrust at a perceived weak point, Jesus parried with truth from God's scriptures.

Second, Jesus was willing to endure. Despite being extremely hungry, he resisted the temptation to feed his own needs. He was willing to endure the short-term pain to win the battle against temptation.

Finally, Jesus was able to learn from His ordeal and pass on His wisdom to His disciples, and ultimately to all of us. This not a moment witnessed by the writers of the Gospels. It was no doubt passed on to them by Jesus' own testimony. How often are we unable or unwilling to share our struggles with others, when the knowledge of our battles could help someone else going through the same thing?

Lord, grant us the focus to study your word, give us the strength to endure our moments of persecution, and allow us to be courageous enough to share those moments with others so that our victories need not be just our own.

Giving away something for nothing doesn't work?

I'm shocked...SHOCKED that "Cash for Clunkers" is going broke after 4 days. Who knew that giving away money for nothing would attract so many takers? Keep in mind that the entity doing this is the government; they CANNOT CREATE REVENUE! They can only redistribute it or curtail spending. Unlike the private sector, they have no mechanism for creating revenue.

The program — aimed at giving at boost to the U.S. auto industry — was supposed to expire at the end of October. But in the one week since it took effect, it appears to have run dry of the $1 billion allocated to it, aides said Thursday.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25638.html


Any predictions on what will happen with government run health care?

Faith-based economics

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/27/new-dem-strategy-on-obamacare-ignore-the-evidence-and-just-trust-us/

When you're congressman comes home

Ask him/her a simple question: Did you read it? Congress' recent tendency to vote before reading legislation gives new meaning to the word "irresponsible."





h/t Matt Lewis

Yes, there's still racism in America

Much ado is being made over the arrest of African-American Harvard professor, Henry Gates and President Obama's subsequent comment that the police acted "stupidly." After reading and listening to the "back and forth" on this issue for a few days, I have a few observations:

Yes, racism still exists in America. It always will. As long as people prejudge based on differences, racism of all stripes will exist. The question is whether or not racism was a part of this occasion, the arrest of a black Harvard professor by a white Cambridge cop. I'd say the evidence suggests that racism has definitely reared its ugly head in this case.

Gates, a tenured professor at a prestigious American university, was attempting to "jimmy" the door to his own home, along with his driver. Apparently, he had forgotten his keys. The police were summoned and Sgt. James Crowley, a white Cambridge police officer answered the call.

Crowley, noticing the "suspects" were already in the home, asked them to exit the house and identify themselves. Gates, according to reports, became irate, feeling that he was being "profiled" and beligerently refused. He was at this point arrested.

Now, let's examine where the racism is present. For the sake of argument, let's work with the long-standing liberal definition of racism, that it constitutes prejudicial treatment or oppression by a majority in power toward a minority.

Gates and Obama apparently want us to hop in the "way-back machine" and pretend Cambridge is stuck in 1964. But that's not the case here. Crowley responded to the scene alone and handled the situation by the book. He was presented with a possible home burglary and asked the suspects to come outside to identify themselves. What else was he supposed to do? Take Gates word that he was the homeowner? Go inside by himself to investigate? No in both cases.

Instead of being grateful that someone in his neighborhood noticed his house being disturbed and that the police responded so quickly, Gates immediately and and beligerently assumed a racist motive. That's what precipitated his arrest. And before we start down the sympathetic "plight of the black man fighting for respect in America" road, let's look at who Gates is:

He's a tenured professor at arguably the most prestigious university in the country. He and his DRIVER were trying to gain entrance into his upscale home in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Recounting his hearing of Obama's comments, Gates had this to say:

"I was having dinner with a friend on the upper East Side in a little private Italian restaurant, and all of a sudden I thought my BlackBerry was going to explode,'' Gates said. A friend called saying "Barack Obama just mentioned you in his news conference.''
"I said, 'Oh my goodness, what did he say?'... 'He said the Cambridge police were stupid and that you were friends'...'I went, My God.' And then the emails...it was like a slot machine. I got 500 emails last night. ''

Not exactly Medgar Evers now is it? And it gets better. Apparently Sgt. Crowley is no ordinary Cambridge cop. He teaches a class, with a black officer, on racial profiling for the Lowell Police Department.

“He’s a very professional police officer and he’s a good role model,” Fleming (Lowell PA director) said. “Former police commissioner Ronny Watson, who is a person of color, hand-picked Sgt. Crowley. ... I presume because he would be the most qualified and most professional. He’s a very good instructor. He gets very high reviews by the students.”

So let's review. An African-American professor accuses a white beat cop of racism. Our African-American president, admitting he did not know all the facts, claimed that the police acted "stupidly" in the situation. There is no doubt in my mind that racism has played a major role in this situation. Both Gates and Obama clearly have used their status and positions of power to unnecessarily scapegoat and criticize a beat cop from a different racial background. Both men prejudged Sgt. Crowley's actions based on the color of his skin.

Yes, racism is still alive and well in America.

New game to play during Obama press conferences

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDYzZGIxNGI5MjA1MjI3ZDMyNjJkYjExMzk4MDliZGM=

Pendulum Swings Part II: The Swing to the Left

The Church is not immune from its human frailties, one of which is reactionary behavior in response to a problem. Yesterday, we discussed some of the divisive issues behind those who are mired in a such a conservative position, they refuse to even consider change and label those who engage in healthy change based on their presuppositions. Today, let's take a look at the other extreme: those who have grown dissatisfied with the status quo and have taken up an opposite extreme as their opposition.

Simple reason should readily tell us that merely taking up opposition to one position does not lead to the truth, yet our human nature often leads us into this state which I have labeled "rebels without a clue." We see it in generation after generation of youth. Dissatisfied or disillusioned with their parents' way of life, they take up camp on the opposite shore, reactively opposing the established positions. Of course they don't examine whether or not these new positions are any more or less desirable than those of their parents. Whatever doesn't look like the old must be better. This is fallacious on its face.

The church has engaged in this practice for centuries now. While the objections to a variety of scriptural inconsistencies over the years have been valid, the solutions have often emulated those of the reactive child. In the process, we've often "thrown the baby out with the bathwater."

In contrast, look at the model of change proposed by Jesus. Faced with the Pharisees' bastardization of Mosaic Law, Jesus proposed not a reactive flight from their ways, but a "radical reunion" based on the core truths expressed in God's law. The Pharisees constantly tried to trap Jesus with legal conundrums. Jesus never rejected the Law; He reminded His audience of their departure from the spirit behind its existence. This can best be seen when Jesus was asked which law was most important. Rather than reactively opposing the Pharisees, Jesus went back to the core of the truth handed down by the Father: "Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two principles rest all the other commandments." (Luke 10:27) Moreover, Jesus went out of His way to let His audience know that He was not proposing reactive change in Matthew 5:18:

For truly, I say to you,until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

In our search for His truth, we must be careful not just to get "stuck" in traditions, stubbornly refusing change. But we must also not simply bounce like pinballs, reacting to inaccuracies, both real and perceived. We must study the scripture and focus on the core message of the gospel. Then we can evaluate our practices in a mature, Christlike fashion. This will bring us closer to Him and to one another.

Pendulum Swings

During my recent "vacation," I had the occasion to read two books which illustrate the extremes which promote dissonance within the Body of Christ in our contemporary culture. David Miller's Piloting the Straits attempts to address "change" occurring within the churches of Christ and how conscientious Christians, in his estimation, must fight those changes. Though published in 1996, the issues Miller confronts are still highly conflictual today. The other book was unChristian by David Kinnaman. Kinnaman, from the Barna group, Christendom's answer to the Gallup organization, looks at market research data to examine why younger generations are leaving Christianity and not coming back. This book, published in 2007, causes the reader to come to grips with some hard realities regarding how Christians are perceived by outsiders.

One of the major pieces of feedback cited in Kinnaman's book is the perception that Christians "devour their own." That perception is borne out by the data shown in his book, but also is evident in Miller's approach to change in the church. The essence of Miller's argument is to contend that deviation from church of Christ "orthodoxy" is heresy and that such agents of change are motivated by ungodly desires and should be combated and resisted. In the course of making his arguments, Miller claims a highly logical ground. Indeed, Miller's work is full of references, scriptural citations, direct quotations, and syllogistic reasoning. Unfortunately, the great majority of Miller's arguments are fallacious as they begin with two false assumptions that provide the foundation of his resistance to change:

1. Miller assumes that "necessary inference" is on par with scriptural commands and direct examples. This is patently false. Inferences, by their very nature, are human interpretations, and thus subject to debate and disagreement. That Miller would elevate his own inferences to be on the same level with direct commands and examples from Jesus is the height of arrogance.

2. Miller assumes that those who share his opinions are motivated by pure and holy means, while those who differ with him are motivated by selfish and ungodly desires. In fact, Miller devotes an entire section of his book to detailing these evil desires. That Miller professes to be able to judge the hearts of people is again highly arrogant on his part. And once again, these false assumptions are the basis for his syllogisms in the rest of his book.

Especially disturbing is Miller's insistence that promoting change is tantamount to promoting division. This false equivalence enables Miller to proclaim that his faction is preserving the unity of the true church, while the agents of change are bringing division. Hence, there is no need to examine the nature of the proposed changes. We must merely reject change out of hand as being divisive.

This attitude, unfortunately, is all too prevalent within the Church. It has brought fractures to the Body and greatly hampers our ability to serve the world that so desperately needs our unified efforts.

In succeeding posts, I'll examine the other side of the pendulum swing and how it also brings division as well as attempt to look at some of the particular issues still combating the church.

More audacity from Obama...minus the hope and change

"There's a reason Thurgood Marshall took up the cause of Linda Brown. There's a reason the Little Rock Nine defied a governor and a mob," Obama said. "It's because there is no stronger weapon against inequality and no better path to opportunity than an education that can unlock a child's God-given potential."

Unlocking that potential, though, means both acknowledging the challenges facing black youth and then finding a solution to problems that are the legacy of decades of institutionalized discrimination.

"We have to say to our children, `Yes, if you're African-American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that somebody in a wealthy suburb does not have to face," Obama said, returning to his tough-love message familiar from his two-year presidential campaign.

"But that's not a reason to get bad grades, that's not a reason to cut class, that's not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school," he said. "No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands."

Unfortunately, our new president's modus operandi has been all too clear: put forth platititudes that sound good in the itching ears of the target audience, only to belie them by actions. Obama is absolutely correct about the importance of education in combatting poverty. His actions, however, have not borne out in practice what he professes to believe. Witness the DC voucher program.

Here, Obama single-handedly destroyed a successful program that was actually helping those languishing in poverty. Now lest I be accused of being just another white, conservative, Obama basher, I'll let Juan Williams, who actually wept for joy on air the night Obama was elected illustrate what's wrong with Obama's education policy:

This is an outrage to me. … This is so important that you give young people a chance to have an education in America and especially in a failing public school system like you have in the District of Columbia. This voucher system is a direct threat to the unions. And so I think everybody on Capitol Hill, that’s getting money from the NEA or AFT, they should be called on the table. They should ask them, ‘where do you send your kids to school? And are you willing to say these kids getting the vouchers…and doing better than the rest of the kids, that these kids aren’t deserving of an opportunity to succeed in America?’ You just want to scream. Why Duncan and Obama aren’t in the forefront of education reform is an outrage and an insult to the very base that voted for them.

Williams is rightfully indignant. Obama has betrayed the very base that put him into office. Instead of supporting a program that offered genuine hope and change, Obama sold out his constituents to the teachers' unions. And where does Obama send his kids? If you think it's the DC public schools, think again. But then again, it's alright for Obama and the limousine liberals to live one life and expect a different one for his constituents.

Obama is making policy that will guarantee segregation. The rich will continue to have access to quality private education while the poor will be stuck with no options. And yes, this policy will overwhelmingly continue to affect African-American children. How is this enabling folks to claim their destiny? Where is the hope in this policy? How is this change from the failed practices of the past?

President Obama has audacity to be sure. I don't believe I could get up in front of people who placed their trust in me and lie directly to their faces the way he has done. For shame.

Walking by faith

I will walk by faith
Even when I cannot see
because this broken road
Prepares Your will for me

These words by Jeremy Camp, echoing Paul's statement in II Corinthians 5:7 have become very dear to me over the past year. Permit me to digress from my usual commentary and simply share my experiences over the past year. They have profoundly shaped my spiritual outlook. I have been waiting to write this post for some time now. It is only now that God has provided a "bookmark" of sorts that I can relate my journey of walking by faith.

This has been without a doubt the most difficult year of my life. Last summer, I learned that due to financial troubles, there was a good chance the school which I was leading would close after the next school year. That would mean I, along with my dear friends and colleagues, would lose our jobs, and that our mission to which we were wholly devoted would come to an end. In September, my mother was diagnosed with colon cancer. Over the next two months, I would have to watch her succumb to this dreadful disease. In the aftermath of her death and her funeral, I became quite disillusioned with many in my family. They simply were not who I thought them to be. Damage was done, much of which may be irreparable. In January of this year, the final decision of our board to close the school was handed down. For the next six months, I was to preside over the "death" of this family of God. More hurtful was my disappointment in many men of faith, in whom I had trusted. They seemed unconcerned about the human fallout from their decisions. In the meantime, I searched for God's guidance with my next job. Where should I go? What should I do? What was His will? These questions plagued me as I sent out resumes and went on interviews. Three times I was flown in as a finalist for a position. Each time, it appeared that God's will was going to be revealed. Three times, I learned someone else was selected and it was time to begin searching anew.

During all of this, Satan nagged at me, planting negative thoughts in my mind. I felt forsaken; but the Holy Spirit reminded me of Jesus' words on the cross: "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani." I felt confused, unsure of my next steps; but the Spirit reminded me of Abraham, Noah, Moses, and countless others who did not know the "end game" but walked in faith nonetheless. With each doubt that Satan put into my head, the Holy Spirit countered with encouragement from His Word. These sources of encouragement did not come from scripture alone. Often they were delivered by some "angel" in my life. Perhaps they were unaware of the encouragement they were offering, but it was there nonetheless.

The bottom line: In my moment of great doubt, confusion, and pain, God was working His plan all along. Even though I could not see His handiwork clearly, even though I was blind to the eventual outcome, He was walking ahead of me, making my paths clear.

I have learned a great lesson, maybe THE great lesson: I am a blind man in this world. I need the omniscient power of my Lord to guide me. That is a troublesome lesson for many of us, especially me, to learn. I treasure my "sight." I am an academic, a philosopher by nature and vocation. I have always desired and have devoted my life to "seeing more clearly." Indeed, God has revealed much to me in the course of my studies. Still, there is so much more I don't know, and even more I never will. That is why I must submit myself to him. As much as I would like to blaze my own trail in this life, I haven't sufficient sight to do so.

I mentioned in the opening that I've been waiting to write this piece. I vowed to do so out of faith in Him. For some time now, though I didn't know what His will would look like, I knew it would be done anyway. I chose to walk by faith, even when I could not see.

I say this not with pride or hubris, but with all humility. The only thing He required of me was the will to continue. As Kipling put it:

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on"

That's what walking by faith is. It's the determination to hold on to God when all you have to go by is His promise. I praise Him for giving me that strength; and I praise Him for his steadfast love and faithfulness.

Thanks for letting me share my experience with you. We serve a great and wonderful God who desires to give us rich rewards if we'll only trust in Him.

I'll be on the road for awhile

I don't know how regularly I'll be able to post. I'll update any new posts on my Facebook.

It is for freedom that we have been set free

These are the words of the apostle Paul in Galatians, chapter 5:

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
7You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." 10I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

This thought is important to us, not just as Christians, but as Americans. If we strip away the cultural anachronism of circumcision here, there is much that is instructive to 21st century America.

It is a paradoxical human truth that we struggle do deal with freedom, and all too often, we voluntarily surrender it for the comfort of slavery. That is what Paul is talking about here.

Look at America. Before Washington could even finish taking the oath of office, many Americans were ready to make him king, even though they had just sacrificed to throw off the burden of monarchical oppression. Had not FDR died, how many terms would Americans have allowed him to serve? Look at us today. We are quick to run to the government to solve our problems, surrendering our liberty in the process. Rather than exercising our liberty and dealing with the consequences, we are ready to surrender it in search of a "magic fix."

This tendency goes hand in hand with our selfishness. It can be argued that we have arrived at this current mess due in large part to our own self-indulgences. Paul gives strict warning against this. Freedom brings liberty, but not license. We Americans have struggled with this. Over the years, we have treated our freedom much like a teenager left alone in the house for the first time. We have indulged ourselves on debt and debauchery, not denying ourselves anything. We can readily see the results. It has carried us down the road to destruction as a nation. And instead of accepting our responsibility for our selfishness, we have pointed the finger at others and have run to our "daddy," the government, to fix it all. This approach will not sustain our liberty. It will only ensure our continued dependence.

What Paul preaches is true. It is only when we exercise our liberty in the service of others; in the pursuit of mutual edification, that this freedom can be productive. That is the role for the Christian, and that is the role for America.

Happy Independence Day!

This piece by Bruce Walker says it all:

But when speaking of what they wrote in 1776 -- signing their own death warrants, in some respects -- they might ask us this: "We did not mean to confuse you. That is why the words we chose were so clear. You are free creatures of God. Government is your creature, your chattel, your tool -- nothing more. We studied history long before we wrote our brief statement of liberty. You own government or rather the spirit of free men owns government. You fret about ‘stuff.' Why? We are all dead now, as we knew we would be. But we chose to die free, following our consciences - that is the only real choice in life. What confused you?" The principle of liberty is easy. All it requires is courage and honor.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/remembering_what_the_declarati_1.html

Nice gesture, Helen, but it's too little, too late

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said.

“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”

When Helen Thomas starts assailing a Democrat administration, something's not quite right. Too bad the grande dame of the Washington press corps waited this long to recognize what many of us noticed during the primaries: Obama has used the press to do his bidding. He used them to take down Hillary, and then co-opted them during the campaign to demonize McCain/Palin. All the while, the considerable investigative powers of the mainstream media remained silent about Obama's more than questionable associations, his background as a "community organizer (i.e. socialist), and his lack of bona fides as an executive. Now Thomas and company are shocked to find Obama is manipulating the press with unheard of audacity? Sorry, Helen, the rest of us poor schmucks out here saw him for what he was a long time ago.

Birds of a feather flock together

"Look, a rule of thumb here. Whenever you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the Castro twins, you may want to reexamine your assumptions."




So "interfering" on behalf of the democratic protestors in Iran is off limits, but we can "interfere" on behalf of a wannabe dictator? Is this guy for real?

Michael Savage was half right

Liberalism may not be a mental disorder, but in many cases, such as this one, it is aiding and abetting the development:

In an interview with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

The child's parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.

The postmodern rejection of objective reality is at the root of this. The parents are unwilling to accept the reality of gender. Instead of teaching their child to embrace his/her unique gender qualities, they treat it as something to fear. This child will not be more "free" as the parents hope. He/she will be a prisoner of the ambiguity bestowed by the parents. How sad.

h/t Dr. Sanity

Link: http://www.thelocal.se/20232/20090623/

Here's what the voters bought last November

They should have kicked the tires first.

Here's Obama on the campaign trail:

"I pledge that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase," Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year. "Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

Here's the AP report today:

The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda.

I would say WE'VE been had, but I had enough sense not to vote for the guy.

This isn't democracy folks

The Democrats are attempting to ram the "cap and trade" bill through Congress this morning. Despite the overwhelming evidence contradicting man-made global warming, this Congress continues to press an issue which will do nothing to affect the environment, but will appease special interest groups and make our energy costs soar.

What makes matters worse, Henry Waxman dumped a last minute 300 page amendment into an already 1000 page bill at the last minute this morning. This means your representatives have less than three hours to digest this new information before they vote. Of course, the Democrats have the power of the majority in their favor.

This isn't what our founders intended: legislative legerdemain to push through one party's agenda at the expense of the people.

h/t Ed Morrissey at Hot Air
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/26/cap-and-trade-vote-today-complete-with-ap-spin/

MLB to introduce new team

Commissioner Bud Selig today announced that Major League Baseball would introduce a 31st team beginning with the 2010 season, much to the consternation of existing owners and the players union. According to Selig, the new team would be known as "Team USA" and would travel the country playing games in markets that currently don't have Major League teams.

"There's a real inequity out there currently," said Selig. "There are countless markets all across America that don't have access to Major League Baseball. Yes, there are minor league teams, but that's not fair. Everyone has a basic right to enjoy the American pastime."

What's got the players and owners in an uproar is the new funding scheme that will be put in place for Team USA. In a little noticed part of the stimulus package, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law a stipulation that the American Government will actually own this team. Bud Selig will be named "Czar of Baseball" and assume the day-to-day operations of the club. The Major League Umpires association will also be part of the advisory board that governs the team.

"We're very excited about this prospect," commented Obama. "This will truly be 'America's Team.' We're going to show the world how the government can successfully compete and bring the joy of baseball to countless Americans who previously could not access this American birthright."

New York Mets owner, Fred Wilpon, isn't as excited. "This is an outrage. The addition of this team will destroy the competitive balance of Major League Baseball."

President Obama was quick to rejoin the calls of unfairness. "This is all about fairness. We'll be subject to the same rules as everybody else. The bases will still be 90 feet apart and it's still three strikes and you're out."

Wilpon wasn't so sure. "You've got the people who make and enforce the rules playing the game. How long do you think it will be before that conflict of interest comes into play. And what's more, they're the government. They don't have to make any money at this. They can charge whatever they want and pay players whatever they want."

This point seems to be a common concern among owners and players. Under the new agreement, Team USA will play three and four game "home-stands" at a variety of publicly funded venues across the US where there are not currently MLB teams. Tickets will be distributed at no cost to the fans who request them.

"Part of the problem with baseball today," claims Obama, "is the the cost involved in attending a game. Not only are folks geographically isolated from the game, but it costs and arm and a leg to attend. We've got a whole generation of baseball fans who are losing access to the game. And for our older fans on fixed incomes, this can be tough to overcome as well."

Obama said the team plans to earn revenue by taxing the other 30 major league teams and their fan bases.

"They've enjoyed the privilege of baseball far too long without any sacrifice on their part while others have suffered without it. That's got to change."

Wilpon, speaking for the owners and players, is fearful for the survival of the game itself. "We can't compete against the government. They're charging us for their own existence, tailoring the rules to fit their needs, and expecting us to remain competitive with them. Within a few years, Team USA will make the Yankees winning streaks look like nothing. They'll own the game when the rest of us can't keep up."

"These scare tactics and fearmongers are just owners trying to protect their own pocketbooks," Obama said. "Millions of Americans have never seen a live Major League game while they're making record profits. We're going to change that and they're scared."

Partisan glee or righteous indignation?

An interesting debate has sprung up over Gov. Mark Sanford's marital indiscretion made public yesterday. A large segment of the political left is taking what can only be described as "joy" in this revelation as it has permanently damaged the national career of a potential GOP candidate. The media has, of course, gone into full frenzy, opining here, there, and everywhere, and drooling over the salacious details of e-mail messages between Sanford and his Argentinian mistress. At issue here is just how should we react to personal failings of our elected leaders? And what is the media's role in this.

From a personal standpoint, John Dickerson from Slate, puts things into perspective quite nicely:

The snap judgments failed to acknowledge a grain of the fundamental human carnage we were witnessing. You can laugh at Sanford, as you can laugh at a video of a wrecked Amy Winehouse falling all over her house. But at some point, even though they did it to themselves, you have to feel sorry for them as human beings. You can do that, I think, and not be a fan of adultery or drug use.
I'm not offering Sanford's humanity as an excuse. I'm just marveling at how few people stopped for a moment to even nod to it.

Our leaders need to be held to a standard; however often we forget how human they are. In this case, beyond the political import of Sanford's actions, is a family in ruins: a wife and four children to be exact. Long after the ashes of Sanford's political flame out have burned out, the personal scars for him and his family will endure.

On the media front, it is interesting to note the contrast in how this instance was treated compared to John Edwards' affair. Both men were presidential aspirants, albeit Edwards was actively campaigning. Edwards' wife had even been diagnosed with cancer. It's odd that the National Enquirer, of all outlets, had to break the Edwards story. In Sanford's case, the mainstream media was all over his "Appalachian Trail" disappearance and had the e-mail messages ready for print mere hours after his press conference confession. Does it seem odd to anyone else that an affair by a campaigning presidential candidate could fly under the radar of the collective investigative resources of the national media, while the governor of South Carolina is under more apparent media scrutiny than a terrorist at CTU? One subject was a Democrat, and another a Republican. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which and whether or not it makes a difference.

Obama uses planted questions at press conference

And still refuses to answer them. Dana Milbank from the Washington Post exposes Obama's ruse from yesterday:

In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted "All My Children," "Days of Our Lives" and "The Young and the Restless." But the soap viewers shouldn't have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.
After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.
Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"
Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Sadly, even then, Obama didn't really answer the question. As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air noted, what a way to show solidarity with the Iranians seeking openness and honesty from their government: co-opt the media for your own purposes. Shame on the Huffington Post for participating in such a scam, and shame on our President for selfishly mocking the notion of a free press.

Props to Dana Milbank. He's no conservative, to be sure. I respect his willingness to call out Obama on this travesty.

Homeostatic differentiation and the Church

An important biological principle guides our behavior within the systems we inhabit: Homeostatic differentiation. Simply put, we tend to gravitate toward a position of "balance" in the systems we inhabit. The two poles are fusion, in which we are totally enmeshed with the system, and isolation, in which we become cut off from the system. Neither polar position is comfortable or health, so we will gravitate toward a balanced, or differentiated position. This principle has major implications for understanding the psychology of the Church and how its members function.

First, we must deal with the notion of "holiness." We are called by God to be "set apart" from the world. This is not a call for cut-off, but for differentiation. We are to be "in the world, but not of the world." The Church must understand that we have been give privilege as children of God. Membership in the Lord's Church, if we understand it correctly, automatically puts us in a healthy position. We are part of the most privileged group in the universe: the eternal Kingdom of God. At the same time, we are set apart from the world.

This phenomenon is often visible in the world as well, but with one important distinction: the presence of power. There are many groups that offer their members a sense of distinction; a notion that they are privileged members of an elite organization. The difference between these groups and the Church is, or at least should be, that these groups use power to cut-off from those who are not members. The Church is "holy." We are differentiated in Christ. What's different, however, is that we are cast in a servant's role, not one of Lordship. The Church should never take up a position of elitism or superiority. If we do that, then we are no different than the local country club or some college fraternity.

The Church must be on guard not to fall into a pathological state of differentiation. Worldly groups gravitate towards two ends to display their uniqueness: the aforementioned power plays, or, if power is inaccessible, envy or opposition. Since they cannot exert their power to prove their uniqueness, they reject those on the outside or try to tear them down. This is a "sour grapes" mentality. Sadly, I see this happening all too often in the Church as well. Instead of continuing to engage the world and serve them in the love of Christ, we vilify those whom we perceive as our persecutors. This is in opposition to how Christ taught us to treat our enemies.

Membership in the Body of Christ is true differentiation. We share in the power of God, but not for selfish means or personal exaltation. We do not envy, but we share. We do not aim for exclusivity, but for inclusion of the entire world. That is the mission given us by Jesus.

He certainly does have audacity

"I don't want to speculate on hypotheticals," Obama said. "But I want ... to give assurances to the American people that the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted in terms of what might happen."
"What we're not going to do is to reward belligerence and provocation in the way that's been done in the past," he said.

Unbelievable. This is beyond dishonest. How long can he continue to scapegoat others before he's forced to take responsibility?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_nkorea

The Fourth Estate has filed for bankruptcy

If the fawning coverage for Candidate Obama weren't enough, the over-the-top worship of President Obama is too much. Our nation's media has always played an integral role in securing our freedom, serving as an independent "watchdog" on those in power. The watchdog which was so much the pit bull during the Bush administration is now a sycophantic lap dog. Witness these statements:

Newsweek's Evan Thomas:

Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is - we are above that now. We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something, I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above above the world, he's sort of God.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews (he of the "tingling leg"):

"Joining me now a couple of heavyweights. Howard Dean the man who really laid out the path for Barack Obama. He was the St. John the Baptist, I'd say, leading for that fellow, not to make any further reference there to the Deity."

Heaven help us!

The Last Word on Tolerance: WWJD?

We've looked at Paul's exhortations to the Romans in great detail. Now let's examine how Jesus, our ultimate guide and authority on all matters, tolerated others during his ministry. Two instances come to mind immediately which represent opposite approaches to tolerating others: Jesus' dealing with the adulteress and his response to the moneychangers at the temple.

With the adulteress, Jesus is confronted with a woman who was caught in the act of adultery. Yet, rather than condemn her, Jesus turns the tables on her accusers and challenges the person without sin to "cast the first stone." Then, after the accusers depart, Jesus firmly instructs the woman to "go and sin no more." With the moneychangers, Jesus becomes enraged, turning over the tables of the moneychangers, who had turned the Temple into a marketplace. What can we take from these two scenes?

First, Jesus draws a clear line between personal sin and spiritual sin. On many occasions, Jesus shows grace and mercy to those who have succumbed to the temptations of the flesh. His tolerance is not a turning away, mind you. He clearly calls out sin for what it is. But his approach to these sins invites the sinner to repentance. He extends grace and mercy to the offender rather than jumping immediately to condemnation like the accusers of the adulteress.

Second, with regard to the spiritual sin, Jesus has zero tolerance for that. For those who desecrate the Temple and bring dishonor to God, Jesus has the harshest rebukes. Such is the same for the Pharisees, when Jesus chastises them. Their self-righteousness is causing others to stumble and bringing dishonor to the Father, whom they claim to represent.

Finally, let's look at a passage in Matthew 13 that gives us insight in how we are to go about judging others:

24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

In this parable, Jesus instructs us not to take on the job of "kingdom gardeners." It is not our responsibility to "weed out" those whom we feel are unproductive. We are not equipped with the wisdom to do so. That task is to be left to God on judgment day. Too often in today's church, leaders have positioned themselves as such gardeners and have indeed "rooted up wheat" along with the "weeds."

In summary, Jesus teaches us that it's not about what we do in response to sin, but how we approach the sinner. The Pharisees approached sinners in a judgmental, legalistic manner that guaranteed condemnation. Jesus, on the other hand, approached the sinner with grace and mercy and opportunity for redemption.

We are called toward a ministry of reconciliation with those around us. Our aim is to bring as many as will come to a relationship with the Father through knowledge of the Son. That is our commission. We are not commissioned to enter into judgment and condemnation. To do so means that we put our own souls in peril.

Everyone, Joe?

Vice President Joe Biden says “everyone guessed wrong” on the impact of the economic stimulus. O rly?

Follow these links for the exceptions to "everyone" including 200 economists who took out an ad saying as much. Economics does have a history, Mr. Biden. We can see what has worked and what hasn't. I don't know what disturbs me more: this administration's seeming ignorance of economic theory or the fact that apparently they're spending trillions of taxpayer dollars and ruining our children's futures based on guesswork. Or maybe that Mr. Biden seems reticent to take on any responsibility for this disaster. Guessed wrong? Was the White House consulting the Magic 8 Ball for advice?

A manager who calls a pitchout when a runner isn't stealing guessed wrong. He's just playing a hunch. Please tell me that the current leaders of the free world aren't just acting on their "gut" instinct. Maybe someone will listen to me the next time we have someone whose never met a payroll running for the presidency. This office is not the place for on-the-job-training.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/mound-city-money/us-economy/2009/01/economists-say-stimulus-wont-work/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/60944.html

http://www.gop.gov/wtas/09/02/13/analysis-stimulus-wont-jump-start

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aYsGEY5BGO2E

Causing my brother to stumble

The church today is divided. That much cannot be debated. There are the obvious denominational divisions, but more troubling is the division in the Catholic (universal) church and the Churches of Christ whose beginning vision was to restore the unity of the first century church. These two "brands" of Christianity are uniquely dedicated to unity, yet because of unyielding obeisance to matters not of the cross, (Latin mass, priestly celibacy, a capella worship, institutional financial support, etc.) there is animosity and bitterness within the brotherhood.

To be clear, we're not discussing issues that bring about legitimate division here. For example, much has been made about certain Catholic politicians support of abortion and their ability to remain part of the communion. The position one holds on the sanctity of human life cannot be open to debate. What is disturbing are the divisions within the body over cultural practices and non-essential doctrines that are in effect hampering the body's ability to function effectively for the cause of Christ. Paul addressed this to the Romans as well:

19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.

20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.

21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Paul sets the standard pretty clearly here. There are two main objectives with regard to the practice of our Christianity:

1. Whatever we do should be done for the pursuit of peace, edification, and encouragement of the Body of Christ so that His work might be done. Paul makes it very clear here and throughout his epistles that Christ's sacrifice freed us from making the legalistic determinations that plagued the Pharisees. "All things are clean." In I Corinthians 10:23, Paul clarifies this even further by saying, "All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial." Rather than getting caught up in divisive debates, Paul exhorts the Roman Christians to seek out the edification and encouragement of one another. What if the church today had that attitude?

2. Paul very emphatically tells us that our practice must be grounded in faith. This would preclude practice by rote, which is all too present today. Related to the first principle, Paul tells us that we should be careful not to do anything that would cause our brother to stumble.

Can the church return to this ideal: a faith and practice that is truly concerned with the unity of the body rather than pursuit of self-righteousness? That is our call, and we will not be acting as the Body of Christ until we can get there.

Why do you judge your brother?

Clearly, the contemporary church has a problem with judgmental attitudes. The focus of today's post will deal with judgmental attitudes within the church. We obviously have great problems with our unChristian attitudes to those on the "outside" (see Barna Group findings), but dealing with those will have to wait for another day. If we are to truly love our neighbors as ourselves, we need to start doing a more Christlike job of loving one another.

Paul asks this question to the Roman Christians, a multicultural group if there ever was one:

10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Far too many times have I witnessed the contempt that Paul speaks of within the church. I have heard sermons from Baptists bashing Lutherans and Methodists. I've heard Catholics speak of Protestants as being "unsaved" and vice versa. And within my own fellowship, the churches of Christ, we have hundreds of issues that have brought about division and a loss of fellowship. There's no tactful way to describe these conditions: They are wrong! They are sinful in the eyes of God!

Paul admonishes the Romans later on in Chapter 14, saying this:

13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;

17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Paul is primarily addressing the Jewish Christians within Rome here. They had taken up a self-righteous attitude toward the Gentile converts in Rome who did not share their Mosaic traditional history. Paul does a fantastic job of differentiating here. He pays respect to the Jewish traditions from which he himself descends. At the same time, he warns the Jewish Christians not to let these traditions become a "stumbling block" to the Gentile converts. There is a "bottom line" here, according to Paul: In Christ, we need to be about righteousness, peace, and joy, united in the Holy Spirit. None of our traditional practices is going to bring that about.

If we as Christians are to begin retaking our influential place in the world, we first are going to have to drop these petty arguments that bring about division. When we cast down our brother or sister in the name of women wearing dresses, kitchens in the church building, the nature of the communion wine, and yes, even a capella worship, we are not being righteous. We are being self-righteous, unfairly condemning our brother who does not share in our tradition. This does not bring forth peace or joy, but conflict and bitterness. We can be sure such divisions are not the result of the Holy Spirit.

What is tolerance?

Yesterday, we looked at an example of worldly "tolerance," the Orwellian notion that any special interest group can shout down the mainstream with impunity. Today, let's examine what tolerance should look like in God's Kingdom. His standard is and always will be the one we should be seeking.

Romans 14 offers an excellent discourse on tolerating difference. Here, Paul is addressing the Roman Christians, a melange of traditions and ideas if there ever was one. Here, occupying the same "faith ground" were converted Jews,Greeks, and Romans. This was truly a "multicultural" society. What is important here is Paul's emphasis on what unites them, not what divides them:

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.

3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Here, Paul is addressing the issue of religious practice based on cultural tradition. In short, he instructs the Roman Christians to "back off" their insistence on cultural purity and focus on Christ. It's not about the "how," it's about the "what." Paul summarizes this ideas in verses 5 and 6:

5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

To be tolerant, Paul is saying, we must have confidence in our own faith; indeed, we must be so confident that we can tolerate those who deviate from our own practices. Note that Paul is not tolerating any deviance regarding Christ or who He is. What he does make allowance for are differences of practice based on cultural tradition. He encourages the Roman Christians not to let these issues become points of division in the Church.

Where are we today with regard to this facet of tolerance? Is the church practicing tolerance? Or are we getting caught up in petty differences that lead to division?

Tolerance pt. 1

Much is made in our society about being "tolerant." What exactly does that mean? What should it mean for the contemporary Christian. The accusation is oft made against Christians that we just aren't "tolerant" enough. These next few posts will attempt to explore this slippery issue and answer a few key questions: What is tolerance? Are we Christians tolerant of others? Should we be tolerant of sin? How did Jesus deal with the issue of tolerance.

Today, let's look at a brief, but illuminating illustration of what tolerance isn't...by any objective standard. The great irony is that this statement is uttered by an activist fighting for greater tolerance of his special interest group, gays and lesbians:

"We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — I'm trying to find a way to say this. I'm trying not to say, '[F—] 'em!' which is what I want to say, because I don't care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!"

That's Greg Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSN) and recent appointee to the Department of Education. He doesn't sound all that tolerant! Apparently, Mr. Jennings definition of tolerance is this: Hold firm to what you believe in and arrogantly attempt to squash all who might oppose you.

Sadly, this too often what passes for tolerance in today's PC culture. Even more sad is the prevalence of those in Christendom who have taken up the same tactic, assuming the role of the shouting victim. As we will examine further, this is not the scriptural model for tolerance. We Christians certainly have some work to do in this area and a long way to go before we can assume our place as Christ-like role models for the rest of the world.

I'm baaaaaack

And on the roles of the unemployed, still awaiting my magic unicorn. In the meantime, I'm pursuing job leads and praying...a lot. Just in case Evan Thomas' god can't come through for me, I'll back it up with prayer to the creator of the universe and a little elbow grease on my part.

I'm taking today to get some things in order. Lord willing, I'll be on every day for awhile sharing some thoughts I've had recently.

Thanks to the substitutes

I am free today, thanks to the substitutes: Men and women who sacrificed their lives when I was either unable or unwilling to sacrifice mine. Their memories echo through the centuries. They deserve honor above all who have ever lived.

Wow, what a week! It's been pretty hairy around here. My focus right now is on my job search and finishing out the school year. I'll be back on these pages as soon as my life has settled down a little bit. I'll be sure to alert the media at large when I return :-)

God Bless.

We are fearfully and wonderfully made

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!"

Hamlet, Act II, scene ii

God's handiwork can indeed be witnessed in his ultimate creation: us. The systemic nature of God's entire creation is on display in the human anatomy. Our interactive functioning mirrors that of all creation. With that knowledge, it is puzzling to me how we miss this simple but critical truth about our existence with regard to our day-to-day decision making. How often do we ignore our interrelatedness and treat ourselves and others as isolated beings? What a difference it would make if we could truly see ourselves and our world as we are!

I'm going to attempt a series of entries over the next several days addressing this principle. I don't know how faithful I'll be, as I'm in the middle of a lot of personal and professional transition. I think this information is of the utmost importance, however, and I look forward to your feedback as I post my thoughts.

Happy Mother's Day!

This is my first Mother's Day without my mom. She passed this past November. God sent His son to show us all what real love was...and then He sent my mom to show that to me personally. In honor of my mom, I'm posting what I said about her at her funeral:

Naomi, Aunt Nay, Mammaw, Sis, Mom…Naomi Fay Chapman Fights certainly wore a lot of names. All of these names represent what she meant to different people and the impact she had on their lives. The life we honor and remember today was lived, not in the spotlight, like so many of the Grand Ole Opry stars she adored as a youngster, but behind the scenes. Naomi rarely sought the attention and accolades of others, instead preferring to operate more subtly, encouraging, loving, and most importantly, living a life of faith and service to those around her. The history books won’t record the life and times of this woman, but the impact of her life on those whom she loved will be eternally etched in their lives. Now that her days here have drawn to a close, it is appropriate that tribute finally be paid to Naomi.

Proverbs 31 speaks of this “woman of noble character.” The writer here easily could have been describing Naomi. (Proverbs 31:29-31) She cared for so many. She anonymously toiled so that others might be lifted up.

Though a woman of modest means, Naomi’s charitable giving was unparalleled. Money, to Naomi, wasn’t a means for self-gratification. It was a way to help and bring joy to others. Some of you here have accompanied Naomi on her famous shopping trips, especially Pam and Alysa. You know only too well her penchant for “closing down the stores.” Yet, at the end of the day, when Naomi emerged from Walmart, or Kohl’s, or Penney’s, overburdened with bags full of merchandise, very little of what was purchased was for her. She couldn’t resist a pretty new dress for her granddaughter, or the UK shirt for her son, or even the cute baby outfit for a little girl she only knew through her sister. Naomi’s generosity was unrivaled. She proudly proclaimed her desire to share her modest gains with those she loved so she could experience the joy with them. I think everyone would agree; she accomplished that mission.

And if she was modestly blessed materially, Naomi was a wealthy woman when it came to love and happiness. All of us here can look back with warm and fond recollections of Naomi’s sharing of those gifts. To Naomi, family was everything. Above all things in the world, she valued the love of her family. Aunt Nay never forgot a niece or nephew’s birthday. She rejoiced in their triumphs: graduations, weddings, the birth of their children. One of her most fervent prayers was for the health and happiness of her nieces and nephews.

In 2000, Naomi gained special status when she became “mammaw.” Although apprehensive of flying, she was quickly in Florida to see her new grandson. In 2004, that honor was bestowed again when Olivia was born. When we moved back to Ohio later in 2004, mom opened up her home to us while we looked for a house. From then on, “Mammaw’s house” held a special place in Bryson and Olivia’s hearts. In 2007, Mammaw sold her house and came to live with us. Bryson and Olivia relished going downstairs to Mammaw’s because she always had some sort of sweet treat there for them, even when they hadn’t finished their supper. Bryson regularly asked if he could “stay with mammaw” on Friday nights. The two of them would watch “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader” together. Likewise, Olivia needed her time to play with “Neemaw.” Whether it was pretend dishes prepared in the toy kitchen Neemaw got her one Christmas, or playing pretend with her Dora house, Neemaw was Olivia’s favorite playmate. The memories created there will stay with Bryson and Olivia a lifetime.

“Sister,” or “Sis” was a special name known to her brothers and sister and their spouses. Sis never differentiated between her siblings or their spouses. Each was as blood to her. Sis was both protective of and protected by her brothers. As Jimmy struggled with cancer, she stood vigil by his bedside, sharing memories of their childhood. Though separated by miles, she took every opportunity to do the same with only elder sibling, Leeroy. Norman, despite having shot her in the belly with a BB gun (after she bit him in the leg for drowning her doll) was special to her. He was the “keeper of family stories.” How many times did she engage Norman in conversations about aunts and uncles and cousins? Gwin was very special to her as well. Closest in proximity to her house, she loved feeding Gwin whenever possible. Whenever she fixed a mess of beans or fried potatoes, she’d either invite Gwin or comment on how much he loved them. Allan, the baby brother was a source of great pride. She bragged about his accomplishments often, and relished the time they spent together at his home in Kentucky. How her eyes would light up whenever she heard that he and Bev were going to be visiting.

There was a special bond, however, with her only sister, Pam. They laughed together at how often store clerks would confuse them for mother and daughter. The bond of their relationship reflected that even if the biology didn’t. They were always there for each other. When Naomi was going through her ordeal with Bill’s family, Pam was there to comfort her and open up her home. And of course, here at the end, it was Pam who nursed her, cared for every need, and provided the loving comfort that only she could give. In between, was a lifetime of treasured memories, countless hours on the phone, marathon shopping trips, and of course their famous expeditions to Florida and Minnesota as “Thelma and Louise.” I’ll never forget how the two of them laughed and spread their joy at being together to everyone around them. Their bond as sisters could only be broken by death.

Finally, let me address the final name, the one I knew her by: Mom. Before I get to me, let me share with you the love my mom had for her “daughter,” Alysa. Many stories of horror and negativity have been passed down about the traditional relationship between mother and daughter-in-law. My mom, like most, was protective of me. Not just anyone would be good enough to care for her only boy. Alysa was that woman. She commented to me often about how grateful she was that God had put Alysa in our lives. And when she came to live with us, you might think it was Alysa who had to worry about crossing a line and having to deal with a mom defending her son. No, if Mom thought I was out of line, or not doing right by Alysa, she let me know in no uncertain terms. She loved her “daughter” (as she liked to write in greeting cards) immensely.

As for me, it’s pretty simple. Mom gave everything for me. Being a single mom, especially in her time and place, was a difficult proposition to say the least. I can’t tell you the number of children I’ve worked with over the years who’ve had similar circumstances as I did. Their troubles and struggles were lacking one thing I never lacked though: the unconditional, undying love of a mother.

Mom gave me many things: food, clothes, a roof over my head. She worked long hours at Formica and saved every penny so that I could go to college. Even in my adult life, even when she lived in my house, even when she lay in that hospital bed, on question always came from her lips: Do you need anything? Well, mom, here is my response: No, I don’t need anything because you gave me the most important thing anyone could ever have: the love of Christ. You showed me what that love looks like and modeled his grace and humility every day of your life. So no, mom, I don’t need anything else. That’ll be quite enough for me to get by. Now you go home and rest.

I love you mom.

The Quest for Popularity and Celebrity

Great read here by Greg Hengler:


The popular and famous validate us. We might all lust for the material things and the fame that they attain, but because we can not reach that goal, we take satisfaction in seeing that they made it to the "promised land" and found it empty. We need to know that it is not enough -- you can have it all and still have nothing.
Now for the politically incorrect moral of my story: We are all searching for something to validate our life. We inherently know that what the world offers is crap. When we stop trying to find validation, identity, and popularity from the world, we will be on the right road. This road will reveal that there is only one way to the Promised Land, and the God who opens the doors does not sin, fail, or die. Furthermore, following God is one of the few guaranteed roads to unpopularity. Just ask the cowboy.

http://townhall.com/blog/g/ca0ac353-0e4a-484e-9c7e-12f6b4ebda1d

Empathy v. Law

Thomas Sowell is one of the wisest men in our nation. If you don't read him regularly, start. Don't miss a word of the wisdom he regularly imparts. This week's edition:

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with “empathy” for groups A, B, and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y, or Z? Nothing could be farther from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with “empathy” for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzM0MzdiMTVhZTgxNmE5ZGYzZWY3M2UyNDQ3NjI3NWY=

Update on DC vouchers: Flip-flops and hypocrisy

The Obama administration, responding to the outcry from angry parents, has decided to allow the DC voucher plan to continue for existing students, but not to allow any more students to enroll. Explaining their tortuous logic is Education Secretary Arne Duncan:

Education Secretary Arne Duncan had told reporters that it didn't make sense "to take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning," but Democrats effectively terminated the program by requiring its reauthorization. Obama must now convince Democratic lawmakers to endorse a gradual phase out by continuing to include grant funding in future appropriation bills.

So let's see if I get this: This is a successful program that produces kids who are "safe, happy, satisfied, and learning" and it wouldn't make sense to remove them. But it does somehow make sense not to let any more students take advantage of this opportunity?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/06/obama_proposes_extending_dc_vo.html?wprss=44
Anybody want to take a stab at explaining this to me?

When will enough be enough?

I'm waiting for some Democrats to stand up, speak out, and say "Enough!" How long are you going to tolerate the erosion of our liberties in the name of "fairness"? This is serious stuff, folks. It's not hyperbole. This administration has thus far exhibited little respect for the Constitution, preferring instead to mold it and remake the rules to fit whatever agenda they have. That's a recipe for tyranny. Here's the most recent chilling affront to our freedom:

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/7097.html#more-7097

Obama has nominated Cass Sunstein, who he knows from the University of Chicago, to be “regulatory czar.” Apparently, Sunstein has proposed that web sites be required to link to opposing opinions. He has argued that the Internet is anti-democratic because users can choose to view only those opinions that they want to see, and has gone so far as to say:
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.

No hope and change for Mrs. Campbell

"We voted for you, we walked, we went to the parade, we stood freezing. Why?...Can you get this tape over to Obama and have him answer our questions? Why, sir, why?"

http://reason.com/blog/show/133298.html

Mrs. Ingrid Campbell has a right to wonder why her daughter isn't afforded the same opportunity the president has for his daughters, the same opportunity being exercised by a large majority of Congress who is killing this proven successful program.

This is special interest politics at its worst. Obama promised "hope and change." He captured the faith of average folk like Ingrid Campbell. But he's not going to take on the NEA in order to help her child. It's politics as usual in Washington, Mrs. Campbell. I'm sorry you sacrificed so much for so little.

The real war

Dr. Zero at Hot Air nails it:

"Collectivist politics of any stripe requires enemies, because they rely upon coercion. Socialist utopias don’t come into existence spontaneously. There would be no need for confiscatory tax rates on the wealthy, if the wealthy voluntarily used their money to buy cars and houses for everyone in the lower income brackets, without requiring them to work in return. Nobody would be talking about nationalizing health care if doctors and hospital staff were happy to work eighty hour weeks for minimum wage, and pharmaceutical companies were run as giant charities that cheerfully sank billions into developing drugs they resell at cost. Few people would leave a sizable chunk of their estates to the government, if the government didn’t seize the money through death taxes. No large group of people on Earth has every freely chosen to peacefully organize themselves into a socialist collective – they either slip into it through small losses of freedom that seem relatively painless as they happen, or they are forced into it at gunpoint. If Franklin Delano Roosevelt had proposed Obama’s current budget and regulatory plans at the outset of the New Deal, he would have been laughed out of office, and if he had attempted to impose Obama’s policies by force, he would have needed infantry platoons and tanks."

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/05/02/the-necessary-enemy/

The war on capitalism is the central front in this culture war. Without economic freedom, there is no freedom anywhere. John Locke understood this which is why property was enumerated along with life and liberty as inalienable human rights. It is ironic that this group so keen to protect the "human rights" of terrorists who have conspired to rob others of their lives are also at the front of this effort to blur and even erase private property rights.

Time outs in life.

When I was coaching, there were times when I sensed that the game was getting out of hand. Times when my players were confused, daunted by the other team, just not getting the job done. It was time for a time out. Time to regroup, to regain our composure. I had five of them at my disposal every game, so I had to be judicious with their use, but other than that, nothing was lost. The clock stopped, so we didn't lose any opportunities. Life's just not that way.

When we feel confused, overwhelmed, daunted by the events and conflicts of our lives, there is no "time out" rule we can employ. The clock continues to tick, no matter how well we're doing. There are "in-game" strategies we can employ, however.

One of the things I learned in coaching was when to deviate from the game plan. That was a key decision. The real decision was whether the plan was faulty, or just our execution of it. That's a decision I often have to make in life, one I'm trying to make right now. Do I stick with the plan, even though it's not working real well right now? Do I make adjustments? Do I scrap it altogether and start anew?

These are the questions I have to ask myself from time to time. This weekend I have the chance to get away. Yeah, the clock will keep ticking, and those troubles and conflicts I'm facing will still be here on Monday, but I have a chance to change my scenery, to be amongst family and friends, and gain a new perspective. That's what the time out actually does any way. It allows the team to refocus, to gain the coach's perspective on what's going on out on the floor.

I'm going to go to the "bench" this weekend and seek out my coach's perspective. He's a great coach, after all. He's already won the game. I should be careful to listen to what He has to say.

We are the Body

God knows, and some of you do too, how much I've been struggling recently with the church. I've witnessed far too much hypocrisy, poor leadership, and dare I say, "pharisaic" attitudes within the body. Yesterday, however, God showed me and reminded me of what the church is all about.

A dear friend and colleague of mine was in dire straits. She had to have emergency surgery and the doctors weren't confident she would survive. It was in this context I witnessed the power of the Body of Christ. I saw it instantly mobilized through prayer. I saw my friend's husband, also a colleague, inundated with love and support from the church. In his hour of crisis, when he was weak, the Body of Christ lifted him up. I heard the prayers asking for God to guide the doctors and to heal our friend. I saw his grace be poured down on us like the rain that we see this season, giving new life to all. I saw the strength provided by a common love, confident in His ability to heal, and at worst (for us) confidence that ultimately He would provide the victory over death.

I was but a bystander yesterday, one of many praying and expressing support. I can only guess at what God did for my friend and her husband yesterday. I know, however, what He did for me. I wasn't the one in the operating room, yet I was healed yesterday. I needed reminding that the church is fallible. We are human and prone to error. Unfortunately, I've been looking too much at the error and not enough at the grace and love which still abound in His Body.

I think I've allowed myself to be a victim of Satan's deception. He wants me cynical. He wants me to lose faith in the Body; it's only a short trip then to losing faith in the Father. Yesterday, God boldly announced His presence in my world. Thank you God for doing that.

Death, Be Not Proud

Death surrounds us. It envelopes us like the heavy air of an August evening. From the moment we are born, the countdown has begun. We are all aware of the undeniable certainty that all things that live must die.

Death comes in and out of our lives, never ceasing to remind us of our own mortality. Remember that pet when you were a kid? Maybe your grandparents? Your parents? A trusted old friend? Maybe the specter of death has even approached you! Maybe you have realized just how temporal this "mortal coil" really is. Yes, Death wants us to know how powerful he is, that one day, no matter how hard we fight, no matter what we do, he will come calling for us.

Two thousand years ago, Death came calling on a hill in Jerusalem, Golgotha. It seemed like another victory, as Death followed the victim to the tomb. The tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, but Death craved the body inside, a man known as Jesus of Nazareth. But this was no ordinary man; this was the Son of God. Unlike with every other man who has or ever will live, Death could not claim Jesus. He had power over the grave.

Today, we can share in that power. We can celebrate the fact that His followers found an empty tomb. We celebrate that angel's victorious words: "Why do you seek the living among the dead?" We can celebrate because Jesus' victory wasn't for Him, but for us. Because He lives, I do...and so do you! As Christians, we can be thankful that when Death comes for us, Jesus will be there waiting, saying, "You can't have this one. He's mine. I paid for him with with my blood. He is ransomed."


John Donne

72. "Death be not proud, though some have called thee"

DEATH be not proud, though some have called thee

Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so,

For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,

Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me.

From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,
5
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,

And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,

Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.

Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,

And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,
10
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,

And better then thy stroake; why swell'st thou then;

One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,

And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.

Hallelujah!

Did the Bengals just have a good draft?

The Rays were in the World Series last Fall, we elected an African-American president, Arizona made the Super Bowl, and now...the Bengals had what can only be termed as a "smart" draft. The Mayans might be a couple of years late! Contrary to recent form, the Bengals draft this weekend a) actually addressed positions of need b) contained picks in which they got exceptional value for the position, and c) contained no "reaches" or players thought to be picked way beyond their draft slot. In other words, the Bengals braintrust actually resembled a solid professional football franchise. Yes, their second sixth-round pick has some "baggage," but even he has been clean for two years while attending a Christian college. No Chris Henry's or AJ Nicholson's in this draft for the Bengals.

I'm encouraged especially by the first three rounds. They got a potential Pro Bowl offensive tackle, a stud middle linebacker who could anchor the defense for a decade, the best past rushing defensive end in the draft, and the Mackey Award winner at tight end. Then, in the fourth round, they addressed a glaring need at center with the kid from Arkansas. They picked up Huber, a local product, to compete at punter, and got some guys who will actually compete at training camp rather than just be training camp practice fodder. For the first time in a long time, I'm actually encouraged about training camp.

But if the Cubs win the World Series this year, I'm heading for the hills.

The faith of a mustard seed

I've discovered that the size of a mustard seed is proportional to the amount of uncertainty in one's future. For me, right now, that mustard seed seems to be the size of Jupiter. I just can't seem to garner enough faith.

I tell myself all the right things. I have others similarly encouraging me, and I'm grateful for that. Even still, doubt lingers around every corner. You see, no matter what scripture teaches me, no matter what other say to encourage me, I still have my own record. That record shows me too many times failed, too many poor decisions, too many times when my wisdom was proven to be folly. God is great, but is He big enough to save me from myself? That's what I wonder.

Dialogue (kind of) with a liberal

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to engage (briefly...liberals, in my experience are "one and done" in debates) a liberal. The point of contention was my link to the post below. Here's an excerpt:

Liberal: You behold the recent "tea parties" as if they were some new movement. If that's the case, then where were the surprising numbers of Obama voters who attended those rallies in support? In the coverage I saw, there were just tax complainers (who almost certainly never voted for this President). And that's not surprising since the last election was only 53-47, and THAT in the wake of the Bush albatross. But new? Only seems like repackaging to me. You say it's not about the present taxes for you, it's about the future. But if simple patriotic Americans like you can see our economic future so clearly, why didn't you also see that the sub-prime mess & credit-default swaps might nearly bring our entire economy down? Oh, right, that realization might've involved government regulation & stifling free market enterprise/profits. I don't want government "staying out of the way" in such instances. So, thanks, I guess, but I'm going with the other guy. I think he's smarter & more prescient than your side. No, taxes and government will not create wealth. But then if you & I talk about wealth, I doubt we're talking about the same things. Reading Herman E Daly's "Beyond Growth" might provide a starting point, but I digress. I believe Obama's aim, through tax credits, small business loans, public emphasis & much cheerleading is to help launch a smarter, leaner, more eco-friendly wave of entrepreneurship that will redefine & recreate American business, and how it's regarded in the world. My hope (& I think his) is that such a renewal will help support a tax system that attempts to provide the truly critical services for its hundreds of millions of citizens. Tea parties? Please.

Me: There probably would've been more Obama voters turn out if the organizers had gotten some hip bands to play. That seemed to work during the campaign. We've been over and over the subprime mess. Yes, the Bush administration has to shoulder their share of the blame. So does a Democratic Congress and previous administration that provided the incentives through their involvement to create the sub-prime lending problem. You conveniently ignore the fact that it was NOT a free market that got us into this mess. Rather it was the government's overinvolvement in the market that discounted what would've been normal market forces. Most of the lenders simply wouldn't have given the loans to such risky clients. But the govt. made it worth their while to do so in order to accomplish some grand scheme of social engineering. Had the govt. stayed out of the way in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about the need for more regulation. But then again, that's the nature of liberal policy: create a need, and then fill it.
I don't doubt that you're after some overhauled sense of the American economy. It most certainly will "redefine" American business. History shows me, however, it will not promote growth. I'll invite you to read any of Paul Johnson's historical works, particularly "Modern Times" as well as Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed." Indeed, your side isn't trumpeting anything new either. These failed policies have been tried in the past to disastrous ends.

Liberal: Now I wouldn't presume to speak for any other Obama supporter, but I am certainly one. And I admit I take a fair amount of pleasure in seeing the near-apoplectic reactions that spew forth with each new thing this President does. At least I bet we can agree that it hasn't been a dull first 100 days. And there's been little that Obama's suggested or pursued in this time that he hadn't indicated he favored before the election. With each new enraged complaint, I'm seeing more of the change I can believe in.

Me: I've never questioned Obama's not sticking to his agenda. It was clear for anyone who wanted to see it during the campaign. He's just a little more brazen about it now. I believe in his desire to change things as well...and it frightens me for our future, as it should anyone who has even the slightest knowledge about history.

Liberal: Just wait till the health care legislation debate reaches full volume. The cries of socialism will be deafening. Oh, I didn't notice health care reform & insurance among the critical government services you see a need to rely upon. How convenient. Maybe it's because I worked so long in healthcare related fields & with the disabled & had to witness so many lives and families ruined by lack of adequate insurance that provision or availability of such insurance is a big deal to me. While my own insurance is still perfectly adequate, such is not the case for many average, patriotic Americans. You really want to talk about "For the People"? Then explain to the perhaps 20% of workers w/o healthcare coverage or to those families who have no way to pay for coverage or their medical expenses just how your tea parties are going to help them. Good luck with that. Perhaps this is an area where Republicans & Democrats in Congress can reach some compromise. If private health insurance companies really want to address availability of coverage & preexisting medical conditions, then talk of bipartisan approaches may yet yield some benefit.

Me: Here your rant reaches full throat. I too have worked in health-care related fields. I'm sure there are those who are not adequately covered, many of whom are so through their own volition and some through their own negligence. That is tragic, but there will never be a system that makes up for poor decision making. That's the nirvana that liberals have been trying to accomplish for decades, only to produce the opposite of what they intended (see the War on Poverty). You all don't understand the people. That is apparent now, and is always apparent with the policy. You look down on them to be pitied. You then try to control their behavior through some misplaced sense of compassion. You ignore these facts: This cannot be done, and even if it could, you rob people of their essence: their liberty.
It's pretty simple: you want some sort of pie-in-the-sky preconceived outcome for the people (your version of equality). I want, and what the American experiment is based on, is individual liberty...the innate ability for the individual to determine his own destiny. That is worth more than silver and gold.
So you and your colleagues may continue to laugh all the while. The essence of liberty will never die, and people like me will continue to champion it in the face of those who would like to limit it, whatever the cost.

Lessons to be learned:

1. Liberals really can't do logical debate. Generally, they're starting from a flawed premise, so further rejoinders are out of reach for them.

2. Said flawed premise is usually something quite well-intentioned. By no means do I believe liberals are "evil." Deluded perhaps, but not evil.

3. At the root of liberal policy is a need to condescend. "Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves." To be sure, there are those on the right with this mentality as well (the "church ladies"). But these "anointed" to use Sowell's term, regularly seek the power to implement their condescending policies. Sadly, but not surprisingly, they produce the opposite effect of what they seek.