Christmas Communion Meditation

This is an unusual time of year to bring to memory the death of our Lord Jesus Christ – a time of year when we also celebrate his birth. Indeed, this week we glory both in his birth and in his death. How should we approach our weekly remembrance at this time of year?

It is estimated that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 3000 Messianic prophecies – predictions about him that came true through his birth, his life, and his death. No other period in history contained so much fulfilled prophecy, and no man’s life was ever more predicted by others. That is because the life and death of Jesus Christ are the most important things which have ever happened in history.

I sincerely want to study all 3000 prophecies, and I hope to do so in time. I’m funny that way, but to me, seeing these predictions fulfilled over and over makes Jesus even more real to me. But, instead of doing a study of all 3000 prophecies for this week’s meditation time (you may breathe a collective sigh), I decided to look at one of the earliest ones.

In Deuteronomy 18:15-18, the Bible says:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the LORD your
God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.”

God tells us that he will raise up a future prophet, one who will be like Moses. If you look at all of the prophets in the Bible, you will find that no other life comes as close to the similarities of Jesus as the life of Moses. Both were delivered from death as babies, both performed miracles, both were leaders, both mediated between God and man, and both offered to die in order to forgive the sins of the people.

Recall that when Moses was born, the king of Egypt had ordered all of the midwives to kill any boys born to Hebrew women. But the midwives disobeyed, and his mother put in motion a plan to rescue him and deliver him to none other than the royal court of Egypt. Twelve-hundred years later, in a fury over being outwitted by the Magi, King Herod condemned to death all of the baby boys born in Bethlehem. Jesus managed to escape. Both little babies were saved from evil kings.

Just as striking, both Moses and Jesus made an offer to die for the atonement of other’s sins. In Exodus 32:30-33, after Moses discovers that the people had built a golden calf to worship, we are told this:

‘The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."’

However, God chose not to accept Moses’ offer. He had other plans to save the people from their sins.

Which brings us to one major difference between these two prophets - Moses and Jesus Christ. When Jesus made the offer to be an atoning sacrifice, God allowed it to happen – because it was His plan to do so all along. Why Jesus instead of Moses? Because of one other distinctive difference between the two – the sacrifice is so much more meaningful when the offering is the Son of God himself.

And so, while we study the story of Moses on occasion and recall his life – we meet every week to think of Jesus and remember his death.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time.... (Romans 3:21-26)

Merry Christmas!

“King” of Healthcare?

Some form of healthcare will likely pass in the Senate this Thursday.

Every single poll I have been able to research (Rasmussen, Pew, CNN, YouGov, NBC/WSJ, AP, Harris, USAToday/Gallup, ABC/Post, FOX) shows that more Americans DON'T want government-dictated healthcare than the number who want it - some by as much as 15%.

So, what happened to representative government?

Instead of executing the wishes of those who elected them to office, our senators and congressmen appear to be giving in to someone else. Is it their own pocketbooks? The healthcare companies? President Obama? Or all three?

When people get together to pass a law that the people don't want, but which a government leader does – that is called a monarchy. I guess we now live in a country where we should call our leader "King Obama". Oh, by the way, that's what the Pilgrims fled from when they came over on the Mayflower.

A lady asked Dr. Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?” — "A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."

Anonymous, from Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

Will Cultural Brainwashing Now Be Mandated To Get A Teaching Degree?

“Whoever controls the schools controls the world.” – Voddie Baucham
**************************
I promise that I am not making this up. Okay, I did photoshop the picture, but really - that’s all. I apologize in advance to the University of Minnesota graduates, but I’m pretty sure Mao would have been proud of what is happening at your school.

A task force at the University of Minnesota is recommending a training plan for future educators that is so Orwellian, you would think that Karl Marx had written it. This group – called the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group – is recommending a multi-step plan of cultural “re-education” for those wishing to get a teaching degree at “the U”.

Under this plan, students wishing to obtain a degree in education must admit - and be willing to go forth and teach - that America’s roots are racist, sexist, and homophobic, and that such attitudes have been the cause of poor minority academic performance in state schools. Put simply, teachers would need to confess their inherent bias, and then pass on to their students that white students have had an unfair educational advantage due to a history of racism in our nation.

The task force’s recommendation comes in two parts. First, a prospective teacher must confess their own history of prejudice. Extra points are given for being self-critical. A sample “confession” is included in the report - "As an Anglo teacher, I struggle to quiet voices from my own farm family, echoing as always from some unstated standard. ... How can we untangle our own deeply entrenched assumptions?" Again – I promise – I did not make that up.

Second, teachers must be able to point out to students the history of racism and how it has led to an unfair bias against non-whites in the educational system. They must be able to teach about “the myth of meritocracy” in the United States – which is a fancy way to say that the people who have been successful in our nation’s history did not earn their position through hard work, but because of racial privilege.

What if a student resists this program at the University? The task force recommendation deals with this specifically. If someone is unwilling to conform to the cultural re-education process, the University must "develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan."

The overall direction of this plan is not so different from the reeducation camps used by Mao Zedong during China’s Cultural Revolution. Hitler used similar tactics to brainwash the youth of Nazi Germany. Even if there is a grain of truth in American racism (and there have certainly been isolated examples), promoting this philosophy has nothing to do with becoming a better teacher! It simply arms teachers with an excuse to give their students for underperforming. If you were paying the University of Minnesota a large tuition to turn your child into a quality teacher, would you be happy with this program? Would you like it if a teacher graduating from this program was assigned to your first-grader – to influence their formative years with racial bias and untruths?

We need educators to stand up for what is right and true, and not fall victim to the recommendations of those who wish to corrupt our children. Home educators – Mom and Dad – need to be willing to teach the truth to their children, regardless of social pressures. Public educators need to rise up and stand against the tactics used by “task forces” which aim to offer up our children on the altar of political correctness. Parents of children, whether home-educated or state-educated, should understand the forces which arise to steal our children’s hearts, minds, and souls. They should not be afraid to take a vocal or public stand against the dumbing-down of the American school system. Write an opinion piece for your local paper, get involved with your school’s leadership, contact a Congressman and let them know your wishes for education, or take personal charge of your children’s education by considering homeschooling.

If we don’t, our children’s children will be living in a world far different from the one in which we grew up. And pretty soon, our beloved United States will start to look like Communist China…or Nazi Germany.

What Happens When Congress Gets In A Hurry

There has been a lot of rushing around in Congress lately, as if there is no time to evaluate what laws are being passed.

The economic stimulus bill was rushed through as an absolute necessity. $787 billion was allocated for spending and agreed to in just a few days. And yet, the results are just the opposite of what was expected – unemployment continues to rise far beyond what we were told it would be if we would support the stimulus package. There have been no firm connections made between the stimulus bill and an economic turnaround. Things have become decidedly worse in our economy.

Now, healthcare is being rushed through Congress, even though such a bill has far-reaching and long-lasting effects. Revamping healthcare could have serious consequences – life and death consequences – if not properly done. And yet, thousands of pages are being written, Congress is voting on it without reading it, and our leaders are breaking their promises to allow it to be posted on-line for 72 hours before taking a vote. We are rushing toward something – but what?

The most recent penalty for a hurried attitude came recently when the Internal Revenue Service announced that they had erred in the release of the tax tables in 2009 – a result of President Obama’s signature tax credit offered as part of the stimulus package. The credits were designed to give individuals as much as $400 in “money back” and couples as much as $800. Because of an oversight, the tax tables for many couples were posted incorrectly, allowing them to claim more credit on their 2008 return than they were allowed. It is estimated that as many as 15 million people will now owe the government $250 or more – some as much as $400. Most of those affected are working couples, but the error also spills over onto single students and Social Security recipients (another error in which the government overlooked the possibility that someone might claim a new Social Security bonus and the above-mentioned tax credit – they are eligible for only one of these credits). Affected people in any category will have to make the correction, either through more tax liability for 2009, or in a reduced return. One thing is for sure – the government will get “its money”, even if they were the ones who made the error.

It feels to me that we are rushing to our own economic destruction. The tax credit was given to Americans with the instructions to “spend the refund in order to stimulate the economy”. How long can that tactic work? Is such a design sustainable? Isn’t there another route we can take – namely, to require the government to spend less, resulting in a lower tax burden, and allowing each individual to keep more of their own money to invest and use as they see fit? Imagine the economic strength of a nation where everyone was free from the worry of debt, and could concentrate on superior products and innovative ideas.

What is lost in nearly every news article that I read is that the tax money started out as ours. We work hard for our paychecks and we make many decisions about how to spend and save. And yet, the assumption made by so many is that the government has a right to take it from us at their whim. True – per the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Congress can collect taxes at will. What may have been forgotten is that before 1913, they did not have the right to collect taxes from our incomes (see a previous article here). They continue to abuse this law, taking more and more of our money to fund their own unread and poorly crafted laws. And we continue to send them cash with every pay stub.

I came across this interesting quote recently, from Herbert Hoover:

“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. ... And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.”

The “emergency” has certainly been declared again, and we are falling for it just as surely as economic ruin awaits us if we continue on this course. What should we do? It’s time to get involved – write a Congressman, elect leaders who understand this principle, or work to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Without our income tax to spend, Congress just might get downsized. Would that be a bad thing?

What If I Tell Them I Refuse To Pay Abortion Taxes?

During the recent passage of the House healthcare bill, there was a lot of uproar over whether or not public funds would go toward financing abortion on demand (the debate now swings to the Senate). Some more conservative House leaders introduced the Stupak amendment – a measure which limited (but did not completely eliminate) healthcare funds from being used for abortion. As I read the news, a thought occurred to me - what would I have done if the government had placed an abortion free-for-all in the bill, effectively being paid for with my taxes?

Is there a time when we say, “Enough! I refuse to pay for that!” Is there ever a time when we would be justified in NOT paying our taxes?

The Bible tells us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and also that God puts government officials in their place at his bidding. Jesus told us in Matthew 22 that it was right to pay taxes to Caesar. But it makes me wonder - what were taxes used for by the Roman government two thousand years ago? Did they spend tax money on the same things that our government spends it on today?

In ancient Rome, the tax rate varied between 1% and 5%, with a 1% sales tax being the norm (the higher rates up to 5% were levied on one-time events, such as inheritance taxes). And where did this tax money get spent? I can only find reference to the tax money being used to fund the Roman legions – the military used by the emperors to provide national security and preserve order. The Roman government, the one we hear about as being controlling and oppressive, did not use tax money for public healthcare, arts endowment…or to fund abortion.

Is there a difference today? If Roman taxes were being used to fund abortions, would Jesus’ answer have been different when asked about paying taxes? The point that Jesus was making in Matthew seems to be more about the concern of individuals and their love of money. This event was also a simple ploy that the Pharisees were using to try to trap Jesus into being arrested. Would he have given the same answer if the subject was about what the tax money was being spent on? Would Jesus have felt outrage and decry the payment of taxes if the Roman government had been funding abortions?

It angers me to the point of tears that some of my tax money – right now – goes to fund abortions in instances of rape, incest, or “the health of the mother”. Money that I work hard for is collected by a government which legalizes and even promotes the murder of our nation’s children. To this I say, “Enough!”

I wonder what would happen if I sent in my taxes next year with this note:

Dear U.S. Government,

I have calculated my taxes for last year to be $20,000. I have also calculated that $1,200 of this money will be allocated, proportionally, to the funding of abortions. You should be made aware that the practice of abortion is morally reprehensible to me. I cannot in good conscience allow you to spend my tax money on this procedure. I believe it is tantamount to murder. Please accept this short-payment of my tax debt with the understanding of why I am refusing to pay the full amount. To assist you in any budget shortfall, I will be doing everything in my power over the next few years to help reduce the number of abortions taking place – through discussions, volunteer work, or political activism. I hope that this more than makes up for the amount of my money that you would have spent on abortion had I not been working diligently to teach people about the outrage of this practice. I encourage you to get out of the abortion business and look to God for forgiveness and direction.

Well, I would probably be risking some jail time. I’ve probably guaranteed myself an audit just by posting this.

Pray for our nation.
***********************
Previous posts on abortion - here, here, and here.

Radical Environmentalism – “Climategate” – The Fall of Global Warming? (Part 11)

…continued from a previous post, commenting on the recent discovery of purposefully manipulated climate data – dubbed “Climategate” - designed to falsely promote the concept that the earth is warming…Hey, I’m all for good stewardship. But science shouldn’t lie about statistics in order to promote a dubious agenda.
****************
The exposure of falsehoods, data deletion, and attempted cover-ups recently related to The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is having some repercussions in the environmental community. I am reading blogs and posts by people who were formerly convinced of Anthropogenic Global Warming as fact, but who now have their suspicions that the world has been led down “an inconvenient path”.

What changes in attitude or action are being seen as a result of Climategate?

On his way to the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) summit in Copenhagen next week, Saudi Arabia’s lead climate negotiator has said, "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change… So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability." I think some of us have been hinting at that very point for a while.

In the wake of the Climategate memos, Australia’s Parliament got rid of a pro-Kyoto leader, and then voted down their proposed cap-and-trade energy policy (designed to regulate carbon emissions to be more environment-friendly). It was expected to pass before the Climategate scandal came to light. I continue to “warm” to the idea of moving to Australia if things continue down their current path here in the United States. I certainly hope that our lawmakers have the fortitude to abandon cap-and-trade before they further wreck our economy.

Here’s a good one - Al Gore has suddenly canceled his December trip to Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, though he had already sold 3,000 tickets to his scheduled speaking event, at over $1,200 each (that’s $3.6 million that he’s turning down – why would he do that?). And there are at least two people in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts who are calling for Gore’s Oscar to be investigated or rescinded for his 2006 documentary film An Inconvenient Truth. Here’s a little-known fact - did you know that Gore and his producers have admitted that much of the footage showing majestic icebergs in the movie was not real – but was made using CGI (computer-generated images)? You know – like Toy Story – which, by the way, also isn’t real.

Remember that graph at the beginning of An Inconvenient Truth that showed the sudden temperature rise in recent years? In an article entitled “The Deceit Behind Global Warming”, written by Christopher Booker and Richard North, they note:

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century.

In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.

Items like this have been known for several years, but they are finally getting some real exposure in the wake of Climategate. Look for more of Michael Mann’s involvement to be revealed as the scandal progresses. Things are beginning to unravel, but will it come apart altogether?

One U.S. climatologist is quoted in the Climategate documents as saying, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate." Do you see his leap to a conclusion, even when the facts don’t support it? Rather than postulate the possibility that global warming is not occurring, the automatic conclusion is that the measurement system must be incorrect. This is a perfect example of the “bad science” I have been pointing out in this series.

And this is precisely what I mean about environmentalism becoming a religion. Because some scientists reach out to global warming on faith – whether the facts support it or not. For them, it is truly "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). This is the very definition of faith in the Bible. And because many of these scientists do not have God in their life, they have replaced the worship of God with a worship of the earth. Now, their environmental faith is in jeopardy. Will they finally replace it with a faith in God?
************************
Next in this series.......
or
Back to Part 1 of this series...

Radical Environmentalism – “Climategate” – The Fall of Global Warming? (Part 10)

When I started this environmental blog series earlier this year, I had it in mind that the concept of global warming might see its demise during my lifetime (possibly within the next forty years). Now, it appears that that it might happen within the next twelve months. But I am not celebrating yet – people don’t toss out their religion so easily, even the religion of environmentalism.

Enter “Climategate”. On November 19, 2009, memos and e-mails from researchers at The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were hacked and put on Internet display. These documents reveal a series of lies, fabrications, and fact-twisting efforts put out by the CRU over a number of years. Their intent was to show global warming to be occurring, when in fact the researchers were internally admitting that it was not. The CRU is one of the main contributors of climate data and studies used by political bodies to make decisions about environmental policy.

What exactly did the researchers at CRU do that was so wrong?

First, data was manipulated. In an attempt to prove that Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) is a truth, scientists went beyond the facts to keep the story alive. The memos detail specific instances where the researchers padded data, added where they shouldn’t have, or simply misled the public with the result. Don’t believe me? The graph above is an example of the earth’s temperature data used by climatologists – a 100-year measurement. The blue lines are the raw data (showing a clear cooling trend over the century). The red lines are “compensated data”, which shows a warming trend. Neat trick, huh?

Manipulation of data isn’t all that happens. Manipulation of perception has also occurred. There is now a report that an important paper previously claiming that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 at the current rate of global warming - contained a typo. The data should have said that the date would be 2350. I’ll bet you haven’t read that retraction in the paper, though.

Second, data was deleted. Raw data sets, which were used to construct the models leading to global economic policy decisions, were simply thrown out. This means that it is impossible to go back and verify or reconstruct a model that uses this data. It calls into question everything about the scientific conclusion, because the original data set is gone. Do you think your high school chemistry professor would have let you get away with that? And it begs the question – why did they delete the data? To save space? Or because the raw data was problematic to the conclusion that they wanted to draw? Hmmmmm…

Third, they tried to cover it up. Memos make it clear that the scientists in question were purposefully trying to evade the U.K.’s Freedom of Information Act. E-mail exchanges show that colleagues were being asked to delete e-mails that might prove troublesome later. That alone calls into question the true objectivity of these scientists. Their purpose clearly wasn’t about getting to the truth. It was about holding up a false premise designed to glorify themselves and others as the saviors of our poor planet. The top director of the CRU is on record as saying, “I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right.” His goal was not to reverse global warming – it was to be shown that he was right all along. That’s like hoping someone in your family gets a life-threatening disease so you can take full advantage of your health insurance.

To be sure, environmentalism takes the place of religion for many. It is a form of “doing good” and appearing to be concerned, with worship of the earth acting as a substitute for worship of God. Next up – what changes are occurring as a result of Climategate (including “What do Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and Pixar’s Toy Story have in common?”)
************************
Next in this series.......
or
Back to Part 1 of this series...

Seeking The Origin of Life

The Large Hadron Collider is back on-line, after a fourteen month repair period. For the first time, scientists were able to achieve high-velocity proton collisions in the detector in November 2009.

Big deal.

The LHC is a technological marvel – there is no doubt about that. At a cost of $4.5 billion, and mostly financed by European taxpayers, it sits underground spanning the border of Switzerland and France – a twenty-seven kilometer (seventeen mile) circle of two empty tubes and liquid helium superconducting magnets. Protons are accelerated in the tubes to enormous speeds – moving in one direction in one tube, and the opposite direction in another. The particles move within the tubes at about one foot per nanosecond, which equates to approximately 11,000 times around the circle every second – nearly the speed of light. When the scientists see fit, they allow the beams to collide. Colliding protons emit lots of other particles, including photons, leptons, gluons and quarks. Simply put – smash things together and see what comes out.

Scientists hope that the Collider will reveal much to them about the structure of matter, the science behind electromagnetism, and origin of the universe. Scientists believe that at the moment of the Big Bang, the entire universe of particles that we know today was smaller than a single atom. It was all packed into an incredibly small space….and the collision of the particles within resulted in the universe as we know it – complete with rocks, water, helium, fruit trees, crocodiles, and you and me.

One of the things that the people at the LHC hope to find is the Higgs boson. This is a theoretical particle which should be produced by proton collisions, but it is so large and short-lived that it has so far been impossible to detect. Science has not yet been able to observe a single Higgs boson. But of more interest, the Higgs boson has been given another name by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. He called it “the God-particle…”

The irony is rich. And sad. Intelligent people are spending billions of dollars to find an all-inclusive theory of everything. They devote enormous energy to experiments that are indeed thrilling – and relatively boring at the same time. And their purpose is to find the meaning behind their own existence. How did we come to be? How does the universe fit together and work as brilliantly as it does? What is the origin of life? And the number-one thing that science is attempting to discover in this grand experiment is…the “God particle”.

God Himself has predicted this very thing – the foolish pursuit of wisdom by men who refuse to open their eyes and see Him.

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness.’” - 1 Corinthians 3:19

I am not against science and the desire to discover more about our universe. But science, without God, is a vain pursuit. In fact, I believe He has predicted the creation of things like the Large Hadron Collider in the Book of Isaiah! Every time that man has gone in search of the smallest particle of matter, he has been surprised that what he thought was the smallest bit could be broken up into even tinier pieces. Molecules became atoms. Atoms became protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons can now be broken into bosons and muons and gluons and quarks. If we find all of these, will we think we are done? God answers that question:

“Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men. Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.” – Isaiah 29:13-14

Just when we think we understand it all, God reveals a new wonder. I can’t wait to see what’s next.

Life Aboard The Mayflower

This year, during this time of thanksgiving, I’d like to reflect on what it would have been like to be a Puritan in 1620. That was the year that English separatists were finally able to leave England to establish a new colony in Virginia. And while planting a new colony and avoiding the religious persecution brought down by King James are some of the reasons commonly taught in textbooks for the Puritan’s departure, the opening words of the Mayflower Compact reveal even more about their purpose:

“In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia…”

A study of their purpose reveals that the Puritans wished to glorify God and advance His kingdom above all else. And so, on September 6, 1620, 102 people (half of them were part of the Puritan group, the other half were not) boarded a boat about 110 feet long and 25 feet wide – the Mayflower – and set sail for Virginia. Very little is known about the voyage itself. William Bradford, the leader of the separatists kept a small account of the journey. It is interesting to read one of his written passages, about the fate of a crew member who treated the Puritans poorly:

“There was a proud and very profane young man, one of the sea-men, of a lusty, able body, which made him the more haughty; he would always be condemning the poor people in their sickness, and cursing them daily with grievous execrations, and did not let to tell them, that he hoped to help to cast half of them overboard before they came to their journey's end, and to make merry with what they had; and if he were by any gently reproved, he would curse and swear most bitterly. But it pleased God before they came half seas over, to smite this young man with a grievous disease, of which he died in a desperate manner, and so was himself the first that was thrown overboard. Thus his curses light on his own head; and it was an astonishment to all his fellows, for they noted it to be the just hand of God upon him.”

Only one other death occurred during the journey – a young Puritan servant named William Butten, who died just three days before the ship landed. Finally, 66 days after leaving England, on November 11, 1620, the Mayflower dropped anchor off the tip of Cape Cod – 600 miles north of where they were supposed to land. Because of bad weather, the ship was not able to get down to Virginia – their desired landing point – and so the passengers and crew spent their first winter aboard the ship.

Cold and disease took its toll. By the spring, only 53 of the 102 original passengers survived (two had been born during the journey, so exactly half of those who had left England remained). I often wonder what kind of courage it took for them to stay the course and not leave their new home, in the face of danger and death. The passengers left the ship itself in April of 1621, and the Mayflower returned to England shortly thereafter. None of the passengers returned with it.

Would I be able to maintain the same faith and strength of purpose as these men, women and children? In the face of possible loss of family members – sorrow upon sorrow – would I hold fast to the purpose of furthering God’s kingdom and glorifying His Name?

I close with the words of John Robinson, a pastor to the Separatists who stayed behind in England, but who left them with the words from this passage in Ezra 8:21:

“There, by the Ahava Canal, I proclaimed a fast, so that we might humble ourselves before our God and ask him for a safe journey for us and our children, with all our possessions.”

I hope that all of us who treasure God and family are able to stay humble before Him in the coming year, and that He will bless us explicitly. I am thankful for my friends, my family, and most of all for my Lord who knows my desires and who watches over me with a long-term plan that I cannot begin to fathom.

Ten Things I Like About The Homeschool Civil War Ball

Yesterday, my daughter and I attended Northern Colorado’s Civil War Ball, sponsored by Agape Family Schools of Loveland, CO. It was a defining and memorable moment in our relationship. Some things I liked:

1) Molly invited me to the ball. Put plainly, she still wants to go to the dance with her daddy as her date.

2) My daughter looked absolutely stunning in her peach dress, complete with hoop skirt. I wasn’t the only one who said that she looked like a real Southern belle. Wasn’t it only a short time ago that she was watching Snow White while sitting at her Little Tikes table and drinking from a sippy-cup?

3) The group practiced for two hours on Saturday morning, just to be ready for the dance that night. During that time, I never saw any of the kids rough-housing or chasing each other around the room. I did not see the typical teen organization into cliques. There was clearly an air of respect and friendship – between boys, girls, and parents. I LOVE homeschooled kids.

4) I got to learn the Virginia reel.

5) During the instruction time in the morning, our coordinator made it very clear – spaghetti straps and strapless dresses were prohibited. If they tried to wear them to the evening dance, they would be prohibited from entering. I like that they were not afraid to draw that line. And the rule was upheld.

6) During the practice, we learned a lot about Civil War era etiquette. Women are to be honored by the men and they go first in everything (which makes some dance moves easier to remember). A man or woman never called someone of the opposite sex by their first name in front of others. It was always “Miss” or “Mister”. Every moment was governed by civility and respect. Our culture could learn a thing or two by going back to those ways.

7) The dresses were amazing. Every girl looked gorgeous in their old-fashioned hoops, and their hair up in curls. It felt like a scene out of Gone With The Wind. Each of the men got to pick a Confederate or Union outfit to wear. I, of course, stayed true to my Southern roots.

8) My daughter and I got to spend some very precious and memorable time together. She got her hair done professionally and was a picture of beauty and elegance. I got to show her how a Christian woman should be treated by a man. It breaks my heart to think that I might have to give her up to another man someday.

9) Molly and I were pleasantly surprised when we were placed next to our Colorado state Senator, Kevin Lundberg, during one of the dances. He is an ardent homeschooling supporter and a devout Christian man – a prince among men in our State Legislature. We got to spend ten minutes talking with him during one of the breaks. His outlook: he has rarely been as encouraged as he is right now over the changes in political winds. He believes that things will get better over the next few years.

10) On a night when so many other teens were taking in the latest installment of the Twilight movies with each other, my daughter and I, along with a dozens of other brave teens and parents, shunned the cultural decay – and spent a wonderful evening together as father and daughter. And made a lasting memory.

More photos are being added on Wendy’s Facebook page.

Ten Thoughts on the House Health Care Bill

Ten random thoughts on the healthcare initiative...

1) The same government that can’t get for-profit labs to create H1N1 vaccine in a timely manner wants to take over the whole healthcare shebang. And half of the people want to let them have it…

2) Nancy Pelosi promised on September 24, 2009 that she would let the bill be published for 72 hours before calling for a vote. “Absolutely. Without question”, were her very words. But she decided in the end not to do that. Why? There can be only one reason – she believed that three days of discussion time could only result in the bill’s defeat. So she broke her promise and drove through a bill that should have been debated – and defeated.

3) I cannot for the life of me figure out WHO is going to get the $1.2 trillion that they want to set aside for the program. But I’m willing to bet it is the people and organizations which come out in favor of the bill in the coming weeks. Once someone actually reads it.

4) Can anyone really explain what a “public option” is? Does anyone really know how healthcare will change if such a bill were to pass? I’m willing to bet that 95% of the American people (and 80% of the people in Congress) don’t know what we’re talking about. I’ll admit that I don’t.

5) Name for me one country which has adopted a public health plan which has been deemed a success. Canadians still cross the border to get a lot of their surgeries performed in the States.

6) The most telling words of all that I read when news articles were announcing the removal of funds for free-for-all abortion under the plan were “For now”. Abortion foes were given an incentive to vote for the current plan when this language - the Stupak amendment - was introduced (abortions will still be covered for rape, incest, and “the health of the mother”). But I’m guessing that pro-abortion Congressmen were told to “Just wait – we’ll get that wording back in there in the final version.” If you have no inkling about what the rest of this legislation means, please pressure your Congressmen and Senators to vote against it for this one reason – public funds are being used to fund abortions. This is the single most important topic in this whole debate.

7) $1.2 trillion over ten years. An average of $120 billion per year of new taxes. There are 105 million people a year who pay taxes. That’s an average of $1,143 per year, per tax-paying person in each household. For ten years. Hey, where did we think the money was going to come from? French taxpayers? The sale of Chris Dodd’s Irish cottage?

8) If you have reached your credit limit on five credit cards – is the solution to get another card? Or is it to control your costs? For healthcare, the primary problem that I see is runaway costs in the industry. It is NOT that some people don’t have health coverage (because there are ways around not having formal coverage). Fix the cost issue first, make healthcare more affordable for everyone, and more people will be able to get on board.

9) The best single method I have heard to get healthcare costs down is to enact tort law reform. Minimize and limit the amount of damages for which people can sue – malpractice insurance costs will plummet for the doctors – this savings will be passed on to the customer. I am led to believe that this cost is not insignificant. The only people to be hurt by this reform will be the lawyers. That’s a good reason to implement tort reform right there! (Sorry – to all my lawyer friends out there…)

10) It’s not too late to put pressure on your Congressmen and Senators. Find out their positions and write them at this link. March on their offices. Go to a Tea Party. And remember – “Abortion is not ‘healthcare’”.

Walls (Part 4)

In the year 445 B.C., Nehemiah was cupbearer to King Artaxerxes, king of Persia. He had previously lived as a Jew, likely from the tribe of Judah, in the city of Jerusalem, which had been largely destroyed in previous Persian campaigns.

Upon hearing of the decline of his hometown, Nehemiah was convicted that he needed to return to Jerusalem to direct the construction of the walls surrounding the city. A city without walls was defenseless and it was considered an embarrassment to the people who lived there. Earlier attempts had been made to rebuild the wall during the time of the priest Ezra, but they had failed.

Having gained permission from the king of Persia to return to oversee the effort, Nehemiah begins by praying for the work. This was not about his own glory or power – he genuinely sought God’s blessing and direction over the effort. That might explain his dramatic success, because prayer was the very first thing he undertook (Nehemiah 1:4 and 2:4).

The book of Nehemiah makes it clear that he rallied families and workers to devote themselves wholeheartedly to the construction of the wall (chapter 3). Opposition arose against him and he was repeatedly asked to stop construction. The enemy even resorted to tricks to lure him outside of the city. At one point, they sent a seemingly friendly messenger to try to get Nehemiah to hide in the temple (where he was not allowed under Jewish law) because of a fabricated threat of being murdered in the night. Nehemiah stood firm. Even in the face of an impossible task, with daily opposition, Nehemiah was able to keep everyone on task, and the wall was completed in an amazing fifty-two days.

Once the wall is complete, he drew God’s people together in order to evaluate their dedication and purpose. Things began to really change for the Jews now. The word of the Lord was read publicly in the main square, and people would listen for hours. They would respond to the words by confessing their sin and rededicating their lives to the service of the Lord. Each day became a time of reading, confessing and worshipping of God. Now fully protected from outside invaders, the people of Jerusalem began to change and grow in their service to the Lord.

We have read in this series how walls have been built to keep people out (the Maginot Line) and to keep people in (the Berlin Wall). One might conclude that walls are simply bad and they should always be broken down. That sounds very much like a modern self-help theme.

But the story of Nehemiah makes it clear that there is a proper place and time to erect a wall – primarily for protection and to keep out evil influences. In fact, it is often absolutely necessary in order to have a place where we can reflect, be still, and know God. Nehemiah even made it a point to physically separate the people of Jerusalem from outside cultures (Nehemiah 13:1-3). To some degree, nearly all of us put up walls against things we find offensive or which might negatively shape our thoughts and actions, or those of our children. I get some strange looks when I tell people that our family doesn’t watch many movies or much television – and what we do watch is on the ultra-conservative end of the spectrum. Likewise, I still experience some derision from some who think our choice of homeschooling is over-protective and short-sighted. Yes, these things are both walls of a sort – intentionally built – and which I think are necessary in the sea of a declining culture. But like those people in Jerusalem in the fifth century B.C., it is done “for the sake of the Law of God”. From Nehemiah 10:28-29:

“The rest of the people – priests, Levites, gatekeepers, singers, temple servants and all who separated themselves from the neighboring peoples for the sake of the Law of God, together with their wives and all their sons and daughters who are able to understand – all these now join their brothers the nobles, and bind themselves with a curse and an oath to follow the Law of God given through Moses the servant of God and to obey carefully all the commands, regulations and decrees of the Lord our God.”

Each of us, like the people of old, need to search for those times when we go into the world to be a light, and also understand that certain times call for us to clothe ourselves in protection, and block out evil influences. There is no simple recipe that can be written out to detail when each one of these occurs. But a good place to start is to do what Nehemiah did - begin with prayer for wisdom. Walls are sometimes a necessity.

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

Return to Part 1...

Walls (Part 3)

…(continued from previous post)…

The Berlin Wall went through several transformations. The most well-known version, and the one shown in most of the surviving photographs, are the twelve-foot high reinforced concrete wall sections, along with a “Death Strip” of gravel leading up to the wall from the East German side - to make it easy for border guards to shoot any defectors trying to cross to the West. While the Wall was up, there were as many as 5,000 successful escapes made to the West. In the first three days of the order to divide the city, a famous photo was taken of Conrad Schumann (an East German border soldier), which showed him leaping the barbed wire to safety. In a famous, non-successful attempt, an eighteen-year-old East German bricklayer named Peter Fechter tried to leap the six-foot wall, but was shot by East German guards. He fell back to the East German side. Both sides were afraid to help him, for fear of being shot as well, and Fechter bled to death over the course of an hour – in full view of cameras and passers-by.

The Wall was built on order of the Soviet government, with the purpose of preventing people from escaping or being able to compare socialism and democracy. But it became a symbol of oppression, despised by all those who treasure freedom. When the Wall was up, the side facing democracy was painted and made colorful by graffiti. The side facing Communism was gray and untouched - guarded by soldiers with orders to shoot anyone who approached it.

In June of 1987, to commemorate Berlin’s 750th anniversary, Ronald Reagan visited Berlin’s Brandenburg gate and uttered these now-famous words:

“We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Two years later, the Berlin Wall came down, but not before a strange sequence of events occurred. Eastern-bloc Hungary decided to open its border to Western-minded Austria. Thousands of East Germans fled there. Other East Germans already in Hungary crowded the West German embassy and announced that they would not return to their country. This triggered protests in East Germany against their own government. A revolution was well underway.

Under pressure, the East German government issued an edict allowing refugees and private travelers to exit the East for the West. Television stations and announcers, confused by the text, announced that East Germany was opening its borders to everyone (which was not really the intent). On November 9, 1989, people began gathering at the wall and demanding the guards to let them through. The guards, also confused, called their superiors but found that no one on the other end of the phone was willing to direct them to use force to preserve the borders. The guards simply opened the gates and let people pass freely. People began to systematically chip at the concrete wall. Small tools turned into sledgehammers over the next few days, and the Wall began to come away in large pieces. By mid 1990, the German military began tearing down large sections of the wall. Germany was formally reunified on October 3, 1990.

Unlike the French Maginot Line, which was designed to keep people out, the Berlin Wall was primarily erected to keep people in. But is one purpose more noble than the other? Keep reading the series…

Walls (Part 2)

On this twentieth anniversary of the opening of East Germany's borders to the West, it seems appropriate to continue this series in discussion about the Berlin Wall...

************
After World War II, Germany was divided into zones, each of which were controlled by one of four war “winners” – The United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The goal of the first three was to return Germany to economic and government independence. But it was immediately clear that the Soviet Union had no intent to honor this part of the agreement, as they began to make plans and take action as if to make Germany their own. Within a few years, the US, Britain and France combined their three zones into one and funneled funds toward German reconstruction. The Soviets did not participate.

Curiously, the city of Berlin itself lay deep within the Soviet zone. As part of the original agreement, the city itself was divided into four occupation zones – one for each of the aforementioned nations. It is important to understand that Berlin became divided into two cultures and two governments – with all of this taking place within the Soviet occupation zone. As the city of Berlin evolved into East and West, it should be noted that West Berlin was an island of democracy, surrounded entirely by a Communist-controlled nation.

In 1948, over a reconstruction disagreement, East Germany blockaded the import of food and supplies to West Berlin. Because West Berlin was geographically surrounded by East Germany, an airlift of goods was put into place by various western nations (including the United States).

A great experiment was now put in place – one which could not have been designed or implemented more thoroughly in a laboratory environment. East Berlin operated under a restrictive Communist regime (and struggled), while West Germany implemented a western capitalist-style economy (which thrived and grew). It is no surprise that people in East Germany found themselves wanting to emigrate to the more prosperous West Germany.

Until 1952, people were allowed to pass freely between East and West Germany. As the two political experiments began to grow apart from each other, the Soviets began to restrict movement across the border. Stalin directed that the border between the two be closed, and barbed wire was erected between the two nations. The borders between East and West Berlin remained open up to this point, though. People wishing to immigrate (illegally) from East to West simply went to East Berlin, rode the subway or walked into West Berlin, and then took a flight out of Berlin to the western half of Germany. Thus, they escaped through the “island” of democracy which was surrounded on all sides by Communism.

By 1956, the Soviet leaders back in Moscow had seen enough. The Soviet East German ambassador Mikhail Pervuhkin said, "the presence in Berlin of an open and essentially uncontrolled border between the socialist and capitalist worlds unwittingly prompts the population to make a comparison between both parts of the city, which unfortunately, does not always turn out in favor of the Democratic [East] Berlin." Additionally, Germany began to see a “siphoning off” of their most educated and talented workforce, with millions of engineers, doctors, teachers and lawyers leaving for the West.

On August 1, 1961, Nikita Khrushchev, Premier of the Soviet Union, suggested the placement of a wall between East and West Berlin. On August 13, at midnight, streets began to be torn up along the dividing line, barbed wire was set in place, and soldiers were placed with orders to shoot any defectors. Shortly thereafter, construction of the Berlin Wall began. The U.S. administration of John F. Kennedy put up a weak protest and eventually informed the Soviets that the States considered the Wall “a fact of international life” and did not challenge it (even though many families had been split up, with little recourse, by the sudden border placement). Curiously, the border was only closed in one direction. Anyone wishing to travel from West to East was allowed to pass.

…(to be continued)…

Walls (Part 1)

When Germany attacked France in World War I, the French losses were devastating. The loss of so many young men during this war had an effect on the next generation – there were far fewer French men to take up arms during World War II, precisely because there were fewer men to marry and raise families. France was determined never to allow this to happen again.

When Hitler began rattling his saber toward France in the runup to World War II, France believed they were ready. In the ten years from 1930 to 1939, the government had built an elaborate set of deterrents to dissuade Germany from attacking. The Maginot Line consisted of blockhouses, anti-tank outposts and retractable turrets (called “cloches”), which would be used to detect the enemy, damage their equipment, or prevent equipment from passing. The French buried large metal girders in the forest, pointing up out of the ground, in order to discourage tanks from passing. They even established low-lying zones which could be flooded quickly with water to prevent the passage of the German army.

The purpose of this Line was manifold – prevent a surprise attack, allow time for the French army to be mobilized (predicted to take two to three weeks), and to encourage the German army to choose a different route to attack, preferably toward Switzerland or Belgium. A quick look at a map of Europe shows how this would play out.

The Maginot Line was a wall, of sorts, designed to deter an enemy and deal defensively with the threat of invasion. For the French, they invested heavily in a defensive installation, while many in their government were instead proclaiming that they should be investing in better offensive weapons.

When one views the complexity of the Maginot Line, one cannot help but be impressed by the effort. The technology (for the time) was excellent, communication between bunkers was in place to transmit the occurrence of an invasion, and there were formidable placements of guns and mortars designed to cripple the German army as they approached.

So…the German army took the hint and attacked northward, through Belgium, beginning on May 10, 1940. They sent airplanes and gliders to fly over the Line and drop bombs on the French behind their defenses. Within five days, the German ground forces had skirted the entire Maginot Line and were into France via the Belgian border. By May 24, the Germans had bottled up the British Expeditionary Force (in-country to aid the French) at Dunkirk. The English had their backs to the sea (the outcome of this battle is a great story and victory of sorts for the British – but we won’t go into detail here). Finally, Paris fell to the Germans on June 14, 1940. The capture of an entire proud nation had taken just over a month. The Maginot Line was a failure.

What was wrong with the French strategy? It seems they failed to consider the ease with which the enemy could circumvent their defenses. In reality, the Germans did not have to go far out of their way to go around the Line and achieve their objective. The French had invested heavily in a purely defensive strategy, without regard to the very real possibility that they needed to be ready for an offensive battle.

This has very real application to our spiritual readiness, which will be covered in Part 4 (think of Nehemiah). But first, we’ll look at another wall, which fell only some twenty years ago.