Human Nudity

As a kid, I always knew where I could go to see naked people - well, for me, it was specifically naked women I wanted to see.  It didn't involve the illicit purchase of an "adult" magazine or the carefully-guarded and secretive viewing of an "adult" movie.  Sure, as a kid I was able use those avenues as well.  But, by far the easiest avenue to viewing nakedness was to open up a National Geographic magazine.  For some reason, human nudity in this magazine was uncensored and freely available to me as well as others.  I didn't think about the "why" question at the time, but came to think about it later...after my youthful nudity-seeking came to an end and I became more interested in what I now see as bigger and more important issues.

As most of its readers know, National Geographic is a magazine which operates under an evolutionary worldview and actively promotes it.  Its promotion of Darwinian evolution is in fact rather blatant, as if the magazine editor and staff are saying "Come on, you ignorant flat-earther creationists!  Neo-Darwinian evolution is a fact!  How many times do we need to tell you!  The universe and all it contains came about by chance, and all your thinking and actions are controlled by genes - and then ultimately by the laws of physics and biology - which came about by chance!  Believe and be saved!" Of course this message is politely submerged beneath much refined verbiage and glossy photography.  The message gets through though.

This magazine, only one of many, but perhaps the most readily recognizable and respected, is at odds with itself.  That is, through its actual actions it argues against those things it supposedly promotes.  We see articles about the human spirit.  We see articles that clearly attempt to show the moral wrong or moral rightness about practices and occurrences in various places throughout the globe.  It is a magazine that seems to promote human dignity and discourage sexism, oppression, and racism.  However (and this is where the nudity part comes in), why all the naked people?  Why can I readily find both rear and frontal human nudity of both sexes in many of its issues?  I believe it is because under the surface, the evolutionary worldview trains the mind to see the uncivilized peoples of the world to be somehow less-than-fully-human.  If not that, then at least less human or less evolved than them - or you and me.

Self-deception is indeed possible and I am convinced happens every day in the minds of many - and perhaps all of us to some extent.  I believe that National Geographic-type nakedness is published without significant objection because, under their self-deception of their own belief of human equality, they actually believe that some humans are more human than others.  To put it simply, they believe the naked people pictured in their magazines are closer to animals than you or I and thus don't require the same censorship or protection in regards to their naked parts.  One could object to my thesis and say that National Geographic-type nakedness is OK because the naked people themselves don't care about their breasts, buttocks, or reproductive parts showing.  To that objection I would answer that I'm sure that many people from developed countries who read, write, and can use a computer would not object to their naked bodies being shown publicly either.  However, we find that these people are not able to get their nakedness out into the open (legally) very easily.  Would anyone argue with this?  If so, try and get naked pictures of yourself published in a magazine which can find itself in a dentist's office or school bookshelf.

As a Christian who rejects Neo-Darwinian evolutionary presuppositions in regards to our species, I instead heartily affirm the Biblical scripture which instead gives bona fide human credentials to all races and peoples because we call came from "...one blood..."(Acts 17:26)  People may be inconsistent in their application of this truth, but at least the foundation itself is consistent with equal treatment of nudity - because we're all equally human.

Thoughts on the Gun Rights Question

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants." --Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

The funny thing is that I'm not really your stereotypical "gun culture" guy.  I don't get a thrill out of using them, and I really dislike spending time cleaning them.  It's the 2nd Amendment principle that I'm for - and not some personal gun-love.  The 2nd Amendment is there for both personal protection and protection against a potentially tyrannous government.  The sport of hunting had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.  I think the 2nd Amendment is as much for the 21st century as it was for the 18th.  Any legislative attempt to limit or abolish this right should be made with the most careful deliberation.

I am totally against any sort of repeal (either officially or practically) of the 2nd Amendment.  However, the one good argument the anti-gun/gun-control people have is the one that asks "where is the limit?"  That is, how far does a citizen's right-to-carry/own extend?  A grenade launcher?  A nuclear weapon?  I think a lack of limit would be a bad idea, but where would the limit be set?  I want to see a limit that would not lead to a logical slippery slope in the direction of total disarmament.

One thing is for sure: The genie (guns and other weapons that can kill large numbers of people quickly) cannot be put back into the bottle.

The Slaughter of Children

The recent slaughter of twenty-plus schoolchildren and several teachers in Newtown, Connecticut has saddened us both individually and nationally once again.  These types of shootings have seemed to cluster in the last two decades or so - a disturbing trend.  President Obama shed tears when when he spoke publicly concerning the Newtown tragedy.  I don't think they were crocodile tears.  I think he really is deeply saddened by this horrific event.  He wants to take steps to prevent such tragedies in the future.  I don't blame him or other politicians for wanting to take action.  We may disagree on who should take action and which actions should be taken, but the desire to prevent tragedies like this is a good thing.  However, I'm also convinced that the President, and much of the nation's citizens, has an equally tragic blind spot in regards to an even larger tragedy that occurs every day and on a larger scale than that which just occurred in Newtown.

Every day in America more than 3000 utterly defenseless human beings are purposely put to death - in the womb. These defenseless victims have not been convicted of any crime and furthermore are not able to run, scream for help, or hide in a closet.  Not only this, but much of this slaughter is subsidized by our tax dollars and performed legally!  Who is to blame?  Not only those choosing to have such procedures done, but also many of us who think we are free of this guilt.  We have put into place either by election, appointment, or by other support, rulers, representatives, and judges who support the legal killing of defenseless and judicially innocent human beings - a practice otherwise known as abortion.  Often we cover up the word "abortion" with other names like "Reproductive Rights" and "Choice" - but scratch below the surface and you will still find that it is in fact murder that is being supported.  Why else would we need to cloak its true heinousness with good and righteous-sounding terms?  The blood is on our own hands.

There is something terribly wrong when we can shrug off the daily killing of thousands of innocents by sane, fully-conscious people, yet wring our hands, mourn, and fly the flag at half-staff when not even thirty are killed by a deranged shooter.  I don't mean to minimize the deaths of those in Newtown, but rather to bring to light the relatively hidden slaughter of those murdered daily through abortion.  Just as we mourn for those in Newtown, we should mourn for the death of the unborn.  Just as President Obama mourns for the loss of life in the Newtown massacre and seeks to take serious steps to prevent further instances, he should do the same in regards to the daily tragedy of abortion.  Again, I do not question his good intentions.  I believe he has a heart and that he truly cares.  He has a huge blind-spot though.  He should examine and reflect upon his own failure to push for any limit to legalized abortion.  He should reflect upon his own support of the legal continuance of "partial-birth abortion" - an utterly grotesque practice involving the partial delivery of a living fetus and the subsequent crushing of its skull and sucking out of its brains before the head itself is fully-delivered.

We need both to individually repent and repent as a nation.  This country needs a national repentance.  Real repentance involves not only feeling "sorry" or "sad" about actions and intentions but an actual changing the mind and inclination toward different and better actions.  Our nation's history is replete with days of fasting, prayer, and repentance.  We need this again.  For it to be genuine, it all has to start with the individual level.  Please, whoever you are, realize that it starts with you.  It starts at the individual and then the family level - and only after this will it come to the culture and finally to our government.  Take off the blinders and show to yourself and to others the hidden holocaust.  God judges both individuals and nations.

Changeability, Truth, and the Task

Recently, after a Sunday sermon one of the elders said something to the gathered assembly that went something like this:

"Raise your hand if you've never changed your mind regarding any point of doctrine."

Of course, nobody raised their hand.  As certain as we are of things at this or that point of time, we all know that we in fact have and do change our minds about things - even very important matters.  We know that this is true.  This is both a humbling and an encouraging reminder.

Changeability humbling because it reminds me that I held some of the very same opinions about things that I now regard as immature, foolish, and wrong.  It also reminds me that there will probably be some things I currently hold to be true that I will in the future change my mind about - either in the direction of truth or in the direction of falsehood...but hopefully (and if God so wills) toward truth.

Changeability  is encouraging because it reminds me that even the most obstinate-seeming person or group can (from my limited and human perspective) change their mind.  When someone says "You're not changing my mind." it may not necessarily be so.  They could very well change their mind.  It may not happen immediately - in fact it seldom does - but it may happen little by little.  My own experience tells me that the changing of one's mind is often a gradual thing, happening silently behind-the-scenes as it were.  It rarely or never happens in an argument or discussion itself, but might slowly happen as one lies in bed thinking or in other moments of reflection which are out of public view- when one's thoughts are safely outside the scrutiny of others and where one can safely reflect on things without harm to their pride.  Finally, the person realizes they have definitely changed their mind about the thing which they were formerly so stalwart about...and they can reveal their change of heart/conviction publicly (or to one friend or another) in the way they find best.  Because I know these things, I can be encouraged in my continued efforts to persuade.  I can be encouraged in my continued hope for people in their salvation.  I can be encouraged that my talk and my spending of time is not a waste of time.

If one is a Christian and holds the Scripture to be "God speaking", then it will be also seen that God doesn't change.  The truth about God is important.  If we don't have some knowledge of God's character and who He is, then even if we spell the object of our worship "God" it is not really the True God  but rather a false one - and therefore idolatry. The truth about Christ's work on the cross and the reason for it is important.  The truth regarding God's attitude toward various things is important.  We are told that Jesus is "the Truth."  We are shown that Jesus is the very One who was speaking at the burning Bush to Moses and who gave His Law to Moses as well.  Yes, the Lord is changeless and holy.  His Word is Truth.  If we are to follow Him, we must know the importance of all of this.  He has revealed himself in Scripture for a reason.  He cares about not only the ends but also the means.  He emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between good and evil, right and wrong, false worship and true worship.  Therefore, we must care about doctrine - because doctrine is about what is true.

This brings us to the difficult part.  God is Holy, Perfect, Unchanging.  We are not any of those things! I am not any of those things. Our sinful minds screw things up.  Even when we're trying our best, the curse of sin which pervades all mankind and indeed the whole world will cloud our thinking and weaken us.  What God has made clear we often either willingly or unwillingly distort.  However, we still have the clear task of speaking truth.  We still have the clear task of proclaiming the True God and His gospel.  We still have the dominion mandate as well.  What are we to do?  I have to admit that this is not easy.  We have to somehow be both bold and humble at the same time.  Silence is not an option.  We have to care more about truth than we care about winning.  In fact, we have to be willing to lose an argument if it means we'll gain the truth.  I'll admit this is hard, but if I'm to be obedient, then I must at least try.

Multi-Tasking Madness

I recently finished my audio-listening of Bradford's History of the Plymouth Settlement.  I will listen to it again.  Perhaps I will read it (actually read it) after that.  Why?  It is for the simple reason I was not able to absorb enough of the book.  I had listened to the majority of it while preparing food in the kitchen - with frequent small distractions and interruptions.  Many of us probably have this problem.  We attempt to multi-task (with good intentions) but end up doing it to the point where we are not able to benefit fully from any one of our jumbled-together activities and we end up unfulfilled and feeling like we've wasted our time.

I've frequently think about how to be more efficient with the time I'm given.  It's a constant struggle between apathy, optimistic multi-tasking, and focusing on my areas of interest and goals with a more singular focus.  I'm information-greedy.

Apathy, when I feel it, does not last for long.  I don't willingly embrace apathy.  It only comes when reach a terminal frustration point with either the "optimistic multi-tasking" mode or with the "singular focus" mode.  Apathy however, frustrates me even more.  I throw it off quite quickly.

Optimistic multi-tasking has the strength of feeling like alot is getting done - that I'm being enriched with every minute.  Sadly though, I find that I feel like I'm actually poorer at the end!  I'm robbed, and what's worse is that I robbed myself.

The most satisfying option actually takes perhaps the most discipline to maintain.  This is the option of taking one task at a time - at least as far as can be done.  We have to continue breathing, have a general awareness via sight, sound, and touch of the environment around us, but what I mean by "singular focus" and "taking one task at a time" is attentive reading and active listening.  I may have to do without other activities to do this, but I find that it's most often worth it.  There are few things more satisfying than having fully digested a chapter's contents or a whole book's contents.  This is true whether the book is read or whether it is listened to.  The same principle applies.  This also applies to a piece of music - especially complex music, whether it be instrumental or vocal.

Why might one have a problem with singular-focus pursuits?  Perhaps it's greed.  As I mentioned, I'm "information-greedy." Not all greed has to do with money or material possessions.  We need to temper this greed - and in this way we actually get more in the end.  Say "no" to some things so you can more fully enjoy other things.  Don't try and shove everything into you mouth or your head at the same time.  Sometimes this is not possible.  One may have a job in which a high-level of multi-tasking is essential.  There are various situations where you are forced to have a broad, but necessarily shallow focus in order to get done what needs to get done.  That being said and acknowledged, my contention is that the more we can get away from that type of environment the happier we will be.  Another thing to consider is that some things absolutely cannot be adequately treated in a multi-tasking environment.  For instance, if we're going to talk Philosophy, Religion, or Politics, these things must be given a high degree of focus.  These things are important enough (because decisions concerning them have far-reaching and deep consequences) that they need to be approached with the "singular focus" approach.  The modern high-speed Twitter-happy culture is at a real crisis now in regards the wrong approach to these subjects, taking a high-speed multi-tasking approach rather than a "singular focus" type approach.  My thoughts about that could fill pages and pages...later.

I encourage you wholeheartedly to experience the satisfaction that comes from singular focus.  Listen attentively - whether it be to a book or to a live person.  Read with focus and seek to understand, to digest what you're reading.  Don't be satisfied with just going through the motions.  Every time I am able to successfully employ this dual active of purging (purging the non-necessary stuff) and focus (target a specific thing and be attentive) I end up being happier, more fulfilled, and more relaxed.  Try it.  I think you'll like it.  Trust me.  I look forward to gleaning more from my audio book this time around...

Running as a Sacrament

With a title like the one I've given to this post, my Christian friends may fear for my spiritual welfare! They shouldn't worry though.  I do not actually consider running to be a sacrament (i.e. a holy ordinance instituted by Christ...) - however, if I wasn't committed to Christ, I would be very keen on the idea of embracing a religion/spiritual practice which included running as a sacrament.  Even while maintaining my commitment to Christ I still see the act of running to mirror the life of a Christ-follower (Christian) in several ways.

Running is meditative.  Sure, I can run while listening to a podcast or to music, but all by itself, running, especially when there is not the commotion of traffic hazards, promotes a meditative spirit in me.  My thoughts go to those places where they hadn't gone previously in the day.  My heart rate is raised, but not due to mental or emotional stress, but rather to pleasant exertion.  I feel alive, vigorous, yet relaxed. It is a great time for a prolonged prayer.

Running involves a beginning and an end.  It involves a purpose and a reward.  Indeed, the Scripture often using running as an illustration for the "race" a Christian must run - their life.  We are instructed to run as if to win the prize (1 Corinthians 9:24-28; also Philippians 3:14).  Without going into a Bible study-like depth on the matter, suffice to say that we are exhorted to run (i.e. live) well and to have the prize (i.e. ultimate goal/aim) in mind as we live.  When I go out on a run, my run mirrors the larger "race."  The day-to-day reward of my runs my be an endorphin-high, stress-relief, a beer and a nice meal.  A more long-tern reward is good health, high fitness, and perhaps placing in or winning a race.  These things are good.  They are earthly blessings of God.  A total Atheist can enjoy these things.  The Christian however, can enjoy the deeper and more multi-layered meaning of the run.

Running involves pain and perseverance.  This could have been included in the last paragraph because it is indeed part of "the race" - but I chose to separate it.  The pain is part of the Christian life - sometimes because of rejection/persecution, and sometimes more severe as in torture.  Pick up a copy of Voice of The Martyrs  magazine if you want true and current accounts and images of pain and persecution.  We Americans who get so bothered when someone posts something anti-Christian on Facebook or when someone spurns or ridicules your evangelistic attempts should really put things in perspective.   Running, and especially being a successful runner, involves a dedication to perseverance and a humble acceptation of pain.

Running involves pleasure.  This pleasure somehow comes with the pain.  Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish the two!  The same holds true in the Christian life.  I am highly blessed with health, safety, and freedom - yet I sometimes feel somewhat impoverished when I read true accounts of my spiritual forefathers who at various times in history have attested to the pleasure and sweetness of Christ - even while enduring horrible torture!  May it be that I could be such a man.  Through running, I can experience, via the senses, a picture of such sweetness.

As much as I love running, I admit that it can be a stumbling block and a weakness.  I have to constantly remind myself that even without legs, and even if I were never to be able to be on my feet again, I still can, need, and am commanded to run the race.

It's Not Just a Dog Problem

I feel like I'm on a crusade.  Well, actually I suppose I am.  As a runner, I share the same problem as mail carriers and cats do.  What is this shared problem?  We seem to attract dogs - in the wrong way.  I am a dog owner and a dog lover.  I know their thinking.  They see a cat, and they want to chase it.  They see another dog, and they will want to fight and/or chase it.  They see someone running, and they want to chase him.  Some will even chase cars - which is very dangerous for the dog!  They see someone running with a dog...their desire to chase will seem even more amplified.  This is common knowledge.  It especially should be common knowledge to runners and dog owners.

The city I have lived in for the last two years has many chase-loving dogs - apparently without responsibility-taking owners.  Over the past two years, alone, and especially with my saluki. we've had many dog encounters.  As a "Type A" runner, I don't like my run interrupted, but more than that, I don't like my run being interrupted by personal danger or danger to my saluki running companion.  I recently wrote a Letter to the Editor concerning the dog problem in the city.  The paper ended up publishing it, renaming it "Make your dog behave." A link to it is below:

Daniel J. Sorenson: Make your dog behave

As you will discover if you read it, it's not just a runner's problem, but a safety problem for all.  It's root is not the offending dogs themselves, but a lack of responsibility and respect in the case of the owners of these dogs.  It is a very human problem.  What some dog owners fail to realize is that a small dog can be dangerous just as a larger one can.  Also dogs of all sizes can be put in danger by failure to keep it leashed or within its proper bounds.  What if the dog it chases bites it in defense?  What if the person it is chasing has to kick or hit the dog in defense of themselves or their own dog?  These are things that a dog owner needs to consider.  Oh, and one of the most important things dog owners need to know is that they really don't know if their "friendly" dog is really friendly to ALL dogs or people.  People often think and say their unleashed dog (which is running toward you and your dog) is "friendly" - but this is little consolation when it turns out not to be!  (Not the mention how the Type-A runner's stride and pace is thrown off even in the best of cases...)

In the interest of making lemonade out of lemons, I choose to use these life-hurdles and issues to teach my children about responsibility, the law, private property, and respect for others.

Tea Party vs. Nazi Party

In my frequent Facebook travels, and in the unrestrained and uninformed rhetoric, I've seen the modern "Tea Party" movement compared to the Nazi Party - as if they were two peas in a pod.  Nothing could be further than the truth.  To all those who would attempt to make a sameness out of the two, I recommend that an analysis beyond the facile and skin-deep needs to be made.  With a few minutes of reflection, here are some alleged similarities which I now show in most cases to be dissimilarities:

• Nationalism: Well, this is a slippery one. Every nation must have some kind of pride - or else why live there or fight for that nation? However, there is a point where it becomes too much. Is the Tea Party at that point? I don't think so. Are certain elements which have joined to/with the Tea Party guilty of this? Perhaps. Was the Nazi party at that point? YES. It (as a party) was at that point - not just certain elements which had joined to it.

• Social Darwinism: What is meant by that? The term certainly carries some baggage and has some emotional weight   to it. If the Tea Party's opposition to government-directed income redistribution and also opposition to various government programs to ostensibly aid the poor is meant here, it is a cheap and easy shot. The Tea Party is convinced that income redistribution and welfare programs of various types are not properly the role of the civil government - especially that of the federal government. This is the principle-based reason. It has nothing to do with social Darwinism, but everything to do with limited government powers (as defined by the constitution) and maintaining individual liberty. The Tea Party would say that private charity, family, and church more properly fit the role of welfare and aid-givers. This way, help is personal and close-to-home; personal liberty is also maintained. That is, a person can use their own money how they like, and they have the freedom to rise as high as they'd like. Another reason (the pragmatic reason) for the Tea Party's aversion to income redistribution and welfare-type programs is that they demonstrably don't work. The statistics have shown that the very problems the programs are supposed to alleviate actually become worse.

• Indoctrination: Another emotion-laden term. If we simply mean teaching, then yes, guilty. However, we'd all be guilty. If we mean the systematic teaching of a certain set of values, then certainly most of us would be "guilty" at a personal and family level, but at a national level the Nazi Party would FAR surpass the Tea Party. The Nazi Party pushed for National Socialism to be taught as CORRECT in the state-funded schools. The teachers could not waver - or else. This was a state (i.e. government) endeavor. The Nazi Party frowned on private schooling and especially home-schooling. (See ya later, educational freedom!) - but the Tea Party is different. The Tea Party advocates less government control of schools and education and it militates for more personal liberty regarding educational choices. The Tea Party tends to be the homeschooler's friend. This is definitely NOT the Nazi way.

• Propaganda: Perhaps. But wouldn't our two main political parties be guilty of the same thing? This one requires more explanation. Surely the Nazi Party and the Tea Party can't be singled out with this charge...

• Anti-Intellectualism: Explain. Does this mean that if I don't agree with you or the people you agree with I'm guilty of anti-intellectualism? Or maybe this charge has to do with the fact that those in the upper echelons of academia tend to be Leftist and tend NOT to be supporters of the Tea Party. Still, this would not provide enough evidence for the charge. There is a certain distaste voiced sometimes for those in the upper echelons of the academic world and institutions. There is a good reason for this distaste. In the early and mid parts of the 20th century , and especially in the 1960's, the communists, socialists, and those of a generally Leftist ideology were very wise and forward thinking: They knew that if they could get into the educational establishment and eventually control it, they could steer the next generation(s) and thus steer the culture - and the nation to embracing the goals they wanted realized. They understood this would be a multi-generational endeavor, and were patient. Well, we (and they) are there. The universities (in general) and even schools at the lower level (in general) are controlled by those embracing a Leftist, or socialist, or communist ideology. Teachers/professors with a differing view have a rough time, and they have to be careful of what they say. Naturally, because of the turn of events, Tea Party people might have a suspicion of "intellectuals" and/or the universities. Some might even be guilty of real, actual, anti-intellectualism and learning. However, that charge could not rightfully be made of the Tea Party itself.

• Militarism: This doesn't carry much weight because every nation should want a strong national defense. This is not the same as "militarism." If this charge can be made of the Tea Party and Nazi Party together, then it can also be made of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. As a whole though, the Nazi Party had institutionalized militarism to an extent that the other parties I mentioned have not. The Tea Party ESPECIALLY should not be charged with this - seen as there is so much of a Libertarian element to the Tea Party.

•  Anti-Communism: Both the Tea Party and the Nazi Party are guilty as charged. Does this make them two peas in a pod though? Communism is a sub-type of Socialism. The Nazis were against Communism but FOR Socialism (i.e. National Socialism.) The Tea Party is against both. And I might add that if the Tea Party is to be totally consistent it must be openly against Social Security, state-run Education, and Medicare as well - though some don't want to make the connection...

There are more alleged similarities which between the two movements which I have left out of this brief analysis.  I will only add this: If you want to show respect to the opposition - and to those who are trying to determine which side to embrace - go beyond the skin-deep.

Being a Follower

We often hear about leading and following.  "Be a leader and not a follower" we are told.  However, especially via the strong coercive arm of political correctness, "diversity", and so-called "tolerance", we are de facto encouraged to be followers.  Yes, a church or religion can do this as well.  The point that is often missed though is that by logical necessity there needs to be an Ultimate Authority.  We are all not leaders to the same degree, but some of us are better leaders than others.  Furthermore, it can only benefit a person to learn how to be a better leader.  Learn to be a better leader.  At the same time though, each of us must necessarily be a follower.  It is inevitable.  It is necessary.

 We we must admit we all follow someone or something.  Even leaders themselves follow.  The important thing is that each of us must be free-thinking enough to be able to properly recognize who our leaders are, what they're telling us to do or follow, and whether continuing to follow them or to carry out their orders is a good or a bad idea.  We always must be ready to make an informed assessment and act on it.  Because I am convinced a leader-follower relationship should not be taken lightly, the substance of the leader, his goals, as well as the content of his directives, must be carefully assessed at the beginning of the relationship.  Remember, the "leader" can be a person or an idea.  After this initial step is taken,  keep your eyes and ears open.  Do a continuing assessment - while nonetheless following.  If the time comes where the leader-follower relationship must be severed, let it be on your good judgment based on bedrock principles and not light and transient causes.

 In a world of depraved humanity, where power corrupts, we must follow in a very qualified and frequently-checking way. The only unquestionable Leader who can possess ultimate power and still not be corrupted, and whose substance and every idea is Good, is the Good Shepherd and Judge of all the earth, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Holiday Greeting Wars

The Thanksgiving holiday is over, and it's time for the Holiday Greeting Wars.  All kidding aside, this is a petty war.  Christians sometimes get upset over the small things when we should care more about bigger issues.

There are are some issues that others would view as gnats, but I (and I believe all Christians should) correctly recognize as camels, but I truly am convinced that the battle of "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays" IS a gnat.  He who enlists in this battle is perhaps fighting the wrong battle.  I'm fine with saying "Happy Holidays" to avoid unnecessary consternation.  Christmas is fine, but it is nevertheless  a made-made, non-Biblically-directed holiday.  In our country, the most Christian of the Christian, the Puritan New England pilgrims who so strongly shaped the beginning and direction of this country, did not celebrate Christmas.  They did not even adorn their places of worship with crosses - yet you can be sure that even their children knew how to define the holy Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, the three offices (Prophet, Priest, and King) He executed, and explain the significance of His birth, life, death, and resurrection.  

What is a better use of our time and energy?  The bold proclamation of the gospel is one.  Observing the sabbath (i.e. putting aside one day in seven) is another.  Upholding and promoting God's Law as the only legitimate ultimate standard for individuals as well as communities and nations is another much more worthy fight.   I wonder how many Christians bristle at "Happy Holidays" yet have no problem with denigrating God's Law and its application in the personal, family, church, community, and state (civil government) spheres.

The Decline and Fall of Empires

I am a Latin lover.  No, not THAT kind!  Rather, I am a lover of the Latin language.  Not only that, but I thoroughly enjoy reading about the history of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.  It's even interesting and enjoyable to read about its decline.  However, its only "enjoyable" because I'm not living in it.  It's another matter altogether to be part of a country, nation, or empire during dark or ominous times.  As I've often said before though, I'm a long-term optimist - so I don't get discouraged.

Have you ever thought of some parallels between the current United States Empire and the declining ancient Roman Empire?  Here are some:

• Widespread immorality
• Destruction of the family
• Huge numbers of arbitrary man’s laws
• Centralization of all power in a central government in the hand of a few
• Creation of a welfare state
• Excessive taxation 
• Loss of control of their borders; most work done by foreigner
• Overstretched military that could not maintain worldwide order

I know I could have come up with two more to make an even ten instead of an awkward eight, but I trust you'll forgive me.  Still, consider these parallels.  Also consider how we can change course.  I am convinced it starts at the bottom (individual) rather than the top (government leader/"savior") who can fix us.  

A Modern Problem

Compared to past centuries, at least in the Western world, we have many more options. The world is at our fingertips - sometimes almost literally via google, internet, online-shopping, smartphones, etc...but we are lacking in depth. We are lacking in depth of thinking as well as depth of experience. I appreciate (and I desire) modern plumbing, dentistry, medicine, and other things - but I equally desire the depth of thought and experience which I see abundant evidence of from those in past centuries. Going shallow and wide is not nearly as satisfying as going narrow (comparatively) and deep. Shallowness and hurried impatience makes me tired and sad. The opposite makes me warm, happy, full, and alive.  Thoughts?