Johnny Cash’s Great Discovery – And Mine, Too

I feel as if I’m on the cusp of a great discovery. Something life-changing is in the works.

For several years now, I have grown increasingly aware of how much stuff I own. And how much distraction I am subject to. There is a lot going on in my life – and most of it would be deemed as good by almost anyone. And yet, I am not satisfied with where I am. And I think I finally know why.

I try to live my life in a way that is true - honoring others, and yet one which has an eternal purpose. Nearly anyone who has known me since I was small will likely attest that I have been “good” and have sought a spiritual aspect in almost everything. But deep down, I have always suspected that my life as a Christian might not be considered truly sacrificial. I think I’m finally coming to the realization that it is not.

I was reading a book the other day, when the following phrase sprung to mind. I wrote it down, and I’ll share it here – “Living the Christian life should not be considered just ‘a good thing to do’. There must be more to it than that.”

What does it mean to really, really live as a Christian? Not just a good life in comparison with 99% of the other people on the planet, but a life as Jesus Christ would live it if he were in my shoes? I am convinced that the feeling I often get of “comparative faith” – that is, one where I say, “Hey, I work harder, pray deeper, and ponder the Scriptures more than most other people” – is a comfortable lie given to me by none other than Satan himself. I can picture him laughing at my reasoning and self-justification, while all the time opportunities slip from my grasp. Those opportunities, if seized, would glorify God in ways I have never dared. And yet, I am deceived into thinking that I’m firmly on the narrow path. I give thanks for God’s grace which has placed me on that path nonetheless – but am I living my life in a way that completely honors God and achieves the very greatest purpose for His glory? I know that the answer to that question is “No”.

God has directed me to contemplate the life of Johnny Cash recently. Cash did not start out well – suffering through divorce, drug addiction, and brokenness. And yet, if the stories are true, he ended on a high note – confessing Jesus and openly admitting his devotion to God in venues where he would not have done so as a younger man. One of the most deeply moving videos I have ever seen is his version of “Hurt”, which was originally written by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails. But Cash made this song his own, giving it an overarching contemplation of a life that could have been better lived. I’ve posted it here. Watching the scene where he breaks down in tears at 3:13 has changed my life in some way. I want to be as broken as Cash over my own sin.



I want to live a life that fully honors God. In every minute, and in every action. I want my life to be full of meaning and purpose. I want to finish well.

Don’t Worry – Be Happy?

Are we entitled to happiness in this life? Is that to be our goal? After all, it’s in the Declaration of Independence – “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

Many of us spend our entire lives trying to find happiness here on earth. “Life is Good” apparel is popular and ubiquitous, smiley-faces greet us in e-mail and instant messages, and battery powered fish are mounted on a plaque and sing “Don’t Worry – Be Happy” to us. Is this what God intends?

Candidly, James 4:4 (NLT) says, “If your aim is to enjoy this world, you can’t be a friend of God.” Some translations clarify this by saying that you can’t be a friend of the world and a friend of God simultaneously. This certainly fights against our daily instinct to please ourselves and reduce our own potential suffering. For most of us, a good deal of time is spent working hard to ensure that we have no needs in this life – this attitude has obviously been taken too far when one observes the amount of “treasure” most of us have crammed into our garage and our basement. And really, does it make us truly happy?

Here is a tough question. Does God want us all to be healthy, rich, and happy? At first glance, the answer might seem to be “Yes”. Jesus healed people who were sick, so health is a clear goal, right? Television evangelists and other media types are constantly telling us that we deserve to be wealthy, and give us ideas about how to make it a reality. Many of us possess health, riches or happiness, but it is not clear to me that this is a guarantee to those who seek Him. Why not?

In the context of the verse in James 4, we see that people were quarreling because of jealousy and the desire for each other’s possessions. Their motive is revealed in verse three – selfish pleasure. James tells us that this motive is wrong. You see, being happy is not wrong. But it is wrong to live in this world for the primary reason of finding a selfish, personal happiness. God does not intend for us to spend our days finding rest and ease, however comfortable and good that may seem.

What, then, should our motive be? The answer is revealed in the surrounding verses. Verse five says “to be faithful”. Verse six tells us “to stand against evil desires”. Verse seven pleads with us to “be humble before God”. And verse 8 implores that we “draw close to God”.

Is it wrong to be happy regarding physical things? Of course not. But our ultimate goal should not be this result. Our real goal should be to glorify God, and to find joy in the cross of Jesus Christ – a paradoxical statement at first glance. It would be nice to say that God promises us all the wealth, health, and happiness we can stand if we just come to this realization – but it is not true. God may choose to give us one or all of these three things. And He may not. He is God, and He holds the plan. But there is a different kind of joy and reward that we can derive from living in God’s presence. Paul told us that he had learned to be content in all circumstances (Philippians 4:11) – and yet, look at the shipwreck, pain, and sorrow that his life contained! Am I prepared to adopt this same attitude?

P.S. – I will be writing more on this subject in the near future as I feel I am on the verge of something important. I’ve been reading John Piper’s Don’t Waste Your Life, and have found some much-needed motivation in his presentation.

Committed to Christian Principles, or Rightwing Terrorist?

The United States Department of Homeland Security, led by Janet Napolitano, is taking some heat over a recent assessment released as an unclassified document. The news outlets have focused most intently on the report’s fear that terrorist cells may spring from returning US military personnel, who may be disgruntled over the new administration or who find it difficult to integrate back into non-military society.

The report is titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" and is a fairly short read. It is interesting that in a time where Homeland Security has insisted that we not label radical Muslim or Islamist groups as “terrorists”, the article uses the phrase “domestic rightwing terrorist” three times. If the World Trade Center attack was not terrorism, what was it? Are we really in more danger from our own people who have conservative principles than those with an agenda of viewing our country as “The Great Satan”? I remain unconvinced.

Having read the assessment, I am struck the most by a paragraph at the bottom of page three. It states, “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” Within this paragraph, I find two items of concern.

The first item has to do with “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority”. It is clear to me that the federal government is interested in usurping as much power as possible – perhaps beyond the powers granted within the US Constitution. Our Constitution is very clear on this point. The Tenth Amendment very succinctly states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The founders’ intent was for states to individually enact laws that governed the people, leaving very little for the federal government executive branch to do beyond making treaties, appointing ambassadors, and commanding the military. It’s ironic that the majority of this report demeans returning military veterans by proclaiming that they pose the greatest terrorist risk to our nation at the moment. For more on states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment, visit this previous blog installment.

Even more disturbing is the implication of danger emanating from people who are passionate about an issue such as abortion. Do I need to fear that my own government will label me as an “extremist” because I am willing to march, protest, write, and preach about the evils of abortion? Who are the terrorists on this subject - the people trying to prevent the murder of unborn babies, or the people who make it perfectly legal and divert tax dollars toward its subsidy? I wonder how the baby would answer that question.

As a dedicated God-follower, I will not deviate from the principles that He has given. If I must defy my own government to remain faithful to God’s ways, then I will happily do that. Watering down our Christian beliefs in the name of “tolerance” and “open-mindedness” are traps set by Satan himself. I’m reminded of a quote I recently read from Dante – “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”. Satan is working through some of the laws in our own beloved country to attempt an attack on God’s purpose. If I don’t stand against this onslaught and am labeled as an extremist for my beliefs, so be it. In the end, when the trumpet sounds, where do I want to be found standing?

I recognize that this government report most certainly falls short of labeling every pro-life advocate as a terrorist. But it represents just one more step away from the godly principles upon which our country was founded, and which God lays out in His Word. A step here, a step there, and we will find ourselves outside of God’s grace because of our own neutrality. Stay vigilant, be aware of the constant erosion of Christian morals, and look for opportunities to take a stand against evil!

To read the entire nine-page government article, just click here.

I Am Offended

Our president recently visited Turkey, and said these words:

"One of the great strengths of the United States is we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

As most prepared statements doled out by government officials are prone to be, this one is carefully constructed to be populist, to cast a wide net, and to be inoffensive.

But I am very offended.

In a nation that was built on Christian ideals (not one bound by an ethereal “set of values”), President Obama’s statement demeans our forefathers who unashamedly proclaimed Christ. The very reason that the Puritans boarded the Mayflower and set sail for America was to escape a king who had abandoned Christian morals and had become oppressive to their clear mandate – to bring Christ to the world. Our founding fathers had this in mind when they wrote the Constitution and when they governed our nation. If you doubt this, take a look at some of these quotes:

“Whoever will introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.” – Benjamin Franklin

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it tied together in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” – John Quincy Adams

“God has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers” – John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Patrick Henry

I ask you to compare these words, spoken by men who founded this nation and who were not ashamed of Jesus Christ, to the words of our leaders today. There is a difference between a watered-down mass appeal and a true conviction.

Two thousand years ago, a man named Peter also denied Jesus’ supreme authority when approached directly by others. His motivation was exactly the same as that of our leaders today. Don’t offend… and save your skin. While churches and Christians all over this land consistently claim that Peter’s denial was treacherous, many of those same people see Obama’s words as being “inclusive”, “visionary”, and “tolerant”. But I see little difference between Peter’s denial and Obama’s politicking.

Do you?

Was There Another Way?

As we celebrate the Easter holiday, my thoughts are drawn to the layout of God’s plan for our salvation. Simply put, it goes like this:

1) God defined the line between good and evil, He told us what sin is
2) He promised that sin must be atoned for with the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:7) and with death (Romans 6:23)
3) Man sinned (Romans 3:23) – every person who ever lived was guilty
4) God maintained His promise AND delivered our salvation by sending His Son to shed his blood and die – in our place
5) He resurrected His Son after three days, and Jesus is now preparing for the Second Coming – when the entire history of mankind will be judged

The power and simplicity of God’s plan still amazes me. If I were designing a plan for salvation, I would have been tempted to install a system of restitution and restoration – basically, one where a person has to “earn” their way back into God’s favor through good works. Indeed, many religions (even of the Christian variety) operate under such a system. It seems to be a human tendency to demand penance and good deeds to make up for sin. Offering my own son as a sacrifice for many? That wouldn’t have occurred to me.

Could God have achieved His purpose in another way? He could have put in place a design like mine where a person could “work off” their sin. He could have made the rules and expectations much more lenient. He could have put in place a “cap and trade” system (so popular with our government) where “sin credits” are bought and sold, at least by those who have the money to participate. A poor sinner (I mean one without cash) wouldn’t fare well under such a scheme. So why didn’t He choose a different method?

Because God’s nature is both perfect and inviolable. That is an extremely important distinction, and one which sets God’s plan apart from any system that man can devise. He is the embodiment of goodness and perfection, and He cannot tolerate the presence of evil. His faultlessness is unchanging and clearly in evidence. Would we really want a God who was anything else?

Was there another way? I think not. Since God is perfect and all-knowing, I believe that He chose the single, best way to accomplish our forgiveness. It’s not in His nature to do anything else.

We happy few are given the blessing to live forever in the presence and service of God Almighty. 2 Peter 1:3-4 tells us, “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption of the world caused by evil desires.” We have a means to participate, not under the broken and unjust rules of the world, but in the very “divine nature” that is God. And that glorious outcome is not given to us for a few moments, but will last for eternity – world without end, Amen!

Happy Easter Sunday! This day is not about bunnies, candy, or even a family get-together over a meal. Today is a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the fulfillment of God’s plan which allows us to spend an eternity with Him. Could we celebrate anything better?

Radical Environmentalism – Does National Geographic Magazine Teach Good Science? (Part 3)

Part of growing up was my fascination with the wonder that was National Geographic magazine. The subject matter was always exotic and I dreamed of going to the places that were shown in the photos. The pictures were beautiful and I tried to look at every single one each month. Finally, the science within the pages was attractive to me, since knowledge and scientific method was always my passion.

My wife and I have never really subscribed to magazines, so it has been years since I have been regularly exposed to National Geographic. Recently on a trip back to my parent’s home, the April 2009 issue was on the table and I picked it up to enjoy some time in the pages.

The places are still exotic; the pictures are beautiful. But the science is gone. National Geographic has become a huckster for bad science and the environmentalist movement.

When I was in junior high and high school, I thoroughly enjoyed the science classes which had a lab. We were taught to employ the art of hypothesis testing. We would dutifully read about the upcoming experiment and we were often asked to choose our hypothesis – what would happen as a result of the experiment? To get a good grade, it was not necessary to be right about this guess. But it was absolutely necessary that we used facts to prove or disprove our hypothesis. Is there more vitamin C in the skin of a potato than in the flesh? Does a wooden sphere have more rolling friction than a steel ball bearing? Take a guess – but draw no conclusions until you have performed the experiment.

It must be pointed out that global warming is still just a theory. A mere twenty years ago, most scientists believed that we were heading into another Ice Age. Many scientists today are suddenly being forced to conclude that parts of the earth are getting colder, much to the consternation of those who preach global warming as a fact. But open up the latest National Geographic and then count the number of times that global warming is mentioned not as theory, but as a foregone conclusion. Here are some examples from the April 2009 issue:

- “Australia’s Dry Run” – the continent is currently undergoing a seven-year drought. The reason given? “To many, the erratic precipitation patterns bear the ominous imprint of a human-induced climate shift. Global warming is widely believed to have increased the frequency and severity of natural disasters like this drought.” My high school science teacher would have circled this in red and asked me how I could tell the difference between a human-imprinted climate shift and a natural one.

- “Changing Rains – Outlook:Extreme” – The article opens by telling of an ancient culture called Akkad, which went through a sudden decline – “Akkad’s collapse was caused by a devastating drought”. So, how does this touch our situation today? “By contrast, climate change brought about by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is our own doing. It, too, will influence precipitation patterns, in ways that, though not always easy to predict, could prove equally damaging.” That’s quite a dramatic step, with no intervening logic given to jump from one conclusion to the other. It should not come as a surprise that this article was written by Elizabeth Kolbert, who also authored a book titled Field Notes From A Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change.

- “Polar Bear Paradise” – “The days of outright slaughter are gone, but humans continue to pressure wildlife here in indirect ways. Toxins like PCBs and perfluorinated compounds…polar bears carry much higher levels of the pollutants…climate change, meanwhile, forces a retreat of the summer ice pack, imperiling the region’s polar bears…the wildlife that thrives up here has adapted to one of the toughest habitats on Earth. As temperatures rise, those birds, fish and mammals will be forced to adapt even further.” The author spends half the article talking about how polar bears live life on the edge because of the cold and lack of food, then jumps into the assumption that man is causing global warming. But I say, might global warming actually might make the region more habitable due to an increase in plant growth for food? The polar bears might actually be appreciative of the relief from the harsh cold, if it’s really happening. If they didn’t like it, why don’t they move fifty miles north? I’m not trying to be cheeky here – I’m just pointing out that there is a lot of science that needs to be explored before drawing the conclusions that the author makes.

- “The Vanishing – Race To Save The Frogs” – “We are witnessing a mass extinction. An exotic fungus is delivering the fatal blow to many amphibians already hit by habitat loss, pollution, and climate change.” The impact of these events is implied to be an environmental and ecosystem change brought on by man. The article concludes: “The story is much bigger than frogs. It’s about emerging disease and about predicting, coping with, and fighting things we don’t fully understand. It’s about all of us. Everyone should care.” Had I written a conclusion in my science lab book that says “we don’t know what causes the phenomenon but I’m going to draw a conclusion anyway”, I would have received a less-than-stellar grade. How does this same poor technique find its way into a national science magazine?

Let’s face it – there is big money in preaching a gospel of global warming. It provides a launching point for those who are anti-industry and anti-human-achievement. A reverse-course that sends us back to the Dark Ages would be welcome to many who value the earth above human life. Unfortunately, National Geographic magazine has fallen into this trap. My high-school science teacher would be forced to make them take the course over again. For creative use of photos, they get an “A” – but for scientific method, they get an “F”.

************************
Next in this series.......
or
Back to Part 1 of this series...

Radical Environmentalism – Paganism, Earth Worship, and Al Gore (Part 2)

The idea that “the earth is our mother” is not new. In Greek mythology, the goddess Gaia was the deity which personified the earth itself. “Gaia” literally means “grandmother earth”. The idea of the fertile female representation of earth is not unique to ancient Greek culture – many other cultures adopted just such a goddess to worship.

Gaia worship has been revived recently, notably through James Lovelock’s 1979 book, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Through this book, Lovelock promoted the idea that all things on the earth, both living and non-living, are part of a cooperative dynamic system which forms the ecology of the planet. He put forth the idea that the whole system could be thought of as a single self-regulating organism. Later, he supported the theory by postulating a fantasy system called Daisyworld, in which white daisies and black daisies cooperate to regulate the temperature of their fictional planet.

Since publication of Lovelock’s book, there has been a substantial rise in the belief that the earth is sacred, often to the point of the earth possessing god-like qualities. This has become more evident each year as the rise of environmentalism attacks the purposes and rightful place of man as the steward of the earth. It has reached such proportions that man is frequently relegated to second-place status, even by those who deny God’s existence. The earth is often assumed to have anthropomorphic qualities, able to regulate and maintain itself as long as cruel man is finally stopped from pursuing his own selfish and evil purposes.

A new pagan promoter has come on the scene in recent years. While his grandmother was raised in the strict Campbellite Church of Christ tradition, and though he has maintained that he is a Baptist Christian, Al Gore may have done more to raise the awareness of Gaia worship than any other individual in our world today. He has certainly become well-known as an avid promoter of global warming theory and anti-industry efforts in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. I have watched the movie and read the book. It is full of fascinating pictures and stories designed to convince the public that 1) global warming is real, 2) man is the primary reason for global warming, and 3) we have very little time left to change our ways before we cause irreversible damage. For the uninformed, it is at the same time an interesting and terrifying presentation. That probably explains its popularity.

So if we are to follow Al Gore’s philosophy, putting aside for the moment any question into the veracity of his scientific presentation, we should know a little about his thinking. For the Christian, it is imperative to compare any teaching with the ultimate Source and Creator. The Bible warns that men will be led astray by false arguments which have the look of wisdom, but which are foolishness at their core. If foolishness were obvious, very few would fall for it. Radical environmentalism, while foolish in its premises, is not an obvious fallacy to the many who have come under its spell.

In his book Earth In The Balance, Gore maintains that man has abandoned his responsibility for the earth precisely because he is devoted to God. On pages 258-259, Gore says, “The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own systems of belief. But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously through the world has spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization's responsibility for the earth is concerned." In this statement, Gore essentially pins environmental blame on Christians for sticking to their faith, and not being open to other teachings which might open their minds to diversity.

In Romans 1:21-23, the Bible says, “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” This warning is precisely fulfilled in the modern environmental movement. Adherents like Gore would have us add man’s wisdom to God’s teaching, but this is the very temptation that we are warned about in the closing words of the New Testament - the last words left to us in God’s book (see Revelation 22:18-19).

Christians need to be aware that there is an insidious temptation to compromise God’s word, even to seemingly “good” causes such as taking care of the earth. While there is a need for godly stewardship of the things we have been given, the elevation of these efforts as being superior to God or man is wrong. Should we listen to new age prophets such as Al Gore? When asked about his feelings on the Christian faith of George W. Bush, Gore commented in an interview with The New Yorker magazine that, “It's a particular kind of religiosity. It's the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. They all have certain features in common. In a world of disconcerting change, when large and complex forces threaten familiar and comfortable guideposts, the natural impulse is to grab hold of the tree trunk that seems to have the deepest roots and hold on for dear life and never question the possibility that it's not going to be the source of your salvation. And the deepest roots are in philosophical and religious traditions that go way back.”

We must decide where our source of salvation comes from. “As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). I’m willing to stick to that – and only that.

Next: Part 3 - How National Geographic has adopted an unscientific and pagan approach

Radical Environmentalism – “Earth Hour” and Bad Science (Part 1)

Last Saturday marked the third annual observance of “Earth Hour” – an environmental event where people around the world switched off their lights for one hour in order to call attention to the dubious problem of global warming.

The Internet is full of pictures, observations, praise, and comments about the significance of the Earth Hour event. One website posted pictures of several famous places around the world, showing them brightly lit up before the hour came, followed by a “fade-to” photo of these places as dark monuments during the observance hour. These photos included darkened images of Hong Kong's financial district, London's Parliament, the Acropolis in Athens, the Water Cube in Beijing, the Colosseum in Rome (maybe it became the “Colo-not-sseum”?), the Sydney Opera House, the Eiffel Tower and The Strip in Las Vegas. I cannot help but draw attention to the fact that darkening these places is nothing less than a step back in time, and represents a denial of human achievement. No doubt, there are many who long for that very thing.

Comments posted about the event included “wonderful to see the world participating....we need to be united in these efforts as we all are part (sic) responsible and guilty for this climatic change, let’s do our small bit for the EARTH” and “I am so glad that people are getting on the move and expressing their love for the earth. It is a grand place to be and so appreciated. As a person, I do all the green that I can and encourage my family to do so.”

Curiously, Al Gore came under fire when someone took photographs of the trees on his lawn being lit up at night during the event. It seems that the chief promulgator of global-warming hype either forgot about the event, or just assumed that no one would notice his non-participation. The irony almost makes the whole thing worthwhile.

I enjoyed one individual’s comment, who pointed out the senselessness of Earth Hour when he said it was "a great attempt at futility. Maybe if everyone held their breath for one hour, we could reduce the CO2 a lot more effectively."

The danger inherent in radical environmentalism is that it is based largely on myth and propaganda. Until someone can definitively prove that global warming is really occurring (and the seeds of doubt about this theory multiply every day), or until someone can demonstrably show that global warming is attributable in large part to human activity (instead of solar cycles, ocean currents, and cyclical weather patterns like El Niño), this is all still very much a theory. But the news media and millions of people are content to settle for bad science, even in an age where we pride ourselves in our advanced scientific process. Global warming and increased carbon emissions from human intervention are accepted as fact, and anyone who questions these scientific assumptions risks ridicule. Scientists who are promoting this dubious theory would fail basic high-school science class methods of hypothesis testing.

To many, Earth Hour was akin to a religious experience. They worship Planet Earth as if it is the goddess mother of all. Indeed, that is what many believe. But the earth is not our mother. What has been forgotten by many is that God is our Father. The Bible points out this very phenomenon in Romans 1:25, when Paul observes that “they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” When man forgets God the Creator, and turns instead to the things which God made for man, then God turns him over to “foolish thinking”, as verse 28 promises. Aren’t we witnessing this very thing all around us right now?

Next: Paganism and anti-Christianity are promoted in Al Gore’s book Earth In The Balance.

Advice From Jethro

With increasing evidence, our politicians and the systems under which they serve are becoming more and more corrupt. The new Obama administration, having gained popularity and power ostensibly by promising a high standard of ethics, has been a big disappointment. The previous Bush administration can hardly claim to have been any better. The similarities to a “banana republic” grow more evident every week.

Since the November 2008 election, we have seen: a governor impeached for attempting to sell a Senate seat, a Senate appointee get caught up in lying about campaign contributions involving that same governor, and a multitude of pending government appointees who forgot to pay their taxes. Any regular American found guilty of this last offense would certainly have to pay a fine and may even be subject to jail time. Not so the lofty political appointee, who must temporarily endure some negative press, but then is allowed to take the new government position after paying the back-taxes (with no interest penalty). One of those officials was then placed in charge of the Internal Revenue Service – irony, but not of the delicious sort.

When I read these news stories and ponder my increasing distrust of our government, my first thought is that we should sweep all of our current elected officials out of office. Then, start anew with a fresh crop, and allow them to serve one, and only one, term – call it six years. The temptations and waste associated with re-election machinations would be reduced, and we might entreat a group of properly-motivated individuals to govern.

This is a tempting idea, but I’m reminded of some sound advice about governing officials from the Old Testament. In Exodus 18, we see Moses fulfilling the role of political leader for the nation of Israel. His every waking moment is spent as judge and decision-maker, because he indicates that he is the only one to hear cases and make decisions for that entire nation of people. When his father-in-law, Jethro, hears of this (perhaps you were thinking of a different Jethro when you read the title?), he offers some sage advice. He counsels Moses to divide up the duties of governing among a few men, leaving only the more weighty cases for Moses to preside over. Specifically, in verse 21, Jethro names the qualifications of these men – “choose men who fear God and hate bribes”.

Wow – those are words dripping with wisdom. Imagine for a moment a government populated by men and women who not only have agreed ethically to avoid bribes, but who actually hate the practice of lobbying and influence-peddling. This would motivate them to look for truth and wisdom in places other than those which deliver financial gain or power to themselves – a far cry from most of our politicians on Capitol Hill today.

And this source would be the other half of Jethro’s advice – direction and wisdom should come from the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 1:7). Without this, our nation would be left to the ever-changing whim of man - sound familiar? But God is unchanging and wise beyond our wildest imagination. What better source could we ask for?

Perhaps a change is coming. It has before, in this very country. Less than 250 years ago, the founding fathers of America split from a tyrannical king who had clearly renounced God’s ways. We could do it again. Now is the time to proudly advocate for godly government - much like Jethro did - and ready our children to take on the mantle of God-fearing, bribe-hating leadership. I will gladly follow them.

Communion Meditation – A Tale of Two Traitors

Grace is often a difficult concept to grasp. God’s grace requires that we simply accept the fact that we are lost without Jesus’ sacrifice, and that we accept his gift of redemption. It is not conditional, nor does it require me to live a perfect life before it takes effect. But we cannot forget that it requires our acceptance. Without that, we are indeed lost.

In the single day leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion, two people betrayed him. The one we often think about when we use the word betrayal is, of course, Judas Iscariot. Judas sold his Lord for thirty pieces of silver, kissed him on the cheek, and gave him up to the authorities to die a cruel death. But after Jesus’ trial, Matthew 27: 3-4 says, “When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. ‘I have sinned’, he said, ‘for I have betrayed innocent blood.’”

Judas’ reaction was one of despair. Clearly, the weight of the act he had committed was torture to his soul – so much, that he immediately went out and hung himself. How tragic an end! Even after his betrayal of Jesus, I believe he could have been forgiven, but he simply saw himself as too far from God’s grace. In an effort to get away from the pain, he chose to quickly leave this life – certainly to be greeted by an eternity of something much, much worse.

We rarely use the term “traitor” when we talk of Peter. Yet, he denied knowing Jesus three different times in a very short time frame. In fact, it would seem that he did this within sight of Jesus’ trial, because Mark 22:61 tells us that just after Peter’s third denial, “the Lord turned and looked straight at Peter.” He remembered Jesus’ prediction of his denial, which he had adamantly argued against, and his heart was broken. Scripture tells us that “he went outside and wept bitterly.”

Was Peter tempted to do the same as Judas and end his life right there? Perhaps. But Peter did not kill himself, though he must have agonized for the three days that Jesus was in the tomb. The Bible does not tell us what happens to him during this time.

When Jesus’ disappearance from the tomb is reported to the disciples by Mary Magdalene, Peter is the first one to enter the tomb. He goes away confused. What was he feeling at this point? Was he worried that Jesus might be alive, and ready to take revenge on those who had betrayed him three days earlier? Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ ministry and purpose was certainly imperfect at this point. So what does he do? Probably the same thing that a lot of us do when things get stressful. He went fishing.

After recognizing Jesus at the shore, the disciples return, led by an anxious Simon Peter. And it is at this beach scene that Jesus does something beautiful. He asks Peter specifically, “Do you truly love me?” – not once, not twice, but three times. The significance of this should not be lost on us. Jesus knew that Peter needed to make this confession three times to atone for his three previous denials. Peter did not understand this at the time, but I’m certain that he did when reflecting on it in future years. His own betrayal of the Lord was wiped clean, and he was ready to start anew in serving the Lord. And this he did.

The choice was there for both of these men, and they each took different paths. The results for each man were radically different. The parallel of this story to our own is not accidental. After our denial, God gives each of us a choice – to remove ourselves from His presence, or to accept His grace. Which will you choose?

The Next Social Revolution Appears To Be Godless

There is a revolution brewing.

More than any other period in my lifetime, there seems to be an urgency in the air to fight dishonesty in government. In the last two months, we have seen gun sales reach unprecedented highs, consumer confidence is at new lows, the stock market has pulled back dramatically, and anti-government “tea parties” are being held in every major city. Will it all lead to some meaningful change?

I’ve seen mention of a great number of “revolutionary” books lately. We are reminded of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged or Robert Heinlein’s The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Both are excellent reads, and inspire some creative thought regarding libertarianism and social anarchy.

The idea of social anarchy, especially the push for individual freedoms over government-imposed regulations, can be fun to toy with. In both Rand’s and Heinlein’s books, we see a likable group of characters overthrowing their tyrannical and oppressive government in favor of a culture where rules are largely removed and where individuals start making well-informed decisions that seem to benefit all those around them. The chief character in Rand’s book – John Galt –is compared to Atlas, who is best known for holding the world on his shoulders. But instead of taking on the world’s troubles, Galt simply chooses to walk away, leaving the world behind.

Both books share the same fundamental problem – they create a society which does not recognize the sovereignty of God. And that is a big miss.

More than ever, I have grown to distrust almost all of our highly-placed government officials. I believe it is nearly impossible to reach such a lofty and powerful position without some act of bribery or unethical compromise. Our government taxes our income, and then taxes any gains we may make on the leftover money. They tax nearly every purchase that we make, assess standing yearly taxes on our property and then, as if all that wasn’t insult enough, they invoke a “death tax” to steal money from the inheritance that we try to leave to our children. And what do they do with a lot of this money? In addition to lining their own pockets with re-election funds, they spend it on reprehensible practices such as abortion and “free love”-style sex education. Until we choose to throw them out, or we make our own Mayflower-type departure from this land, we seem to have little choice.

The ideas of civil disobedience or creating a society without government intrusion are gaining popularity. I expect to see more of this in the coming months. But a system devoid of government regulations and one which refuses to acknowledge or honor God’s supremacy is a society which is ruled only by the whims of man’s desire. Jeremiah 17:9 tells us of the problem with such a system – “for the heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond cure”. Replacing one tyrannical system of government with another anarchical system governed only by man’s evil motivations can only lead to deceit, and then failure. As we ponder tea parties and government reform, let’s remember that God has an eternal plan already designed. He has left us with the blueprints contained within His Holy Word. He gives us His Spirit to help us through difficult times. And He gave us the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, to take away the curse of sin that exists today, and which will continue to exist in any human-derived system of government. Without God, we simply exchange one lie for another.

“The Day Before Last” Blues

My wife and I recently returned from an eight-day cruise of the Caribbean, in celebration of twenty years of marriage. The ship was amazing. The waitstaff and crew were extremely helpful and pleasant. And we made friendships in the dining room that we hope will last.

If you’ve ever been on a week-long vacation to a tropical island or another desirable destination, you know that in the first hours (for us, as the cruise ship left Ft. Lauderdale), the whole week stretches out before you, ready to be seized – but not too quickly. You begin to plan your time, making sure that you do everything that you want to, but spacing it out so as to make the week last. In fact, as we prayed over our meals, my wife and I asked God to make the time go by slowly on our vacation.

As the week progresses, you are conscious of the passage of days. At some point, you realize that you have reached the halfway point. For this recent cruise, I remember that moment, but I remember still thinking that we had plenty of time left to do the things that we hadn’t yet done. The halfway point is still filled with optimism.

For me, the real emotional turning point is the day before last. That was day seven of our eight-day cruise. Even though we still had almost two full days to go, that day was filled with melancholy as we began our “litany of lasts” – last walk around the deck, last dinner with our new shipboard friends, last free cookie and hot tea in the promenade café before bedtime. Instead of being able to fully enjoy these last few hours, each event was tempered with a little sorrow as the finality of our time approached. Maybe you have had this feeling on a vacation, or when leaving a job, city, school, or friend in your past.

There is a purpose to this observation. My oldest daughter Molly is now fifteen years old, and we have only three years to go before college potentially takes her away. The timing is equivalent to “the day before last” in terms of our time with her. I’m beginning to become aware that I have very little time left to teach and influence her on a daily basis. The reality that I may not get to experience all of the things that I have mentally planned to do with her is suddenly apparent to me.

Will we ever get to vacation as a full family in Hawaii again? Have we painted her room for the last time? Does she have clothes in her closet right now that she might pack with her on her honeymoon? Is this feeling the one that every parent experiences when they suddenly come to grips with the idea that their children won’t be at home forever?

This feeling is strong for me right now. As sad as I was to complete our fantastic cruise-ship vacation, I will be far more distraught when our family dinner table is reduced from five chairs to four. And then from four to three. Even with as much love as my wife and I have for each other, there will be an indescribable sense of melancholy when that number is finally reduced to two.

I am determined to use these last days well. From our entire child-rearing perspective, we are somewhere in the middle of day five, out of an eight day journey. The “day before last” is quickly upon us. Dear Lord, please multiply our time, give it purpose and meaning, and let my children (as well as me and my wife) be ready when it comes time to part ways and enter the next step in the voyage.

Discovering An Addiction

I’ve just returned from eight glorious days at sea with my lovely wife of twenty years. After much deliberation, we finally decided to spend this landmark anniversary on a cruise of the Caribbean. It was inspiring!

As we were packing and planning the week before the trip, my wife asked about the possibility of leaving our laptops at home and trying to spend the entire trip sans computer. Much to her surprise, I readily agreed. It might have been a bit of a surprise to me to consider such a thing.

Armed only with my Blackberry (so we could stay in daily touch with the kids), we headed out the door. It’s really amazing how light you can travel without the burden of the laptop bag, and it makes the security check at the airport just a little easier.

In our society, we are surrounded every day by addiction temptations. Internet addiction may not seem as grievous as some temptations, but I now have a much deeper understanding of how much time it steals. Had I brought my computer along on the trip and made a simple promise to only check it twice a day (something I considered), I would have likely been unable to resist and would have spent a great deal of time “checking the news” or “watching the stock market”. Instead, I made a conscious effort simply to talk with my wife over a meal, or find fun things in which to share our time together and make this week truly memorable. Eight days in a row of being Internet-free has a sobering effect.

Let me tell you what brought it all even more to light for me. We had a balcony room on the ship and we tried to use it often. But it was hard to do so, because our next-door neighbors insisted on smoking on their balcony at least twenty times a day. We rarely sat on our balcony for more than a few minutes without having to endure the noxious fumes. I felt sadness for them instead of anger, though, because this couple spent the majority of their time together inhaling cigarette smoke, without a word between them. As I write these words (with paper and pencil, mind you), they came out on the balcony yet again. And the analogy came to me.

How much time do I spend apart from my wife, my kids, my church, my friends, and people in need just because I want to keep up with the latest happenings in the world? The answer is – too much. Like my neighbors on the boat, who missed every shore excursion and every fun-filled meal in the boat’s excellent dining room (where we laughed and developed a friendship with Don and Ann, Gary and Tara, Derek and Nadine), I can miss what’s really important in this life. All too soon, these opportunities will be gone. I will have missed out on the chance to deepen my relationship with people, in exchange for knowing more about a world I neither admire nor wish to imitate. Stated that way, is there any doubt what change I should make when I get home? Honestly, is there a drawback to becoming addicted to people instead of news, sports and money?

My Best Friend

Today is a special day for me, so I hope you regular readers will allow me to issue this post on a more personal level.

I have never been one to have a host of close friends - indeed, sometimes, I feel like I am fine without them. Perhaps that is a character flaw, I don't know, but it is simply the way it is for now. But twenty years ago TODAY, I had the distinct joy to proclaim my vows and marry my best friend before two-hundred people in Fort Collins, CO. Maybe God knew that what I really needed was one faithful friend by my side for the rest of my life.

Wendy has been my wife for a fifth of a century now (!), and there has never been a single day in that time that I have regretted our marriage. And while I am far from being the perfect spouse, she makes it easy for me because she approaches that ideal much more than I ever will.

She has been my helper every day these last twenty years, and has helped me raise three wonderful children. They are growing up far too fast for my liking, but they are thankfully growing up to know the Lord. Her dutiful attention to them, our decision to homeschool them five years ago, and (I hope) our example of marriage serve as a model to them. I pray for their future spouses and that they each find the same joy that I have found in marriage.

I love you, Wendy, and look forward to growing ever more mature in our love for each other and for Christ.

Getting a Constitutional Education – The Birth of Judicial Activism (Part 9)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

Late in the year 1800, John Adams was narrowly defeated in the presidential election by Thomas Jefferson. In an effort to “pack the courts” with Federalist judges of his own thinking, Adams made dozens of judicial appointments just before he left office (these were called “midnight appointments”). To complete the appointment, a nominee had to be both approved by Congress and have their commission signed by the Secretary of State.

Due to a curious oversight, a few of the appointees never had their commission signed under the outgoing administration, and were left waiting for the signature of the new Secretary, James Madison. One of these pending appointees was William Marbury. So began the famous Marbury vs. Madison court case.

Madison refused to sign the commission, and Marbury sued, immediately taking his case to the Supreme Court. He contended that under the Judiciary Act of 1789, Madison should be forced to sign his commission – that a writ of mandamus should be written by the court requiring him to do so. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed that Marbury should be appointed, but that the Judiciary Act law that he was citing was really unconstitutional, and that he should take his case back to a lower court.

Marbury lost the case, but the real story here was that the Supreme Court, for the first time, had single-handedly declared an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. In essence, the Court asserted authority over Congress in an unprecedented manner, essentially giving itself the supreme right to interpret the Constitution. To us today, that may not seem like big news, but the fact is that the Constitution does not anywhere give the Supreme Court this power! Article 3 of the Constitution details the jurisdiction and duties of the Supreme Court, and indeed, Section 2 seems to imply that Marbury may have been in the wrong court. But the brazenness of Chief Justice John Marshall to unilaterally strike down an Act of Congress was unheard of before this event (and curiously, John Marshall was the Secretary of State in the Adams administration who had accidentally forgotten to sign Marbury’s commission before being appointed Chief Justice!)

Thomas Jefferson was incensed at the judicial ruling, and wrote, “Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” For Jefferson, the founders intended for the three branches of government to be in equal balance, with no single branch having supreme authority to interpret the Constitution.

With a precedent such as Marbury vs. Madison on the record, that precept has been lost. Today, we live in a time where it is generally accepted that the United States Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, with the authority to rescind or make demands on both the Congress and the President. But a simple reading of the Constitution shows that no such power was meant. This was the beginning of judicial activism.

Judicial activists submit that the Constitution is a “living document” and that powers and nuances not mentioned explicitly in the text may be “implied”. The opposite of this position is judicial restraint, which argues for a very conservative approach to rulings. A judge exercising judicial restraint will overturn a law only if it is obviously unconstitutional. In the case of Marbury, judicial restraint would likely have found a judge simply sending the case back with no ruling, rather than explicitly declaring the law unconstitutional. An advocate of judicial restraint, Ronald Reagan said “I intend to go right on appointing highly qualified individuals of the highest personal integrity to the bench, individuals who understand the danger of short-circuiting the electoral process and disenfranchising the people through judicial activism."

Judicial activism has grown beyond just the assertion of supreme constitutional authority. Today, we see many judges making rulings based on their own opinion, and not citing a legal precedence. Roe vs. Wade is probably the most far-reaching example of judicial activism. In this case, the Supreme Court cited the “right to privacy” to allow a woman to terminate her own pregnancy, but admitted in their own written ruling that “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy." If judges are allowed to make laws with no Constitutional backing or precedent, then what happens to justice? Rather than relying on the written Constitution to govern our land, it becomes a matter of individual opinion, and the court system becomes nothing more than a game of “packing the courts” with judges who are sympathetic to an individual cause. This makes a mockery of justice, and undermines the real intent of the founders when they penned that most important document – the Constitution of the United States of America.

**********************

Next in the series
-or-
Back to the main index article.
...