The First Epistle of Mark

answer to prayer

2009-07-16T14:26:00.002-05:00

It seems to me that the leaders in the conservative evangelical church have been praying for a "revival" in the American church for some time. And the new things we see happening in the church are exciting. The emerging, missional, mosaic and monastic church communities that are springing up all over this nation are the answer to those prayers. The irony is that those same leaders who long ago began praying for this to come are now the leading opposition against it.

This seems to be the way we often react to change. We pray for it. God answers our prayers. Then we fight against the very answer to our own prayer. This is what the Hebrews did when they were finally freed from slavery and found themselves in the desert. They had cried out for freedom. God answered. Then they complained in the desert and longed to be back in Egypt.

When we pray for revival, I get the sense that God often responds to us in the same way Jesus responded to James and John when they asked to sit on his right and left in glory(Mark 10:38-40).

We cry out, "Lord, give us revival!"

And Jesus responds,"You don't know what you are asking. Can you really handle revival if it were to come? Could you really handle the change that it will take in you and in your church?"

Of course we naively respond the same way that James and John responded, "We can!"

Then Jesus says to us, "There will indeed be a great change in the church. But as to whether you will be a part of the revival is not for me to say. That one you will have to decide for yourselves."

My hope is that the conservative evangelical leaders will stop fighting the answer to their own prayers and instead embrace what God is doing anew in the church.

mid-temptation

2009-04-29T23:01:00.003-05:00

Temptation is like pain. When you are enduring it, you don't think it will end. It is hard to convince yourself otherwise. As far as you are concerned, your mind tells you that there won't be an end.

But, inevitably, just as pain ends, so does temptation. But if you don't believe it will, then you will give in to temptation before it goes away. Like a headache that you take Excedrin for because you think it will go on forever, the lie that comes with temptation is the lie that the only way for temptation to end is to give in. Not true.

James 4:7, "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

Experience and discipline help us to know that though temptation sometimes feels continuous, it isn't. Truly resisting temptation not only keeps us from sinning, but it ends the feeling of being tempted in that moment. The Christian life isn't one long continuous battle. Instead, it is moments of fighting followed by periods of peace and contentment.

post-temptation

2009-04-22T10:20:00.002-05:00

Even when we successfully resist temptation, we are still left with the humbling reality of their own susceptibility to sin. It is here where the second battle is fought.

When faced with our own susceptibility to sin, we can either deny it and fall into pride and arrogance or we can be crushed by it and fall into despair and defeat. Both of these reactions are essentially U-turns right back into the sin we just resisted.

After resisting temptation, we must fight the second battle with a dose of gospel reality. In light of our past sin, we should not be surprised by our own susceptibility to temptation. In light of what Jesus did on the cross, we should not be surprised by God's sustaining grace.

Rather than driving us either toward pride or toward defeat, our susceptibility should simply remind us of God's goodness and our continuing dependence on Him. Post-temptation, even Jesus needed to be attended to by angels.

minority oligarchy

2009-03-06T12:45:00.002-05:00

What's great about America is that the minority has a voice. Minorities can't be silenced just because they are not the majority. Minority rights are protected in American in a way that is different than most of the rest of the world. And this is why people flock to "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

But we have to be careful not to go too far in this direction and create a society that we never intended. The creation of democracy was in part a reaction against a society run by an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is when the power to rule a society is in the hands of a small, usually elite, number of people. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγος olígos) and "rule" (ἀρχή arkhē).

To prevent just a few people from ruling an entire society, we allow the whole populous to vote. When we vote for representatives, the one who wins the "majority" of the votes is normally elected. This gives a voice to what the majority want.

So this balance between the desires of the majority and the rights of the minority needs to be maintained. If we give too much power to the minority voice, we end up with an upside-down sort of oligarchical rule. We don't want that. If we end up ignoring the voice of the minority, we end up with mob rule. We don't want that either.

So how do we maintain minority rights without falling into a minority oligarchical rule?

This question is particularly relevant to what is happening in California right now. The majority voted to keep the Californian definition of marriage as between "one woman and one man." The minority, the gay community in this case, wants that majority vote not to count. They believe it impedes on their right to equality.

If a minority is able to reject the votes of the majority, are we falling into a new form of oligarchy? If the majority is able to vote in a way that takes away rights of the minority, is that mob rule?

We'll see what the California Supreme Court has to say.

advice to Republicans

2009-02-26T18:54:00.004-05:00

There was a time in the mid-90's when it was embarrassing to be a Democrat. Republicans took over Congress and Bill Clinton was caught in a sex scandal.

Now it is embarrassing to be Republican. Democrats took Congress and the White House. And to add insult to injury the best that the Republicans have to offer in terms of leadership is uber-conservative Tina Fey look-alike Sarah Palin and the Mr. Rogers meets Barney Fife-like Bobby Jindal.

The only respectable Republicans out there seem to be Senator John McCain and House Minority leader John Boehner.

What would be good for Republicans to do is to keep their mouths shut for a few years and just see what happens. If President Obama's policies fail, they will naturally have a good argument to make. If his policies succeed, the Republicans will have been a part of helping America. Republicans win either way. But this is only true if they keep their mouths shut.

Republicans lose the more they speak up. They end up just making themselves look bad. My advice to Republicans is this: just sit tight and wait out the storm of Democratic policy. It is the Democrats turn to accept responsibility for the direction of this country.

military mental health

2009-02-24T23:34:00.004-05:00

Did you know that over 1 million of our brave men and women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Did you also know that it is estimated by the military that over 1/6th of those soldiers return home from battle with psychological traumas such as depression, combat stress and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder)?

If you do the math, that means that we now have over 167,000 soldiers who are in desperate need of counseling and mental recovery. Some of these soldiers are even being asked to return for a second and third tour of duty even after they have been diagnosed with a psychological trauma.

It is time for the military and the V.A. to step up and serve those who are serving this nation. It is time for the military to reward, not punish, those who seek the mental help they need. It is time to end the secrecy that shames the hundreds of thousands of our soldiers who are struggling with their mental health.

They stepped up to fight our nation's battles. It is time that our nation fight for them.

antisemitism

2009-02-23T17:46:00.002-05:00

Antisemitism is a virus that needs a host to survive.

In the ancient world the host was the Imperial rule of the Roman Empire. Jews were strange because of their customs and their monotheism. The belief in one invisible God amounted to atheism in a polytheistic world. Jews were persecuted in the same way Christians were in ancient Rome.

In medieval Europe the host was fear. Europeans were afraid of the plague and needed a scapegoat to blame. The church prohibition of Christians from loaning money created a niche market for Jewish bankers. Antisemitism grew in this fertile soil of epidemic and economic fear.

In the Reformation, Martin Luther didn't help the situation by reminding the world that Jews were involved in Jesus' murder. And wouldn't you know, the new host became Christianity itself.

This, of course, led to antisemitism finding one of its favorite hosts in the German National Socialist movement. Nazism was born.

In post-WWII America, this favored host got a face lift. The virus of antisemitism found a host that was uniquely American. Freedom of Speech became a petree dish for this social contagion. This gave birth to the Neo-Nazi movement.

And now we see yet another host for this virus. Extremists in Fundamentalist Islam breed antisemitism better and faster than post-Katrina Golf coast homes breed mold. This host organism of terrorism is the latest in a long line of hosts who have caught this illness.

Every stage in history has seen a new host spreading this ancient virus. And every stage has also seen a new antiretrovirual drug which tries to stamp out its nemesis. But like all viruses, antisemitism keeps evolving, morphing and multiplying.

What Others Could Not: A challenge for Obama

2009-01-19T16:37:00.003-05:00

What Others Could Not
A challenge for Obama

You offer us hope of a promised dream.
You inspire a nation with change.
Yet, I want a simpler thing.
To some this might seem strange.

What I want is a challenge of sorts
Not meant to belittle your movement.
Yes, you have political support
But what about home improvement?

What I ask is different than the rest;
They want prosperity and peace.
I would like a harder test
A covenant that won’t be fleeced.

Can you do what others could not?
Succeed where others failed?
Can you remember what others forgot?
Keep sacred what others unveiled?

Dr. King moved mountains for civil rights.
Worshiped was JFK.
Two social heroes who fought the fight
Yet both lost their way.

When it came to changing the heart of a nation
Unrivaled were they in zeal.
But when it came to private temptation
Their lives were less than ideal.

So the challenge I put before you today
Is one of a personal matter.
It has to do with not going astray
And avoiding red lips that flatter.

Presidents and paupers, great men and small
Have all failed at this thing.
To stick to the promise for the long haul
They made with a vow and a ring.

No doubt these men did their part
To change the world for the better.
But their wives were left with a broken heart
From their husband's scarlet letter.

“Yes we can” be the change
From eighty to eighteen.
But as for you, will you exchange
This vow for a bowl of beans?

You’ve said, “Til’ death do us part”
For Michelle and God to hear.
And we will see from the start
How much you were sincere.

Can you do what others could not
When alluring women come by?
Or will you be tied in a lover’s knot
And live an adulterous lie?

This is the simpler thing I ask
But an important thing in life.
It might be your hardest task
Fidelity to your wife.

dinner theater and Horizon

2008-12-10T00:16:00.006-05:00

We have this tradition in our family. Every year around the Christmas season we go to Toby's Dinner Theater and watch a show together. We eat dinner there and then enjoy a musical of some kind.

What is interesting about the actors and actresses in a dinner theater is that they have to function in multiple roles. They start the evening serving the tables to which they are assigned. Then they offer coffee and dessert. When everyone is stuffed, they slip backstage to get the final touches on their costumes and makeup.

These actors and actresses get into character and sing and dance to the delight of the audience. They transform from servants to entertainers. And in those moments we forget that they were just refilling our coffee. They become elevated to the status of Broadway stars.

Then intermission comes and once again these entertainers transform. They go from "star" to "servant" in the time it takes to turn on the house lights. They get last call drink orders and make sure everyone is sufficiently comfortable. When intermission is over, they transition right back to star status. They sing and dance and finish the evening in character.

As I watched the actors/waiters make their rounds during intermission the last time we went, something in me resonated with them. I realized that being on staff at Horizon is very similar to being a dinner theater actor.

There are times when ministry at Horizon requires the spotlight. There are times when I am up front speaking when it is not too different from being on stage. And yet before and after the sermon, I shift into a role that is much more like a waiter.

There are times when I feel as though I am in a place of authority. In this place, I am on a certain platform or pedestal. Then there are other times where I am much more in a place of being a servant. In this place, I function more like a stepping stool. At times I am elevated by the congregation like an audience elevates an actor. Other times I am subservient to the congregation like a waiter serving his table full of paying customers.

Both pedestal and stepping stool, authority and service are all a part of what it feels like to be on staff. Ministry is often a bipolar experience. At times you are fielding complaints like a waiter does for his table. Other times you are receiving the praise of a curtain call. But like the actors at the dinner theater, all of this is what it looks like to our job.

People in an audience often do one of two things. Some like to make heroes out of professional actors and slaves out of the blue-collar waiters. Others like to criticize the stuffy actors and befriend the down-to-earth waiters. The problem a dinner theater audience runs into is that these two desires come into conflict with each other. At a dinner theater the same person is filling both roles. The professional actor is the blue-collar waiter. The hero is the slave. The stuffy actor is the down-to-earth waiter. The one being criticized is the befriended one.

This is the same kind of dilemma faced by the congregation of Horizon. For some, it is much easier to praise the preacher and belittle the guy who helps set up the equipment in the morning. For others, it is easier to be cynical about the preacher while befriending the guys who do the hard work of serving the church. The problem for a person at Horizon is that these two people are one and the same. The preacher is the guy who sets up. The guys doing the hard work of serving are also the guys preaching.

Ultimately, the dinner theater audience is forced to break down their typical ways of categorizing their entertainers and waiters. They are forced to move beyond their stereotyping and their typical modes of interaction. This is the same thing that is required of the congregation of Horizon. The old categories and ways of interacting with the preacher just don't fit there.

never just one

2008-11-25T11:07:00.002-05:00

If you asked me who taught me how to speak English, how would I answer that? I could tell you that it started with my parents. Then it was my elementary school teachers who taught me the basics of grammar. It was my high school teachers who taught me SAT vocabulary words and how to write correctly. It was my college professors who taught me how to write big papers and how to make speeches. And it was my friends all along the way that shaped my slang, pronunciation and dialect.

There has been a long line of people who have influenced the way I speak the English language. It would be really difficult to try to nail down just one person who "taught" me English. And so it is with our spiritual lives.

Often Christians are told stories of "evangelism" where one person "leads" another person to believe in Christ. The end of the story is usually a prayer of some kind. But these stories are like watching a 30 second clip of a 3 hour movie. You might get the climax of the movie in those 30 seconds, but it isn't the whole story.

The truth is that there is almost never a time where it is just one person who leads someone to Christ. Usually there is a whole lineage of people who took part in doing little things to shape an individual's spirituality. There are people praying in the background that we may have never known about. There are Sunday School teachers from our childhood, crazy extended family members who are all about Jesus, and co-workers that exhibit a quiet yet powerful faith. There are little influences and big influences that all lead up to us finally giving our life fully to Christ.

But the story doesn't even end there. There is usually a host of new people who then pick up the baton and help shape us in the process of discipleship and spiritual growth. There were prophets who came before Christ and apostles who came after Him. In the same way, we have people who influence us in the direction of Christ before we believe and those who shape our life after we believe. And hopefully there are people who are there with us during both parts of our spiritual journey.

But for too long Christians have believed in the myth of the "evangelist," as if we are supposed to be a lone ranger leading people to Jesus. This is not how it has ever been, nor how it will ever be. The transformation of lives will happen in community, by community. Our job is just to be a link in the chain as we help our friends take that next step toward Christ.

We can't take credit for what happened before we got there and we can't take credit for what happens after we leave. In the end, God gets the credit for all that He does to orchestrate these great clouds of witnesses which end up changing people's lives. For us, it is an honor just to play a small part in God's big plan.

bipartisan economics doesn't work

2008-11-18T12:20:00.004-05:00

The failing U.S. car industry is a good example of why bipartisan economics doesn't work. An economic philosophy must be played out in full or not at all. When a country establishes part of one economic philosophy combined with part of a different economic philosophy, businesses find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Let me give an example. The Detroit car companies find themselves stuck between two economic philosophies. Republicans don't want government run health care. So health care is the responsibility of the companies where people work. The car companies that Detroit competes against are located in countries where there is universal health care. So that is an expense that the competitors don't have to deal with.

Democrats believe strongly in unions. So unions have hiked up wages and benefits beyond what workers are actually worth. So Detroit car companies have to pay their work force a lot more than the foreign car competitors. Toyota workers, for instance, are paid well but do not have the bloated salaries and benefits that GM and Ford workers do. But if GM or Ford cuts salaries or benefits, they are in danger of losing millions when workers go on strike. This hurts a U.S. car company's ability to compete globally.

What seems to be the problem is this mix of Republican and Democratic economic philosophy. Our car companies could compete and treat workers well if government provided universal health care and unions stayed intact. Conversely, our car companies could compete and treat workers well if companies still provided health care but unions were abolished. But as it is, our U.S. companies get caught between two competing economic philosophies, neither of which will work if done halfway.

As a country we need to decide if our economy will function under a Democratic economic philosophy or a Republican one. Trying to switch back and forth every 4 to 8 years damages a U.S. company's ability to compete globally. And when our companies can't compete globally, our whole economy is undermined.

stealing glances

2008-11-16T23:07:00.002-05:00

Having a job where you are in the public eye can be weird sometimes. There are many challenges to being a public leader of an organization. These challenges are especially unique in the church.

Many such dangers are like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Sometimes people put you an a pedestal. Getting people's admiration is great. But being on a pedestal is also damaging. People put you up there only to see you fall. Inevitably you will end up not meeting up to someone's illegitimate expectations and then they will take it out on you. As you come crashing down, they think they are the one that got hurt, never realizing that by putting you on a pedestal, they were the beginning of the problem.

Besides the dangers of the pedestal, there are the dangers of the piercing gaze. One thing you can be sure about is that when you are in a public, visible position of leadership, many eyes will turn your way. You will get piercing eyes of many kinds.

Some will be judgmental eyes. They will watch your every move waiting for you to fail. These eyes will always see the worst in you and assume your motives are always bad.

Others will be eyes of attraction. You will find attractive people of the opposite sex stealing glances in your direction. Some will do this because they easily get crushes on people in the spotlight. This is why guys in bands tend to get girls.

Others will be enamored with the status of your leadership position. Your elevated "status" is attractive to them. And still others will just simply be attracted to you physically. Social scientists tell us that proximity increases attraction. So it follows that the more you are up in front of people, the more physically attractive you become. Just sheer exposure can increase attractiveness.

These various forms of "eyes of attraction" are particularly dangerous for public leaders. It's no mistake that we see many public leaders fall into sexual sin. Visible leaders, in the church as much as anywhere else, have to deal with a sea full of eyes turned in their direction. Sometimes this temptation can be a lot for a ego to handle.

Often the visible leader gets feedback from a mixture of people who either think too lowly of them or people who think too highly of them. Their critics are often way too hard on them and their admirers are often way too complimentary. This is why those who are leaders in the public eye need people who are close enough to them to tell them the truth.

They need to know when they are doing well and when they are screwing up. But they need this advice from a person to has a balanced view of them. They need to hear from someone who really knows them best. This is a key factor in a public leader's ability to find balance amidst the myriad of eyes.

Palin not knowing about Africa was a hoax

2008-11-13T12:44:00.002-05:00

This just shows you how messed up the media really is. They broadcasted a story that a McCain aide was saying that Palin didn't know Africa was a continent. Of course everyone believed it and all the 24 hour news outlets reported it. But yet again, they never stopped to check the legitimacy of the sources. This is shoddy reporting in all its glory.

The article below uncovers the truth. It was written by Richard Perez-Pena from the New York Times.

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

Read the rest of the article here.

ban on gay marriage

2008-11-08T12:06:00.003-05:00

Californians voted to ban gay marriage in their state last Tuesday. Arizona and Florida did the same. The difference in California is that gay and lesbian rights activists are taking it to the streets in protest. They see the ban as taking away their civil rights. But does it?

The ban on gay marriage preserves the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Marriage provides for some tax, heath insurance, hospital and parental rights. So the thinking is that if you eliminate the ability to get married, then you limit gay and lesbian rights.

But there seems to be another way that would provide gay and lesbian rights while not changing the definition of marriage. "Civil unions" could provide equal rights to gay and lesbian couples while avoiding the damaging effects of changing the definition of marriage.

If you begin to try to change the definition of marriage, you open Pandora's Box. Soon after changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, those who are in polygamist relationships will want to be included as well. They will soon demand that the definition of marriage should change to include multiple people . You can see where this goes.

Marriage is a holy union of one man and one woman. Humanity continually tries to corrupt this. It seems that the corruption of marriage began with husbands being abusive. The ease and normalcy of divorce was the next step in the degrading of marriage. The rampant use of pornography and various other forms of sexual addiction is a third corruption. And now the desire to wholly change the definition of marriage is the most recent attack. This will not be the end of the assault on marriage.

I believe that our gay and lesbian friends should have equal rights, but also that the definition of marriage should be protected. Civil unions seem to be the logical solution.

minorities are majority

2008-11-07T10:50:00.005-05:00

When we look out into the world, we see people of all different skin colors. But those who consider themselves "white" or "Caucasian" need to understand that they are the minority. Those of us who are of Anglo-European descent really only occupy parts of Russian, Europe, former British colonies (ie. South Africa, Australia), Canada and the U.S. But even in these places, people of mixed races are more and more the norm.

"White people" are a global minority. The rest of the world is typically a darker shade of "brown" or "yellow." So if we have churches that are only "white," we need to understand that we are becoming more and more irrelevant to our country and the world.

This is also why the world is excited about the U.S. electing President Obama. When they look at Obama, they see more of themselves in him than they have in any of our previous presidents. His skin isn't caucasian. He is biracial. The hue of Obama's skin is more like the rest of the world. It also reflects the changing face of America.

We call Obama a "minority," but he is not. He is only a minority when it comes to the U.S. or Europe. But to the rest of the world, he is the majority. While we ultimately hope that people can look past skin color, Obama's biracial ethnicity is a real asset globally.

Dear Mr. President-elect...

2008-11-05T10:52:00.004-05:00

Could we all agree to pray for our new President regardless of whether we agree with his policies? I hope we can. Here is a thought-provoking statement put out by Sojourners. It is both a commitment to pray for the President-elect and a promise to keep him accountable.

Dear Mr. President-elect Obama:

I want personally to offer you my prayers as you embark on the enormous challenge of leading our country in a time of great crisis and crossroads. While our ultimate hope is our faith in God, we also have high hopes for your administration.

I am one member of a growing movement of Christians and people of faith who support a broad moral agenda that includes a deep concern for poverty, peacemaking, a consistent ethic of life, and care for creation. During the campaign, you said that, if elected, you would face powerful special interests trying to block change. You said you would need a citizen movement to support and push you.

Today, I am pledging to be part of that movement. It will be a movement that will both pray for you and hold you accountable to the things you promised. So I urge you to give high priority to:

- Overcome poverty, both here in our rich nation and globally. Your efforts to resolve the economic crisis must include those at the bottom, the poorest among us. You pledged during the campaign to mobilize the nation to cut domestic poverty in half in ten years and to implement the Millennium Development Goals to cut extreme global poverty in half.

- Find better ways than war to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world. It is time to end the war in Iraq and emphasize diplomacy over military action in resolving problems in Iran and Afghanistan. We need better and smarter foreign policy that is more consistent with our best national values.

- Promote a consistent ethic of life that addresses all threats to life and dignity. We must end genocide in Darfur, the use of torture, and the death penalty. I urge you to pursue common ground policies which can dramatically reduce abortions in America, and help bring us together on this divisive issue.

- Reverse the effects of climate change on God’s creation. We must learn a new way of living in America to end our dangerous dependence on Middle East oil. We need a spiritual commitment to stewardship and national policies that promote safe, clean, and renewable energy. You spoke of job creation and economic renewal with a new “green economy.”
We need your presidential leadership for this type of societal transformation, but I promise also to do my part.

I will pray for you as you assume the awesome responsibility of leading our nation. To be the best president you can be, you will need both the support and the push of the faith community. I pledge to help build the movement that will keep your administration accountable and faithful.

Blessings,

I like that Sojourners wants to pray for Obama as well as keep him accountable for his actions. I also like that Jim Wallis begins this statement by acknowledging that our ultimate hope is in God and not in a political administration. Maybe you too could join in both praying for Obama and keeping him accountable to having God-honoring political priorities.

interactivity

2008-11-03T13:17:00.002-05:00

Our generation needs to interact with information before we can absorb it. Have you noticed what news outlets are doing these days? They all have blogs. They all have news hours where you can get on Twitter or Facebook and comment on the news in real time. Even ESPN is now doing polls where you can interact with the stories.

It seems that we are bombarded with so much information in this "information age," that we have developed built in filters. Our filters are best at repelling information that is unsolicited. The filters are also strong when it comes to information that communicates "at" us rather than "with" us.

This is why we crave interactivity. We need to interact with information before we can absorb it. We need to express our opinion, ask questions, and dialog. If we are given the space to do this, then our ears open up to the truth of what was said. This is why Link Groups have the potential to develop lasting spiritual growth. Is there a way to expand this sort of Link Group-like interactivity throughout our community? Well, we believe there is.

In light of our changing culture and ever evolving ways of absorbing information, Horizon Church of Towson will embark on two new interactive experiments. First, on our website, we have created a space for a simple poll. Leadership will be able to ask general questions to the church as a whole and people will be able to respond by answering the poll question. This interactive feedback will hopefully help people engage more in the direction and decisions of the church.

The second interactive experiment will happen on Sunday mornings. We will add to our normal Sunday morning experience a time of interaction. After the sermon and music, we will open the floor for a time of asking the communicator questions.

In order to keep the flow and answer as many questions as possible, we will use text messaging as our primary source of interaction. The congregation will text questions to a designated phone throughout the service and whoever delivered the message that morning will field those questions.

This coming Sunday will be our first experience with this experiment. Our hope is that increasing the level of interactivity will increase the absorbency of the messages on Sunday.

media bias

2008-10-30T22:08:00.007-05:00

Anyone who doesn't think there is a media bias either doesn't watch the news or is biased themselves. But for all those who think conservatives are just a bunch of cry babies when it comes to the news, it is time to go to the research.

The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has the raw data on just how bias the media really is. This non-partisan research group reveals with numbers what conservatives have known intuitively for decades. What the chart below makes obvious is that the media's reporting of Obama is mostly favorable while for McCain it is overwhelmingly negative.

Between September 8 and October 16th the media had a field day. The report shows that, "For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative."

It also shows that, "For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive."

This isn't the opinion of conservative talk radio. This is based on non-partisan factual research.

Here is another chart showing the way two very different outlets covered the same stories. MSNBC could be renamed the Obama network. And Fox News is much more favorable to McCain than the rest of the media outlets. Even still, if you look below at Fox's chart for Obama, it almost looks identical to their chart for McCain. Maybe this is what fair and balanced looks like?

The numbers for NBC aren't as bad as MSNBC and CNN is kind of down the middle. CNN tends to be just as negative toward McCain as the average of the rest of the media. They aren't as biased as MSNBC. That would be tough to accomplish. But the stats don't lie. They are overwhelmingly favorable toward Obama and negative toward McCain. And if you think it is just the networks, think again. The newspapers are in on it too. Just check out the chart below.

The bias in the media is not up for debate any longer. It's not an opinion. We have the hard data to back up what many conservatives have known for years. The media will always lean left.

There are many more charts and much more data at The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. If you want to learn more about the bias in the media, go to their site and read their latest report called "The Color of News."

post-oil

2008-10-27T22:57:00.003-05:00

It is not likely that the oil our earth holds will last another century based on our increasing addiction to it. What will happen in the future is that our grandchildren will read about the days when the whole world was run on oil. They will be stunned. They will ask themselves, "How could grampa have lived like that?"

The history books in our great-grand children's history class will mark the time when humanity entered a time called "the post-oil era". Things will be run off of natural gas, solar, electric, wind and nuclear power. But there will be no oil to speak of. Even now oil companies are transitioning into "energy" companies. They see the writing on the wall even if they can't let go of the black gold just yet.

There was a time before the telephone, and now we live in the cell phone age. There was a time before computers, and now we are right in the middle of the information age. There will be a time when there is no more oil to speak of and our addiction to it will finally end.

The post-oil age will be a time of extensive advancements in renewable sources of energy. It will change the economic landscape of our world. The oil rich nations will lose their economic power. Those nations who developed alternative energy technology early in this century will be the ones who thrive.

My hope for America is that we begin a 12 step program to free ourselves from oil addiction within the next decade. If we keep waiting for the well to run dry, it will be too late.

final debate

2008-10-16T09:30:00.004-05:00

Well the final debate before the election happened last night. I have only seen clips of it online because I couldn't watch it live. But I did find the conversation on abortion particularly interesting.

McCain supports a pro-life position and is a strong supporter of adoption. He and Cindy have an adopted daughter themselves.

What was interesting to me was Obama's position. He is obviously pro-choice. But he said he would be willing sign a bill that outlawed "late-term" abortion so long as it had a provision for the health of the mother. When Obama is President, the pro-life movement should take advantage of this and see if he actually will stick to his word. The big question is what does "health of the mother" include?

What is likely to happen is that a bill will get presented to Congress that would outlaw late-term abortion nationwide. Then, over disagreements on the fine print on what "health of the mother" means it will either not pass or will get vetoed by Obama. This is exactly what happened to the partial-birth abortion ban when Clinton was in office. The bill passed Congress and Clinton vetoed it because he wanted a provision for the "health of the mother."

Here is a quote describing this incident from the Guttmacher Institute:

"A bill to ban the procedure except when it is necessary to save a woman's life was adopted by the U.S. Congress but vetoed by President Bill Clinton in the spring of 1996. The Senate, but not the House of Representatives, lacked the two-thirds of votes necessary to override the veto. Following the veto, President Clinton, surrounded by several women who had undergone D&X to terminate wanted pregnancies that had gone seriously wrong and threatened their health, announced that he would have signed the measure if it had contained an exception to preserve the woman's health as well as her life."

We definitely want to preserve a woman's "life." Even Congress could agree that late-term abortions would be legal if it threatened the mother's life. But what does it mean to preserve her "health." Anytime a women gets pregnant, her health is in jeopardy. "Health" is such a vague term that could include anything.

It's not "healthy" to have high blood pressure and acid reflux, yet many, if not most, pregnant women experience both. So if a woman has a "late-term" pregnancy and her blood pressure goes up, would she be able to have a "late-term abortion" to preserve her "health?" You can see how that language opens the door for anything. McCain rightly pointed this out in his rebuttal of Obama's position.

I applaud Obama's willingness to try to reduce unwanted pregnancies and his willingness to be open to outlawing late-term abortion. But having a provision in the law that uses the language of "protecting the health of the mother" needs to be more specific or it just ends up opening Pandora's box.

stick a fork in 'em

2008-10-03T22:43:00.003-05:00

Well, the VP debate was fun to watch. Palin held her own and didn't embarrass herself. But I think most people agreed that Biden came across as much more Presidential and knowledgeable about the issues.

McCain needed a game-changing-type showing from Palin. And though she did well, at best she kept the poles the same. The problem is that in all the poles, Obama is ahead in the swing states. Add to this the economy being in the toilet and you can pretty much see the writing on the wall for the Republicans.

While the next 5 weeks will be full of negative ads and lots of pundits giving their sage wisdom to us poor idiots that make up the masses, they won't do anything to change the momentum of this election. It would behoove anyone who doesn't know Obama well to begin to study up on his plans and policies. He will be our next President whether you vote for him or not.

Stick a fork in the McCain/Palin ticket. They are done. I believe McCain did his best at running for President. He has served his country well for nearly his whole life. But serving as President will not be an honor/burden that he will ever receive.

It's been a fun election year. History has been made by both parties. And now it's as good as over. Congrats Obama! I won't be voting for you come November. But I will pray for you when you take office in the White House. I will pray that you will be the best President that you can be and that God will sustain you through the hardship that is the American Presidency.

the debate

2008-09-26T22:23:00.002-05:00

I watched the debate tonight and found myself really liking the demeanor of both candidates. What do you do when you like the character and personalities of both men running for President?

Some political races don't boil down to issues but instead revolve around personalities. Most people walk into the voting booth, look at the two names, and check their brain at the door. Most people go with their emotions and their gut. They ask themselves whether they "like" the candidate or not. It all ends up being a high school popularity contest in the end.

But it changes the way you vote if you really "like" both of them. If you appreciate the character and personality of both candidates then that won't drive your voting choice. If both men are respectable, good men who are smart and capable, then you are forced to vote on the issues.

I am happy that we have two great men running for President. And though I resonate more with one candidate than the other on the issues, it is nice to know that the American public did a good job this year in the primaries. We are left with two very different options yet two very good men.

homosexuality and same-sex attraction

2008-09-23T10:19:00.002-05:00

This past week on Sunday, Ryan tackled to tough issue of homosexuality. This is not an easy thing to do from up front is a "speaking" setting. These sort of topics are usually best done in conversation. But he did a good job laying out the hot button issue and the way we as Christians should address it.

The church has handled this poorly and has not understood the issue. Some churches try to stake their claim politically in the debate over whether gay marriage should be legal. But that is a political/legal argument. And while there is room to debate it, that shouldn't be we address on Sunday mornings.

What needs to be address from a Christian worldview are questions like "Is homosexuality sin?" and "Are homosexual lifestyles what God intended or did he intend something else?"

Where do we find the answers to these questions? Like all moral and theological issues, we have four pillars to stand on in our search for truth. Some call this the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. These four pillars are our tools in seeking truth.

But they are not all equal partners. As Christians we believe Scripture has supreme authority. Tradition (the way believers have interpreted scripture down through the centuries), Reason and Experience all come in tied for second.

Scripture is clear that homosexuality is not what God intended for humanity. Just as it is clear that He did not intend extra-marital affairs, or hatred toward others. "Tradition" supports this interpretation of Scripture. It is a "reasonable" conclusion and it fits with the "experience" of many who have come out of the gay community and have found freedom from that lifestyle.

Those who argue that homosexuality is part of what God intended usually argue that point by making "experience" the chief source of our pursuit of truth. They argue that if someone has "experienced" being gay, even from childhood, then it must be something God is ok with. And then they interpret scripture, read tradition, and use reason all based out of that "experience." But "experience" was never meant to be the chief source of truth. When it gets placed above all the others, our world view becomes skewed.

But what do we as the Church do with those who struggle with homosexuality? Well, first, let's get our terms in order. Homosexuality is an identity based on a lifestyle. As Christians our primary identity should not be found in our sexuality, or anything else for that matter. Our primary identity is "follower of Christ."

So the term that fits better is "same sex attraction." There are those who have found their primary identity in Christ and yet still struggle with being attracted to the same sex. And from what we know of that experience, people are not "choosing" to be attracted to the same sex any more than I choose to be attracted to the opposite sex.

But just because it seems natural to them, doesn't make it ok. There are lots of things that seem "natural" to me that are not right. It seems natural to me to blow up in anger at people but it is not what God intended. It seems natural to lust after women but it is not what God intended. We must accept the reality of our "Fallen-ness" when it comes to our desires.

There are three main issues to wrestle with when it comes to someone who struggles with same-sex attraction: behavior, identity and attractions. Let's start with behavior. Those with same-sex attraction should no more act on their attraction than I should act on my attraction to women who are not my wife. But not acting on the desire is just the beginning.

It is tempting for those who struggle with same-sex attraction to identify themselves as "homosexual." But I think this is a mistake. Our primary identity is in Christ, not in our sexuality. While our attractions are not necessarily a choice, how one identifies oneself is a choice. And our identity should not be what we struggle with or our sin, but instead the freedom and hope that we have in Christ.

This leaves us to the final issue of attraction. The reality is that once a person's identity is firmly grounded as a "follower of Christ," then behavior will likely line up with God's will. But while a person may win the battle of identity and behavior, the battle of having same-sex attractions will be harder. There are those whose testimony is that in Christ, they no longer feel a great attraction to the same-sex and instead find themselves attracted to the opposite sex. But this doesn't happen for everyone. Some Christians will have to deal with same-sex attraction for the rest of their lives. Some will deal with this struggle as single people, others as happily married people.

But is this really all that different than many of the other fights against the flesh that Christians must endure for a lifetime? Is it that different from an alcoholic fighting against taking another drink for the rest of her life? Is it that different from newly converted Wall Street executive battling against the temptations of power and greed for the rest of his life? Is it that different from a guy who is addicted to pornography fighting off the temptation of images all around him? Each follower of Christ must take up their cross and follow Him. Each must deal with the parts of their lives that don't line up with what God intended for humanity. Each must fight the good fight in putting to death the sinful nature.

This battle lasts a lifetime for all of us. But in the end, Jesus has won and the victory will be ours.

the church

2008-09-12T10:50:00.002-05:00

The Church is a complex animal. We have people of all shapes and sizes. Represented in the Church are a wide variety of beliefs and views.

I was hanging out with a friend the other day who struggles with the idea of women in leadership in the church. But what was so amazing was that this friend was willing to stay in our community during the struggle. Many would just look at our church, see that women make up part of the leadership, and declare us heretical. Even though my friend disagrees with how we do things, the desire to be a part of this community is stronger than the disagreement.

In the worldwide Church, we have gay Episcopal ministers and those who believe homosexuality is sin. We have women pastors and those who believe women teaching men is unbiblical. We have those who believe in predestination and those who lean more toward free will. We have Catholics and Protestants, Orthodox and Coptic. We are a mosaic of ideas and methods all united by the belief in Jesus as our Messiah.

If you take our Presidential candidates seriously, then what we have in this election is not just conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Democrat. What we have is one member of the Church competing against another member of the Church to get elected. McCain is an Episcopalian who goes to a Baptist church. Palin is an evangelical who goes to a non-denominational church. Obama is from an African-American United Church of Christ. And Biden is a devout Catholic.

So whether we want to admit it or not, all the candidates are a representation of the Church. If McCain wins and brings "reform," he will do so as a part of the Church. If Obama wins and brings "change," he will do so as a part of the Church.

We are a mixed bag. We have sinners and saints, hypocrites and holy ones. It seems we often disagree more than we agree. But what we do agree on is what matters in the end. Jesus, above all else, is where our loyalties are. Jesus is Lord and we are His Church. Our primary identity is "follower of Christ" before it is anything else.

In the end, there is only one Church. There is no "Plan B" for God. We are it. And even with all of our warts and scars, struggles and mistakes, Jesus still claims us as His own. We are His Body. We are His Bride. And He loves us like a groom loves his bride on their wedding day.

He invites us to be a part of His Church, no matter what, through thick and thin, whether we like what the Church has become or not. Because, in the end, the Church is not about itself, but about Someone greater. The Church is not about the fractures and disagreements, but about the One who united us through His love and by His grace.

the spin war

2008-09-10T21:35:00.003-05:00

Now don't get me wrong. I really like Anderson Cooper. His show AC 360 is on late but is pretty good. He has a young fresh way of dealing with the news.

But one thing he said today was interesting. He wanted to look at the views that the VP candidates have on abortion. What was really strange was the way he described Palin's view of abortion. He said her view was "anti-choice." Since when did the "pro-life" view get re-named "anti-choice."

The way the AC360 reporter who actually reported the piece described McCain/Palin as "anti-abortion". The way he described Obama/Biden was "for abortion rights." Notice the subtle shift from "pro-life" to "anti-abortion." Also notice the positive language used in the labels "pro-choice" and "for abortion rights."

These are the subtle battles over language that few notice but many are affected by. "Pro-life" sounds positive. But if the media calls it "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion" they can paint that view in a more negative light. Both "pro-choice" and "for abortion rights" have a positive spin on it.

If the media wants to remain "unbiased" as they claim, they should stick with the language of "pro-life" and "pro-choice." If they want to start using "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion" to describe the pro-life view then they need to do the same on the other side. This means they would need to change "for abortion rights" to something like "anti-life" or "pro-abortion." Of course this is not something they are likely to do. If they wouldn't do the latter then they should avoid doing the former.

Framing language in certain ways changes the way people view the issue. Biased framing of language is what we call "spin." News organizations should try to leave "spin" to the pundants and try to stick to using fair and equal language.

bumper campaigning

2008-09-09T14:49:00.002-05:00

I saw a funny sticker on a car today. It read:
"Obama is Palin comparison!" As in, Obama is "pale in comparison" to McCain. I thought that was a cute way to use her name.

Also, while studying for this week's sermon, I ran across the Greek word "παλιν." παλιν is pronounced "palin," just like the last name. It is the Greek word that means "again."

This fun coincidence could be used by the Democrats to make a sticker that reads: McCain/Palin = Bush "again"(παλιν).

It could also be used by the Republicans to say, "If we want to win the White House "again" (παλιν), we need McCain/Palin.

Of course, the only people who would get either one of those slogans would be geeky, Greek-studying seminary students or ancient history majors. But I still thought it was a rather funny coincidence.

Do Republicans care about the poor?

2008-09-09T11:31:00.002-05:00

Often Republicans get a bad reputation for not caring about the poor. This is because the conservative economic policy calls for less government spending, less government programs and lower taxes. Many wonder, "if government spends less to help the poor, won't that create more poverty?"

I think a better way to understand conservative thinking is that the desire isn't to cut all spending altogether. Instead, conservatives believe that there is a lot of waste in our spending. So the idea is not just to cut spending. The hope is to spend less and make what we do spend more efficient and effective.

One example of how this works was written about in July of this year in the New York Times. As hard as it was for the Times to admit, the Republican Congress and the Bush administration over the last eight years have managed to reduce the number of chronically homeless nationwide. This wasn't done with "more programs" or "more spending." It was done by redirecting funds in a more productive and efficient way.

Here are some quotes from the article:
"The number of chronically homeless people living in the nation’s streets and shelters has dropped by about 30 percent — from 175,914 to 123,833 — from 2005 to 2007..."

"...officials also attribute much of the decline to a policy shift promoted by Congress and the administration that has focused federal and local resources on finding stable housing for homeless people suffering from drug addiction, mental illness or physical disabilities, long deemed the hardest to help in the homeless population.

Under the strategy, known as “housing first,” local officials have over the last eight years increasingly placed the chronically homeless into permanent shelter — apartments, halfway houses or rooms — and provided them with services for drug addiction, mental illness and health problems."

"Mr. Culhane attributed much of the decline in chronic homelessness to the efforts of Congress, administration officials and local communities. In 1999, Congress told HUD to direct about one-third of its financing for homelessness to permanent housing."

This is concrete evidence that conservative policies can be compassionate while also being efficient and productive. More spending is not always the answer to our nations problems. What we need is not "more" spending but "better" spending. And better spending requires spending less in a more efficient way. It requires doing more with less.

Raising taxes and making government bigger isn't the answer. One would think that if the liberal economic policies of increasing taxes and creating more programs was the answer, then all the Democratically run cities would have the lowest homelessness rates. But the cities with the highest homelessness rates (Detroit, Boston, & DC according to a Weingart Center study) are run by predominantly Democratic politicians.

What might surprise many is the possibility that conservative economic policies might have more success in reducing homelessness than liberal economic policies. What we need on both sides of the aisle is more people who are willing to avoid "more" spending and instead figure out ways to promote "better" spending.

tragedy and triumph

2008-09-07T22:20:00.003-05:00

This election is history making and will only continue to be so. Either a black man will become President for the first time in history or a woman will become Vice-President for the first time in history. So in either case, the American people will have triumphed together in moving our country forward in important ways.

What is even more historic is that if Obama is President, it won't be "because" he is black but rather in spite of it. And if Palin becomes VP, it won't be "because" she is a woman but rather in spite of it. They will be elected because of their qualifications to lead and not their race or gender. This above all might be the greatest triumph of all. It might signal a movement in the direction of getting away from race and gender politics. It might be a step closer to Dr. King's dream that we would be judged not by external characteristics but by the content of our character.

The tragedy in the midst of these triumphs is that there are still those who will not vote for a black man or a white woman precisely because of their race or gender respectively. Racism and sexism still exist and we see them in both parties and in all socio-economic classes. So unfortunately some will vote for McCain simply because the thought of a black man in the White House makes them cringe. Likewise, some will vote for Obama simply because they dread the idea of ovaries in the Oval Office.

Our hope is that the triumphs will outweigh the tragedy this election year. And we hope that God will change the heart of those who allow racism and sexism to cloud their vote and their lives.

Can Palin do it?

2008-09-05T08:54:00.002-05:00

The presidency is a job that takes long days and long weeks. There is not much time off when you are the Commander-in-Chief. McCain has always put his country first and will continue to do so if he is President. But the question is out there: "What if McCain dies and Palin has to step up to the presidency? Can she handle the highest office in the land and be a good mom?"

Let's think about other people who serve their country. When a soldier goes off to war, he does so in service of his country. He leaves the bulk of the parenting to his wife who stays home with the kids. He could be gone for years with just a few visits home. Sometimes when one parent is serving their country to the fullest extent, the other has to take on more responsibility for a time.

We also see the flip side of this when our women soldiers go off to war and the husbands stay home with the kids. There are many families like this right now in America. For a time, while their mom serves the country, the kids are taken care of primarily by their father and the extended family. But when mom gets back home a few years later, the balance is restored. Would we call that mom a "bad mom" because she went to serve her country? By serving her country is she putting her family second? I would say "no" on both accounts.

And this same principle applies to Palin. No doubt, as VP she will have a busy, time-consuming job. So I am sure her husband might take a little bit more of the parenting load for the next 4 to 8 years. This is even more the case if something tragic happens to McCain and Palin takes the lead. But even if her husband has to take more of the responsibility for a time, is that any different than what all the Presidents' wives have done? Not to mention his family who will rally around them to give them all the help they need.

Just like sending a mother off to war, sending a woman to the White House will require sacrifice. But that sacrifice is a noble one. It doesn't make a woman less of a mom. Instead, these are exactly the kinds of moms we want in America. And when that mom comes home from war or comes home from the White House, she comes home to a thankful and loving family. The balance of parenting is restored and their kids have a hero for a mom.

Obituary of the late Mr. Common Sense

2008-09-04T10:06:00.002-05:00

I thought this was funny. So just for fun, I decided to post it here. Oh, that we could resurrect Common Sense from the grave! This is the obituary of the late Mr. Common Sense:

"London Times Obituary of the late Mr. Common Sense interesting and sadly
rather true!

'Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who
has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was,
since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He
will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the
worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than
you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in
charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy
charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended
from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for
reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the
job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly
children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental
consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could
not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an
abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses;
and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense
took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your
own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to
realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in
her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his
wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He
is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now,
Someone Else Is To Blame and I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone."

attacks

2008-09-03T08:04:00.003-05:00

Well, the media attack dogs are on the loose. Palin's introduction to the political world in Washington is a harsh one. The liberal pundents will say anything and do anything to get their candidate in the White House.

Here is what Palin has already had to face just in the first few days of being a VP candidate:

1. Rumors were spread on the blogosphere saying that her youngest child actually belongs to her daughter. (internet media)

2. Because she is a mother, her ability to do the job is in question. (Washington Post)

3. She is being criticized for not having enough foreign relations experience. (all media)

4. Her ability to be a good mom has been doubted because her daughter got pregnant as a 17 year old out of wedlock. (Washington Post)

5. Her views of teaching abstinence education have been criticized because her daughter got pregnant. (CNN)

6. She is being criticized for being nominated to the VP position solely because she is a woman. (all media)

7 . Her leadership as governor has been called into question because of her interaction with the boss of her state trooper brother-in-law. (all media)

That is a lot to take in just the first few days on the national political scene. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we should being praying for her and her family that they will be able to sustain the onslaught. We should especially be praying for the daughter who is pregnant. Can you imagine being a daughter and having your mom trashed by the media because of a mistake that you made?

So are any of these criticisms legitimate? Let's walk through them.

#1. This one is blatantly false and is just tabloid rumor.

#2. If being a mother excludes women from being in high powered jobs, then the women's movement hasn't made it out of the 50's. Maybe we should ask all of the high powered CEOs who are mothers. I wonder if they would think this is a legitimate argument? I think they would give a resounding "No." This argument is ridiculous.

#3. This criticism is also an empty one. We elect governors to the presidency all the time with no foreign relations experience. Maybe you have heard of two of them: Reagan and Clinton. Plus, Obama also has little foreign relations experience and he is at the top of the Democratic ticket. One thing Palin has as governor that Obama doesn't have is executive experience commanding the National Guard. And Palin is just the VP candidate. McCain has tons of foreign relations experience to make up for any she lacks.

#4. If people doubt her as a mother because her daughter got pregnant, then they would have to doubt the parenting of millions of women in America. In fact, these same people would then have to doubt the parenting of Obama's grandmother, whose own daughter got pregnant at 18 with Barack. His grandmother played a big part in raising him as well. This whole line of thinking is just silly. It also misses the point that she has a son who is willing to serve his country by joining the military. I would say that is pretty good parenting.

#5. This idea is ridiculous. Her views of abstinence education don't have anything to do with her daughter. That is like saying a parent who has kids who try drugs should then suddenly be for legalized marijuana. Again, silly.

#6. This sexist attack discounts her record for reform in Alaska. She is a fighter that has a proven track record of working against corruption. If this attack was leveled against a woman running from the left, the whole media would be crying "Sexism!" But the rules seem to be different for a woman who is running from the right.

#7. This might be the only criticism that has any merit. But as the investigation unfolds and we find out that the trooper tasered a kid for no reason, we might think differently. I think that the McCain campaign wouldn't have invited her onto the ticket without investigating this thoroughly.

So out of the many attacks that are coming her way, only one has any merit. And that one is under investigation. When it turns out that she did nothing wrong, she will be in the clear.

The media attacks will hopefully self-correct much like they did with the Reverend Wright scandal for Obama. At first the media will attack repeatedly. Then, they will self-criticize and realize how ridiculous their coverage has been.

interesting choice

2008-08-29T15:55:00.002-05:00

Americans have been offered an interesting choice when it comes to who to vote for this fall. The tickets on both sides are similar in different ways.

TIcket for the Democrats:
Obama:
- little general experience
- no foreign relations experience
- can get the minority vote
- liberal

Biden:
- lots of general experience
- lots of foreign relations experience
- can get the blue collar vote
- moderately liberal

Ticket for the Republicans:
McCain:
- lots of general experience
- lots of foreign relations experience
- can get the independent/moderate vote
- moderately conservative

Palin:
- little general experience
- no foreign relations experience
- can get the conservative & soccer mom vote
- conservative

It is interesting how similar McCain and Biden look and how similar Obama and Palin look. McCain and Biden are both the established Washington-types. They are both old, white men who have served in the Senate for decades. They are both more moderate than their running mates.

Likewise, Obama and Palin are Washington outsiders who want to shake things up. They both are young, attractive and new. Neither one has much experience and both are, in their own right, "minorities" in Washington. They both have already made history and will continue to make history if elected.

The big difference that I see is the order of the ticket. Democrats have put inexperience and newness at the top of the ticket with experience and age at the bottom. Republicans have reversed that order by putting experience and age at the top of the ticket with inexperience and newness at the bottom. It seems that each Presidential candidate has sought to bring balance to their ticket through their VP pick.

In the end, the outcome will be decided neither by the far right nor by the far left. It won't be decided by the blue states or the red states. As in past elections, this one will come down to the independents and the moderates, specifically the ones who are voting in swing states.

and the VP will be...

2008-08-28T22:59:00.004-05:00

Democrats

Obama: a mix of preacher and professor
paired with
Biden: a mix of steel worker and statesman

Republicans

McCain: a mix of maverick and war hero
paired with
Sarah Palin: a mix of reformer and soccer mom

What a weird election!

Principles and Policies for Christian Voters

2008-08-26T09:38:00.002-05:00

If you read the title of this post, you might think that it is the title of a Religious Right group teaching church goers on how to vote Republican. This is just the sort of thing the Christian Coalition put out in the 90's.

Well, now Christian Democrats are using the same tactics. The very thing the Dems slammed the Religious Right for doing in the 90's, they are now doing. Sojourners has put out a pamphlet that directs Christians on how to vote on the issues. They call it "an issues guide for Christians." You can read it here.

To their credit, there is actually some good stuff in it. Here are their basic principles that they believe should guide Christians on what to vote for:

Compassion and Economic Justice
- Work must work and provide for family economic success and security.
- Children should not be poor.
- Extreme global poverty must end.

So far so good. These are things we can all stand for.

Peace and Restraint of Violence
- Bring peace to Iraq.
- Eliminate nuclear weapons.
- Support security and freedom in the Middle East.
- Strengthen the United Nations and international law to fight terrorism.

These views fall squarely in line with the Democratic Party's foreign policy. While I agree that these general principles are based on Christian values, the way you go about achieving these goals will vary depending on whether you are a Republican or Democrat.

Consistent Ethic of Life
- Dramatically reduce abortion.
- End capital punishment.
- Stop genocide.

This is where the supposed "Christian values" look more Democratic than Christian. If Sojourners really wanted to have a "Consistent Ethic of Life" then their language about abortion would match their language about genocide and capital punishment.

Notice how they want to "End" capital punishment and "Stop" genocide. But when it comes to abortion they can't bring themselves to use strong language like that. They don't want to "end" abortion or "stop" the mass genocide of unborn children, instead they only want to "dramatically reduce."

This kind of pandering to the Democratic party has no part in a pamphlet that claims to be espousing "Christian values." And conspicuously absent from the list is any discussion of ending "euthanasia." Once again, Sojourners shows their true colors.

Racial Justice
- Reverse racial disparities.
- End environmental racism.

Again, these basic goals and principles line up with Christian values. The way to accomplish these goals will differ based on party affiliation.

Human Rights, Dignity, and Gender Justice
- Establish humane and holistic immigration policies.
- End torture worldwide.
- Stop human trafficking, promote religious freedom, fight HIV/AIDS, and defend the rights of women.

Strengthen Families and Renew Culture
- Strengthen marriage and families.
- Restore integrity to our civic and business practices.
- Prevent violence.

Good Stewardship of God’s Creation
- Reverse global climate change.
- Prioritize clean air and water.
- Develop clean and renewable energy.

In these last three sections are some of the issues that Christians should be able to rally around the easiest. Christians from both parties shouldn't have views that are so different that they couldn't work to accomplish these goals.

So in this "Principles and Policies for Christian Voters" pamphlet we see some good ideas mixed in with some hypocrisy. While it clearly has a bent toward policies that align with the Democratic Party, there are some positive ideas that Christians can get behind.

There are two thing, however, that are somewhat disturbing about this pamphlet. First, it is scary just how much like the Religious Right it is. It is scary for a any group to try to suggest the "Christian" way to vote on all the issues. Sojourners needs to be careful with these sort of suggestions. They sound eerily like the Christian Coalition of the late 90's.

Secondly, it is disturbing to read what Sojourners believes is a "Consistent Ethic of Life." It is neither consistent nor much of an ethic at all. If they hope to motivate conservative Christians to be more passionate about economic, environmental and peace issues, they need to come clean about their lack of passion about life issues.

It is hypocritical to want to "end" genocide in Darfur without also wanting to "end" the genocide of the unborn in the U.S. Sojourners says, "All life is a sacred gift from God, and public policies should reflect a consistent ethic of life." I hope they eventually come to terms with the fullness of what this really means, especially when it comes to abortion.

Finally, I would just caution all Christians to be careful whenever any group decides that their way to vote is the "Christian" way to vote. Just as conservative Christians should be cautious with these sort of statements from the Christian Coalition, liberal Christians should be cautious with these sort of statements from Sojourners.

There are, no doubt, biblical principles that we are called to follow when it comes to public policy. But we each need to humbly admit that we all come into politics with our own biases even as we strive to put our Christian values above it all.

pro-life dems

2008-08-19T18:48:00.004-05:00

Going against the flow is a hard thing to do. I have to hand it to the group "Democrats for Life of America." While most in the Democratic party are happy to stick with their tried-and-true views on abortion, this group is challenging the status quo from the inside out.

Democrats for Life of America is a national organization for pro-life members of the Democratic party (www.democratsforlife.org).

Here is what their mission statement says:
Democrats for Life of America exists to foster respect for life, from the beginning of life to natural death. This includes, but is not limited to, opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Democrats for Life of America is one of over 200 member organizations of Consistent Life: an international network for peace, justice and life.

Here is what this group is trying to do. They mobilize Democrats at local, state, and national levels to:
- elect pro-life Democrats to office
- support pro-life Democrats while in an elected position
- promote a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party platform
- achieve pro-life legislation with the help of national and state pro-life democrats
- participate actively in Democratic party functions and offices

I love this group. They decided not to just jump on the party bandwagon. Instead, they are willing to stand up for what they think is right even when it goes against the mainstream of their own party.

They remind me of the "creation care" movement that is happening among conservative evangelical Republicans. Care for the environment is important to these Republicans because they feel called to take care of God's creation. They fight for environmental issues even when other Republicans want to quiet their voices and push them to the fringe of the party.

The same is true for Democrats for Life. In an increasingly polarized political minefield that is Washington, D.C., I really respect those who are willing to go against what is easy in order to stand for what is right. May people from both sides of the aisle be willing to do this more and more.

olympics

2008-08-11T08:28:00.005-05:00

Last second come from behind wins. Triumphs in the midst of tragedy. Winning for your team. Winning for your country. Breaking down in the middle of a race because of injury and deciding to finish anyway. Hearing your national anthem. Watching your flag be raised. Making the impossible happen. Giving everything you have because you spent that last four years training for this moment.

These are the things that I love about the Olympics. I love the athletic competition. I especially love that they are competing for their countries back home rather than just themselves. There is something more pure about sport when you are doing it for your country. National heroes are born at the Olympic games.

I also love that it is a little taste of the Kingdom of God. Regardless of the fighting or disagreements between nations, athletes still come and compete against each other. And remarkably these Olympiads from enemy nations still shake hands after a hard fought race.

All people from all over the globe come together. All the different languages can be heard. Everyone comes with a spirit of good will. This is just a taste of what it will be like when Jesus returns.

Philippians 2:9-11
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Everyone, from everywhere will gather. All languages will speak his name. All nations will bow their knee.

The opening ceremonies of the Olympics this year are being named the most visually spectacular in the history of the Olympics. If that is just a foretaste of the Kingdom, imagine what Christ's return will be like.

You are the light of the world

2008-08-01T07:32:00.003-05:00

"You are the light of the world," Jesus says in Matthew 5:14. He doesn't challenge us to become a light for the world. He tells us what our real identity in Christ is. He reminds us of what we have forgotten. We already are the light of the world. After all, a "city on a hill cannot be hidden."

This is who we are as followers of Christ. Our challenge is not what we are going to be. We already are lights. Instead, our challenge is where we are going to be. Are we going to hide under a bowl or stand up on a lamp stand? Are we going to provide light for everything under the bowl, which happens to be our little introverted world, or are we going to give light to everyone in the house?

Jesus tells us who we are. He gives us our true identity. Then he asks us where we are going to stand. His call for us is to let our light shine before men that they may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven.

I used to view this passage as a "who am I going to be" question. But I see that that question has already been answered. The passage is really telling me who I am and then asking me "where" I am going to put myself in light of my true identity.

God's desire is that we would put our lives out there. That we would live transparently "before men." And in that way, provide light to this dark world.

hospitality

2008-07-28T07:30:00.003-05:00

I had to experience it first before I could try it myself. And we all have experienced it in one form or another. I got my first taste of it in my grandma's home. It was the overwhelming sense of being welcomed. It was the food that was made just for me. It was the way the beds were tucked in and the the way the whole house smelled clean. It was the jovial conversations around the dining room table after meals.

There is something magical about hospitality. My grandma showed me this as a boy. My parents showed me this after I moved out of the house. My mother-in-law is an amazing host as well. Each trip to Houston is full of good food and warm feelings. This is where my wife learned to express her gift of hospitality.

My friends also showed me the magic of hospitality with their backyard cookouts and Sunday football parties. My friends Greg Ritter and the Reichleys are especially good at being hosts. Hospitality for them is a kind of "John the Baptist." It prepares the way for the presence of God. It sets the stage of the coming of the Kingdom.

It's easy to read over parts in the bible that talk about hospitality. It doesn't seem like one of the "greater" gifts. But anyone who has been on the receiving end of it knows better. Good hospitality brings people in and brings people together. It has the power to connect one stranger to another and make them friends by the end of the night. It can mysterious make someone feel safe enough to be vulnerable with their lives. It breaks down walls and gently opens hearts.

Hospitality is the intersection between service and joy, community and celebration. It seems likely that most evangelistic gift of our generation will not be preaching or teaching as in generations past. Instead, it will be the gift of being a host. It will be the ability to invite people into our homes so that they can get a glimpse of His Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven."

energy policy

2008-07-25T08:12:00.005-05:00

Is anyone else frustrated that we are paying over $4 a gallon on gas and our Congress can't be bipartisan enough to pass a minor energy bill, let alone a comprehensive one?

Both parties have come to a forest fire of a problem with water pistols. The Dems talk about releasing oil from the Strategic Reserve. But this is a plan that will make us less safe in a crisis and won't put enough oil out on the market to affect the current price. Not only will this plan not really do anything in the short-term, but it hurts us in the long-term.

And the Republicans aren't doing any better. All they keep talking about is drilling off-shore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). Statistics show that opening up ANWR would give us up to one million barrels of oil. To the general public this sounds like a lot, but globally this is a drop in the bucket.

The oil wouldn't be able to hit the market until 10 years down the road and even then it would only decrease the oil we import by 2%. So for a 2% reduction in imports 10 years from now, the Republicans want us to take a chunk of the beautiful wildlife reserve the size of Delaware and turn it into ugly, polluting oil fields and refineries.

The Presidential candidates seem to have more comprehensive energy plans that include solar, wind and nuclear. But they will need a Congress who is ready to get past their little "drop in the bucket" plans. Both Presidential candidates will need a Congress who is ready to put down their little water pistols and think differently about oil.

double negative

2008-07-24T08:47:00.003-05:00

Decaffeinated coffee, nonalcoholic beer, unleaded gas, nonfat milk, unsaturated fat, sugar-free candy, and duty-free airport shops all have one thing in common; they are all known for what they are "not." They are named and characterized by what they don't have rather than what they do.

Christians often fall into this category as well. We are often known for what we don't "get to do" or aren't "allowed" to do. We are accused of being "unfun" and "sin-free," both of which are "untrue." Sometimes we are also known for not having things that we should have. We have a reputation for being "unforgiving," "grace-free" and "unloving." And while there is some of that in the church, it is also true that the most graceful, forgiving, loving people I have ever met have been followers of Christ.

It is true that Christians need to begin to be known for what they "are" rather than what they "aren't." We need to develop a reputation for what we stand "for" rather than just what we are "against." Jesus was good at this. People often tried to categorize him solely based on what he was "not," but he always managed to break through those confines to reveal who he really was.

If we Christians must be known for what we are "not," then let's be known for having a love for people that requires "no" hoops to jump through and "no" tests to pass. Let's be a people who's love can best be described by what it doesn't have. There was one "un-" that Jesus let stick to him. He never parted ways with this descriptor and neither should we. His love never fails to be "unconditional."

batteries

2008-07-23T08:44:00.003-05:00

The church lets me use one of their computers. It is a silver colored MacBook Pro. And whenever I use it I always have to check the upper right hand corner of the screen.

There is a little icon up there that looks like a AA battery. Next to it the computer tells me what percentage of energy I have left in the battery. If it starts to get low, say below 20%, the icon turns red. It's a warning light letting me know that it will only last for so long unless it is plugged in soon.

Sometimes I wish we had this sort of thing in our spiritual lives. It would make life easier if I had a blinking red light at the corner of my eye letting me know when I had been using my spiritual batteries long enough and that it was time to plug back into my Source of life and energy.

I think we all do this. We get charged up spiritually and we go out to face our lives. We don't reconnect to our Source immediately because we seem to be doing ok on battery. But then we stay out there too long. Our battery runs down and we begin to feel disconnected. It's not until we reconnect with Jesus that "life" comes back to us.

While we don't have a visual icon, our lives do have warning signs. Our problem is that we usually don't see them. Our lives give us clues that our spiritual lives are running on empty. Usually, we become more susceptible to temptation. We tend to get upset faster and more often. Our mood is often bad for reasons that are not a big deal. Oversensitivity and overreactions become commonplace. We essentially become, in little ways, less and less like the character of Christ. Sometimes only we can tell that we are running low. Many times others can tell too.

Jesus didn't have battery powered notebook computers in his day, but he did have vineyards. The same principle applies to both. This is what Jesus meant when he said in John 15:

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."

Maybe if he were here in our day he might say something like:
"I am the power cord; you are the laptop. If a person stays plugged in they can do great things; on battery power you're toast. If anyone does not stay plugged in, they are like a 1982 Commodore 64; these kinds of computers have long since been thrown in the trash. If you stay plugged in and powered up, I will do whatever you ask me to do. This is to my Father's glory, that you have real energy to do life-changing work, showing yourselves to be real Christians."

"Let..."

2008-07-19T10:26:00.003-05:00

The language of Genesis 1 is interesting. What strikes me is how many times God says, "Let..."

If we were to read Genesis 1 closely and ask ourselves who or what created the plants and animals, we could potentially have two correct answers. God of course is the obvious first answer. But when we read the text closely we see that God said, "Let the land produce vegetation..." and "Let the land produce living creatures..." (vss 11 & 24)

So while God no doubt created everything, there is a sense we get from the text that he did so indirectly. God gave "the land" a certain amount of responsibility in the creative process. We know that the "Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" throughout the process of creation. But it seems as though he gave his own creation some freedom to be a part of the process.

This is how God is with us. We know that from conception God is "knitting us together in our mother's womb."(Jer. 1:5) Yet God doesn't just snap his fingers and make us appear. Instead, God "creates" us in the womb by using natural processes over time.

This is also how he interacts with us throughout our lives. He guides our lives and directs our paths. But he does this through the daily, ongoing "hovering" of His Spirit rather than some instantaneous neon sign in the sky.

This also seems to be how He created "in the beginning." This repetition of "Let..." in Genesis 1 seems to point to the reality that God didn't just make everything appear instantly. Instead, it points to His ongoing Presence working indirectly through natural processes that He Himself set in motion.

What's more is that science confirms this view of scripture through geology, nuclear-physics, astronomy and DNA mapping. Examining both Genesis and science together reveals that the creation process was one of gradual species modification over long spans of time rather than a seven day instantaneous event.

The bible says...

2008-07-14T17:47:00.006-05:00

Scripture has always said:
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. (Revelation 7:1)

Christians used to interpret this as:
- confirming the idea that the world is flat.

Christians now interpret this as:
- a metaphorical way of saying the "whole world," not a literal geological description of the shape of the earth.

Scripture has always said:
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalm 104:5)
AND
Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

Christians used to interpret these as:
- double confirmation of the idea that the earth doesn't move, rotate or orbit.

Christians now interpret these as:
- two poetic ways of describing God's creation of and interaction with the earth, not literal scientific statements about earth's rotation or orbit.

Scripture has always said:
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (Ecc. 1:5)
AND
He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Jesus' words in Matthew 5:45b)

Christians used to interpret these as:
- proof from the Old Testament and Jesus own mouth that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around the earth.

Christians now interpret these as:
- metaphorical ways of describing the sun's apparent "movement" across the sky, not literal astronomical descriptions of the sun.

Conclusion:
So while we as Christians understand scripture to be completely authoritative for our lives, we also must realize that our "interpretations" of Scripture often have been in error. This is especially true when it comes to scripture passages that seem to deal with truths about the "natural world."

What caused the Church to shift their interpretations of these passages? In each case, it has been honest scientific study that has forced Christians to re-examine long held misinterpretations of scripture. So let's apply this lesson learned to one more section of scripture.

Application:
Scripture has always said:
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. (Genesis 2:1-3)

Christians used to and some continue to interpret this as:
- God created the heavens and the earth in seven literal days.

Christians should now interpret this as:
- a poetic way of saying that God created the heavens and the earth, not a scientific description of how He did it.

Just like the other passages mentioned, the creation passages were never meant to be treated like astronomical or geological textbooks. They were meant to point us to deeper truths. Genesis 1 and 2 tell us that God created. They reveal humanity as the crown of His good creation in which order, stewardship, relationship and rest are necessary parts.

But honest scientific discovery reveals that, just as in the other passages mentioned, taking these passages literally results in a misinterpretation of scripture.

the political strategies

2008-07-07T17:28:00.004-05:00

Both of our Presidential candidates have clear and obvious strategies when it comes to making themselves attractive to all Americans.

Let's start with Obama. His over-all strategy is to run with mostly politically "left" positions while seeming more "centrist." In order to do this he includes invitations in his speeches to moderates and Republicans to join his cause. Another tactic he uses to seem more "centrist" is to criticize those who come out on the "far left" on certain issues. For instance, he criticized John Murtha's position of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, he talks about a year-long redeployment and uses language like being "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." His criticism of his "far left" colleagues tends to make him to appear more "centrist" than he really is.

Now let's turn to McCain. His over-all strategy is to run with mostly "right" positions even though for most of his voting history he has been a moderate, centrist Senator. For most conservative Republicans, McCain's voting record is too moderate or too liberal. So he has had to make a shift in many of his positions so that he appears to be more conservative than he really is. He can get the moderates with his voting record in the Senate but he struggles to get the Republican base. So he has tried to become more hardline conservative in his run for the White House. He hopes this will win over the red states that he needs in November.

What we see here from both candidates is interesting. In Obama, we have a liberal candidate trying to avoid the "liberal elitist" label by appearing moderate. In McCain, we have a moderate Republican trying to appear more conservative so that he too can avoid the dreaded "liberal" label.

What I find interesting is the common movement that both McCain and Obama are making. They both are trying to appeal to the general population. Usually this attempt at appearing "electable" means that both candidates try to move to the center. Usually the leftist slides to the right and the right-wing slides to the left. What is interesting about this election is that in order to appeal to the general population and to their own parties both candidates are trying to take a half-step to the right so that they won't appear too "liberal."

This seems to hint at the fact that Washington is more liberal over-all in both parties than the general public is. When both candidates from both parties have to slide to the right just to seem electable to the American people, it could be a sign that Washington continues to be out of sync with the general population.

McCain's positions on gun control

2008-07-01T17:50:00.004-05:00

Here is a sampling of John McCain's positions on gun control according to www.ontheissues.org:

On gun control in general:
- McCain is a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights.
- He wants to punish violent offenders for abusing that right.
- He voted for increasing punishment on gun violations.
- He doesn't want to punish citizens for owning any type of gun.
- He supports repealing existing federal gun restrictions on non-offending citizens.
- He voted against the well known "Brady Bill" which required a 5-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns.

On assault weapons:
- McCain voted against any ban on assault riffles
- He voted against a ban on armor piercing ammunitions
- He said he would be open to voting for a ban on assault riffles depending on the details.
- He fears most bans againt assault riffles are backdoor attempts at taking away the Second Amendment right.

Kids and guns:
- McCain introduced a bill that would prevent juvenile access to guns and would punish junvenile gun offenders as adults

Background checks at gun shows:
- McCain voted against requiring background checks for all purchases at gun shows
- He voted to loosen regulations regarding background checks at gun shows

Gun Manufacturers:
- McCain acted to maintain the laws that allow dealers to sell guns without a trigger lock by tabling a bill that would require them.
- He voted consistently not to allow lawsuits that would hold gun manufacturers liable for the misuse of their product/gun.

While I appreciate McCain's support of our Second Amendment right and his desire to increase penalties for gun crimes, I think McCain is not strong enough when it comes to regulation.

I want people to have the right to bear arms. I also want people to have the freedom to enjoy hunting and the freedom to protect themselves in their own home. But I don't think people besides law enforcement and military should have the right to own assault riffles and armor piercing rounds. I also think McCain was wrong to vote against the Brady Bill.

Government needs to act to reduce the chance of guns getting into the hands of children. And it needs to make it near impossible to get assault weapons. McCain's bill (the Youth Violence Prevention Act) to address kids with guns is a step in the right direction, but McCain should desire more background checks and more regulation than he does. Obama's stance is definitely more in line with what I view as a balanced approach to gun control.

Obama's positions on abortion

2008-06-25T16:50:00.003-05:00

Here is what Barack Obama believes about abortion and what his voting record shows according to www.ontheissues.org:

On abortion in general:
- Obama consistently rates a 100% when it comes to voting "pro-choice".
- He is undecided as to whether he believes life begins at conception.
- He is a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade.
- He rates a 0% by the National Right to Life Committee

On partial-birth abortion:
- Obama believes states should have the right to restrict late-term abortions.
- He, however, voted against banning partial-birth abortion in Illinois in 1997 & 2000.
- Obama has adamantly defended women's rights to have partial-birth abortions.

On minors getting an abortion:
- Obama voted against a law that would require minors to notify their parents when getting an "out-of-state" abortion.
- He voted against a law that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for an abortion.

On funding to help reduce abortions:
- Obama voted to increase funding for education and contraception targeted at teens to reduce unwanted pregnancy.

Based on this summary of Obama's view, there is virtually nowhere that I agree with him on this issue. The only thing I agree with is the desire to increase funding to help prevent teens from getting unwanted pregnancies. Other than that, Obama is way off to the political left when it comes to this issue.

What is particularly disturbing is his defense of partial-birth abortion. Even some of the most liberal Democrats have voted against partial-birth abortion. Yet Obama is steadfast in his pro-choice stance even there.

wedding

2008-06-21T09:15:00.003-05:00

Weddings are a beautiful thing if done right. So many people rush into marriage or reluctantly give in to marriage after years of being together. Neither of those is the way you want it to be. But sometimes the story is straight from a storybook.

I had the pleasure of officiating the wedding ceremony for Kim Hawk and Jason Stern. But it was so much more than just "doing a wedding." I met Kim over 4 years ago when she first started coming to Horizon. She came with friends to a Link Group I was leading with Rebecca Miller. She was a freshmen in college then and had been dating Jason for a few years already.

But when I met her she was just beginning to really care about her relationship with Christ. And when I finally met Jason, a few months later, he was a super-skeptical critic of all things "Christian." Week by week, month by month I saw Kim begin to really plug into Horizon. Her best friend Jess Neal was the biggest factor in her spiritual growth, but I felt like I got front row seats to see the change in her life.

A few years later, we had multiplied the Link Group and decided to move it down to Glen Burnie. We met every week at Kim's parents' house. And for the first time, both Jess and Kim's boyfriends came consistently to Link Group. We were reading through scripture together and they had lots of questions. Jason came ready to doubt and ready to act as the cynic. But God can move even the most ardent "doubting Thomas" to a place of faith. And right before our eyes, Jason began to change.

His questions persisted but his heart began to open up. I will never forget one fateful conversation about Walmart. Jason and I had gotten into a political discussion about Walmart after Link Group was over. The others got up and went to the kitchen. When they got back we were still talking but the conversation had taken a turn. Things got "spiritual." Jason wanted to see a change in the world. I told him that the change in the world can only be done by people who had themselves been changed. Transformation in the world could only come from those who had truly been transformed. By this time Kim's dad had come in to join the conversation.

Finally Jason asked the most important of all the questions that he had. He asked how it is that he become transformed. It was the modern day equivalent of "What must I do to be saved?" The air in the room seemed to explode with the Holy Spirit. The question he asked dropped like a bomb. Everyone was silent. Everyone there knew that it was a special moment. I told Jason that he needed to get on his knees, call out to God, repent and give over his life to Christ. It was the modern day equivalent of "Repent and be baptized."

So many things culminated into that moment. Kim's parents had been talking to Jason for years about being a Christian. Kim had a number of talks with Jason about his spiritual life. Jess had always been there to answer his questions. Others had planted the seed. Others had watered it. God had made it grow. And God honored me with the chance to bring in the harvest.

Jason eventually decided to give his life over to Christ. And I had the honor of baptizing him. It was an emotional moment for me because I had seen where he had come from. Kim and Jason grew together as a newly Christian couple. They began to learn how to be Christians together. And when the time came for them to get married, they honored me with the privilege of officiating the wedding.

For months Missy and I had the special honor of walking them through our novice version of "pre-marital counseling." We talked with them through the tough issues that come to married people. We helped them through conflict. We examined their families and their communication styles. We looked at their budget and their plans for the future. And we had a blast doing it.

So after all of that, I got to stand up there and bring them into unity as a married couple. I got to hold their hand as they crossed the threshold from two into "one." I got to stand there on behalf of God as they said their vows. I got to invoke His name and His blessing on their relationship and their life together.

It was quite a moment. It was such a blessing to me. This is the way a wedding is supposed to go. This is how every marriage should begin. I will always treasure the honor of walking with people through these life-changing events in their lives. These are the moments where heaven bends down to touch the earth and we all taste just a bit of the Kingdom that is yet to come.

rewarding poverty with tax and spend

2008-06-20T08:53:00.004-05:00

The problem with most of our "government programs" that try to address poverty is that they tend to only "serve" the poor rather than try to help people out of poverty. When we only serve the poor we draw the lower middle class into poverty so that they can get some of the services that the poor are receiving. When we only serve the poor we give impoverished families no incentive to get out of poverty.

We have had government programs for the poor for nearly a century now. Has poverty increased or decreased? Poverty continues to grow because our programs are designed unwisely. We shouldn't reward poverty with more services than the middle class can afford for themselves. That doesn't make any sense.

If you are in the middle class and can't afford health insurance for your kids but come to realize that poor families are having their kids covered by the government, what would you do? With the government programs the way they are, it makes more sense for someone to be below the poverty line than it does for them to be in the working lower middle-class.

We need to reward having a job. We need to reward families for taking care of their kids. We need to reward the middle class, not tax them more.

And does anyone really believe that someone making 85,000 a year qualifies as "upper-class"? No, that is still middle class. What about 205,000 a year? Well it depends on where you live. That salary in the mid-west and places like Texas is pretty wealthy. But that salary in Northern Virginia, DC and Maryland is definitely not "upper class." That is truly the middle class in expensive places to live. Nobody making 200K in New York City is living extravagantly.

This is my biggest issue with tax and spend economic policies. They tend to tax people who are still in the middle class in order to spend money servicing the poor. Yet, people are not empowered to get out of poverty and the middle class gets the load of the burden.

Maryland residents have some of the highest state taxes in the country. Yet we also have a serious poverty problem in Baltimore. Likewise, the cost of living is putting a tremendous burden on Maryland's middle class. Tax and spend is not the answer. The overwhelmingly Democratic Maryland legislature has proved this all too well.

the myth of progress

2008-06-10T23:05:00.002-05:00

N.T. Wright raises an interesting point about the "myth of progress" in his new book Surprised By Hope. He describes the "myth of progress" as the pressing theme in the Western world growing out of the liberal modernism of the 19th century.

The "myth of progress" is the idea that on our own, humanity can press toward the future and achieve a kind of civil utopia. If only we enact the right laws, establish the right programs and move together in the right direction, then our societies will all move toward a perfect world. This was the driving motivation behind both the rise of Democracy and the rise of Communism. It was this humanistic myth of progress that gave Karl Marx his foundation for Marxist revolution.

The problem with this myth is that it has no answer for evil in the world. In light of all the apparent "progress" that has happened in the world, an equal amount of evil has grown along with it. Technology has had great advances but nuclear weapons have been created. Wars have been fought and won but peace is still elusive. The church has spread around the world but the church has also committed some horrible atrocities throughout history. Diseases have been cured but AIDS is the new epidemic of our time.

The myth of progress is a myth because not only does it fail to explain all the evil that continues to grow in the world but it doesn't have a plan on how to address this evil. Generation after generation, sin remains and humanity is no closer to utopia than we were thousands of years ago.

We can see the myth of progress in its triumphant failure in the Genesis 11 story of the Tower of Babel. People decide to come together as never before. They united in a common language and with a common purpose. They even had a brand new technology (bricks) propelling them into their new invention (the city). The highlight of human achievement was the tower itself which reached into the heavens. It spoke to the people who created it. It proclaimed to the whole human race that soon they would build a tower tall enough to be in heaven. And soon they would be gods over their own universe.

This story shows us the fruit of every human project that begins under the guise of "progress." Initially, it brings people together; it unifies humanity under a common cause; it marvels in new technology and fosters a hope for the dawn of a new day. But this utopian fervor doesn't last long. Soon sin creeps in and pride comes before the fall. God, knowing the intoxication of the myth of progress, ended this project by his own hand by confusing the language at the Tower of Babel.

And that was the first of many human-born revolutions that ended in tragedy, pain and division. Since then we have seen hopes rise and fall. We have seen kingdoms and peoples come and go. And the only lasting Kingdom has been the one, not established by humanity, but by God Himself.

Jesus described the world best with his parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13). He cuts through the myth of progress and reveals the truth about our broken world. The wheat and the weeds will grow up together and they won't be divided until the harvest. The wheat will be brought into his storehouse and the weeds will be thrown into the fire. The Kingdom of God will progress on this earth, but it will always grow side by side with the sin and evil that is of the kingdom of this earth. The matter won't be settled until Christ returns and makes everything right again.

So our role as Christians is to avoid buying into this "myth of progress." We are called to be a part of God's Kingdom on earth. We are called to take this world back from the Enemy and proclaim through our redemptive work that "Jesus is Lord." We are called to go to the least of these and treat them like Jesus Himself. We are called to make this world a the kind of place that God had always intended it to be. That means we strive for justice, peace, love and forgiveness. That means we live by hope.

But our hope is not in a false notion of progress. Our hope is that Jesus is, in fact, Lord of all Creation and that He will return one day and give us resurrected bodies. And we will get to reign with him in the new heaven and new earth. Our hope is that the goodness of that future world yet to come has broken into the present through our Messiah Jesus. And because the future has burst into the present, our hope is not just a hope for the future but a hope for today. Our hope is that God will redeem and is redeeming His Creation and His people right now. This full-bodied Christian hope should help us see through the thinly veiled notions of progress and humanistic utopia.

watching history

2008-06-04T11:20:00.003-05:00

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, we must admit the historical nature of this years election. On the side of the Democrats, the nominee for President of the United States is an African-American. What is more is that he is the product of an African immigrant marrying a white woman from Kansas. That is to say, he is the son of a racially mixed marriage.

I wonder what our Founding Fathers would say about this moment. Could they have even imagined what would happen when they first penned those words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Could they have foreseen that these words written in 1776 would have led to a civil war in the 1860's? And that these words led to the first line of Lincoln's famous address that healed a divided nation: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

And could they have imagined that that God-given truth about humanity would lead further still to the Civil Rights movement and the famous speech at the mall in Washington, remembered so famously for these words: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'."

Could any of them have really understood the power of their words? Did the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, or Dr. King understand that their resounding belief in equality would echo over and over again in the hearts and minds of Americans? Did they realize that each time they chose to highlight these truths about the Creator and His creation, about God and His humanity, that they were opening the doors of opportunity for a young, African-American boy from a mixed-marriage?

The swell of energy from those words spoken down through history have culminated in a tidal-wave of hope that is now crashing onto the shores of the 21st century. For the first time in our American history, the unthinkable has become a reality. What was once out of reach has been taken hold of. An African-American is one of two nominees for President, and is the favorite at that!

Ever wonder what it feels like to watch history happen right before your eyes? Well, now we know. Our generation now stands alongside the generation that wrote the Declaration of Independence. Our generation now stands humbly with Lincoln at Gettysburg. Our generation now stands arm in arm with our parent's generation, marching alongside Dr. King.

We are the generation that finally sees the fruition of the dreams of so many. And as Americans, it can no longer be doubted that we mean what we say when we say that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." The vision of a few revolutionaries 232 years ago is finally taking shape and it is an honor to be alive to see it.

did you know?

2008-05-30T09:49:00.002-05:00

A fun fact about Barack Obama is that he is a long-time smoker. Did you know that? I find that interesting not because it somehow disqualifies him as President, but because most modern-day Democratic Presidential nominee wouldn't be caught dead being a smoker. They would rather be accused of "doing drugs once" in their past. Drugs sit better with the Democratic, anti-tobacco lobby, super-health conscience, vegetarian electorate at the base of the Democratic Party than cigarettes do.

Here is a clip from the news:
Obama told the Chicago Tribune in December 2005 that his smoking is "an ongoing battle," and his cigarette use was, in fact, known during his 2004 Senate campaign, when his wife told the Chicago Sun-Times that he smokes "about three Marlboros a day."

I think it adds a little humanity and earthiness to a candidate that is often making idealistic speeches.

I hope, however, that he quits before becoming President. I just don't like the idea of a smoker President who has to "step outside" of the oval office for cigarette breaks so that he doesn't make the White House smell like a chimney. I also hope he quits for the sake of his daughters who are bound to be affected by the second hand smoke.

Wouldn't it be great to see "President Obama" one day looking over the wreckage left from a hurricane with his sleeves rolled up revealing a "nicotine patch" on his upper arm. I would much rather see that then a stressed out "President Obama" puffing away on a needed cigarette after looking at the hurricane aftermath.

And I wonder how tough Obama can be as a Democratic President on the tobacco lobby when he gets withdrawal if he doesn't have his three Marlboros a day.

Obama is not always inspiring

2008-05-15T08:50:00.003-05:00

The Onion has done it again. When it comes to spoofing the news, The Onion ranks up there with The Daily Show.

I enjoyed this radio news story about Obama:

Obama Voicemail Message Not That Inspiring

meditative motion

2008-05-14T14:19:00.004-05:00

The traditional list of spiritual disciplines is something like this: praying, fasting, serving, meditating, studying, solitude, silence, etc. I think I would like to add a new one.

When we were a newly licensed teenage driver, there was nothing quite as fulfilling as driving around with the windows down and the music up. If it was a warm summer evening and our cars were packed full of friends, even better. I don't know what it was about driving with no particular place to go that was so compelling. But when we did it with the windows down, blasting our favorite tunes on a beautiful day, it refreshed our souls.

I think we should recapture that moment today. As many of us get older, have more responsibilities, more bills, kids and spouses, we tend to experience this teenage rite of passage much less if at all. I think our souls suffer for it. We should re-live this experience as adults but in a new way. I think it should become a new spiritual discipline. With a few simple changes, I think it can become a powerful spiritual experience for us.

First, rather than packing friends or family in the car, drive solo. Secondly, make sure the songs you blast into the atmosphere are worship songs. Then drive around town with no particular destination. Put the windows down (and sunroof if you have one) and worship at the top of your lungs. Feel the wind on your face, the acceleration of your car, and the power of worship all dance together in one beautiful moment. Imagine Jesus sitting to your right enjoying the moment with you.

Maybe we can name it the spiritual discipline of "meditative motion" or "acceleration celebration." Whatever we call it, with this adolescent ritual turned spiritual exercise, we will have a unique opportunity to experience and connect with God.

evil world

2008-05-09T09:48:00.004-05:00

It's hard to hear stories of evil and suffering in the world.

A cyclone wipes out a country and hundreds die in an instant. Four teens break in to rob a house and end up shooting a mother of 2, paralyzing her from the chest down. A father rapes his daughter for more than a decade producing multiple kids. A family loses everything because a drunk driver crashed into them and their health care won't cover all the bills. Teenage girls resort to prostitution to provide for their family and end up contracting AIDS.

Just watch the news for more than 2 minutes and you will see stories like this everyday. So much evil is in the world. So many people are suffering.

Sometimes I grieve. Then, I imagine the grieving heart of God. I wonder if He ever just wants to destroy this place with all of its sin. Our world is like a piece of fruit fallen to the ground with ants swarming all over it. Most of us would just count it a loss. We would throw the fruit away if we cared to pick it up at all. I wonder if God ever wants to just toss us in the trash or leave us fallen in the grass.

I am reminded that He did destroy the world one time. With a flood of water, He wiped out all of the earth and left only one faithful family. And this should be a good reminder for us. The evil and sin that causes such suffering in the world is not "out there." It is "in us." Even after God destroyed everyone but Noah, sin still survived. Inside even the most faithful, sin survives like a dormant virus.

When we gasp at the horrific evil in this world, let us not forget that we are gasping at our own dark potential apart from Christ.

broken car

2008-05-06T13:15:00.002-05:00

For reasons known only to the mysterious guild of car mechanics, this week my car decided not to no longer back up. I can drive it forward just fine. All my "forward" gears work perfectly. I just can't reverse. Sure, the car geniuses would tell you that it is probably that the reverse gear has broken down or that there is a larger transmission issue. But I do not know the world of "under the hood" inspections. I deal in the metaphysical and therefore choose to believe that my car is trying to communicate a deeper message to me.

What I believe is happening is that my 12 year old car is performing the equivalent of a "sit-in." This tactic of civil disobedience is best known from the civil rights movement of the 60's. Essentially, my car has decided that he will no longer go backward. And by this act of defiance my car is teaching me an important truth.

In order to move forward, one needs to be able to move backward in short and strategic bursts.

I don't know why my car is trying to teach me this lesson this week. But it is an important lesson for all of us. You try driving a car that only moves forward and see how you do. If you can only move forward, you can't park in most spots. Without the ability to reverse, you can't make any mistakes going forward. If you find the nose of your car sticking too far out into the perpendicular street at the intersection, tough luck. If you need to turn around using a three-point turn, too bad.

Most of our driving and our lives are done by moving forward. However, the ability to back up, take a second look and re-think decisions is essential. We often don't notice our need to back up until the day that we are not able to do it.

Reverse is an important gear both for our cars and for our lives. We don't need to spend a lot of time backing up. This particular gear wasn't meant for quantity. Backing up tends to be more about quality and timing. There are times in driving and in life when the only way to move forward is to first move backward.

framing Horizon

2008-05-01T12:34:00.004-05:00

Horizon Church of Towson is:

Like an intimate music venue; there's no cover-charge at the door.

Like a freshman intro class; there are no pre-requisites before joining.

Like Facebook; we tend to make new friendships through current ones.

Like the mogwai Gizmo from the movie Gremlins; we multiply.

Like a Whole Foods Market; we tend to be organic.

Like a concrete foundation; integrity is essential.

Like Enterprise Rent-A-Car; we will meet you where you are.

Like Kudzu; we grow together.

Like the kids who get on the plane first; many of us feel like "unaccompanied minors."

Like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart; we are relevant to culture, often funny and sometimes irreverent.

Like a mule; we prefer to work in teams and often get accused of being an "ass."

Like a self-checkout machine at the grocery store; we what to empower you to do it yourself.

Like a cell phone; we are small, mobile and easy to talk to.

Like a car navigation system; we will help you head in the right direction.

Like a pre-teen first date; we meet up at the movie theater.

Like a tour guide going up Mt. Everest; we like small groups.

Like Olympic figure skating; most of us are singles but there are some pairs.

Like a poor goat herder; we love kids but we just don't have many.

enough already

2008-04-29T22:21:00.003-05:00

There is a part of our Presidential nomination process that doesn't make sense to me. Hillary and Barack have been campaigning for their party's nomination for over a year and a half. McCain had to go for just over a year to get the Republican nomination. But when it comes to deciding a President, there will only be a few months of head to head campaigning between McCain and the Democratic nominee.

Doesn't that seem backward to anyone else? It seems like the parties should choose their nominee earlier in the process and allow more time for comparison between the two parties' Presidential candidates.

The way the process is going now is expending an extraordinary amount of money, energy and time. By the time American's get to the poles in November, the nation will have "over-campaigning fatigue syndrome." I wouldn't be surprised if what we find at the conclusion of the Presidential race is a tired electorate which serves up an anticlimactic ending.

MJ on failure

2008-04-25T17:34:00.002-05:00

“I’ve missed over 9,000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games.

26 times I’ve been trusted to take the game-winning shot…and missed.

I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”

Michael Jordan

tragedy and punishment

2008-04-25T14:20:00.002-05:00

Three cops open fire on a man named Sean Bell. He dies and later was found to be an innocent man. The three cops opened fire because they believed he was a threat. They got it wrong and Sean died needlessly. This is the definition of tragedy.

But today the courts found the cops innocent. Apparently there was enough reason for the cops to open fire that it was not considered a murder or manslaughter. So while this event is truly a horrible tragedy, the cops were not punished for their mistake.

From what I have heard of the details, I agree with the verdict. The evidence did not support the theory that the cops intended to kill Bell that day. Instead, evidence revealed that while they did make a mistake, their mistake was founded on reasonable split-second decision-making.

But what is interesting is the American tendency in these situations to demand punishment. If there is a tragedy of any kind, we want someone to pay. If someone is wronged, someone else must be punished. This is why our civil courts are jam packed with even the most trivial of cases.

But tragedy does not always mean someone is criminally at fault. We anesthetize ourselves from all forms of pain. And when unjust suffering comes along, we need someone to be punished. When we can't blame another person for our pain, we turn our wrath toward God.

In our world, unjust suffering exists. Blame, punishment, and distance from God doesn't make it better. In most cases, it fosters more injustice. Sometimes unjust suffering is just that. It is unjust and unfair. Suffering is just that. It is painful and gut-wrenching. Sometimes no one is to blame.

pro-choice but anti-abortion

2008-04-24T20:09:00.002-05:00

There is a new camp in the abortion debate that is growing among some Democrats and politically progressive Christians. It is the "pro-choice/anti-abortion" position. It is the position we hear defended by Rudy Gulianni, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The argument usually goes something like this: "I personally don't like abortion. We should be doing everything we can to help women with unwanted pregnancies get the help they need in order to avoid abortion. Better yet, we should focus our energies on reducing unwanted pregnancies with educational programs that focus on contraception rather than abstinence. But I am pro-choice because I don't think the government should invade women's right to privacy. I don't want government making such a difficult decision."

Usually the person goes on to site what they believe to be legitimate cases for abortion like rape, incest and the health of the mother. They assert that while they are morally against the idea of ending what they call "potential life," they wouldn't want government to tell a woman what she has to do, particularly in the afore mentioned cases.

This all seems fairly legitimate...at first. But let's do some homework. I wonder how many abortions are actually done in such tough cases such as rape, incest and the woman's health?

According the a study found here, 0.33% of abortions are done because of rape or incest; 1.2% are due to maternal health problems; but 98% are done because of personal choice.

Those statistics are staggering. That means 98% of the abortions in the U.S. are done out of convenience. And of that 98%, only 32% are done because the potential mother believed she was too young. That means an incredible 66% of all abortions are done by people who consider themselves old enough to have kids but simply don't want one.

The days of arguing that abortion should be legal for crisis situations is over. The truth is that they aren't done for crisis situations. They are done because humanity is selfish. If abortion was legal for crisis situations only, the abortion rate would drop 98%. If people who claim that they are "pro-choice but anti-abortion" really were "anti-abortion" they would have found a way to work with pro-life people to make that happen long ago.

People with the "pro-choice/anti-abortion" view are often concerned with issues of social justice. They are often proud of their concern for human and civil rights. But for some reason, when it comes to the unborn, their burning hot passion for justice runs cold. If we want to be a truly just society, the laws need to change. We can't be a just society when we allow the murder of unborn babies all in the name of "convenience." Social justice and human rights demand that the government end our society's practice of killing unborn lives.

a sign that reads "Please Remove Sandals"

2008-04-23T23:04:00.006-05:00

What makes space sacred? Is it just the presence of the living God in our midst? Is it mediating objects like candles, crosses and altars which tune our hearts Godward? Maybe some of both?

Nature often seems sacred. This may at first lead us to believe that all we need is the presence of God for space to become sacred. If we look closer, however, we may realize our need for media even there. The gentle breeze, the swaying trees, the distant birds all function as intermediaries and intercessors drawing us into the Divine.

Maybe all worship is just replicating pieces of creation. We imitate the coming of the new earth and the new heaven. For Israel it was a lit menorah mimicking the sun in order to provide needed light in the Holy Place. It was the bronze basin mirroring the sea. The Most Holy Place became their hidden grove in a darkened forest, which, of course, one wisely enters with trepidation.

All worship then and now is mere anticipation of nature in its redeemed fullness. The heavens declare the glory of God and so do we.

holistic gospel

2008-04-23T14:46:00.002-05:00

With passion and conviction a new generation of Christians are being raised up to live like Jesus and spread his message all over the world. Like never before, young American Christians have the resources to travel to the impoverished parts of the world. And like never before, young, American evangelicals have a heart for the "least of these" both at home and abroad.

This trend is both encouraging and dangerous. It is encouraging because it is a sign that we Americans are beginning to learn about the holistic nature of the gospel. The good news is good news for the whole person, body, soul and mind and not just good news for the soul. It is good news for the present and the future and not just good news for the "after-life."

The danger in finally learning to live out a holistic gospel is that it would slip into a "social gospel." But the failed experiment of the social gospel in America should die here. If we export it to Africa and Asia, it will have the same devastating and materialistic affects that it has had in the U.S.

The holistic gospel recognizes people's "whole person" needs. It recognizes that people need food and clean water and that as Jesus' hands and feet on earth, it is our job to help them get them. It recognizes that people need basic health care and that the church should be the leaders in promoting solutions to fulfilling these needs for people globally. It recognizes people's need for education so that they might glorify God with all their minds and have opportunities that are self-sustaining.

It also recognizes that the greatest need of all for people is to connect to, worship and receive love from their Creator. It admits that while physical and social needs are part of the gospel, the gospel is incomplete if it does not address the person at the level of their soul.

The social gospel often forgets this last and greatest need. It assumes that it is enough to fulfill physical needs without ever addressing the deeper needs of the spirit. The social gospel is like a person who waters their indoor plants everyday yet keeps the plants in a dark closet. A plant needs both light and water to grow. Water without light kills the plant and does a good job of growing mold. Light without water kills the plant and dries up the soil. Both are needed for healthy plants.

This is also the case for the gospel. For people to grow into the fullness of what God designed them to be, we need a holistic gospel. We need a gospel that offers the hope of transformation for the inner life and the outer life. The good news of Jesus offers both.

springtime olfaction

2008-04-22T11:09:00.004-05:00

Spring is in full bloom. The colors and smells of new life are all around us.

I smelled one of my favorite spring smells wafting through my window this morning. If life were a perfume, the smell of cut grass would be an essential ingredient. The smell of cut grass is unique among all smells. It is a primary, indivisible smell. Like a primary color or number, it can't be broken down into parts. It can't be described by other smells.

The smell of cut grass stirs up nostalgic memories of little league baseball, lazy Saturday afternoons, and family reunions. It is the smell that rewards the suburbanite dad for a job well done on the lawn. It is the smell that heightens the senses of the athlete at the start of the game. It is nature's version of the new car sent.

The smell of cut grass does something to our soul. It makes us want to get outside and take a deep breath. It has a way of sneaking through the crevices of our dark, damp buildings and drawing us out into the light of the sun.

what is the emerging church?

2008-04-20T23:03:00.003-05:00

If you are confused about the emerging church or the group that calls themselves "Emergent," I found a good article from Christianity Today that can help. Here is how the article begins:

"It is said that emerging Christians confess their faith like mainliners—meaning they say things publicly they don't really believe. They drink like Southern Baptists—meaning, to adapt some words from Mark Twain, they are teetotalers when it is judicious. They talk like Catholics—meaning they cuss and use naughty words. They evangelize and theologize like the Reformed—meaning they rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time. They worship like charismatics—meaning with their whole bodies, some parts tattooed. They vote like Episcopalians—meaning they eat, drink, and sleep on their left side. And, they deny the truth—meaning they've got a latte-soaked copy of Derrida in their smoke- and beer-stained backpacks.

Along with unfair stereotypes of other traditions, such are the urban legends surrounding the emerging church—one of the most controversial and misunderstood movements today. As a theologian, I have studied the movement and interacted with its key leaders for years..."

Read the rest of the article by Scot McKnight here and you will get a good primer on the emerging church.

I tend to agree with Scot's take on the emergent church. I agree with what he likes about the movement and what he dislikes about it. As an evangelical seminary theology professor, he has a very informed, balanced and theologically articulate view of the emergent conversation.

intuition of comedy

2008-04-20T21:34:00.004-05:00

Comedians are not unlike preachers. They stand in front of crowds of people talking about life. They both are responsible for being able to interpret culture in a way that gets at the truth of things. They both reveal the silly way people act and that, if we would just stop and think about things, we would see how ridiculous most of our normal behaviors really are.

The main difference is that while the comedian interprets culture in order to be funny, preachers must interpret both scripture and culture and they do so in order to transform lives.

But preachers could learn a thing or two from comedians.

Comedians are masters in timing and delivery. They are also brilliant in the way they see the world. They pay attention to life in order to really see it differently. They can speak a hard truth to their audience, while simultaneously making people laugh at themselves. That ability is something most preachers are wildly inept at doing.

Comedians seem to be able to get people to see a truth about themselves by sneaking it in the back door of their heart and mind. Many preachers try to knock down the front door, which as been locked and double bolted shut. They think being forceful with truth is the way to get it into people's hearts and minds. Comedians, however, intuitively understand that a truth sometimes needs to come at people from the side rather than straight on.

Jesus understood this principle as well. That is why he told parables and stories most of the time rather than just spewing out propositional statements about the Kingdom. Jesus didn't just tell his audience, "Stop running away from God." Instead, Jesus told the parable of the prodigal son. He didn't just tell Jews to stop being prejudice. Instead, He told the parable of the good Samaritan.

The ability to help people see themselves for who they really are is rare. Unfortunately, these days we see this ability more often used by comedians than preachers.

I wonder what would happen if preachers gained the intuition of comedians and applied that wisdom to preaching the word of God. I imagine people in the pews would finally begin to receive the truth rather than just ducking as it is thrown at them from the pulpit.

costly

2008-04-17T21:31:00.002-05:00

Forgiveness costs more than we are able to pay.

When we forgive someone, we tell them that they no longer have to repay the relational debt that has been incurred. But the debt must be paid for us to be whole. True forgiveness means that not only do we not ask for the payment but also that we don't keep the debt on the record books. Again, the debt must be paid for us to be whole. But we don't have the resources to pay the other person's debt in our lives.

This is why followers of Jesus can truly forgive. We have received a payment that not only covers the debt of others but also our own. It was the perfect payment. It was the offering of a life. But not just a life - The Life. The Life in whom all other life exists. And it was given as a payment for our relational debt with God. But the payment was so huge that it overflows into other people's relational debt to us.

Forgiveness costs more than we are able to pay.

being right

2008-04-16T22:51:00.003-05:00

The problem with being right is that you begin to think that you are always right. I was reading a blog post written by one of the big named evangelical leaders of America. Every other word seemed to be about how his denominational doctrine was right and how the Catholic Church was wrong. He was convinced that he fully grasped the truth and everyone else didn't.

Permeating his writing was the consistent theme of "Being Right." For this particular leader, being right was the ultimate goal of life. And who can blame him. He has probably been told he was "right" for decades now by everyone around him. This is what happens to big named leaders.

It happens to Presidents and Popes, movie stars and religious leaders. They begin to be surrounded by "yes" men and women. Saturated in their own ego, they begin to believe the voices that tell them how right they are. Soon their lives are consumed with being right and defending their view against everything that might make it seem like they could be wrong.

Since when did Jesus call us to be right? Is that our chief goal of life? I think not. The problem is that so many denominational leaders, radio preachers and big named Christian speakers get all caught up in this obsession. They build their life like a tower of cards and must, therefore, protect it violently against the winds of dissent.

These folks have traded in the humility of Christ for the arrogance of thinking they have cornered the market on truth. It has probably been years since they have said the words, "I was wrong." And it has probably been decades since they have uttered the gentle request, "Please forgive me."

control

2008-04-15T20:08:00.002-05:00

The veil that covers our eyes is the illusion of control. The paradox of living is that the very thing over which we believe we have the most control is the thing we have the least. We are told to make good decisions because our decisions will shape the rest of our lives. While this is true, it often leads us to misunderstand the level of control we actually have over our lives.

Decisions are important, but we don't actually have very much control over our life. The thing we have the least control over is the actual "life" part of our life. And this is what terrifies us the most.

A student walks into a college classroom and begins to open fire. Dozens of innocent lives are ended abruptly. The nation is horrified.

Two planes crash into twin towers. The nation watches in shock.

A car smashes into a truck and creates a pile-up on the highway. Cars creep by as their passengers stare at the wreckage.

A mother finds out that she has cancer. It's terminal. Her family mourns.

These events are the kind that scare us the most. My hunch is that there is something deeper in our fright than just death.

We all know we are going to die one day. We don't like to think about it but somewhere in the recesses of our mind we know it is true. We even know that some will die earlier than others. Early death is often shocking but not really a surprise. We know it has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future.

Beyond the fear of death, I believe a greater fear lurks within. This fear is the life altering truth that we are not in control of death and, subsequently, life. Death can come in an instant. It doesn't need a reason to come. It doesn't need some meaningful cause. Death can come whenever and wherever it wants. It is not limited by logic, reason, or time. It can come in any form to any person in any moment.

It's not so much death itself, but our utter inability to control death that haunts us. Not being able to control death means that we do not have ultimate control over our lives. We can pretend that we do. But it is those who have gotten close enough to death to smell its breath who understand the reality that we are not in control.

As a reaction to this silent and haunting truth, some choose to self-medicate with wealth, pleasure, drugs and other forms of escapism. Still others wallow in the despair of it all. The first reaction tries to give life a temporal meaning. The second assumes life has no meaning. Both are different roads to the same emptiness.

Only hope of the eternal gives life eternal meaning. Only hope of life after death takes the fear out of death. Only trusting in the truth of Someone in control takes the terror out of being out of control. Only Someone who has defeated death can offer this sort of hope.

When the inevitable comes and when it comes suddenly, being out of control won't be so bad. Acknowledging that we are out of control is really just the admission that there is Someone greater to whom we can trust our life and death and new life.

3 theological temptations

2008-04-10T09:02:00.005-05:00

Matthew 4 reveals that Jesus experienced three temptations in the desert. His first was the temptation to turn stones into bread. This was more than just a temptation to satisfy his own hunger. It was a temptation to be the ultimate provider for all who were hungry.

Theologically, this temptation manifests itself in the materialism of the "social gospel." The lie buried deep within this temptation is that the physical needs of the masses is the most important need. Churches and denominations experience this temptation today. This temptation is especially strong in more liberal churches that tend to emphasis social justice issues.

Jesus responds to this temptation by reminding Satan that the real hunger inside people is not just for bread, but for the Word of God. Jesus never rejects people's real physical needs. And on more than one occasion he becomes the provider of bread and fish for thousands of people. But Jesus resists this temptation by bringing to light the deeper human need.

His second temptation was to fall down from the temple and be saved by angels catching him. If he were to pull off this miracle right in front of all the religious elite at the Temple, he would instantly be upheld as the Messiah. The temptation here is to become the leader of the religious elite by way of the miraculous.

Theologically, this temptation manifests itself in the sometimes Montanist-like charismatic views of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The lie buried deep within this temptation is that miracles give birth to faith and should, therefore, be the primary mode of evangelism. This view often misuses scripture and slips into a sort of "spiritual elitism" based on who has had certain manifestation of the Spirit and who has not. This temptation is especially strong in churches that tend to be Pentecostal or charismatic.

Jesus responds to this temptation by reminding Satan that no one should put the Lord to the test. God should not be treated like a miracle vending machine. Miracles and manifestations of the Spirit are not the litmus test of spiritual maturity or power. Jesus often did miracles, signs, wonders and healings. The early church often experienced the various manifestations of the Holy Spirit. But miracles never produced faith. They merely affirmed and strengthened existing faith. Doubters still doubted even after the miracles. And Jesus healed among the common people. It wasn't ever a show for the religious elite so that he could be their leader. His miracles were often a sign to the people that the Kingdom of God had come.

His third temptation was to be the political ruler of all the kingdoms of the world. It was a temptation, essentially, to be Caesar. All Jesus had to do was bow down and worship Satan in order to have all of that power. This was a temptation to take a short cut to being the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was an offer of power without going through the cross. It was a political temptation that required submission to Satan rather than to God the Father.

Theologically, this temptation manifests itself in the tendency to marry the church with politics and the tendency to try to bring about the spread of the gospel by force. The lie buried deep within this temptation is the idea that if Christians have more power in society, the gospel will reach more people. Historically, the gospel spreads more through subversive, underground movements than it does through political power. We see the damage of falling to this temptation in things like the Crusades and the Inquisition. This temptation is especially strong in conservative churches who reject the historically Christian principle of "separation of church and state."

Jesus responds to this temptation by telling Satan to leave. Jesus is clear that he will worship and serve God the Father only.
Jesus refused the seduction of power. And he refused the compromise of having a "short-cut" to honor. Jesus knew that it wasn't the first who will be first but the last who will be first. Jesus stayed on the path that requires submission and sacrifice before honor and exaltation. Jesus was the King. He already ruled the earth, but his coronation was yet to come.

We see these temptations still bombard the Church today. Jesus faced these different distortions of his messianic role with the truth of scripture and by maintaining intimacy with the Father. We as the Church must do the same.

April 9th

2008-04-08T23:03:00.004-05:00

In 340 on this day, the Roman Emperor Constantine II was assassinated.

In 1483 on this day, the King of England, Edward IV died.

In 1626 on this day, English philosopher and scientific theorist, Francis Bacon died.

In 1770 on this day, English explorer Captain Cook discovered Australia.

In 1859 on this day, Samuel Clemens (pseudonym "Mark Twain") was issued a steamboat pilot’s certificate.

In 1860 on this day, the Pony Express began delivering mail for the first time.

In 1865 on this day, Lee surrendered to Grant at Fort Appomattox to end the Civil War.

In 1926 on this day, Hugh Hefner was born.

In 1940 on this day, Nazi Germany invaded Denmark and Norway.

In 1954 on this day, Dennis Quaid was born.

In 1957 on this day, the Suez Canal in Egypt was cleared and opened to shipping.

In 2001 on this day, Van Stephenson, my uncle and the former lead guitar player for the band Blackhawk, died.

But the best was yet to come.

Two years ago on this day the love of my life honored me by saying "I do."

Today we celebrate two years of marriage and many more to come!

like love

2008-04-08T08:46:00.002-05:00

We had a great conversation last night with a group of friends about "loving" and "liking." As Christians we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. Love covers over a multitude of sins. This is how we know what love is, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. And we love because God first loved us.

But where does "liking" someone come into play with all of this. Most of us find it easier to love someone if we "like" them. But there are other times that we don't really "like" people and we know we must love them.

My sister made an interesting observation that helped us have a more truthful conversation about all of this. She noticed that "like" was more particular and "love" was more holistic. Meaning, it is often more true to say that we "like" or "dislike" a certain part of a person rather than the whole person. When we are referring to the whole person, love is a more appropriate term.

It is often the case that we can like a person's personality, but dislike their actions. We can like a person's humor, but dislike certain aspects of their character. We can like the way a person works hard but dislike some of the decisions that they have made. "Like," more often than not, seems to be "particular."

It is rarely true that "we don't like someone." It is also rarely true that "we like someone." Most of the time we don't "like" or "dislike" every single aspect of the people we are in relation to. When we say "I don't like him" or "I like him," what we usually mean is that from what we know of the person, the balance of scales has moved in one direction or the other. It is more true to say, "I like many things about him" or "I dislike many things about him."

So since "like" tends to be more "particular" in nature, as we talked, we noticed that loving someone has an impact on that. Even if we "dislike many things about someone," as we strive to love them, our eyes are opened to more and more things that we like about them. We begin to see their value more and more. We begin to see their strengths more and more. We begin to see them with all of their potential and possibility. We get glimpses of who they are becoming. In a sense, we begin to have eyes to see the way God sees them.

Most of the time, we love people where a good portion of "like" is already there. But in following Jesus, we are called to love people whom we don't automatically see things in them to "like." We may, in fact, dislike most things about them. But as we chart a course of love to navigate our relationship with them, we will likely be surprised at how much about them we end up really liking.

holy spit

2008-04-03T10:14:00.002-05:00

It might be strange to think about, but even Jesus' spit was holy. We find spitting incidents throughout the New Testament. Jesus used his own spit three times to heal. Mark 7 reports that Jesus spit and touched a man's tongue with it in order heal the man's ability to speak. Mark 8 reports that Jesus spit right on a guys eyes in order to heal his sight. John 9 reports that Jesus spit on the ground and made mud that healed a man's sight.

Holy Spit indeed!

But we see other cases of spitting that are not as fun and exciting. Jesus found himself spit upon numerous times just before his death. Matthew 26 reports that Jesus was spit on at his trial before the Sanhedrin. Matthew 27 reports that he was spit on by the Roman soldiers who mocked him with a crown of thorns.

While Jesus' spit healed, the spit of humanity was used to mock and degrade.

What about after Jesus died and rose from the grave? Do we ever hear about him spitting again? We do. But this time his spit does not bring healing. Instead, it brings judgement. In Revelation 3, Jesus warns the church in Laodicea and all churches like it who are "lukewarm" that he is about to spit them out of his mouth. Here are his words to them:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.

It is interesting to think about the fact that we could become God's "holy spit." If we remain lukewarm, we will be spit out. But if we repent and allow Jesus to be close to us again, we could become the kind of spit that can loosen the tongues of the mute and heal the eyes of the blind.

newest family member of Horizon

2008-03-30T14:19:00.002-05:00

Just wanted to introduce you to the newest addition to Horizon Church of Towson.

Ben and Nikki Hughes had another girl. Lyla Faith Hughes was born on March 26th, 2008 at 11:50 am. She weighed 8 lbs, 14 ounces and was 20.5 inches long. Apparently she looks a lot like Nikki as a baby.

Welcome to the world Lyla!

to "take on"

2008-03-13T08:16:00.004-05:00

A young man flew down to Nicaragua. He went to hang out with a certain people who have been forgotten. There are families that live in the town dump. By that I don't mean they live near the burning toxic wasteland. They actually live in and among the smoldering refuse.

The young man went down to Nicaragua clean. He smelled good coming off the plane. His clothes were fresh and his skin was washed. He could have chosen to stay that way. Instead, he went to hangout with some kids. He picked them up. He gave them hugs and high-fives. He carried them on his shoulders. For just a second, their hell turned into heaven. For just a moment, their struggle and poverty turned into a family reunion. It was a great day for everyone.

But something interesting happened. The young man who flew all that way was no longer clean. There had been an exchange of sorts. He gave his time, his love, his compassion. Those children gave him their dirt, their contamination, and their hope. They took on his joy and he took on their pain.

The young man, once clean, was now filthy. It was not from his own grime, but from theirs. This is what it means to "take on."

We are coming up on Easter in a few weeks. In this season, much will be talked about concerning Jesus and the cross. One thing that will be mentioned over and over is that Jesus went to the cross and "took on" our sin. We usually try to understand this "taking on" as a metaphysical or theological event. But I think it was probably a lot like that young man who went to Nicaragua.

Jesus came to us clean and - in the midst of loving us, holding us, carrying us - he took on our sin. There was an exchange of sorts. He gave his love and we gave him our dirt. He have his life and became our hope.

For more information about their trip to Nicaragua go to Love Light and Melody.

arrogance

2008-03-11T21:56:00.002-05:00

Arrogance is assuming that your political view is also God's view. This is what Jim Wallis, leader of Sojourners, has done with his recent declaration of "repentance" for the war in Iraq. Here is an actual quote from an email he sent out recently:

"And so, in this season of Lent, I believe the time has come for us to repent for the Iraq war...

Support for U.S. wars and foreign policy is still the area where Christians are most "conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2). We must commit to put our love for Christ ahead of obedience to a misguided government and ask our brothers and sisters to join us in working for peace."

Did you catch that? According to Jim, if you support the war in Iraq, then you are "conformed to this world." Wow. He goes further. He makes that claim that if you agree with some of the policies of this government, then you are putting "obedience to a misguided government" ahead of your "love for Christ." Did he really just say that? Boy, if we were talking about homosexuality instead of the war, I would think this email was sent by Jerry Falwell.

And what about other moral issues. Wallis wants to gather Christians from all over the nation to "repent" for a war that has been going on for 5 years. But when was the last time he called for repentance because we are in a country that has legalized the killing of our unborn children? And abortion has been going on legally now for 35 years. And yet for those 35 years has Wallis called the church and our nation to repent for all of those millions of murders? Nope.

What about drugs, pornography, rape, alcoholism and a host of other sin issues that are eroding our nation from the inside out? Has Wallis ever called for a time of repentance for those things? Those issues and many more have been going on for a lot longer than the war. Shouldn't we first repent for those as a nation and as the Church? Or are these "sin issues" not in vogue enough for Jim. I guess they just aren't as popular to be against.

Is anyone else irritated with this level of hypocrisy? It seems to me that Jim Wallis is caught up in a level of self-righteousness and arrogance that we haven't seen in Christian leaders since the 90's when the Christian Right took over the Republican party. What is that passage about the plank and the speck of dust?

what is your cause?

2008-03-10T10:01:00.004-05:00

On Facebook there is a section on the profile page where you can say what "causes" you support. And more and more this generation is interested in supporting non-profit type causes, which address various needs in the world. It is great to watch more and more people get involved in caring for the "least of these" in our world.

My hope, however, is that these would never be divorced from the most important cause of all.

I hope that all of us "activist-type," young Christians would keep in mind that our lives need to be about more than just meeting people's physical needs. The purpose for our lives should not be limited to charity. There are more vital issues at stake in our world.

I am afraid that my generation of Christians is in danger of slipping into a "social gospel" that produces no real life-change. As we feed, clothe and care for the poor, let us not fall into a materialistic worldview that makes "material" things the most important thing.

A human being is much more than the food they eat or the clothes they wear. There is a brokenness within people's inner-being that needs to be healed. And this brokenness can't be healed with fundraisers, donations, food drives, telethons, celebrity advocates, benefit concerts, vaccines, clean water or retro-viral drugs.

So many charities, non-profits, and "causes" find ingenious ways to address people's physical needs. And this should continue. But let us not forget the only "cause" that addresses people's real inner needs.

The apostle Paul wrote to the church in Philippi and mentioned two women who helped him in ministry. And he said that these women, "contended at my side in the cause of the gospel" (Phil. 4:3).

This is the cause above all other causes. This is the only cause that addresses the whole person. The cause of Christ is the one "cause" that can bring healing to a person's body, soul and mind. And because it is the only truly holistic cause, it is the only cause that has the power to heal societies and nations.

So don't believe the lie that you have to donate to a charity in Africa to make a difference in the world. The two most powerful acts that will bring societal transformation are to love God with all that we are and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

When you love someone in your small group, you change the world. When you worship, you celebrate the cause that will never end. When you tithe to the church, you give to the most important cause in the world.

All other causes should find themselves under the umbrella of this one cause. People who have lost hope need more than just food and healthcare. They need the hope of a new life in Christ. So your cause and mine, above all, should be the cause of the gospel.

Obama wins Texas

2008-03-06T09:13:00.003-05:00

The news reported a couple days ago that Clinton won Texas. Well, that is not exactly true. She won the Texas Democratic Primary. But as the numbers from the Caucuses come in, it doesn't look good for Senator Clinton. Let's do the math.

228 total delegates are up for grabs in Texas. 126 of those are tied to the March 4th primary. But 67 delegates are tied to the March 4th caucuses. And with 23 superdelegates already committed, that leaves 12 uncommitted superdelegates to round out the total.

Clinton won the primary 51% to 48% against Obama. So lets assume she gets 65 delegates and he gets 61. Now let's look at the caucus numbers. Obama is winning 56% to 44%. That means Obama is likely to get at least 37 delegates whereas Clinton will only get 30. Now let's add it all up.

Clinton: 65(primary) + 30(caucus) = 95
Obama: 61(primary) + 37(caucus) = 98

Obama wins the delegate count. So the uncommitted superdelegates should move in his favor.

Someone needs to send a memo to the Clinton campaign. Sweep up the confetti and put the cork back in the champagne. Hillary lost Texas.

So Tuesday's results actually looks like this:
Clinton won: Rhode Island & Ohio
Obama won: Vermont & Texas

The Clinton's are experts at "spin." But don't believe the hype. They don't want people to look at what actually happened on Tuesday. They want to pull the wool over people's eyes and make it seem like Clinton is a viable candidate. Do the math. She's not.

She is behind pledged delegates 1,321 to 1,186. That means she is behind by 135 delegates. The only thing keeping her in the race is an unfair draw from the superdelegates. Even though Obama is ahead in the pledged delegate count, he is behind 199 to 238 in superdelegates.

So while the voters have consistently put Obama in the lead, the elitist liberals in the Democratic party want to sway the election toward Clinton. This is classic "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" political maneuvering. You can always count on the Clintons to work their political magic behind the scenes.

What it is like to help people connect to God?

2008-03-04T22:53:00.004-05:00

Helping people connect to God is like being the voice for their inner navigation system.

In a car navigation system, the voice talks to you while you drive. When the person is headed in the right direction, the navigation voice is there to affirm the right way.

When the driver takes a wrong turn, the voice articulates what the map is saying. The map is saying that the driver needs to turn the car around. The purpose of the navigation voice is to make the map accessible and understandable.

what is it like to be a Christian?

2008-03-04T13:39:00.003-05:00

Life with Jesus is like the weekend.

Following Christ is like Saturday.

I knew something wasn't right Monday through Friday.

But it wasn't until I got to Saturday that I understood.

A rested mind.

A free spirit.

A peaceful heart.

A joyful life.

We all began on Monday.

Some only make it to Thursday.

But something happened on Friday.

Now we all have the freedom to get off work if we want to.

So Christ-followers find themselves on Saturday, loving life.

And we wait patiently.

Because Sunday is not too far away.

being realistic

2008-03-01T23:30:00.004-05:00

When did being realistic go out of fashion? It is only a quixotic person who equates realism with pessimism. Pessimism is doubting what is possible in light of the difficulties. Idealism is believing in what is possible by ignoring the difficulties. Realism, however, finds itself right down the middle.

Realism, I believe, is believing in what is possible without ignoring the difficulties. It is humbly admitting our limitations without letting them hinder our way forward. It is taking inventory of what is possible and what is not. Then after taking inventory, it is finding ways to make what is now impossible, possible for the future.

Idealism says, "We can do it all today!" Pessimism says, "We can't do it all, so we won't do anything." But Realism says, "Today, we will do what we can."

It seems to be that Idealism and Pessimism are two sides of the same coin. They are both warped views of reality. They are both forms of denial. One only sees the negative and the other only the positive. But reality has both. This is why I believe being realistic means one has an outlook that is closer to the truth.

Realism means taking off the grey colored glasses that allow for no hope. It also means taking off the rose colored glasses that deny hardship. If we are to have glasses at all, then let them be the eyes of Christ. And let us see the world as it really is. Let us see the world as He see it.

liberals give more to charity, right?

2008-03-01T17:52:00.004-05:00

The next time you feel the urge to buy into the lie that secular liberals do more charitable work than religious conservatives, check your facts. A philanthropic expert and professor from Syracuse University did a study to find out the truth. The article below was written about that study.

A study by philanthropy expert Arthur C. Brooks, a Syracuse University professor, has found that conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and volunteer time to charity than liberals and non-religious people.

The study shows that conservatives give 30% more money to charity than liberals, even though liberals earn 6% more money. Brooks also found that liberals who are religious give more money to charity than liberals who are not religious.

In fact, religious conservatives give 100 times more money to charity than secular liberals or “progressives.” They also volunteer more.

Also, Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares?," found that people in wealthier, more liberal states like California and New York are below average in charitable giving compared to people in poor states like Mississippi and Alabama.

In fact, the working poor in the United States give a larger percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, including the middle class and the rich.

Finally, the study shows that Americans are far more charitable than Europeans – 14 as much as the Italians, seven times as much as the Germans, and three and one-half times more charity than the French.

Brooks surmises that Europeans and liberals, especially secular ones, believe the government should take care of people, but Americans and conservatives, especially religious ones, tend to believe in personal charity and individual responsibility.

This may explain why those on the political "left" are more comfortable with raising taxes. If they aren't giving as much money to charity as conservatives, then they can afford higher taxes. If we assume that both government programs (which require higher taxes) and charity (which requires personal giving) help the poor equally, then how does each mode of addressing poverty affect the tax-payer?

I think personal giving does more for the transformation of the heart of the giver than higher taxes does. I think higher taxes don't create generous people, but instead, often create frustrated tax-payers. The only advantage that higher taxes has is that it can be "controlled." Generous personal giving cannot be demanded from the outside, but must come from a desire within.

So the next time we feel compelled to make generalizations like "conservatives don't care about the poor," we need to remember this study.

McCain

2008-02-29T12:45:00.002-05:00

You may not like his politics or agree with his policies, but you can't help but respect such a dedicated servant of our country. If you doubt that he is a war hero, just watch the video.

While his speeches are not as inspiring as Obama's, his life is more inspiring than anyone else running for President.

Watch a short YouTube clip about McCain's life.

denominational mapping

2008-02-27T23:21:00.003-05:00

Have you ever gone to different parts of our country and noticed a change in the predominance of different denominations?

Have you ever noticed that there seems to be a lot of Catholics in the Northeast, Baptists in the South, Lutherans in the Northern-Midwest, and Mormons out West?

Well, that wasn't just your imagination. There seems to be substantial groupings of denominations geographically. I found a link to a map that shows this on my friend Dan's blog. Check it out here.

Where you live in the U.S. does seem to influence your denomination of choice.

false dichotomy for a christian

2008-02-26T17:56:00.006-05:00

I have been blogging recently about my frustration with Jim Wallis, who is a prominent evangelical leader on the political "left." He was interviewed by CNN recently and was discussing the shift that is happening among young evangelicals.

He made the claim that more and more young Christians are moving to the political left because of a change in priorities. He said that this new, young breed of evangelical will likely vote for a Democrat. He said that the reason for the change is that they believe Jesus cares more about the millions that will die due to poverty than He does about gay marriage.

But this is a false dichotomy that is typical of Wallis these days. His assumption is that Jesus cares more about poverty than he does about morality. And that claim is ridiculous. It is as far-fetched as some on the political "right" who claim that Jesus cares more about homosexuality than he does poverty. These sort of false dichotomies miss the point altogether.

Jesus addressed these sort of "either/or" ways of living and called on the Pharisees to adopt a "both/and" mentality instead. He makes his point clear in Matthew 23:23-24:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

The Pharisees were tithing regularly but ignoring God's commands to love justice and mercy. Jesus didn't say, "Forget tithing; you should really just focus on justice and mercy." No, what Jesus did say was, "You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former."

This means that Jesus doesn't live in the world of "false dichotomies." He doesn't play the "either/or" game. He demands "both/and." Jim Wallis is wrong when he claims that Jesus cares more for poverty than he does issues of morality. Jesus demands that we care for the poor and address moral issues like homosexuality. We don't get the luxury of choosing one or the other.

But Jim Wallis's comment, sadly enough, doesn't surprise me anymore. He has once again chosen to marry his faith to the politics of his party, the very thing he has been so critical of Republicans for doing.

left-handed conspiracy

2008-02-26T11:08:00.004-05:00

Have you noticed that both Barack Obama and John McCain are left-handed? So it looks like either way, our next President will be a lefty. And this seems to be the norm for recent Presidents. Is there a conspiracy among "lefties" who have felt 'left' out in the cold all these years? Have all the "lefties" gotten together and rigged recent elections just so they can have one of their own in office?

Here is the history of "lefty" Presidents in the White House:
James A. Garfield - 20th
Herbert Hoover - 31st
Harry S. Truman - 33rd
Gerald Ford - 38th
Ronald Reagan - 40th
George H.W. Bush - 41st
Bill Clinton - 42nd

As a right-handed person, I find this trend disturbing. Among the first 37 Presidents, we had only 3 "lefties." But of the last 6 Presidents, 4 of them were left-handed. The 1980's and 1990's saw only "lefties" govern in the White House. Weird.

This means that from 1974 to 2000 only 4 years were run by a right-handed President. That means for those 26 years, the country was run by a "lefty" President 85% of the time. This recent history along with the fact that the two leading candidates for President in 2008 are also left-handed reveals that something is amiss.

This seems like a left-handed conspiracy if you ask me. ;)

politics via scripture

2008-02-26T10:19:00.002-05:00

Have you ever wondered "How would Jesus vote?"

Those on the left assume Jesus would be for them because of issues of poverty, war and healthcare. Those on the right assume Jesus would be for them because of issues of abortion, gay marriage, and general morality. Independents in the center assume Jesus wouldn't vote by party but by issue and would be somewhat critical of the right and left.

Some Christians agree that Jesus would be a prophetic voice to government but would not pick sides. Others believe Jesus would be extremely political with his calls for justice, purity, repentance and mercy.

But if you look through scripture, will you get any help as to what Jesus would be voting for or against? I finally found the conclusive passage of scripture that ends all confusion on the political opinions of God Himself. Here it is:

Ecclesiastes 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.

Since most people don't often read Ecclesiastes and probably passover this passage without a second thought, I wanted to bring it to light. So if you are confused about voting, let this be your guiding scripture passage. The wise are inclined to the "right" but only fools vote to the "left."

tearing down the President

2008-02-25T13:39:00.004-05:00

So many young Christians in my generation are ok with slamming President Bush at every turn. Yet, in the same breath they claim they are all about political unity and crossing party lines. Apparently not.

These young voters have followed in their parents footsteps. They watched as their conservative parents made personal attacks against Bill Clinton. And they now do the same against President Bush. Rather than making intelligent distinctions in "policy" disagreements with this administration, they lower themselves to personal attacks that don't help anything.

And let's not forget that Bush is a confessed Christian. So when young Christians spit their venomous words in his direction, they are doing so against a "brother in Christ." Any informed Christian would know that Scripture is clear about how we should treat each other in the body of Christ. If you still think it is ok to personally attack Bush, then you should spend more time reading your New Testament and less time reading blogs.

Many people in my generation think it's ok to slam Presidents because they see everyone around them do it. The media has traditionally had a field day with every second term President. And what is worse is that Christian leaders join the crowd. James Dobson, Christian leader on the right, loved attacking President Clinton. And now, Jim Wallis, Christian leader on the left, is reveling in attacking President Bush. When will Christian leaders, on both the right and the left, stop demonizing the current President, regardless of his/her party affiliation?

Maybe we all need to spend some time meditating on why Paul would write Romans 13:1-7 about Caesars who weren't even elected democratically. How much more should we honor, respect and submit to those whom our country votes into office?

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

We also might want to take note of Paul's advice to Titus and make Titus 3:1-2 a theme verse for our lives:
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

"conservative" is not a four letter word

2008-02-25T12:53:00.006-05:00

Growing up in the church in the 80's and 90's, I experienced firsthand the rise of conservative evangelicalism. I was steeped in the tradition that took control of the right wing of the Republican party. If you couldn't win the vote of the "religious right" then you couldn't win the election as a Republican candidate.

But my generation of Christians has seen the backlash against that kind of marriage between the Church and the Republican party. And in reaction to that, many of my Christian peers are defecting to the Democrats. But what has been interesting is to watch my generation do the same thing that the last generation did.

The more I hang out with Christian twenty-somethings, the more I am realizing that many have gone to the extreme. Just like the generation before us was told, "You can't be a Democrat and a Christian at the same time," my generation is getting a similar message. Only this time around, many of my friends believe that, "You can't be a real Christian and a Republican at the same time." It's interesting to watch.

Christians who are young, especially those who have an "activist" mentality, have moved strongly to the "left" politically. In many instances they have lost all perspective. They talk about the "religious right" as if they are the anti-christ and hate the connection between the word "Christian" and the word "conservative."

Yet, at the same time, they are all too comfortable wedding the political views of the "left" with their identity as a Christian. To them the word "conservative" is a four letter word. They cringe when they hear it and wish that most conservatives would jump off a cliff.

I believe this sort of over-reaction is probably typical of young people who still have some growing up to do. But to me, it is also dangerous and hypocritical.

One of the most frustrating people in this crowd is Jim Wallis. If you don't know who Jim Wallis is, here is an analogy: Jim Wallis is to the Christian left as James Dobson is to the Christian right. He is their political voice and their spiritual advisor.

And I used to really like and admire Jim. He used to really live out the truth that Jesus is neither "right" nor "left." He used to write about unifying the parties under the principles of the Kingdom of God. But that has changed.

These days most of what I hear from Jim Wallis is his disdain for Bush. He sounds more like a liberal radio talk show host than he does a "Christian leader." Far from unifying the right and left, Jim has firmly staked his territory far to the left of the political center. And it is really disappointing to watch.

And what is more disappointing is that many in my generation are following his slide to the political left. Rather than being a centrist, he has turned more and more "blue" in his criticism and activism. And so those in my generation who follow him blindly, have also turned more and more "blue."

In the 90's, many of us who grew up in the church were taught that "liberal" was a four letter word. Now, the tables have turned. Many young Christians are being taught by "Christian leaders" on the left that "conservative" is a four letter word. It's sad to watch my generation blindly follow leaders who are neither "fair" nor "balanced" in their political perspective. But what is bound to happen yet again is another reaction in the other direction. And then we will be right back where we started from.

When will we learn that supporting one political view doesn't mean that we have to tear apart those who disagree with us across the aisle?

why does humanity go to war

2008-02-18T17:21:00.005-05:00

Why does war break-out? What happens that causes one group of people to be willing to fight and kill another group? As I reflected on this question, I think that it comes down to one word: identity. I don't mean to simplify a complex issue like war, but it all seems to come back to identity.

Deep inside the human heart is the need to "identify" with a group. We start out this way gaining a sense of identity from our family, town, friends, culture and nation. All of these different forms of "groups" give us a sense of "who we are" and help us feel like we "belong." Humanity desperately needs external sources for understanding the "self." We are not sufficient enough to somehow "create" an identity out of nothing. Like a boat adrift at sea, we desperately need external markers and cues to tell us where to go and who to be.

This strong pull called "identity" is what keeps groups together. But when a group feels threatened by another group, those who "identify" with that group are ready to protect it. The reason is that if the group collapses or is taken over, then each member's identity is threatened. Group members go to war against other groups, not just because their group is in danger, but because, at some level, they feel their own identity in danger.

This is why city kids who grow up with out a "family identity" search for it in gangs. It's also why gang violence is so fierce. It's why we sing songs about America and pledge our allegiance to the flag. There is no way to deny group identity and its power.

We see African nations fractured by civil unrest and civil war because people's true group identity in Africa is tribal not national. National unity is a difficult task on a continent where people have extremely strong ties to their tribal roots.

The need for identity trumps most other needs that we have as humans. We need to know who we are, where we come from and to whom we belong. And while "identity" is the driving force behind war, it is only that way because we humans identify with the wrong things.

This is what is so beautiful about Jesus. This is the whole vision of the Kingdom of God. When we identify ourselves primarily with Christ, this issue of war changes. Finding our primary identity in Christ gives us all that we need. We learn who we truly are. We learn that we belong to the family of God. We gain an identity that fills us and completes us. But it doesn't end there.

Finding our primary identity in Christ also brings peace to the earth. When I identify myself with Christ, I chose to follow someone who loved his enemies. Rather than telling his "group," the church, to defend the group at all costs, Christ does just the opposite. When the Kingdom of God is attacked, Jesus calls on us to love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us and turn the other cheek.

So while “identity” is the driving force behind war, “identity in Christ” is the driving force behind peace.

where Conan got his name

2008-02-16T00:33:00.004-05:00

I think I found out where Conan O'Brien got his name. And, no, I don't think it was from Conan the Barbarian. Did you know that Conan is actually a biblical name? But if you weren't reading carefully, you would miss it.

Hezekiah was one of the last faithful kings of Judah. His predecessor ruined the kingdom and worshiped other gods. But when Hezekiah came to power, he led the people in a massive reform. They smashed down the altars to the foreign gods and they cut down the Asherah poles.

Then Hezekiah went about re-establishing proper worship by the priests in the Temple. 2 Chronicles 31 tells us about the spiritual renewal led by the king. The people of Judah brought to the Temple all kinds of grain, wine, and oil as well as their flocks and herds for the sacrificial offerings.

Once all the people brought in all the materials needed for the offerings, they had so much left over that they had to put it in storehouses. Hezekiah put a Levite and his brother in charge of the storehouses. The name of the Levite in charge was "Conaniah". I am serious. I am not making this up. Check it out.

Hezekiah gave orders to prepare storerooms in the temple of the LORD, and this was done. Then they faithfully brought in the contributions, tithes and dedicated gifts. Conaniah, a Levite, was in charge of these things, and his brother Shimei was next in rank. (2 Chronicles 31:11-12)

I am convinced that when Conan's Irish-Catholic mother looked down at her translucent-skinned, red-haired, string-bean of a son, she was reminded of the Levite who Hezekiah put in charge of the storehouses. And so she took his name and shortened it to Conan. That's my story and I am sticking to it.

how the Republicans will win in November

2008-02-14T12:25:00.003-05:00

Here are some tips for the Republicans that will enable them to win in November:

1. Turn off your radios - the hardline conservative talk radio personalities are outdated and will sink the future of the Republican party if you listen to them

2. Consolidate power - Huckabee and Romney need to come out strong in support for McCain

3. Get out the vote - make sure you and your neighbors get excited about going to the polls in November

4. Donate money to the Clinton campaign - McCain will beat Clinton in November but doesn't have a shot against Obama. If you want to win in the White House, Republicans need to help Clinton get the Democratic nomination.

trinity of funny

2008-02-12T12:19:00.000-05:00

Three of the greatest comic minds have finally come together. They are the father, son and holy spirit of late night comedy talk shows. Check out the fake feud between Conan O'Brien, Jon Stewart and Sephen Colbert over who gave Huckabee his big start. These three guys are the funniest guys on TV. It's so great seeing them team up for this comic bit.

Check it out here.

take some responsibility

2008-02-12T01:01:00.001-05:00

I see it often in my own generation. It's the inability to take responsibility for one's actions. We, as a generation of people, play the victim. We pretend like "life happened to us" all the time. We refuse to believe the truth that, most of the time, our decisions have created the life in which we live. We do what we want to do. We essentially are who we have set out to be.

But we, Americans particularly, want to blame other people, other systems and other circumstances as the chief cause of the problems in our lives. We are like the Greeks who were always simultaneously blaming and yet trying to appease the "fates." It's the product of a deterministic world-view that has been wed to an extreme case of self-obsession. This is the ugly step-child which has become so pervasive in our American culture.

Some examples of this have come up during this election cycle. We Americans are some of the fattest, most unhealthy people on the planet. So rather than getting healthy, we blame the government for not giving us healthcare.

We Americans spend every dime we have on stupid, materialistic stuff. We bury ourselves in credit card debt and buy homes that are way out of our price range. Then when we default on our loans, we blame the mortgage industry for all the foreclosures. And what is our government's solution to the problem? They pass a bill to give us more money. And what do they want us to do with it to stimulate the economy? Should we save it? Should we pay off bills? "No," the government says. They want us to jump start the economy by spending it.

So we get ourselves into all kinds of problems. Then we want someone to come and bail us out. And elections are perfect for this. Now all a candidate has to do is remind the American people that THEY ARE THE VICTIM. And as soon as the candidates do that, they are in. We all want to vote for someone who says, "It's not your fault that you are in the mess you are in." And then says, "Not only is it not your fault, but if you vote for me, I will fix it for you."

When will people tell the truth? When will someone stand up and say, "Most people are getting their houses foreclosed on them because they bought a house that was too big and way too expensive for their paycheck. Yes, chances are, it is your fault." Man, the truth hurts sometimes. No one likes to hear it and even less people really believe it.

When will someone stand up and say that healthcare costs would drop substantially if America lost about 50 lbs a person. No, let's not be so bold as to tell people the truth. Let's blame it on someone else.

When will someone say that many kids get into crime, drop out of school, and never get a decent job because they didn't have parents that did their job. No, it's easier to blame the schools, the teachers, and the system. It's harder to admit that if less girls got pregnant out of wedlock and more kids actually had two parents who gave a damn, then we wouldn't see so many of our cities going to to hell in a handbasket.

Or how about natural disasters? I would love to hear the statistic on how many New Orleans folks who lived in a flood plain had flood insurance. Ok, coastal dwelling Americans, listen up. This isn't rocket science. If you live in a flood plain, either move or get flood insurance. If you don't and a big hurricane comes and floods your home, don't cry to the government about how unfair your life is.

It's about living a responsible life. It's about taking responsibility for who you are and what you do. I am not saying that our health care system is perfect. It's not. I'm not saying some schools couldn't do better. They could and should. I am not saying that we shouldn't help those who have been hit by a natural disaster. We should and we do. But we Americans need to get a grip. Government handouts are not going to fix things. We can't keep knocking on "big brother's" door expecting him to fix all our problems.

Most of us need a dose of reality. We need to own up to the fact that we are living in a life WE HAVE CHOSEN. In one way or another, most of us have made the decisions which have put us in the situation we are now in. There are true victims out there. But most of us are not them. Most of us are sleeping in the bed that we have made. Most of the real victims of this world don't even live in America. Going overseas makes it obvious, even to the most self-absorbed American, what a real victim of life looks like.

political attack ads

2008-02-11T12:39:00.000-05:00

The art of the political attack ad has been called into question this election cycle. On the left, the best attackers used to be the Clintons. They followed the James Carville strategy of "Attack, attack, attack." On the right, the best attackers used to be the conservative radio hosts. And apparently, especially in the 90's, that strategy worked. It helped the Clintons get the White House and it helped the Republicans takeover Congress. But something new has come on the scene this year.

The Clintons tried that same strategy again this year. This time, however, they turned their attack dogs on their own party. They released the biggest attack dog, Bill Clinton, against their strongest competitor, Barack Obama. And for a short time, it was working. Obama was knocked back on his heals. But a big oversight was made.

While this strategy has worked beautifully for the Clintons when they were attacking the Republicans, they didn't calculate what these attacks would do to their own party. Ultimately, it backfired. Ever since the height of the attacks, just before the South Carolina primary, Barack has been had more momentum than Hillary.

The same phenomenon has happened to the Republicans as well. The one who had the most attack ads, Romney, is no longer in the race. The only two Republicans left have both run a "clean" campaign.

This spells disaster for the Clintons. While their attack machine may serve them well in the national election, it might be the thing that sinks them in the primaries. Obama's positive, clean campaign looks like it will conquer the "Goliath" that is the Clintons. It's as if the only way the Clintons have ever won is with dirty politics. Take that away from them and they flounder.

But I am still waiting to see what happens in the national election. Both Republicans and Democrats have learned that when you are running against your own party in primary elections, attack ads are a bad strategy. It is only a bad strategy because the people of America have decided this year not to buy into that kind of negative politics. But will it continue when it comes to running against the other party?

Will Obama or McCain be as nice and clean when they are running against people on the other side of the aisle? When the activist liberals of the Democratic party are pressuring Obama to run attack ads against McCain, will he resist? When the hardline conservatives demand that McCain slander Obama in order to get their vote, will he give in? It remains to be seen if the "clean campaign" strategy will survive beyond the primaries. I hope it does. America needs this new political strategy to be the strategy of the future. We can't afford to return to the Rush Limbaugh-James Carville strategy of political attack.

Woe to you, Baltimore, you whitewashed tomb!

2008-02-09T07:06:00.000-05:00

Driving down 95 gives you a good view of the city from the south. The road elevates just enough for you to have a glimpse of the city-scape. Sometimes the view is deceiving. The skyline looks so peaceful and calm. Yet, the evening news reminds us that our city is anything but peaceful.

I often pray for the city right as I pass the spot in front of the Fort McHenry Tunnel. Today I wondered to myself what Jesus would be thinking if he were in the car seat next to me. If he were to see that beautiful skyline and think about the violence that exists within the city, I wonder what he would say. It might be something similar to what he said at the end of Matthew 23 about the city in which he was executed.

"O Baltimore, Baltimore, you who kill police officers and bribe politicians, how often I have longed to bring your children together and protect them from your violence. But you were not willing. Look, your streets and row-homes are left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until every knee bows and every tongue confesses that I am Lord." Jesus

modern day prophet

2008-02-07T00:52:00.001-05:00

As I read the Old Testament, I notice what characters the prophets were. They were the outsiders who were always calling into question the establishment. They were the ones who bucked against the traditional religious leaders of their day. They were constantly challenging the prophets and priests of Baal who were blind to the covenant of Yahweh. They were a constant irritant and thorn in the side of the kings and political leaders of Israel and Judah.

But they weren't just against false prophets, wayward priests, and kings who had gone astray. They were for the widows and the orphans of the land. They were often the only voice for the poor and those who have been treated unjustly. They were for justice in the courts. They wanted their nation to turn and repent so that refreshing from the Lord could once again rain down on them.

Who in our culture is well known as an irritant to our government leaders? Who is known for speaking out against injustices and speaking for the poor? Who is it that the conservative religious establishment can't stand? Who isn't afraid to challenge people much more powerful than he is? Who has a devout private faith from which he derives his conviction?

I think most people would be surprised to know that the closest that we might have to a modern day prophet is Michael Moore. As a conservative, it is annoying to even consider that thought. I would rather not give him the honor of a prophet. But the more I learn about the contrast that the Old Testament prophets brought to their time and culture, the more I realized that they were much like Michael Moore is today.

He irritates most people. He constantly sticks up for the outsider, the underdog, and the poor. He manages to piss off both the Right and the Left. He uses his modern day megaphone (documentary films) to call government, business and our culture on the carpet. I don't agree with most of what he says. But then again, most people didn't agree with the O.T. prophets either. The people who least agreed with the prophets were the religious leaders and the political leaders of the day. This seems to be the case with Michael Moore as well.

I think it would surprise many that his convictions on issues come from a place of morality. He is a devout Catholic who attends Mass every week. He is steeped in the Irish Catholic tradition that taught him to care for the poor, fight for the needy and advocate for peace in the face of war. You may not like his films and you may not agree with his politics. But it is challenging to me to know that his passion has a source that is familiar to me. His passion comes from what he sees in the life of Christ. He takes Jesus' words about the "least of these" seriously.

No doubt, Michael Moore has issues. We all do. And prophets tend to have more than most. While reading through the Old Testament, one will clearly see the eccentricities and idiosyncrasies common only to prophets. They often used exaggerated language. They sometimes ate weird things and performed strange acts. Prophets were not mainstream people. They were never meant to be. They were there to act as a thorn to prick the conscience of the people. And right now in our culture, there may be no more irritating thorn than Michael Moore.

rebellious republicans

2008-02-06T12:43:00.000-05:00

The Republican race for the presidential nomination has been interesting. Many Republicans seem to be casting a vote "against" rather than "for" one of the candidates. For instance, many conservatives are rebelling against the idea that McCain is the front-runner. They make idle threats about voting for the democrats in the national election if McCain wins the nomination. He's just not hardline enough for them.

Others seem to be rebelling against Romney. McCain voters would rather have Huckabee win than Romney as proven in the West Virginia tag-team voting strategy. It is especially interesting to me that, as the post-Super Tuesday dust settles, Huckabee won 5 states and Romney has only won 7. This despite the fact a that Romney has raised over 88 million dollars while Huckabee has raised just over 8 million. Just more evidence that money can't buy an election.

*As a side note, while we are on the topic of campaign fundraising, CNN reports that as of February 1, all of the presidential candidates have raised a combined total of almost 570 million dollars. With all of these stump speeches about the economy, taxes, poverty and deficit spending, I wonder if there is a better way this 570 million could be spent. Just a thought. It seems hypocritical for Americans to ask the government to bail us out of a slow economy all the while we spend 570 million dollars trying to get our favorite presidential race horse to the finish line.

a lesson in speech giving

2008-02-05T10:24:00.001-05:00

Whatever your political views are, there is no denying that Barack Obama is inspiring. His speeches remind me of the famous speeches that I grew up reading about in History class. His speeches have the ring of past presidents like Jefferson, Lincoln, and JFK. But they have the power of some of the speeches of MLK.

If you are over 40 years old, it is likely that you are not that excited about Barack Obama. But if you are under the age of 40, chances are that his speeches give you goose bumps.

YouTube has one of his speeches put to music. It's telling that his speech can be put into lyrics so easily. The cadence and rhythm of his delivery make his speeches almost song-like in their appeal to the ear.

Check it out here.

mutually exclusive politics

2008-02-02T00:11:00.000-05:00

We live in a culture which believes many things are "mutually exclusive." But can't we challenge many of our mutually exclusive assumptions? Can someone be a Republican and also believe in gun control? Can someone be a Democrat and also be pro-life?

We often pigeon-hole people into one camp or another. Missy experiences this all the time. When people hear that she is from Texas, they assume all kinds of things about her. They assume she wears cowboy hats, owns a shotgun, rides a horse and always votes Republican. But when people don't know she is from Texas and find out that she is a teacher living in Maryland, the assumption is that she is a Democrat.

We see this phenomenon playing out in the presidential race. Right now each political party needs to be far enough to their side of the aisle to get the nomination but not so far that they alienate the rest of the country in the general election. Obama and McCain seem to be doing the best job at winning over their party and yet still leaning toward the middle in preparation for the general election. Clinton and Romney are so far in their own party's corner that if they win the nomination they will probably bring quite a bit of division this Fall.

But my guess is that most of the country wants a presidential candidate who doesn't see their party's views and the other party's views as always mutually exclusive. Gun control should make sense for both a Republican and a Democrat. Fighting terrorism around the world should make sense for both parties. Keeping taxes low for the middle and lower classes should be a desire of both the left and the right. Getting our country off of our dependence on oil should be a priority for both sides of the aisle, if not for the environment then for national security. Reducing the number of abortions in our country should be important for both red and blue states.

I want a President who doesn't have to toe the party line. I want a Democrat in office who will strengthen our military instead of weaken it. I want a Republican in office who will get guns off the streets instead of receiving lobbyist money from the NRA. I want a Democrat who will care about the lives of the unborn or a Republican who will help Americans get affordable health care. For Democrats to duke it out over who is more liberal or Republicans to duke it out over who is more conservative misses the point. Most of America does not want someone far off to the left or far off to the right. We want someone who doesn't buy into the "mutually exclusive" labels and instead sides with the best idea because it's the best idea.

the race and gender card

2008-01-29T16:13:00.000-05:00

For decades now in the card game of politics, the democrats have consistently played two cards against the republicans. Female leaders who were democrats accused republicans of being male chauvinists who wanted to perpetuate a male dominated society. This tactic was a favorite of the National Organization for Women (NOW). This also helped democrats get the woman vote.

Black leaders who were democrats accused republicans of being racist. This tactic was a favorite of Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and other fringe NAACP leaders. It helped democrats get the black vote. But this year something interesting has happened. The true colors of these kinds of tactics have been revealed for what they are. The democrats are now turning these tactics against themselves as they try to launch their candidate through the primaries. It's interesting to watch democrats try to out "accuse" each other with the potential of either a white woman or a black man as their next candidate.

A week ago, Bill Clinton started firing away at Barak Obama. Many in the black community started to turn on their favorite Arkansas "son of the south." In their view, he got dangerously close to making race the issue. It upset so many democrats, that even those in the far, far left (Ted Kennedy) decided to support Obama instead of Clinton. For democrats, being too hard on a black candidate seems too close to racism for them, even if it comes from "the first black president" Bill Clinton.

Then the women took their turn at the accusation table. Because Kennedy endorsed Barak Obama instead of Hillary Clinton, the NOW called Kennedy a sexist. Wow, if the National Organization for Women is willing to call one of the most liberal politicians in America a "male chauvinists sexist" then the rest of us don't have a chance. And why did they accuse him of this? Did Kennedy say something hurtful toward women? No. Does he have a record of being against women? No. Just the opposite. So why did he get this accusation leveled at him?

The only reason he was accused of being a sexist is because he said he was going to vote for Barak instead of Hillary. SURE, he MUST be a sexist. It can't be because he actually thinks Barak will do a better job. The only POSSIBLE explanation for Kennedy wanting to back Obama is because Obama is a dude. What????

This just shows how ridiculous it can get when the dems play the gender and race card. When they used those cards against republicans, people assumed it was true. But now that they are accusing each other, the jig is up. It's obvious to everyone that these democrats pick and choose who they accuse based on who they like and dislike, not based on social justice. They sling around accusations about gender and race because they think it will get their candidate more votes. The problem is that many leaders in the NAACP and the NOW are still living in the '60's, whereas the rest of America has grown up.

Yes, race and gender are still a legitimate issue SOMETIMES. But these days, you need some hard evidence before you throw out the race or gender card. They used to be trump cards in the hands of the democrats, but now they are just "over-used false accusations" that do more harm than good.

Democratic voters are now in a pickle, especially if they are white and male. If you are a white, male democrat this election cycle, you are screwed. If you vote for Obama, the NOW will call you a sexist. If you vote for Clinton, the NAACP will call you a racist. If you vote for Edwards, someone should call you a doctor so you can get your head checked. Either way, you are screwed.