The title of this post is taken from a song lyric written and performed by the group 38th Parallel on the CD "Turn the Tides". The specific song is "Who am I?" The phrase seemed very appropriate in our day and in our culture. We are now, more than I can recall, manipulating information so that truth seems more and more like a tool that is wielded according to our whims and agendas. Truth claims of concepts that were almost universally accepted are denied on a daily basis in attempts to advance causes of dubious value. Even so-called 'scientific truth' is up for grabs today as false scientific claims are touted as true, i.e. the 'global warming myth'. That fallacy alone may prove to be the undoing of western civilization if the truth about it does not soon find a powerful home.
One of the most pervasive truth turns which has taken place in recent decades is the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle in the culture. Consider that a little less than 40 years ago, homosexuality was universally considered a serious psychological disorder and was so named in the DSM, or Diagnositic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association. This publication was and is known as the 'bible' of mental disorders. In both DSM I and DSM II, this was so. However, after the Stonewall riots of 1969, the APA changed the DSM by dropping homosexuality from the list. Because of this activism event, without any hard science or even 'soft' science to justify the action, we had a watershed event which largely went unnoticed and served to make homosexuality simply a "variation" of human sexuality. What was totally ignored then and is still ignored now, is the fact that human biological design prohibits considering homosexual expression normal. Female and male sexual organs are simply designed to function with each other. It is obvious that male sexual organs were not designed to receive penetration, and female organs were. Penetration of the rectum is the use of this bodily part for an activity it was not designed for. The rectum was designed only for the expelling of objects from the inside, not the insertion of anything from the outside. It should be obvious that an activity which violates the biological design so that the body is forced to function in a manner opposite from its design cannot be considered normal.
What does this mean? Part of the effect of putting truth out as a homeless traveler is that falsehood becomes enshrined as acceptable and approved in normal society, and any attitude or institution which would challenge this is a target for destruction. Such is the case with the institution of marriage which has now been redefined in two states, Massachusetts and California. This is only the beginning of a truly slippery slope which we will examine in greater detail next time.
IJHN,
LEE
Monday, May 19, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Mother's Love
We have just passed Mother's Day in our land and in many other places around the world. Mother's Day is one of those bitterwsweet times in my life, for I have now passed 13 such days without the physical presence of my mother. I think more about her at this time of the year than any other because during her lifetime, I tried hard to honor her every year. My mother was the anchor in my life, but even more, she was the one person, for a long time, that I absolutely knew loved me no matter what. Thanks be to the Lord that I know other family members, my children, and most of all my wife who surround me with such love today.
Just as my mother's love was of the unconditional variety, there is one above all who has such love for all. The Lord Jesus Christ proved that by giving His life even for those who hated Him, and despised Him and those who killed Him on the cross. If you come to Him and BELIEVE in Him, believe that He really did die for you, and He really did rise from the dead and lives today, and He really will come again for those who know Him, then you can know real unconditional love that will lift you up forever.
Rom 5:8 - but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
IJHN
LEE
Just as my mother's love was of the unconditional variety, there is one above all who has such love for all. The Lord Jesus Christ proved that by giving His life even for those who hated Him, and despised Him and those who killed Him on the cross. If you come to Him and BELIEVE in Him, believe that He really did die for you, and He really did rise from the dead and lives today, and He really will come again for those who know Him, then you can know real unconditional love that will lift you up forever.
Rom 5:8 - but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
IJHN
LEE
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Obama's Problem III
"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent him as being for blacks and thus against whites. Living in a world of white oppressors, black people have no time for a neutral God."
I ended the last post with this quote from James Cone, the leading exponent of Black Liberation Theology in the U.S. He wrote this in the 1970 publication A Black Theology of Liberation. This quote, perhaps more than any other thing, encapsulates the huge real problem in the life of Barack Obama, the church in America, and the nation as a whole.
I believe the problem is centered in the heart and it involves a fractured view of reality. This view contains pieces and bits of truth mixed with bits and pieces of error. It is a view that justifies evil in the service of good. It is a view that brings the Kingdom of God down to earth to serve the economic fantasies of social justice. In short, it is a view that says unless God serves us, we will not honor Him. The bits of the truth are those which rightly claim that God does love the poor, and that He requires the rich to help the poor. It is truth to claim that God is against oppression and tyranny, and those who are poor suffer the most from these. It is truth that God warns through the prophetic utterances of many men in Scripture the rich and powerful that they face judgment from God if they mistreat and oppress the poor. However, the errors of this view more than negate the truths presented. Errors such as the fact that God does not show favoritism, as is plainly stated in passages such as Matthew 5:45 and I Peter 2:23. In fact, it is blatant sin to demand that God be a certain way to satisfy what you or I or any group "has time for." God is God and it is He alone that has the right to demand our conformity to His rule, not the other way around, which is what black liberation theology, along with a host of other theological systems, does.
That is the heart of the problem for Obama himself because it leads to a false belief that he is safe and secure without having submitted to the Lord in his heart. In fact, this view makes it seem as though Senator Obama (as with others who follow it) has a right to demand that God bless him and curse those who oppose him. If followed wholeheartedly, it presents a grave danger of accepting a false gospel which further endangers Senator Obama's very soul.
The same can be said on a larger basis for the church as a whole. For those who accept liberation theology teaching, the danger of heresy and condemnation from God is present. Less obvious is the danger to those who do not accept such heresy. The existence of those who accept a liberation theology message, if they press their agenda, puts much pressure upon others to conform or be the next targets of whatever evil actions are contemplated to bring the new "oppressors" into line.
It should be easy to see that this can pose a profound danger to the nation as a whole. If black liberation theology were to realize its goals, a permanent division of race in the form of a physically divided nation would result. One only has to read the literature of the Nation of Islam to understand that this is the goal. We should remember that a prominent honoree of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (Obama's church formerly pastored by Jeremiah Wright), was Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam.
It is my sincere prayer that Senator Obama himself will repudiate these teachings from his heart, and not just as a matter of course so that he might win an election. In addition I pray that these kinds of heretical and dangerous beliefs will grow smaller and fade away, and that the glorious gospel of grace will grow and prosper here and around the earth.
IJHN
LEE
I ended the last post with this quote from James Cone, the leading exponent of Black Liberation Theology in the U.S. He wrote this in the 1970 publication A Black Theology of Liberation. This quote, perhaps more than any other thing, encapsulates the huge real problem in the life of Barack Obama, the church in America, and the nation as a whole.
I believe the problem is centered in the heart and it involves a fractured view of reality. This view contains pieces and bits of truth mixed with bits and pieces of error. It is a view that justifies evil in the service of good. It is a view that brings the Kingdom of God down to earth to serve the economic fantasies of social justice. In short, it is a view that says unless God serves us, we will not honor Him. The bits of the truth are those which rightly claim that God does love the poor, and that He requires the rich to help the poor. It is truth to claim that God is against oppression and tyranny, and those who are poor suffer the most from these. It is truth that God warns through the prophetic utterances of many men in Scripture the rich and powerful that they face judgment from God if they mistreat and oppress the poor. However, the errors of this view more than negate the truths presented. Errors such as the fact that God does not show favoritism, as is plainly stated in passages such as Matthew 5:45 and I Peter 2:23. In fact, it is blatant sin to demand that God be a certain way to satisfy what you or I or any group "has time for." God is God and it is He alone that has the right to demand our conformity to His rule, not the other way around, which is what black liberation theology, along with a host of other theological systems, does.
That is the heart of the problem for Obama himself because it leads to a false belief that he is safe and secure without having submitted to the Lord in his heart. In fact, this view makes it seem as though Senator Obama (as with others who follow it) has a right to demand that God bless him and curse those who oppose him. If followed wholeheartedly, it presents a grave danger of accepting a false gospel which further endangers Senator Obama's very soul.
The same can be said on a larger basis for the church as a whole. For those who accept liberation theology teaching, the danger of heresy and condemnation from God is present. Less obvious is the danger to those who do not accept such heresy. The existence of those who accept a liberation theology message, if they press their agenda, puts much pressure upon others to conform or be the next targets of whatever evil actions are contemplated to bring the new "oppressors" into line.
It should be easy to see that this can pose a profound danger to the nation as a whole. If black liberation theology were to realize its goals, a permanent division of race in the form of a physically divided nation would result. One only has to read the literature of the Nation of Islam to understand that this is the goal. We should remember that a prominent honoree of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (Obama's church formerly pastored by Jeremiah Wright), was Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam.
It is my sincere prayer that Senator Obama himself will repudiate these teachings from his heart, and not just as a matter of course so that he might win an election. In addition I pray that these kinds of heretical and dangerous beliefs will grow smaller and fade away, and that the glorious gospel of grace will grow and prosper here and around the earth.
IJHN
LEE
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Obama's Problem II
In my last post, I mentioned the problem that the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright have caused to Barack Obama. The media has been all over this, but with the exception of a very few, they have and continue to miss the real problem.
I mentioned that the problem is not really with Rev. Wright at all, nor is it with his church. The problem here is certainly not one that should be in any way associated with so-called "black" churches. The problem is with the "Black Liberation Theology" that Rev. Wright preaches and promotes.
Black Liberation Theology is a type of broader thought known simply as liberation theology. This theology has its roots in Latin America and exploded on the scene in the 1950's and 1960's. It is strongly associated with Marxism and shares many of the philosophical beliefs of Marxism. Liberation theology in general believes that sin is not an individual's rebellion against a holy God. Instead, sin is the economic and social oppression of the poor on earth. God's role in this system is to be for the oppressed and against the oppressor no matter what. The end of oppression by any means is God's mandate. Thus it becomes that case that sin only applies to those who belong to the group who is seen as the oppressor. Those who belong to the oppressed are incapable of sin against their oppressor. The only sin that the oppressed group can commit is not to join in the struggle against the oppressor. Violence, rape, theft, terrorism, and even murder are justified and even approved of by God as long as these kind of things are practiced against the oppressor.
Black liberation theology is simply liberation theology applied to the black community in America. In a famous quote from his book A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone wrote,
"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent him as being for blacks and thus against whites. Living in a world of white oppressors, black people have no time for a neutral God."
It is here that we can begin to see the real problem for both Barack Obama, and for our nation as a whole, and for the church in particular. But that will have to wait until the next post.
IJHM
LEE
I mentioned that the problem is not really with Rev. Wright at all, nor is it with his church. The problem here is certainly not one that should be in any way associated with so-called "black" churches. The problem is with the "Black Liberation Theology" that Rev. Wright preaches and promotes.
Black Liberation Theology is a type of broader thought known simply as liberation theology. This theology has its roots in Latin America and exploded on the scene in the 1950's and 1960's. It is strongly associated with Marxism and shares many of the philosophical beliefs of Marxism. Liberation theology in general believes that sin is not an individual's rebellion against a holy God. Instead, sin is the economic and social oppression of the poor on earth. God's role in this system is to be for the oppressed and against the oppressor no matter what. The end of oppression by any means is God's mandate. Thus it becomes that case that sin only applies to those who belong to the group who is seen as the oppressor. Those who belong to the oppressed are incapable of sin against their oppressor. The only sin that the oppressed group can commit is not to join in the struggle against the oppressor. Violence, rape, theft, terrorism, and even murder are justified and even approved of by God as long as these kind of things are practiced against the oppressor.
Black liberation theology is simply liberation theology applied to the black community in America. In a famous quote from his book A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone wrote,
"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent him as being for blacks and thus against whites. Living in a world of white oppressors, black people have no time for a neutral God."
It is here that we can begin to see the real problem for both Barack Obama, and for our nation as a whole, and for the church in particular. But that will have to wait until the next post.
IJHM
LEE
Monday, March 31, 2008
Obama's Problem
A great deal has taken place since my last entry. I was ill for quite a while, but now I am back and hopefully with the LORD's aid and blessing I can post far more frequently.
One of the more disturbing events that has come to pass has been the revelations concerning the pastor of Barack Obama, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I find his statements to be reprehensible and racist. I am disturbed that Senator Obama has such a close relationship with this man. I certainly hope and pray that Senator Obama does not share the Rev. Wright's theological views, for that is precisely the problem here, and it is a problem most "news" outlets are missing.
For instance, many, if not most of the commentators on both television and radio seem focused on the idea that this was a predominantly "black" church. I have seen television news pieces centered in on the question "What really goes on in black churches in America?", and I have heard radio program hosts asking whether or not this is 'typical' of "black" churches. It seems to me that asking the question itself at least hints at a latent racist attitude. It certainly betrays gross ignorance to ask those kind of questions for it assumes that all so-called "black" churches follow the same teaching. Granted there is similarities in many churches characterized as "black," but I would submit that these similarities are predominantly manifested in style rather than substance.
I must at this point give the qualifier that I am a white pastor. I am conservative and evangelical in my theology, with a strong belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures as originally given. I have, however, both attended "black" churches and been privileged to preach at "black" churches as well. In every case, the experience was a strongly positive one. Yes, the style of music and preaching and worship was different than what I was mostly familiar with, but the theology was solidly conservative and I would not hesitate to endorse those churches.
The problem with the church Senator Obama has been a member of has never been a racial one. It has always been a theological one. It begins with the belief, preaching and application of "Black Liberation Theology" that Rev. Wright espouses. This is not a theology that Rev. Wright invented, simply one that he adheres to. In seminary, I read some of this theology as written by perhaps its leading champion, James Cone. In a nutshell, this theology is overtly racist in both tone and substance. One way to describe it would be as a slightly christianized version of the Nation of Islam's philosophy. I won't go into detail in this post, but in several future posts I will.
Giving credit where credit is due, I have found one TV program that seems to understand the problem of theology as important here. The Glenn Beck show on CNN is doing a series this week on Black Liberation Theology. I will try to watch and see if they really do "get it."
IJHN,
LEE
One of the more disturbing events that has come to pass has been the revelations concerning the pastor of Barack Obama, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I find his statements to be reprehensible and racist. I am disturbed that Senator Obama has such a close relationship with this man. I certainly hope and pray that Senator Obama does not share the Rev. Wright's theological views, for that is precisely the problem here, and it is a problem most "news" outlets are missing.
For instance, many, if not most of the commentators on both television and radio seem focused on the idea that this was a predominantly "black" church. I have seen television news pieces centered in on the question "What really goes on in black churches in America?", and I have heard radio program hosts asking whether or not this is 'typical' of "black" churches. It seems to me that asking the question itself at least hints at a latent racist attitude. It certainly betrays gross ignorance to ask those kind of questions for it assumes that all so-called "black" churches follow the same teaching. Granted there is similarities in many churches characterized as "black," but I would submit that these similarities are predominantly manifested in style rather than substance.
I must at this point give the qualifier that I am a white pastor. I am conservative and evangelical in my theology, with a strong belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures as originally given. I have, however, both attended "black" churches and been privileged to preach at "black" churches as well. In every case, the experience was a strongly positive one. Yes, the style of music and preaching and worship was different than what I was mostly familiar with, but the theology was solidly conservative and I would not hesitate to endorse those churches.
The problem with the church Senator Obama has been a member of has never been a racial one. It has always been a theological one. It begins with the belief, preaching and application of "Black Liberation Theology" that Rev. Wright espouses. This is not a theology that Rev. Wright invented, simply one that he adheres to. In seminary, I read some of this theology as written by perhaps its leading champion, James Cone. In a nutshell, this theology is overtly racist in both tone and substance. One way to describe it would be as a slightly christianized version of the Nation of Islam's philosophy. I won't go into detail in this post, but in several future posts I will.
Giving credit where credit is due, I have found one TV program that seems to understand the problem of theology as important here. The Glenn Beck show on CNN is doing a series this week on Black Liberation Theology. I will try to watch and see if they really do "get it."
IJHN,
LEE
Monday, February 4, 2008
"Wait 'till next year"
The Super Bowl happened yesterday evening. Just a little more than 24 hours ago, an event that was endlessly promoted, an event that cost advertisers more money in 30 seconds than the GDP of many nations in this world was conducted. It was pulled off and was a grand success by the standards of the world. More people watched this event on TV than any other Super Bowl before, some estimated 97 million viewers. It is an incredible feat when one thinks about the sheer enormity of the task. I was one of the 97 million that watched, and it was indeed a spectacular game.
However, (you knew that was coming didn't you!) at least a small part of me wonders if much of the event was nothing more than a colossal waste of time. At least for myself, I wonder if my time could have been better spent doing many other things. My spiritual and intellectual growth certainly need attending to. I sure could have used some of the time for prayer. I am somewhat limited at the moment physically because of an injury, but there are many other things I could perhaps have done. But, I didn't do any of those things. Instead, after the game I searched for some redeeming value by searching out places where the big game was invested with spiritual significance through players who are Christian witnesses, church events and the like. I wish I had done more of that before the game, and perhaps I would have been able to better redeem the time for the Lord. Well, as the losing team and its fans say, "Wait till next year!"
IJHN
LEE
However, (you knew that was coming didn't you!) at least a small part of me wonders if much of the event was nothing more than a colossal waste of time. At least for myself, I wonder if my time could have been better spent doing many other things. My spiritual and intellectual growth certainly need attending to. I sure could have used some of the time for prayer. I am somewhat limited at the moment physically because of an injury, but there are many other things I could perhaps have done. But, I didn't do any of those things. Instead, after the game I searched for some redeeming value by searching out places where the big game was invested with spiritual significance through players who are Christian witnesses, church events and the like. I wish I had done more of that before the game, and perhaps I would have been able to better redeem the time for the Lord. Well, as the losing team and its fans say, "Wait till next year!"
IJHN
LEE
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A Broken World
Yesterday was designated as Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the United States. This day comes with a mixture of hope and sorrow as I contemplate the life and impact of Dr. King.
I first heard of Dr. King through the media when I was a young boy and through into my early adolescent years. I remember his stirring oratory and how it moved my heart even then. He was able to make me feel somewhat of his people's pain, though I was not one of those who endured it. I remember admiring his courage in the face of horrible bigotry and the very real harm such hatred engendered. And even today, I garner hope in the fact that we as a nation were able to move significantly toward the fulfillment of his grand and good vision of racial equality.
However, I sorrow at the cost. The cost of lives battered and lost was great. In this case, like any great endeavor for righteousness, there is always a cost to be counted. Most of all, I remember the cost of 1968, when the life of someone who had already come to be a hero in my young heart was snatched away. Like most of the nation, I was stunned by the news of Dr. King's assassination. I think that it was then I first thought there must be something wrong with the world. Of course I knew there were bad people in the world and that evil things happened because of them. But I don't think it was until that particular point when I somehow felt the world was broken in some way.
Since that time I have learned what Dr. King already knew many years before his passing. I have learned that yes, the world is broken, and we all broke it. We all continue to break the world with our selfishness and greed and pride and lust and hatred. In the words of one author, "There is a problem with the world, and it is me." I have learned that this problem has but one solution, one provided by the author of life. It is to embrace wholeheartedly the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, and live, really live, by faith in Him. Dr. King reached the promised land because of such faith and the actions he took in response to his faith in Jesus. I hope and pray my actions in life can serve my Lord is half the measure that his did.
IJHN,
LEE
I first heard of Dr. King through the media when I was a young boy and through into my early adolescent years. I remember his stirring oratory and how it moved my heart even then. He was able to make me feel somewhat of his people's pain, though I was not one of those who endured it. I remember admiring his courage in the face of horrible bigotry and the very real harm such hatred engendered. And even today, I garner hope in the fact that we as a nation were able to move significantly toward the fulfillment of his grand and good vision of racial equality.
However, I sorrow at the cost. The cost of lives battered and lost was great. In this case, like any great endeavor for righteousness, there is always a cost to be counted. Most of all, I remember the cost of 1968, when the life of someone who had already come to be a hero in my young heart was snatched away. Like most of the nation, I was stunned by the news of Dr. King's assassination. I think that it was then I first thought there must be something wrong with the world. Of course I knew there were bad people in the world and that evil things happened because of them. But I don't think it was until that particular point when I somehow felt the world was broken in some way.
Since that time I have learned what Dr. King already knew many years before his passing. I have learned that yes, the world is broken, and we all broke it. We all continue to break the world with our selfishness and greed and pride and lust and hatred. In the words of one author, "There is a problem with the world, and it is me." I have learned that this problem has but one solution, one provided by the author of life. It is to embrace wholeheartedly the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, and live, really live, by faith in Him. Dr. King reached the promised land because of such faith and the actions he took in response to his faith in Jesus. I hope and pray my actions in life can serve my Lord is half the measure that his did.
IJHN,
LEE
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Is Peace Possible?
I once had a dream about peace in the world. In the dream, I am discussing the concept of whether or not true peace is even possible in the world with two other men. In the course of the discussion, we conclude that true peace has never been experienced or sustained in our world, and for that matter, sustained within any one family that we know of. Conflict is an ever-present companion to all societies. The natural question that occurs among us is that most difficult and persistent of all questions, "Why?"
After further discussion, our small group of three boiled the possible answers down to two possibilities. We have not achieved peace because either, We do not truly desire peace, or We are simply incapable of achieving peace.
One of our group advocated the first possible answer as the correct one. The second of our group could not decide and so served as a mediator of sorts. I proposed the answer was that the human race was simply incapable of achieving peace.
Advocate one for proposition one stated his reasoning as follows. The failure to accomplish peace means that humanity does not really desire peace. We may declare that we do desire it, but we are just fooling ourselves. He suggests the fact that we do not have a universal definition of peace is evidence that we do not desire it. If we did desire peace truly, we would strive much harder to find a definition for peace that all could agree upon. Examples of such inconsistent definitions include those who believe that peace is only possible with submission to their group's authority versus those who believe that peace is simply the absence of physical conflict. Others would more radically define peace as the absence of all physical and even psychological conflict. If humanity would come together and define peace clearly and consistently, then we could achieve it. The hypothesis is that we just do not want peace bad enough to work at it with all we've got.
My conclusion was that the failure to accomplish peace is because we are incapable of doing so. No matter how differently the concept may be defined among various groups, it seems evident that most people do desire peace. In addition, the fact that humanity has continued to attempt to reach peace despite our history of war, is evidence that the desire for peace is present within us. A prime example is the present stalled peace talks that the president is in Israel to try to revive. These parties have been at war in one fashion or another for thousands of years. If these two did not desire peace, there would seem no motivation to keep talking. This has been the case throughout history with every people group on earth, and no matter the heartfelt desire for peace, it is as ephemeral as ever. The very fact that we have not given peace a universally agreed upon definition, at least to how we can or should achieve it, after millennia of trying seems to me to support the conclusion that we are incapable of doing so. Furthermore it seems to bolster the conclusion that we will never be capable of doing so.
Of course, since it was my dream, I won the debate. However, a further question is raised in light of my conclusion, assuming it is indeed correct. The question is, "Is there therefore any hope of peace in the world whatsoever?" The answer is both no, and yes. No, there is no hope of peace in the world as we now know it. Yes, there is hope for peace but it must come from some other source than humanity. The source of peace is the only true giver of peace, God Almighty. Only when we turn to Him, through Christ, is peace available on a personal level, and future peace for all who trust Him will come to pass. It is my hope and prayer that each of you will truly find peace through Jesus by turning your heart over to Him.
IJHN
LEE
After further discussion, our small group of three boiled the possible answers down to two possibilities. We have not achieved peace because either, We do not truly desire peace, or We are simply incapable of achieving peace.
One of our group advocated the first possible answer as the correct one. The second of our group could not decide and so served as a mediator of sorts. I proposed the answer was that the human race was simply incapable of achieving peace.
Advocate one for proposition one stated his reasoning as follows. The failure to accomplish peace means that humanity does not really desire peace. We may declare that we do desire it, but we are just fooling ourselves. He suggests the fact that we do not have a universal definition of peace is evidence that we do not desire it. If we did desire peace truly, we would strive much harder to find a definition for peace that all could agree upon. Examples of such inconsistent definitions include those who believe that peace is only possible with submission to their group's authority versus those who believe that peace is simply the absence of physical conflict. Others would more radically define peace as the absence of all physical and even psychological conflict. If humanity would come together and define peace clearly and consistently, then we could achieve it. The hypothesis is that we just do not want peace bad enough to work at it with all we've got.
My conclusion was that the failure to accomplish peace is because we are incapable of doing so. No matter how differently the concept may be defined among various groups, it seems evident that most people do desire peace. In addition, the fact that humanity has continued to attempt to reach peace despite our history of war, is evidence that the desire for peace is present within us. A prime example is the present stalled peace talks that the president is in Israel to try to revive. These parties have been at war in one fashion or another for thousands of years. If these two did not desire peace, there would seem no motivation to keep talking. This has been the case throughout history with every people group on earth, and no matter the heartfelt desire for peace, it is as ephemeral as ever. The very fact that we have not given peace a universally agreed upon definition, at least to how we can or should achieve it, after millennia of trying seems to me to support the conclusion that we are incapable of doing so. Furthermore it seems to bolster the conclusion that we will never be capable of doing so.
Of course, since it was my dream, I won the debate. However, a further question is raised in light of my conclusion, assuming it is indeed correct. The question is, "Is there therefore any hope of peace in the world whatsoever?" The answer is both no, and yes. No, there is no hope of peace in the world as we now know it. Yes, there is hope for peace but it must come from some other source than humanity. The source of peace is the only true giver of peace, God Almighty. Only when we turn to Him, through Christ, is peace available on a personal level, and future peace for all who trust Him will come to pass. It is my hope and prayer that each of you will truly find peace through Jesus by turning your heart over to Him.
IJHN
LEE
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
TMI and election reflection
Its a brand new year and I'm sure that many of you, along with me, have made and perhaps already broken a few resolutions. One of mine that I made after New Year's Day was to get busy and start posting more often on this blog! So, with that in mind, here goes.
This year is an election year, and along with that comes a political and media circus which only seems to serve to turn more and more people off. More often than not I hear disillusionment among those who could and should be involved in the process of selecting our governmental leadership. In truth, I can't say that I blame many of them. At the very least, I can relate to their feelings.
One of the problems that has recently come to the fore is the 'TMI' syndrome. TMI stands for 'Too Much Information." In the information age, we are immersed in a glut of information which tends to overload our circuits, so to speak, and makes it more difficult, rather than easier, to support worthy candidates for office.
All that being the case, I must state that we still have a responsibility to participate in the political process. Each of us must make the effort to learn the candidates and their positions. Each of us must also make the effort to learn about the character of the candidates as well. For no matter the positions that a particular candidate espouses, if he or she is of questionable character we cannot trust that those positions on the issues will be carried out while the candidate is in office.
Will it be difficult to do? Yes, indeed it will. There will be a sacrifice of time and effort. You may not be able to do all of the things you would like to do when you would like to do them in order to be a part of choosing our nation's leadership. However, the consequences of failing to participate would be far worse than an inconvenience to our time and freedom. There is an old saying which goes, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." If we aren't careful, the outcome of our apathy will result in evil triumphing at the helm of our land.
IJHN,
LEE
This year is an election year, and along with that comes a political and media circus which only seems to serve to turn more and more people off. More often than not I hear disillusionment among those who could and should be involved in the process of selecting our governmental leadership. In truth, I can't say that I blame many of them. At the very least, I can relate to their feelings.
One of the problems that has recently come to the fore is the 'TMI' syndrome. TMI stands for 'Too Much Information." In the information age, we are immersed in a glut of information which tends to overload our circuits, so to speak, and makes it more difficult, rather than easier, to support worthy candidates for office.
All that being the case, I must state that we still have a responsibility to participate in the political process. Each of us must make the effort to learn the candidates and their positions. Each of us must also make the effort to learn about the character of the candidates as well. For no matter the positions that a particular candidate espouses, if he or she is of questionable character we cannot trust that those positions on the issues will be carried out while the candidate is in office.
Will it be difficult to do? Yes, indeed it will. There will be a sacrifice of time and effort. You may not be able to do all of the things you would like to do when you would like to do them in order to be a part of choosing our nation's leadership. However, the consequences of failing to participate would be far worse than an inconvenience to our time and freedom. There is an old saying which goes, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." If we aren't careful, the outcome of our apathy will result in evil triumphing at the helm of our land.
IJHN,
LEE
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Truly Beautiful
She was beautiful. Her name was Nancy, and she was beautiful. She had dark hair that didn't always lay straight, and she was beautiful. Her eyes were wider apart than normal, and she had heavy bags under each of them. Here ears were large and strangely shaped. And, she was beautiful. Her mouth hung open virtually all of the time, which also meant that you could see that she had only a partially complete set of teeth. Her nose was bent and crooked, and her skin sagged and hung loosely around and under her mouth. And, she was beautiful. She was small and walked with a shuffle. Her fingers were not formed correctly with the result being that she only had three fingers and a thumb on each hand. Her mental ability was what is politely called "slow." Her speech was halting and many times difficult to understand because of her various physical and mental impairments. And, she was beautiful.
Obviously, she was not beautiful in appearance. Nor was her life what many would call the "beautiful" life. Nor was she beautiful in her intelligence, or in any other way that we usually assign meaning to the concept of beauty. No, Nancy was beautiful because of who she was. She was a woman who smiled and waved at almost everybody she saw, and almost always had a happy greeting to share in the morning. She was beautiful because in some way beyond "normal" reckoning, Nancy radiated joy-waves all about her. It was impossible for one to have even a passing encounter with her and not be affected by those joy-waves. In Nancy, one could truly glimpse what is so often missed in our social encounters and even our friendships and relationships with one another. In Nancy, one could catch a glimpse of the image of God imprinted upon the soul.
A few weeks ago, Nancy went to be with God, and a bit of beauty was transfered from earth to heaven. I pray that we will all see the good, right, sure and true beauty of the LORD one day, and maybe even recognize someone who was known on earth as Nancy. Then we will all surely see that she was beautiful then, and will only grow more beautiful forever.
IHHN
LEE
Obviously, she was not beautiful in appearance. Nor was her life what many would call the "beautiful" life. Nor was she beautiful in her intelligence, or in any other way that we usually assign meaning to the concept of beauty. No, Nancy was beautiful because of who she was. She was a woman who smiled and waved at almost everybody she saw, and almost always had a happy greeting to share in the morning. She was beautiful because in some way beyond "normal" reckoning, Nancy radiated joy-waves all about her. It was impossible for one to have even a passing encounter with her and not be affected by those joy-waves. In Nancy, one could truly glimpse what is so often missed in our social encounters and even our friendships and relationships with one another. In Nancy, one could catch a glimpse of the image of God imprinted upon the soul.
A few weeks ago, Nancy went to be with God, and a bit of beauty was transfered from earth to heaven. I pray that we will all see the good, right, sure and true beauty of the LORD one day, and maybe even recognize someone who was known on earth as Nancy. Then we will all surely see that she was beautiful then, and will only grow more beautiful forever.
IHHN
LEE
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Thanksgiving "Week" Reflections
I have just reached the end of the Thanksgiving "week" and it has been busier than any week I can remember in a long time. I began the week with a phone call from a former parishioner asking me to do the funeral services for her mother. This was to be an unusual funeral in that her mother died a violent death as the victim of a shooting. I finished the week officiating at a wonderful event, the wedding of a former parishioner. In between, we celebrated a fine Thanksgiving with a dinner with our children and some very good friends. The range of activities, from mourning a loss to celebrating the beginning of life together, causes me to pause this season and reflect on what Thanksgiving should mean.
Thanksgiving is undergoing many challenges in our culture, primarily because of its supposed historical connection with the slaughter of the American Indians by European "invaders." In reality, the story of Thanksgiving has nothing to do with any battle between settlers and Indians. In fact, it has to do with the opposite, an incident of peaceful cooperation between the two peoples which resulted in a celebration of Thanksgiving to God. What is good, right, sure and true is that Thanksgiving should be celebrated as an example of what diverse human communities can peacefully be when God is lifted up and His ways are followed.
This Thanksgiving, I hope that you found some real reasons to give thanks to God. I know that I have. God's grace has abundantly flowed to me and my family. I have friends that are precious beyond reckoning. I have a job that helps provide, along with my wife's job, a good home for us. This year we were able to become a larger family with the taking on of guardianship of a young lady who has become our daughter. I am part of a wonderful church family as well, one that takes the Word of God as just that, the Word of God Himself, and one that gives His love to others in abundance. If I had half as much as I do, I would still have an amazing amount to be thankful for. The reason I can say that is because I know that I do not deserve to have anything! If God judged me according to my sinful heart, I would already be dead and suffering. But thanks be to God! He has granted me mercy according to His grace. Jesus came and suffered the punishment I deserved by His death on the cross. He paid the penalty and I don't have to because of Him! He brought to realize this and believe in Christ some 32 years ago, in May of 1975, and thus I am thankful to Him for it all! I hope you can say the same, for life eternal depends on it!
Thanksgiving is undergoing many challenges in our culture, primarily because of its supposed historical connection with the slaughter of the American Indians by European "invaders." In reality, the story of Thanksgiving has nothing to do with any battle between settlers and Indians. In fact, it has to do with the opposite, an incident of peaceful cooperation between the two peoples which resulted in a celebration of Thanksgiving to God. What is good, right, sure and true is that Thanksgiving should be celebrated as an example of what diverse human communities can peacefully be when God is lifted up and His ways are followed.
This Thanksgiving, I hope that you found some real reasons to give thanks to God. I know that I have. God's grace has abundantly flowed to me and my family. I have friends that are precious beyond reckoning. I have a job that helps provide, along with my wife's job, a good home for us. This year we were able to become a larger family with the taking on of guardianship of a young lady who has become our daughter. I am part of a wonderful church family as well, one that takes the Word of God as just that, the Word of God Himself, and one that gives His love to others in abundance. If I had half as much as I do, I would still have an amazing amount to be thankful for. The reason I can say that is because I know that I do not deserve to have anything! If God judged me according to my sinful heart, I would already be dead and suffering. But thanks be to God! He has granted me mercy according to His grace. Jesus came and suffered the punishment I deserved by His death on the cross. He paid the penalty and I don't have to because of Him! He brought to realize this and believe in Christ some 32 years ago, in May of 1975, and thus I am thankful to Him for it all! I hope you can say the same, for life eternal depends on it!
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Vets 'Get it' in Iraq
It is the day after the official celebration of the Veteran's Day holiday. As a veteran of the U.S. Army, I appreciate this time set aside to honor those who have defended and are defending our freedom around the globe.
Which brings us to the current war in Iraq. I found an interesting piece of reporting on Cybercast News Service yesterday highlighting words of three Iraq vets who are members of Vets for Freedom, a group that supports keeping troops in Iraq. That's right, such a group exists, and is making noise as well. You just aren't hearing much about it on the MSM.
According to this reporter, Nathan Burchfiel, these vets were very critical of the MSM for, among other things, "playing up the fact that 2007 has been the deadliest year for American troops while largely ignoring the positive trend in recent months." What is that positive trend? It is the additional fact that since the "surge" in troops was fully implemented in May 2007, the trend in deaths has been consistently downward. It includes the fact that since the surge, Baghdad has become much safer. The fact is that the surge has worked and is working. It is working better than even its supporters thought it would.
Other comments from these veterans of combat in Iraq are worth noting. Staff Sgt. David Bellavia, who fought in Fallujah and founded Vets for Freedom, "criticized elected officials who seek a timeline for success in Iraq tied to a withdrawal strategy."
" 'You would never ask that question of Gen. MacArthur,' he said, referring to the World War II general who led U.S. forces in the Pacific. 'The reason why the 'greatest generation' was great was because the World War II generation understood they had to win their war.' "
This comment from Sgt. Bellavia is brilliant. He is one who understands what is at stake here. He is a veteran who "gets it," and he is not alone. His fellow serviceman, Sgt. Marco Martinez, also a member of Vets for Freedom, "said he believes servicemen and women are being misrepresented by a vocal minority who oppose continuing to fight in Iraq.
" 'I have not met one man when I was in that wanted to come back,' Martinez said, referring to suggestions that a large number of troops do not support the mission."
What the people of Vets for Freedom understand is that the United States simply cannot afford to retreat from this battle in the global war against terrorism. That is what the people in the MSM, along with most in the Democratic party, do not understand. And, there is basically one reason for the difference. Those in the Vets for Freedom group have looked the enemy in the eye. Those in the MSM have only looked at themselves. The Vets have the real assessment because they have seen and experienced what the enemy has done and is willing to do to achieve the victory. The MSM can see nothing but a projection of their idealistic selves. That is why the Vets for Freedom represent what is good, right and true today, and why the MSM represents only the blind leading the blind.
IJHN
LEE
Which brings us to the current war in Iraq. I found an interesting piece of reporting on Cybercast News Service yesterday highlighting words of three Iraq vets who are members of Vets for Freedom, a group that supports keeping troops in Iraq. That's right, such a group exists, and is making noise as well. You just aren't hearing much about it on the MSM.
According to this reporter, Nathan Burchfiel, these vets were very critical of the MSM for, among other things, "playing up the fact that 2007 has been the deadliest year for American troops while largely ignoring the positive trend in recent months." What is that positive trend? It is the additional fact that since the "surge" in troops was fully implemented in May 2007, the trend in deaths has been consistently downward. It includes the fact that since the surge, Baghdad has become much safer. The fact is that the surge has worked and is working. It is working better than even its supporters thought it would.
Other comments from these veterans of combat in Iraq are worth noting. Staff Sgt. David Bellavia, who fought in Fallujah and founded Vets for Freedom, "criticized elected officials who seek a timeline for success in Iraq tied to a withdrawal strategy."
" 'You would never ask that question of Gen. MacArthur,' he said, referring to the World War II general who led U.S. forces in the Pacific. 'The reason why the 'greatest generation' was great was because the World War II generation understood they had to win their war.' "
This comment from Sgt. Bellavia is brilliant. He is one who understands what is at stake here. He is a veteran who "gets it," and he is not alone. His fellow serviceman, Sgt. Marco Martinez, also a member of Vets for Freedom, "said he believes servicemen and women are being misrepresented by a vocal minority who oppose continuing to fight in Iraq.
" 'I have not met one man when I was in that wanted to come back,' Martinez said, referring to suggestions that a large number of troops do not support the mission."
What the people of Vets for Freedom understand is that the United States simply cannot afford to retreat from this battle in the global war against terrorism. That is what the people in the MSM, along with most in the Democratic party, do not understand. And, there is basically one reason for the difference. Those in the Vets for Freedom group have looked the enemy in the eye. Those in the MSM have only looked at themselves. The Vets have the real assessment because they have seen and experienced what the enemy has done and is willing to do to achieve the victory. The MSM can see nothing but a projection of their idealistic selves. That is why the Vets for Freedom represent what is good, right and true today, and why the MSM represents only the blind leading the blind.
IJHN
LEE
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The Robertson Effect
I was somewhat surprised to hear the news that Rudy Giuliani had been endorsed as a Presidential candidate by, of all people, Rev. Pat Robertson. Many of Rudy's supporters seemed to hail this as a watershed turning point in the campaign. Some, such as prominent supporter Dennis Miller, believe this might just sew up the nomination for the Republican candidate.
I do not pretend to be able to prognosticate the result of this event with any degree of accuracy. I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. Some conservative commentators have reacted by writing or saying that Robertson has "sold his soul" or entered into a "Faustian bargain," by endorsing Rudy. I am not sure I could level that kind of criticism at Robertson. However, I do question his thinking and his objectives in this endorsement.
For one thing, it seems that Robertson risks substantially alienating most of those who follow his lead. How much influence and following he has at this point in time is debatable. It is certainly not near the peak of support he enjoyed in the 80's and 90's. It would not appear to be a very savvy move if he wished to garner more support than he has now. Another thing seems certain; Robertson can't believe (can he?!) that this will bring more liberal viewers to his side. He could endorse a candidate far more liberal than Rudy and still remain noxious to any real liberal.
I for one am not a fan of Rudy's. I prefer a more consistent conservative candidate who has both his personal and public values in line with what is good, right and true. I haven't yet decided if anyone fulfills that ideal as yet, though there are a couple of possibilities on the Republican side, and none on the Democratic side. For my part, I do see one "positive" about this unusual endorsement. It could actually have the effect of reducing Rudy's support among conservative voters when Robertson is trying to explain why he is endorsing a pro-abortion, pro-gun control candidate who can't keep marital promises on the basis of a promise that he will only appoint conservative judges to the bench.
However, it could also prove to push Rudy closer to a lock on the nomination. If that proves to be the case, it will show me that the Republicans are just that much closer to losing credibility among the faithful faith-based conservatives that have helped them in the past to gain the White House. It would indeed be ironic if the endorsement of a man of faith accomplished the retreat of the faithful from the ranks of the GOP.
IJHN,
LEE
I do not pretend to be able to prognosticate the result of this event with any degree of accuracy. I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. Some conservative commentators have reacted by writing or saying that Robertson has "sold his soul" or entered into a "Faustian bargain," by endorsing Rudy. I am not sure I could level that kind of criticism at Robertson. However, I do question his thinking and his objectives in this endorsement.
For one thing, it seems that Robertson risks substantially alienating most of those who follow his lead. How much influence and following he has at this point in time is debatable. It is certainly not near the peak of support he enjoyed in the 80's and 90's. It would not appear to be a very savvy move if he wished to garner more support than he has now. Another thing seems certain; Robertson can't believe (can he?!) that this will bring more liberal viewers to his side. He could endorse a candidate far more liberal than Rudy and still remain noxious to any real liberal.
I for one am not a fan of Rudy's. I prefer a more consistent conservative candidate who has both his personal and public values in line with what is good, right and true. I haven't yet decided if anyone fulfills that ideal as yet, though there are a couple of possibilities on the Republican side, and none on the Democratic side. For my part, I do see one "positive" about this unusual endorsement. It could actually have the effect of reducing Rudy's support among conservative voters when Robertson is trying to explain why he is endorsing a pro-abortion, pro-gun control candidate who can't keep marital promises on the basis of a promise that he will only appoint conservative judges to the bench.
However, it could also prove to push Rudy closer to a lock on the nomination. If that proves to be the case, it will show me that the Republicans are just that much closer to losing credibility among the faithful faith-based conservatives that have helped them in the past to gain the White House. It would indeed be ironic if the endorsement of a man of faith accomplished the retreat of the faithful from the ranks of the GOP.
IJHN,
LEE
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Of "Dogs" and Teacher's Pets
Recently two news items caught my eye that seem another example of foolishness gone amok in our world.
The first is the case of Duane "Dog" Chapman, the now infamous bounty hunter made famous by a reality show on TV. I have been a bit of a fan of the show, despite it's quirky nature and the rather extreme appearance of members of the Chapman family. However the newly revealed and over-covered racist tirade of the "Dog" himself have served to prove once more that reality shows are never as real as real life.
The second is the latest in a seeming epidemic of episodes of forbidden love. This is the case of Kelsey Peterson and Fernando Rodriguez. If you just thought "who?", you can be forgiven. While the story of the hard words of a TV celeb have been covered to death, this one is a bit harder to see. According to the AP, Kelsey Peterson is"a 25-year-old sixth grade math teacher and basketball coach at Lexington Middle School" in Lexington, NE. She is suspected of having an intimate relationship with student Rodriguez, a 13-year-old at the Middle School. The two fled from Nebraska after investigators found messages of an intimate nature on the teacher's laptop and in letters written by the student. They were apprehended by Mexican authorities Friday evening after crossing into Mexicali, Mexico. The teacher was arrested and the boy released to relatives in Mexico.
Both of these are cases of betrayed trust and very foolish behavior. In the case of "Dog's" racism, the people who perhaps looked up to Chapman now have one less person to exalt and emulate. The damage in that situation will primarily be visited upon the Chapman family. It is sad and tragic, but perhaps worse will be the commentaries in future days and weeks that will take this as symptomatic that white American society is racist to the core. The combination of a celebrity and racist remarks will provide fuel to both outright racists (which pitifully still exist in far too many numbers) and to those race hustlers, i.e. the Sharpton crowd, who only assume significance proportionate to the existence of both phony and real racism.
The case of the teacher and her student/lover portends of a more serious trend that seems to be increasing. Our society is sexualized to an extreme level. One could easily claim that our modern culture has moved beyond being sex-obsessed to being near sex-addicted. At all levels and in every area, from the government to church to music to TV and movies and, as in this case, the educational system, sex scandals are becoming more commonplace. The "sexual revolution" of some 40+ years ago seems to now being bearing fruit, and that fruit is swiftly poisoning the children. The potential for damage to the children and future generations is ignored at a devastating cost. We need to begin to count that cost and turn away from the tired and troubled answer offered by the wisdom of the world. It doesn't work! It never did! All that our sexualized society can offer is a false and ephemeral playground that wounds and even kills us. The LORD Jesus offers a better alternative for each of us, and for the world.
IJHN,
L.E.E.
The first is the case of Duane "Dog" Chapman, the now infamous bounty hunter made famous by a reality show on TV. I have been a bit of a fan of the show, despite it's quirky nature and the rather extreme appearance of members of the Chapman family. However the newly revealed and over-covered racist tirade of the "Dog" himself have served to prove once more that reality shows are never as real as real life.
The second is the latest in a seeming epidemic of episodes of forbidden love. This is the case of Kelsey Peterson and Fernando Rodriguez. If you just thought "who?", you can be forgiven. While the story of the hard words of a TV celeb have been covered to death, this one is a bit harder to see. According to the AP, Kelsey Peterson is"a 25-year-old sixth grade math teacher and basketball coach at Lexington Middle School" in Lexington, NE. She is suspected of having an intimate relationship with student Rodriguez, a 13-year-old at the Middle School. The two fled from Nebraska after investigators found messages of an intimate nature on the teacher's laptop and in letters written by the student. They were apprehended by Mexican authorities Friday evening after crossing into Mexicali, Mexico. The teacher was arrested and the boy released to relatives in Mexico.
Both of these are cases of betrayed trust and very foolish behavior. In the case of "Dog's" racism, the people who perhaps looked up to Chapman now have one less person to exalt and emulate. The damage in that situation will primarily be visited upon the Chapman family. It is sad and tragic, but perhaps worse will be the commentaries in future days and weeks that will take this as symptomatic that white American society is racist to the core. The combination of a celebrity and racist remarks will provide fuel to both outright racists (which pitifully still exist in far too many numbers) and to those race hustlers, i.e. the Sharpton crowd, who only assume significance proportionate to the existence of both phony and real racism.
The case of the teacher and her student/lover portends of a more serious trend that seems to be increasing. Our society is sexualized to an extreme level. One could easily claim that our modern culture has moved beyond being sex-obsessed to being near sex-addicted. At all levels and in every area, from the government to church to music to TV and movies and, as in this case, the educational system, sex scandals are becoming more commonplace. The "sexual revolution" of some 40+ years ago seems to now being bearing fruit, and that fruit is swiftly poisoning the children. The potential for damage to the children and future generations is ignored at a devastating cost. We need to begin to count that cost and turn away from the tired and troubled answer offered by the wisdom of the world. It doesn't work! It never did! All that our sexualized society can offer is a false and ephemeral playground that wounds and even kills us. The LORD Jesus offers a better alternative for each of us, and for the world.
IJHN,
L.E.E.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)