Ordinary Exceptionalism

I am re-reading Philip Yancey's book, The Jesus I Never Knew. It is a great read anytime, but especially this time of year. The first three chapters are a delicious appetizer for the perennial feast of nativity stories that are offered each December. The theme of the book suggests that even serious Christians have often missed the more mundane, the obvious truths that bathe the Christmas story and wash the entire portrait of Jesus' earthly sojourn.

I was particularly struck by Yancey's metaphor to explain how significant was the incarnation, the taking of flesh by very God. Yancey kept a salt water aquarium, a responsibility that requires constant and careful attention. Even though his intentions were entirely thoughtful and beneficial, the fish always hid when Yancey approached the tank. They greatly feared him, even though his every action had always been for their good. He realized that the only way he could convince the fish of his good intentions would be to become a fish and tell them in their language.

Thus did God when He became a man, only infinitely more drastic was the condescension from divine to human than human to fish. Most striking to me was the thought of what Yancey (or you or I) would have felt looking out from the aquarium. And, frankly, Yancey's aquarium was probably more well suited to his fish than first century Palestine was to the Savior of mankind. God's arrival on earth, Yancey points out, was staged in a livestock pen. Though announced by angels, the audience were lowly shepherds, the dregs of Jewish society. The political and social climate was anything but hospitable, particularly for a child whose paternity was shaded by scandal in his home town.

A teen-age mother (most likely) and a twenty-something father (probably) would live every day of the growing boy's life knowing that something quite special was happening, yet nothing out of the ordinary was provided to them, if you discount the early angelic visits. When you think of it, it could not have been otherwise. For the Savior to share in our sorrows, to be acquainted with our grief, he must necessarily have lived a perfectly ordinary life. A super attentive providence would have released the God/man from his primary duty prior to the meeting at Calvary. He had to live a sinless life, but it had to be a normal life -- no special privileges.

This situation is both unbelievable and inspiring. We too are compelled to live mostly ordinary lives. And likewise, we have, if we really believe what the Bible teaches about the Christian life, divine duties and responsibilities. The inspiring thing is that we do have special providence to accomplish our goals. The same Holy Spirit that dwelt within the God/man, Jesus, makes His home in us, makes His power available for our necessary tasks. When you think of it like that, how can any day, any chore be ordinary?

Silent, Holy Night

One silent night in Bethlehem
some twenty centuries distant
the intersection of earth and heaven
was visible for an instant.

For on that silent, holy night,
while men did shepherd duty,
a sudden flood of celestial light
brought both fear and beauty.

It truly awed those humble Jews
that God had chosen them
to be the first to hear the news
of God’s great gift to men.

The music played on heavenly horn
made simple men applaud,
for unto them a child was born,
a Savior come from God.

Far above the pasture glen
outside of space and time,
the Father paced the halls of heaven
awaiting birth divine.

Since Adam, tricked by serpent’s ruse
had led his race astray,
The Holy Father planned to use
this Child to show the way

For sinful man to chart a course
back to the arms of grace.
Thus did the Son, without remorse
forsake His royal place

To pay the debt of sinful man
impaled on cruel tree;
then on the third day, by God’s hand,
He’d rise for all to see.

So on that silent, holy night
redemption came to earth,
and death was robbed of all its might,
by one miraculous birth.

If as a child we trust the One
who came to Bethlehem’s stall,
the long, dark night of sin is done,
and grace extends to all.

By Clair Verway

No Cost / Lo Cost Gifting

If you're anything like me, you may just have a few people left on your gift list. And, like me, you may have run out of funds before running out of list. I would like to suggest some ways to honor the idea of giving without dishonoring a pledge to avoid excessive credit use.

1. Try creative re-gifting. This is not the same as lazy or rude re-gifting. Think of something you have that is still fully useful to the person in mind, but not something you are likely to use again. Tactfully inform the recipient that you are aware of the used nature of the item, but hope to bless by giving. Some suggestions are: books, tools or appliances, glass ware or basketry, pictures or nic-nacs (no white elephants here.)

2. If you are even the least bit comfortable in the kitchen try something like gifts in a jar. A Google search will net you tons of neat ideas. Many of them require only a small expense.

3. Crank up your Works Task Launcher (or the Mac equivalent) and create a gift certificate for something you can offer that involves giving your time such as: babysitting, household chores, yard work (or shoveling), a meal (you prepare), at-home car washes (or wax.)

4. If you expect to be more well-funded shortly after Christmas and will be able to afford "the perfect gift," cut out a picture or print one from the Internet. Wrap it in a suitable size box (weighted if necessary) and put it under the tree. Be prepared to explain.

5. Arrange for a gift subscription to a magazine the person will truly enjoy. You can do this now and ask the publisher to bill you later. You can usually find these offers in the magazines themselves (check out the newsstand) or at the mag's online site.

6. For a few of you, it may be appropriate to write a poem, paint a picture or create an artistic expression in your chosen medium. Make it personal and you will have given something better than money could buy.

7. For family or close friends, write a note about something that will be important for the person to know. It might start out, "I will always remember when..." or "You will never know how much I appreciated..." If you are a senior member of a family, make a record some meaningful things from your younger days . I regret that I never learned anything about my parents' and grandparents' youth. These stories may be more of a blessing than you realize.

To Thine Own Cause Be True

Today I received a forwarded email from a well-meaning friend. It pictured a tombstone with the epitaph of the United States and dates July 4, 1776 -- November 4, 2008. The article then listed several astounding facts concerning the election of 2008. While I am no friend of the current U.S. administration, I prefer to wield the sword of truth against error rather than spread lies. The other side is known for the lies; we should stand for the truth. The article which followed the tombstone was reportedly written by Joseph Olson of Hamline University. It is almost totally false. First of all the general body is taken directly from a fabricated article concerning the Presidential election of 2000. Joseph Olson denies any connection. Secondly, even the statistical information as reported is mostly false according to Snopes.

If you have already seen the email I am referencing and forwarded it to others, please send them this correction. I agree completely with the concept that USA will soon RIP if we don't wake up. We are a divided country with most of the supporters of the progressive Democratic agenda being in urban areas while the bulk of conservative support comes from smaller communities and rural areas. There is also a great deal of historical support for the idea that people who are dependent on government will vote for anything as long as it appears to promote their selfish interests.

The post-modern philosophical atmosphere we live in today causes many people to disregard the need for truthfulness in all things. Many believe there is no basis for truth, no overriding moral structure from which we may judge the rightness of another person's actions. This notion is in direct contradiction to the beliefs that drove our founding fathers to create on this continent a new nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.

These rights demand a foundation in what is called "natural law," the idea that there is absolute right and wrong as established by a transcendent moral code. That code was thought to be best expressed in the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. We must not fall prey to the notion that anything that advances our cause is acceptable. We must fight for the standards upon which our great United States were founded. To do any less will mean failure even in the midst of possible success.

Our Blessed Perseverance

I truly appreciated an article in Ligonier's Tabletalk magazine this month. My wife and I are going through some real struggles right now, and Dr. Guy M. Richard's words of encouragement under the title, "Our Blessed Struggle," were timely. I would like to engage in a friendly, public debate over Dr. Richard's understanding of "Israel" in the context of Genesis 32 however. I disagree that "struggler" is the best understanding of the name Israel precisely because of the context. I think that "Prince of God" is a fitting translation for Israel.

Certainly, Jacob was a struggler, a striver or grabber after the heel. I believe the contrast the wrestling "man" at Peniel intended with the new name was that the struggler had persevered. Note the explanation which is given immediately following the renaming in verse twenty-eight. Also, the root word from which Israel is derived came to mean prince (or princess eg. Sarah, in its feminine form.) The King James translaters got verse twenty-eight right in the sense that the prince or princeps (in Latin) was the first of God. (I hear Star Trek's Enterprise Captain Piccard calling for his "Number One.") He who came out second at his birth, now turns to God (the meaning of "Peniel") and attains first place as prophesied.

There is a wonderful application in this Old Testament typology for New Testament Christians as well. We are in the already/not yet state, struggling here below, yet heavenly victors in Christ. As Jacob I have little hope of success, but as the Israel of God, I know I will persevere in the final day. We must not let go of the bruised heel to which we cling, for we trust that our King is even now preparing a crushing blow to the head of the one who would defeat us. I see the entire sweep of redemption history captured in the simple act of changing the name of Jacob to Israel.

In this season of celebrating the birth of our Savior, it is good to remember that He came to earth in lowly circumstances. A cattle stall, not a palace was His nursery. Shepherds, not regal attendants witnessed His arrival. And yes, a cross, not a crown stood waiting for Him at the end of an earthly sojourn filled with trials and tribulations designed to create sympathy for the ones He came to save. From struggle through perseverance to victory: cradle, cross, crown.

Have Plane, Will Travel

President Obama is in Oslo today to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm not even going to begin to comment on the vacuous nature of the award; the President and his ilk think it is worthy (more commentary on their standards.) This President's penchant for traveling seems to be unprecedented. Next week he'll be in Copenhagen, then it's off to Hawaii for Christmas.

In November it was Asia: Japan, China and Korea. That was after jetting separate times to New Jersey, Wisconsin, Texas, and Alaska. October saw the President fly to San Fransisco, New Orleans, Texas, New York, Hackensack, Boston, Connecticut, Florida, and again to New Jersey. September's jaunts included a vacation to Camp David, then Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Lordstown and Pittsburgh, Maryland, Troy (NY), New York City for UN speeches, and back to Pittsburgh for the G-20. August began with a weekend at Camp David, then trips to Elkhart (IN), Guadalajara (Mexico), New Hampshire, Montana, Colorado, Phoenix, Cape Cod (a day at the shore), and Boston for Edward Kennedy's funeral. Egypt, Germany, Russia, Italy, Saudi Arabia filled the President's summer travel schedule in June and July.

Okay, maybe that was overkill. I teach my English Comp students that concrete examples are necessary to fully make one's point. The frosting on this cake is that Michelle Obama often travels with her husband, which is fine. But in the case of the one day trip to Copenhagen (which was so last minute it didn't make the calendar,) to pitch Chicago's bid to host the Olympic games, the first couple took separate flights, both private. This extravagance is exclusive of the extra 747 that follows the President with his entourage anytime he goes overseas. That's three jumbo jets to Europe for a forty-five minute presentation shilling for the Pres's home town.

Somebody with more time, research ability and math skills than I should do the comparison chart with other Presidents. I could be wrong, but I suspect that Obama would top the chart for miles, days away from Washington and money spent on trips. I know that the Asia, Europe and Africa trips could be considered valuable foreign policy junkets. I would feel better about them if our leader hadn't bashed the US at virtually every stop, though. And the US trips, for the most part, were oddly reminiscent of campaign appearances. Most of the time, he was plugging health care reform.

One begins to wonder what this President thinks his job is. Brave men and women are fighting and dying in Afghanistan while the Commander-in-Chief dithers for three months about plans to reinforce the effort as recommended by his generals in the field. The economy continues its decline as unemployment rises and the President can only talk about how much worse it would be if his party were not mortgaging our descendants' futures. Even his plan to spend our way out of recession is going so slowly that the majority of the money won't hit the streets until midway through 2010, coincidentally just ahead of the elections in November.

What I think is happening is that we are getting what we deserve. (Yes, we. No, I didn't vote for Barak Obama. But neither did I work very hard to see that more acceptable people were running and being elected instead.) We chose a man who looked good and spoke well. Now he is enjoying his reign as the first black President, clean and articulate, as Joe Biden once commented. I think Barak and Michelle believe they have hit the community organizer jackpot, like winning some national lottery of political success. They are milking it for everything they can get away with, expenses be damned. After all, I suspect they reason, they deserve it.

Every day I pray for my President. Every day I wonder exactly what to say to my Father in heaven. I usually start with the ancient wisdom that teaches us that the king's heart is in the Lord's hands. This is some comfort, until I remember that the heart of the Babylonian king was in God's hands just before the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem. I often recite the Apostle Paul's comment that the authorities which exist do so by God's ordination. I trust that by praying for my leaders, we may live quiet and peaceful lives in all godliness and reverence, as Paul suggests elsewhere. I can't help but wonder if I am more in the line of Jeremiah or Simeon; they were both praying for the salvation of Israel, you know. Only one of them died happy.

Arguments for (Religious) Idiots

Glenn Beck has a segment on his radio show and now a book called Arguing With Idiots. Beck is making an effort to arm his readers/listeners with the facts necessary to defend a conservative position in an increasingly hostile society -- hostile to conservative ideas, anyway. A recent Bible study, an e-mail debate and my personal devotions have simultaneously raised the question of how Christians should deal with (pardon me, Father) idiots.

Right, the Bible doesn't use the term idiots; it calls the people to which I refer fools. The thirteenth Psalm reports that the fool says there is no god. The ancient word translated "fool" in Scripture is the foundation from which we get our word "moron." So while the etymology may be different, our modern use of the word "idiot" corresponds with the Biblical "fool." Basically, all the terms describe someone who is without knowledge, to put it kindly.

So how do you argue with a person who is lacking knowledge? One answer is not to argue at all. The Apostle Paul recommends that Timothy avoid "foolish, ignorant controversies." (2 Timothy 2:23 ESV) Yet the Apostle Peter commands that we always be prepared to give "a reason for the hope" we have. (1 Peter 3:15) The Proverbs likewise caution against foolish arguments, yet suggest wise interaction is acceptable. Allow me to offer a Beck-like solution in abbreviated form. Here are some suggestions for arguing with religious idiots.

1. Remember Whom you represent. Remain calm, cool and gentle (meek, if you like) so that if possible you might lead the person to a saving knowledge. God is not glorified by ranting, raving lunatics.

2. Find out first where your idiot's lack of knowledge lies. Is he a true atheist? These are few and far between. More likely you have landed with an agnostic; these folks don't think there is a supreme being, but are not really sure. The two classes can not be dealt with alike.

a. If your idiot really believes there is not, can not, could not possible be a being whom one would call "god," you are dealing with an irrational person. Really, a true atheist can not exist logically. Here's why: to say with absolute conviction that there is no god implies that one knows everything there is to be known in the universe, and that complete knowledge eliminates the possibility of god. Obviously, no one can know everything that can be known, so this position is totally illogical. If your idiot refuses to buy your argument, smile, say a silent prayer for him and find someone else to talk to.

b. If you get your idiot to admit there might be a god, you have an agnostic to deal with. These folks are at least being reasonable, and reason is a God-given tool we can use. At this point you need to find out what your idiot knows about the Bible. Pure reason can bring a person to an admission that a god exists, but only knowledge of the God of the Bible will get a person into Heaven. It is not likely that your agnostic believes the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, so you must start with your argument at this point.

3. Defense of the Bible, proof that it is unlike any other book ever written is complicated. Entire books have been written on the subject. Perhaps I am the idiot for trying to summarize such an important topic this briefly, but I must try. Here are five arguments for accepting the Bible as a supernatural revelation from the God who created everything. Do your own study on each if you wish to improve your skill at defense.

a. Historical and archaeological accuracy

The more we learn about the peoples and times of the Bible, the more accurate the Scripture record proves to be. Whole cities and people groups that were once thought to be Bible myth have subsequently been discovered, proving the accuracy of the ancient writings.

b. Internal consistency

I can attest to the difficulty of staying consistent throughout long written passages. I spent several years writing my first novel, and it was a struggle to keep characters and situations consistent from start to finish. The Bible was written not by one, but by over forty authors spanning well over one thousand years. In spite of this, the message proclaimed in the opening chapters is developed and finally completed in the closing words written centuries later without a single inconsistency.

c. Fulfilled prophecy

Archeology and textual criticism have combined to verify that the words written in the Old Testament were penned centuries before the events they foretold. We are not dealing with vague allusions like Nostradamus here, but hard facts that can be corroborated. And this is not one or two, but scores of legitimate prophecies which were fulfilled in provable ways. The mathematical probability of just two or three happening as foretold is astronomical.

d. Logical necessity

If we suggest that a supposedly loving Creator exists, it is only reasonable that He would communicate in some way with His creatures. This is a somewhat circular argument, I know. If a caring god exists, then a revelation proving his existence is inevitable. Just ask your idiot if it doesn't make sense that a Father would want to get in touch with his children, especially if he has some really great news for them.

e. Human experience throughout history

Many serious agnostics have attacked the Bible intending to prove it false only to wind up being converted. (Consider C.S. Lewis.) Most people you will encounter are either being irrational (see 2a. above) or they haven't really examined the claims of the Scripture. An honest, open-minded look is sometimes all that is necessary to win the argument.

4. Ask your idiot if he is a true materialist. Many agnostics think they oppose the idea of anything super-sensory (or supernatural.) In fact, no one can think any thoughts at all without the immaterial: the mind. We know mind is not the same as brain; we suspect the mind needs the brain, and we believe they are related, but we know they are not identical. You may want to cautiously suggest that since our human mind exists in an extra-material plane, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that a greater being could also exist outside of our five senses.

5. Ultimately, of course, faith is required (believing is seeing.) This should not dissuade you from approaching idiots. Even quasi-scientific matters like evolution and many aspects of quantum physics require a healthy dose of faith to assert that they are true. It all comes down to what or whom you choose to believe in. Science has proven notoriously unreliable: flat earth -- sphere; sun moves around earth -- earth revolves around sun; surrounded by ether -- space is empty; like charges always repel -- positive protons bond in atomic nuclei. God on the other hand has not changed in all of human experience, if the record of His existence in Scripture is to be believed. It all boils down to a choice.

You, Christian, have a choice as well: be ready to take the idiots to task with kind reason or don't. Whatever you choose, always remember your purpose on Earth is to glorify God (see point 1. above.) Remember also that the God whom you choose to "defend" is already the winner of every argument, in the final analysis. He also promised you the supernatural help of His Spirit if you decide to enter the fray. Suit up and good hunting; there are plenty of idiots out there needing your help.

Thanks, But No Thanks

Four Navy Seals are facing courts martial for assaulting a terrorist. Please re-read that first sentence again. Does anyone else find the cognitive dissonance I see? Aren't Seals supposed to assault people? Shouldn't the terrorist feel lucky he is alive instead of complaining of a cut lip? After all, he is believed to be the Al Queda mastermind of the brutal murder of four American contractors; I suspect the Seals showed great restraint by bringing him in alive.

Alongside this story is the news that the man responsible for the 911 attacks is being brought to New York for a civilian trial. This man and his colleagues already confessed guilt, and they did so proudly. The attorney for the defense of this admitted mass murderer told a reporter he wants his client to have the right to speak his views absent the "propaganda" of the American press. According to Webster propaganda is a "systematic dissemination of ideas to further one's own cause." The third entry adds, "now often used disparagingly to connote deception or distortion."

Okay, we know the terrorist's view, so the "propaganda" he would like to counter is the majority of American citizens' opinion that what happened on 911 was an unprovoked attack resulting in thousands of innocent deaths. Can the reporter possibly mean that the majority opinion in this country is intended to distort or deceive? Maybe not; maybe he just means that we are attempting to further our cause -- like the cause of freedom -- like the cause of the right to life of innocent occupants of the twin towers.

Allow me to present one more conundrum. President Obama is bent on passing a health care "reform" measure that will by all accounts increase our indebtedness by unfathomable dollars, mortgaging our children and grand children's future. At the same time, he dithers over what to do about the request for increased troops in Afghanistan, claiming to be concerned over the cost. Admittedly, our health care system could use some attention, but it will not fail tomorrow or even next month or next year if nothing is done immediately. On the other hand, brave men and women are dying in Afghanistan daily, and the Taliban grows stronger by the minute.

I could multiply examples like these ad nauseum. So to my point. The Apostle Paul admonishes us to give thanks in all things. Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day. I will give thanks that we have Navy Seals (and others) who are willing to risk their lives and be long absent from their families to protect my freedom. I will give thanks that we have a free press that allows all sides of any story to be presented. I will give thanks that we have the privilege to elect a representative government. But, I'm sorry, Paul, I can not give thanks for the systematic disassembly of our constitutional forms. Then again, maybe I will be thankful if enough people recognize the rape of our Constitution and do something about it. Do you suppose Jeremiah was thankful for the Babylonian conquest?

Character Versus Personality

I recently finished a book by David F. Wells, The Courage to be Protestant. He calls this work an attempt at getting at the essence of his fifteen year project (and four previous books) to analyze the evangelical movement. Wells does a good job tracing the social trends which are pressuring the church to modernize its message. His thesis is that the direction in which evangelicals are moving, particularly the seeker sensitive and the emergent factions, is away from Biblical orthodoxy. He believes a return to historical reformation/protestant ways is the cure for this misdirection.

I was impressed by his analysis of the change in modern thinking away from what we used to call character, which is based on the virtues of a moral world, to a cult of personality which is driven by popularity or attractiveness without regard to morality. Wells notes that we used to speak of a person's morals, manners or reputation. Now we hear that they are fascinating, masterful or charismatic. One has only to remember how the media treated Bill Clinton during the Lewinski scandal to see how true this is.

The national infatuation with Barak Obama presents another example of personality trumping character. During the late stages of the presidential campaign a reporter opined that we didn't really know who Barak Obama was. If that reporter was ignorant, it was by choice or dereliction of his duty. Anyone who cared to look into the candidate's past could form a pretty solid picture of the real Barak Obama. His own writings and his life long relationships revealed a man who had consistently gravitated to men and ideas which were easily characterized. He had read and consorted with anarchists and socialists for most of his adult life. Yet in spite of this his good looks and soaring rhetoric carried half the country into his camp.

By contrast, as soon as Sarah Palin entered the presidential race, the main stream media fell all over themselves mocking her and finding fault in everything she said or did. What was her weakness? She was genuine, honest, simple and transparent. She displayed qualities that bemused or befuddled the political elite: love of country, commitment to family, concern for the weak and helpless, a determination to swim up the political stream. These attributes were so foreign to most liberal observers that they instantly declared her unfit for public office. How could anyone so provincial, so everyday American Mom be right for America?

Coincidentally, Sarah Palin is also attractive and well spoken in a down home, simple way. It was her character (in the old fashioned sense) and her support of traditional values that made her anathema to the liberal elite. I fear that Pete Hoekstra will face the same challenges as he runs for governor in Michigan. Here is a man of character who staunchly supports traditional values and conservative principles. He has worked tirelessly in Washington to provide decent, thoughtful representation for his constituents. He has always been a voice of common sense and restraint in a Beltway culture which seems to have lost its mind.

As Christians we are called to seek out leaders with strong moral character. Although the Bible does not specifically speak to our democratic processes and elective choices in the public sector, it is obvious that the qualities required of church leaders are equally important in secular positions. Our founding fathers recognized the importance of sound moral character, recommending that these qualities be sought in all who would lead. Pray that we all take a hint from David Wells and avoid the lure of personality and seek character in our elected leaders.

Thank a Veteran

I am an old softy, despite my curmudgeon looks and sometimes stern demeanor. I tear up at parades when the bands march by, especially if Old Glory is flying. I get a lump in my throat when somebody forwards one of those touching emails about our military forces. I am in awe every time I see images of Arlington National Cemetery or one of the many fields in Europe where brave men and women from past wars rest. All those crosses...

I am the son of a WWII Army Air Corps Lieutenant and the father of a Gulf War Airman. I missed out on military service during the Vietnam era because my number was not called. (For those too young to know, the draft was run as a lottery by birthday; my number was 323 and my year of eligibility ended with the draw around 319.) My eighteen-year-old self didn't like the way Washington was running the war; I thought we should fight to win or get out. When the draft lottery started closing in on my number, I briefly considered conscientious objector status or flight to Canada. Okay, my thoughts about Canada lasted about fifteen minutes, but I did investigate the CO thing. I would not have qualified.

In the end I resigned myself to go if called, as if there was ever any real doubt; I loved my Dad too much to disappoint him, if nothing else. Besides, even back then my typical self-interested teen eyes watered at the sight of the flag. That was 1969; the fallout from the Tet offensive and the Mei Lei massacre were like open wounds on our national psyche. Even though I disagreed with the prosecution of the war, I was wholeheartedly in favor of letting people everywhere make their own choices about their form of government. I believed then, as now, that if people wanted communist rule, they should be allowed to make that decision freely, not be driven to it by force of arms or fear of famine.

There was something else that fortified my will to go to war if asked: Jane Fonda hadn't yet posed on the NVA anti-aircraft gun; the four Kent State protesters had not been martyred, but the anti-war sentiment was everywhere, especially on college campuses (my world.) I detested the anarchy most anti-war protests advocated. Sit-ins were one thing, but destruction and mayhem were not to my liking. Worst of all, our national embarrassment over the war left the returning veterans out in the cold or subject to too much heat. Never in our history had those who risked their lives under our flag been so badly treated when they stepped back into civilian life. Part of me wanted to stand with them or die beside them out of pure sympathy for how they were being maligned.

Forty years later I sometimes wish I had gone. When my son enlisted in the Air Force, I actually felt jealous of him. Had I not been too old, I might have joined him in uniform. I did investigate civilian service; I was one click of the mouse away from applying for a job as a tanker driver (if I had had my tanker certification I might have clicked.) The real thing that stopped me was the thought of my wife soldiering on alone at home. She worried constantly about my driving the U.S. highways; I can't imagine her fear had I been trucking fuel in Iraq.

So much for the secret life of Clair Verway. If you are still reading (you have too much time on your hands) let me suggest an active response to this vent of mine. Thank a veteran. Literally, physically thank someone who is or was wearing this county's uniform. Naturally, I try to send a little something to my son on Veteran's Day, but I usually make eye contact or actually speak to any uniformed passers-by and give them a thumbs up or a word of gratitude. Paul admonishes us to give honor to whom honor is due. I can think of no class of persons who is more deserving of honor than those who have served in our military. Write it down; make a plan; show someone how much you honor them. Do it!

Onward Christian Soldiers

The shooting spree at Fort Hood in Texas this week raises so many questions and ironies it is hard to know where to begin. It is too soon to speculate about anything specific because the facts are still muddled. Some things are clear, though, and they are puzzling to me.

Major Nidal Hasan, the shooter, is a Muslim, an American citizen born in Virginia to Jordanian parents. One report says he is a life-long Muslim, another says he is a recent convert. In either case, the obvious question is how militant is his belief. At his mosque in Maryland, he listed his nationality as Palestinian. A retired colonel who worked with Hasan says he has been making anti-American remarks for several months, at least. Hasan was openly opposed to the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He likened suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save their fellows.

Should there have been some inquiry into the major's beliefs given the strong correlation between terrorist ideology and Muslim religion? Not all Muslims are terrorists to be sure, but 99.99% of terrorists are Muslim. I wonder if there is a way our P.C. distracted military can asses this factor in its estimate of a person's worthiness to wear the country's uniform. Major Hasan was investigated because of his radical statements, but nothing rose to the level necessary to sanction him or relieve him of duty.

A glaring irony in this situation is that Major Hasan was trained as a psychiatrist. His responsibilities included counseling soldiers who were having difficulty coping with the inevitable stress that is the military life. Apparently the doctor needed a good dose of "physician heal thyself." It may be that he became so troubled by the dissonance in his own mind that he snapped. We don't know and may never learn the deep struggles the major endured, but at least we can say that he, of all people, should have been equipped to deal with them.

Then there is the public reaction to analyze. I am as stricken as anyone by the sad irony that soldiers in our own country, supposedly safe at an Army base, were gunned down mercilessly. The families of the victims deserve our prayers and sympathy. Yet many days there is a similar number of military personnel killed in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. These brave men and women who fall in service to their country do not receive non-stop pre-emptive coverage on the news channels. The Congress does not pause for a moment of silence at each casualty report from the battle theater. Why is more attention paid to the casualties of a mental break than to the deaths caused by the cultural break that is radical Islam?

If we truly are Christian soldiers, we should expect casualties. Certainly the early church experienced deadly persecution. We Americans are only since September 11, 2001, finding out what religious persecution is. Make no mistake, this is a religious struggle we are fighting. If we fail to see the war on terrorism as a holy war, we will never understand it. We don't know if Major Hasan murdered because of his religion, but we know thousands have died around the globe at the hands of people who share his faith.

If there is such a thing as a just war, as Augustine proposed, this is surely one. Christians everywhere are being murdered daily because radical Muslims see it as their holy duty to kill them. As Christians we must stand behind our valiant troops who are attempting to hold the line against a vicious threat. We should mourn every fallen soldier, sailor and marine who has given the ultimate sacrifice so that we can remain free from terror. The Fort Hood incident shows that terror may strike closer to home than we would like. Our "luck" at being free from deadly persecution may be running out.

Happy Birthday, Freedom

The Internet was forty years old last week. For most of us the net didn't enter our everyday lives until the nineties, but in truth its beginning goes back farther. On October 29, 1969, Leonard Kleinrock, a professor of computer science at UCLA, connected the school's host computer to one at Stanford University and the Internet spoke its first word. The joke is that the attempt to transmit crashed the system after only two letters: l and o. So, "lo" and behold, the Internet was born.

Kleinrock was working on a project initiated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA.) The idea was to create a way for military and scientific personnel to relay information securely and efficiently. Kleinrock admitted in recent interviews that he and his colleagues had no idea that their creation would become such a life-changing phenomenon. Nor could they foresee the almost universal exposure their invention would achieve. From big city high rises to thatched roof villages people can surf the web as long as they have charged batteries and a cell signal.

The philosopher in me ponders whether this wonder is a net plus or minus (pun intended.) My novel sits with thousands of others on bookstore shelves unbought, unread. Newspapers are folding across the country due to lack of readership. Diaries, journals and personal letters have been almost completely replaced by emails, text messages and blogs. (Oops, is that finger pointing at me?) Thoughtful, well written prose (forget poetry) is as rare as ink wells on school desks. How many people do you know who read anything that is not digitally created and quickly deleted after a brief scan?

I am concerned that the brevity of our words' lifespan teases us to care less about their truthfulness or rightness. An ill-thought letter can be crumpled before it gets to the mailbox, a process few undertake anymore. An email or text is sped on its way with a flick of a digit. And if spelling and grammar was troublesome before e-writing, what does language like, "C U 2moro," do for our collective consciousness of grammatical correctness. (Okay, only an English teacher cares about that one.) Seriously, we write things or forward things that no one has vetted for accuracy or suitability. I fear that instant communication has become mindless communication.

Who can you believe anymore? Example: Recently, Rush Limbaugh was crucified in the world press for supposed racist remarks. After several days of "news reports" in every type of media, it surfaced that the source for the racist remarks was a blog article with no basis in fact. Rush Limbaugh was slandered, actually libeled, mercilessly by a community of professional journalists who forgot their first duty: check out the source. I know there is a political component to anything concerning Limbaugh's lightening rod stature, but even the silliest ideas get traction on the Internet where patently ridiculous notions get forwarded by gullible dupes.

Maybe this is just the convergence of the post-modern disaffection for truth with the techno culture's desire for newer better quicker slicker info processing. My wife prefers her potatoes baked in the oven rather than microwaved. (Yes, there is a difference.) Some writers feel more productive/creative using pen and paper instead of word processing equipment. These may only be preferences, but I wonder about our proclivity toward sound bites and flash reports over thoughtful, well-researched investigations. If truth matters, quicker isn't always better; the proof is, as was once said, in the pudding (not instant, but stove top cooked, I presume.)

Truth is the issue. Jesus told Pilate centuries ago that He was the embodiment of Truth. The Apostle John said that the Word (who is truth) became flesh and lived among us. God's written Word survives centuries of attacks to prevail as the message which claims to be absolute truth. Going from the Internet to baked potatoes to the Bible may have left some readers spinning. But I believe there is a reason why God's Word is contained in ink and paper documents. (Now available digitally, I know.) The words spoken to Moses and passed down from one generation to the next carry historical validation; they reverberate with the ring of truth. It's hard to imagine that happening with a text message or even a blog. (Gasp!)

Sitting down and reading the Scripture is like savoring that oven-baked potato; scanning an email blast with the thought for the day is instant mashed potatoes by comparison. If we still believe truth exists as objective reality (and true Christians must,) then we must demand it in all we consume. The freedom afforded by the Internet comes with the risk that we will become willing to believe anything. I am free to say whatever I wish in this venue; you are responsible to take the necessary thought to determine if my words are true.

Paul counsels us to think about those things which are true, noble, right, pure, lovely and so on. This advice implies a process of discernment. Seek the truth, no matter the medium. Make your life completely unbalanced in this regard: fill it with truth and empty it of all that is false. You learn how to do this, again from the Apostle Paul, by renewing your mind with God's Word. Then, he promises, you will know what is true and what is not.

Thinking About Palestine

I just got a forward from a friend saying HB1388 has passed. The text said the President signed an executive order concerning Palestinian refugees. This was another fishy smelling forward. If the House passed a bill, there would be no need for a Presidential executive order. I discovered that the hyperlink in this email is not to the official site of the Federal Register. Anytime you see a .com address, you can bet it is not a government site; they almost all end in .gov. In this case, the web site linked in the email apparently copies some of what goes into the real Federal Register which is found at www.federalregister.gov.

Turns out H.R. 1388 (notice the correct designation is H.R., not HB) is a bill to fund citizen service opportunities like Americorps, as far as I can tell. Nothing on the House website leads to any Palestinian refugees, unless they want to volunteer to clean up America or something. Google HB 1388 and you get dozens of hits about an email spoof about the aid for Palestinians. Funny thing is, I checked the real Federal Register and there is an executive order from February that does give $20million for refugees from Palestine.

Let's look briefly at the thorny issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those who know me know that, generally speaking, if Obama's for it, I'm agin' it. In this case, I find myself torn because of the massive misinformation that has been floated our way by Christian Zionists (mainly) who wink at some plainly awful actions based on policies that would be detestable if they were from anywhere but Israel. Did you know, for example, that when Israel claimed its land in 1948 that they tossed out Arab Christians as well as Muslims? They stole their property and refused to let them take anything but the clothes they were wearing. Are you aware that even today, the official government policies in Israel treat Palestinians, Muslim or Christian, pretty much the same way the US treated blacks in the post-Civil War era -- that is until civil rights reform in the 1960's?

Jesus called Pharisees who ignored God's commands sons of the Devil. They claimed Abraham as their father, yet Jesus pointed to their hypocrisy and named their true generation. I remain unconvinced that the Israel of today is in line for God's blessing in the last days. If all of the promises of God are fulfilled in Christ, and if His kingdom is "not of this world, why are some Christians looking for a physical kingdom ruled from Jerusalem? Are supporters of Israel's right to Jerusalem on supposedly Biblical grounds making the same mistake as first century Jews? They looked for a physical king to set up a material kingdom in Jerusalem.

I know there is a religious component to the battle in the middle east. But I don't think Christians should be backing Israel without considering whether their actions are righteous. They certainly don't follow the principles in the Torah regarding the treatment of neighbors. How can anyone read the history of Israel in the Old Testament and think that God wants Christians to support Israel unconditionally? God's judgment always fell on His people eventually when they disregarded His commands. Should we "pray for the peace of Jerusalem?" Of course. But let's not walk with the priest and the Levite who passed by the injured man on the roadside. Jesus calls us to imitate the Samaritan.

Tax Revolt, Anyone?

I know history is not a popular subject, and most of us have probably forgotten everything we learned in tenth grade anyway. But, almost everyone should remember the reason the colonists revolted against English rule and founded this country. There were many causes, I know, but the central issue was taxation without representation. The Boston Tea Party was a demonstration against the government imposition of a burdensome tax on the colonists' staple beverage.

Anyone paying even a little attention to the news recently should see a parallel in the current debate about taxing soft drinks, the modern day equivalent of colonial tea. Granted, the government proposing this tax is our very own (supposedly,) yet one wonders if Washington D.C. isn't as far removed from its constituents as King George was from his. Does the average U.S. citizen have the ability to influence the thinking, let alone the actions of his representative holding the reigns of power? Has the ability to vote for a representative voice lost its value in America today?

Closer to home, the governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, has announced another cut in the state per child allotment to public schools. Her expression seemed pained as she spoke, and her plea to the legislature to find some way to reinstate the funds seemed genuine. But she made the cuts anyway. One wonders why the choice was made to cut school funding. The parents of school children have little power to influence Governor Granholm, but the Michigan Education Association certainly does. The MEA was one of Granholm's big supporters when she ran for office. They must regret that decision these days. Where is the influence they imagined they bought with their campaign contributions?

The last example of leadership disconnected from the people comes from my home county. A small school district is in financial trouble due to fiscal irresponsibility spanning many years. An outlandishly expensive new high school was built as a monument to a former superintendent, laying a debt burden on an already strapped budget. The current central administrative staff numbers four times as many as other county schools of comparable size, cronyism being the apparent explanation. The money spent on support versus instruction is the highest percentage in the county. Fearing state intervention because of budget shortfalls, the superintendent is making a unilateral attempt to close schools and lay off teachers, a move which has proved very unpopular with citizens. Here again, the people most directly effected feel powerless to do anything meaningful.

What is a concerned Christian citizen to do? Paul told his Roman audience to pay taxes to whom they were due. This, remember, was during the time of a government by a dictator who was violently persecuting believers. Paul's readers had no voice in their government like we do. First, no matter how much we dislike the policies of a federal, state or local government, we must assume that Paul's directive to the Romans applies to us today. We have every right to protest, but we must pay whatever taxes we owe. Period.

That doesn't mean we can't protest. Our form of government allows "tea parties" as long as they are civil. Our representative democracy also gives us a lever to pull in most cases. Our leverage, pun intended, with politicians is that we hired them and we can fire them as well. Most localities are getting ready to hold elections next month. Christians must not zone out during local elections. The mayor, councilmen and school board members have a more direct effect on daily life than most people in Washington D.C. Two years from now, those of us who are unhappy with the current crop of D.C. politicians will have the chance to dramatically alter the landscape there.

Finally, when decent Christians do run for office, we must support them any way we can. The Roman letter also commanded giving honor to whom honor is due. Let all concerned Christians honor those who are making the choice to work for a more representative government. If we don't get involved, we have no right to complain when we are taxed more heavily to pay for programs we disapprove of strenuously.

Family in Crisis

What is up with families in America? Aren't there any parents anywhere who actually know their kids and what they are up to? Two recent news items compel me to ask the questions. One is somewhat lighthearted with a happy ending; the other is tragic.

Item One: Yesterday the Fox News Network burned over two hours of continuous coverage of a bizarre tale. It seems that a six year old boy was thought to be in the basket of a helium weather balloon built by his storm-chaser dad. The balloon escaped from the youngster's back yard, allegedly with the boy in it. Helicopters followed the balloon for nearly fifty miles while various news personalities kept up a running commentary of mindless speculation.

When the balloon finally dropped safely back to earth, breathless chasers reported that the boy was not on board after all. Then the real search began, only to discover the boy had been back home in the attic of the garage. He supposedly presented himself innocently to his supposedly distraught parents in the living room where they waited for news about him. I say supposedly (twice) because later that night on Larry King's show, the six year old let slip that he had been hiding in the attic because, "You had said we did this for a show."

True enough, this atypical American family has been on a reality show twice, and the dad produces something on YouTube. My guess is that this was some kind of stunt, either planned by the whole family, or maybe perpetrated by two young boys who accidentally let their Dad's fancy balloon get away. Being accustomed to make-believe at a high level of production, the two boys might have enough smarts to pull off something like that.

Item Two: A mother of one of the Columbine High School murderers is breaking her silence. Dylan Klebold's Mom writes in an article coming in next month's Oprah Magazine, "From the writings Dylan left behind, criminal psychologists have concluded that he was depressed and suicidal. When I first saw copied pages of these writings, they broke my heart. I'd had no inkling of the battle Dylan was waging in his mind." I realize that teens think many things, perhaps fight many battles in their minds that their parents might miss. I raised three kids and we all got through the teen years alive, so I know whereof I speak. But I would pray to God that I would not be so blind as to miss the signs that my child was suicidal. (My grown-up kids may be reading this, so I am prepared to hear from them that I am wrong.)

My heart aches for Mrs. Klebold. I do not wish to add to her sorrow by suggesting that anything she and her husband did or did not do contributed to the tragedy. However, the reporting that came out soon after the incident revealed several clear indications that the boys were not doing well. My question is this: If Dylan had been at the supper table with his family every night; if he and his father had spent regular time together in common interests; if there had been no sanctuary where a teenage boy could stockpile weapons and ammunition, would the outcome have been different?

I don't know that either one of these families is Christian. If they are not, their behavior can not be judged by Scripture. They may simply be the product of our sad secular society. But for Christians, the lesson is stark. An old TV commercial used to ask, "It's eleven o'clock; do you know where you children are?" In a day when most teens have easy access to private transportation, the answer is more often than not, "No." Sadly, surveys of Christian homes reveal that few families sit together for even one meal a day. My experience as a Christian school teacher (and parent of teens) suggests that most teens spend several evenings per week in unsupervised travel with their peers.

The Apostle Paul instructs Ephesian parents to bring up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In Deuteronomy Moses asks parents to keep the law of God before their children when they come in and when they go out. I fear Christian parents in America are too much bedazzled by the culture of Madison Avenue and Hollywood when it comes to raising their children. Two simple steps could make a world of difference in the next generation: eat supper every night as a family (with meaningful conversation around the table,) and limit the amount of time and mileage teens get in the privacy of an automobile.

Is this an old-fashioned idea? Yup. And decidedly Biblical. To keep your kids away from balloons and bombs, crank up the stove and shut down the car. Ya think?

The Cross Controversy

Here we go again. The cross is in the news because the Supreme Court is taking another look at public display of religious symbols. In case you haven't caught this appearance, it stems from a lower court case involving a WWI memorial in the Mojave desert. Back in the 1930's some veterans erected the cross on a piece of public land. Recently, a park employee sued to get it removed because, you guessed it, it violates the church/state no-contact rule. At least that is what the ACLU is claiming on behalf of their client. (How did I know the ACLU was going to come up in this?)

I understand that if a cross appears on a steeple, the building underneath is expected to be a church (though not always true.) Yet if you are driving down a country road almost anywhere in the western hemisphere and see a plot of ground populated by crosses, you don't think religion, you think graveyard. What would a child in our culture use to mark that special spot in the backyard where the dear, departed goldfish was laid to rest if not a cross?


Still, even though the cross has devolved into a purely secular symbol when it comes to graves, the ACLU wants to have it banned in public places. Shouldn't they have the same concern for rainbows? The bow in the clouds is a significant Biblical symbol. For that matter, shouldn't the secular radicals be opposed to all forms of written communication? The Bible is a written revelation from God. Writing has been used for millenia as a part of religious training and ceremony. Will the ACLU soon be taking up a case against written words?


Okay, that's silly. (Isn't it?) There is something special about the cross as a symbol. The New Testament teaches that it will be a stumbling block to those who don't believe what it stands for. It represents an unmatched turning point in history. All of human endeavor looks either forward or back to the cross of Calvary. This is true whether or not each individual human recognizes the truth of the matter. It should not surprise thoughtful believers that the enemy would take special aim at this most critical symbol.


Lest you think this only effects crosses on public land, think again. Are you aware that when candidate Barak Obama spoke at a religious school, he asked that the cross behind the podium be removed or covered? He didn't mind appearing at a religious institution, but he refused to be seen standing beneath a cross. Were I the head of that school, I would have declined to host the candidate under those conditions. (The school in question acquiesced.)


Worst of all, many of this country's most liberal churches are removing the crosses from their buildings, outside and in. It is offensive, they claim. They are right. See the words of Jesus. It is supposed to be offensive. (Sorry, any PC advocates out there.) Sadder still, many less than liberal churches stopped preaching the cross quite some time ago. The message of the cross doesn't attract the seekers like Starbucks and homey devotional talks.


Yet Jesus was clear on this issue: "Take up your cross and follow me." One does not take up a cross to attend a comfortable social event. The cross to which Jesus referred was a device of torture and death. "Die to yourself, if you would live for me," was Jesus meaning. We desperately need that message to be preached in this society. The battle over the cross in the Mojave is really the continuing cosmic combat over the cross of Calvary. Take up your cross -- do your part in the battle -- where and when you find yourself called into service.

Rush Limgaugh's Big Mistake

Rush Limbaugh brags of being right over 98% of the time. I know it is part of his radio persona to be arrogant and egotistical, while people who know him personally say he is nothing like that. I also believe that the left would be less antagonistic if he weren't so abrasive. He is probably okay with that too, if for no other reason than their antagonism helps boost his ratings. I have always been a little put off by his radio character, but now I think Rush has gone too far. I think he is wrong in his approach to Barak Obama.

Rush Limbaugh, the radio personality, has begun to damage the integrity of the office of President of the United States, in my opinion. I suspect that Rush Limbaugh, the person, has nothing but the highest respect for the office. I started to be uncomfortable during Bill Clinton's term when Rush referred to the Oval Office as the orifice, a veiled reference to Clinton's disgraceful misuse of power. I can think of nothing about Bill Clinton that I respect, but his standing as President, his office, demands a certain level of decorum even if the man holding it does not.

Now, Rush Limbaugh, the radio personality, daily invents new ways to belittle Barak Obama. I agree entirely with the Limbaugh sentiment; President Barak Obama is an embarrassment to me as a republican (small "r") conservative. Our representative government must allow for the possibility that someone elected to represent the whole country will not please everyone in the country. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that in the past, Presidents have attempted to walk some kind of middle ground, especially in foreign contexts, in an effort to represent the whole country. This President, in arrogance exceeding even Mr. Limbaugh, apparently believes that being elected by less than half the country gives him a mandate to express his own personal views as if they belonged to the entire population of the United States.

So while I agree with Rush's opinion of Barak Obama generally, I think the radio persona has regressed into slander and ad hominem language that strikes at the root of political dialogue. By that I mean that American political dialogue is rooted in the belief that citizens can say pretty much what they think in most any context. Yet it has historically been understood that name calling for the sake of name calling is unappreciated by sincere, educated, supporters of civil discourse. Just because there have been instances in the past when people (usually candidates) have used hurtful, unsubstantiated personal attacks, this doesn't mean the practice is universally accepted.

The Bible admonishes us to use only words that are useful for building other people up, not tearing them down. While Rush Limbaugh doesn't openly discuss his religious preferences, I have taken enough hints over the years to know he respects the wisdom of the Bible. If he were to read this, I hope he would take note. It is not only his personal life I am concerned with, but his influence on public dialogue as a whole. If his descent into personal attacks on Barak Obama makes even a few of his listeners think it is acceptable, the office of President is again being disrespected and made smaller for the next occupant, hopefully someone who doesn't deserve a smaller office.

Michigan Healthcare Reform

The Michigan Education Association was getting all heated up last summer over a proposal by Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon that would universalize public employees' health care. Mary Christian, MEA-Retired president was encouraging members to contact their state legislators to "express concern over such a drastic change in our current health plan." What was the drastic change? Dillon proposed placing teachers under the same insurance as other state employees.

The irony here is that the MEA is generally sold out completely to whatever the Democrats propose. Chuck Agerstrand, an MEA retirement consultant said in the same retirement report, "NEA supports health insurance reform that helps to guarantee that every person in America has quality, affordable heath care coverage." This is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is writing, or else it is a blatant example of the double standard so often evident in progressive politics.

It sounds depressingly similar to the US Congress insisting on universal health care, but exempting themselves from the provisions of the bill they are ramming down Americans' throats. The teachers' union is all for universal health care as long as it doesn't involve giving up the benefits to which they have grown accustomed. Mary Christian's stated concern was, "State control over the health plan of public workers would strip local school districts...and their respective employees of the ability to make the right decisions regarding what is best for them." That sounds like precisely what the opponents of universal health care fear.

I wrote my opinion of universal health care in January. The short version of what I said then is that health care and the insurance which limits exposure by sharing the risk with our neighbors is an optional accessory to life. No one has an absolute right to a certain level of medical care. Were that the case, one must ask where such rights would end. If medical care is a right, then surely nutrition is as well; we should provide food for all our citizens. If nutrition is a right, then surely shelter is as well; we should provide housing for all our citizens. Since mobility is required to function in our sprawling communities, transportation of some sort should be provided for all our citizens.

But wait; haven't I just described the Great Society? Hasn't the progressive/liberal agenda been attempting to provide all such "rights" for half a century or more? And at what cost? The federal budget deficit now looms over our children and grand children so heavily that their prosperity is clearly doomed. The entitlement programs we have come to think of as standard equipment in life are sooner rather than later going to implode from their own weight. If California is any example of what liberal policies lead to, prepare for bankruptcy at all levels of government.

As I said in January, I am not deaf to the needs of the less fortunate; there but for the grace of God go I. What we often misunderstand is that the same Scripture which teaches us to care for the needy and infirm also says, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." The MEA like most unions, like most of the progressive politicians wants a world where their version of equality is enforced by law. While the idea may sound good, even noble, it has been tried repeatedly throughout history and it never works. Socialism always fails because the sin that infects every human heart passes its contagion into the system rendering it useless to combat the very ills it seeks to address.

We don't need universal health care; we need universal soul care. We need a revival of the spirit which says, "I love my neighbor as myself." Jesus' words about the poor and needy were poignant, even harsh: "You always have the poor with you." Though He doubtless had the power, even the Son of God did not eradicate poverty or disease when He was walking the dusty roads of Palestine. The miraculous healings and feedings He did were merely tokens of what the true and final Kingdom of God will look like. Until that kingdom comes in its fullness, we need to do what Jesus recommended: we need to care for the wounded travelers who fall beside our own Jericho roads.

Six Day Creation

I am not sure if my hyper-analytical mind is a blessing or a curse. I can trace it's roots to my home growing up. Being right was prized above all else at my house. As I have carried this need to be right into the wider world, it has caused me no end of trouble. Over the years I have argued my way out of more jobs and relationships than I care to think about.

Another bothersome side effect of my need to be right all the time is a burning desire to get to the truth behind things. I have an almost neurotic compulsion to have clarity on every issue that floats onto the horizon of my awareness. This may explain in part why I have earned several college degrees which have no apparent practical value. It also explains why the ongoing debate about creation and evolution catches my interest. To my dismay, a recent Bible study brought the six day creation issue back onto my radar, and I am forced once again attempt to settle the issue for myself.

I say this dismays me because I have not been able to find the "right" answer, at least, not one that satisfies me. I think I have heard all the arguments made by the young earth, six literal days people. Sadly, none of them, nor the weight of them totalled is completely convincing. I am not going to debate the issue point by point here, but I am going to attempt to clarify my foggy view of it. I hope that in forcing my thoughts into written form I will discover a comfortable place to land, even though I know before I start, my position will not satisfy everyone.

If you are still following this, you probably are aware of at least the broad outlines of the issue. If not, I will offer a brief recap as I see it. Some Bible scholars insist that sincere readers of the Genesis account of creation must accept a wooden, literal interpretation of the words, or else risk losing all the ground supporting the authority of Scripture. Make the six days of creation anything but six twenty-four hour periods, they say, and you destroy the credibility of all that follows. Those who hold this position sincerely believe that all the rules of hermaneutics and logic are on their side. No one I have heard argue this point is a crackpot, nor does the camp following lack intellectual gravitas.

Still I think they are wrong on both the logical and interpretational fronts. I don't mean to say that they are wrong about the young earth implications or the span of time God covered during creation. The God I serve could have done the job in six twenty-four hour periods if He wished to do so. My beef with the six day literalists is that they insist their view is the only way to see creation and still believe everything else in Scripture. I would like to suggest two reasons why I think that God may not have intended us to read time into His creation account.

Let's look at the interpretational problem first. Because determining the genre of a written text is critical, it must be noted that Genesis is not a science text. God delivered the words to a very pre-scientific people; they were barely out of the stone age (bronze, maybe?) There is no evidence that God was trying to satisfy either Newtonian or Einsteinian physicists with the account He repeated to Moses. I believe Genesis is a credal statement. It outlines what is necessary to believe about the material universe and how the Creator is related to it. The account is dogma, teaching material, that reveals who is responsible for the creation and to whom the creation is responsible. The precise chronology and order of events may be exactly as recorded, or those aspects may be symbolic or ritualistic. Genesis was not intended to give us the "how" of creation, but the "who."

The literalists are fond of noting how many foundational doctrines are linked to Genesis, pointing out that even Jesus quoted from it several times. I could not agree more. One can not fully understand anything that flows from Genesis chapter three onward without firmly grasping the import of the creation narrative. I differ from the literalists in that I can accept a ritual or symbolic interpretation of Genesis chapters one and two and still hold firmly to the authority of the remainder of Scripture.

Did God create the universe? Yes. Did God create a literal Adam as a fully developed human, not an evolved animal? Yes. Did a literal Adam and Eve fall from grace through disobedience to God? Yes. Did all God's work in creation take 144 hours? Possibly. Or, just as possibly, God used the six plus one theme to set a standard for us to follow. He asks us to honor His right of ownership by devoting one day in six to Him, following the ritual pattern He laid out to Moses. This concept is so important to God that He included it in the ten most vital things He wanted us to know about our relationship with Him.

The second reason I choose to differ with the literalists is because they are not being consistent in their interpretation method. Inconsistency is ultimately a question of logic. I'm pretty sure all of the scholars I have heard defend the six day mantra also espouse pre-millenial eschatology. Coincidentally, defenders of this end times scenario also claim to be literalists. Yet when one tries to make sense of their argument, one must keep a friendly commentary close at hand to sort out just which passages or terms are actually literal and which figurative. The only consistency I have seen in their treatment is that they consistently choose a literal over a figurative reading except when only a figurative one will support their argument.

Two examples (there are hundreds) will illustrate what I mean. Apocalyptic literature is well laced with figurative language by its very nature. It also forms the core around which end times prophecy is built. Thus the literalists are bent up like pretzels trying to make sense of the figurative language. The interpretation of Daniel's vision by the angel in chapter 12 includes a timeline of a certain number of days. But the supposedly literal premillenial proponents insist that here days mean years. All the same markers exist in Daniel and Genesis, which should lead to a literal interpretation of days in Daniel, as in Genesis.

The second example I will note is in the twentieth chapter of Revelation, a cornerstone of apocalyptic literature for premillenials, the span of one thousand years is mentioned. It comes up in a passage so dripping with figurative language as to be almost surrealistic. Yet in this case, the premillenials pluck the number out of its context and demand a literal reading. This approach betrays a fundamental principle: Bible interpretation must remain consistent within the context. There is no logical reason to single out one aspect of a passage and apply different standards to it.

As I sit writing this, it is the first day of the week, the one day out of seven I choose to honor the Creator. I honor Him in this way in large part because He based His command to do so on the creation "week." I'm not even going to ask why the harsh literalists don't observe the sabbath as literally commanded (the sabbath being the seventh day, Saturday, not Sunday.) I believe everything about the redemption story as recorded in God's holy Word. Leaving open the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis' first chapter does nothing to hinder my complete acceptance of all Scripture as God-breathed and profitable in so many ways.

Neighborhood Reorganization

The other day Michelle said that until now (meaning until the age of Barak, I guess) people like her didn't have access to the White House. This sounds like her statement during the campaign when she said she had never been proud of America until the people recognized her husband's true potential. (That's my explanation of her statement.) She seems to be implying that they are the first to move into the neighborhood.

I am puzzled as to exactly what difference Michelle is seeing. Surely, this ivy league educated woman can't mean that people of color have not had access to the White House. She must know that Secretary of State Rice had both color and access. Ditto General Powell. She can't mean that those who agitate against the system have never had access; consider Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

How does Michelle see the age of Barak as something new? I think she means (though she would never say) that no one who hates America has ever listed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as their residence. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that no one with such complete disregard for the principles upon which America was founded has lived there. I can't see the hearts of Barak and Michelle, so "hate" may not be the right word.

One wonders, though, since Michelle and Barak spent twenty years listening to Pastor Wright, who preached consistently that America was so very wrong. "God damn America," would wake up most pew sitters, no matter how disinterested they had previously been. The Obamas were sincere enough about their faith (or the appearance thereof) to have Pastor Wright baptize their two girls. They were sincere enough about the mission of the church to donate $20,000 in one instance. (Although besides that one large gift, the Obamas are not so generous to charities.)

One wonders about whether "hate" might apply to the Obama heart when one considers the long term association with William Ayres. They worked with Mr. Ayres, socialized with him, held political events with him over a period of many years. Lest we too quickly forgive Bill Ayres for his anti-American past, we must read his recent statements that he has no regret over what he did in his past. Just remember the photo in a recent article showing him standing on the American flag.

A more subtle, but most telling association can be found in Barak's early interest in the radical Sol Olinsky. His book, Rules for Radicals, which young Barak read, seems to be forming the game plan for much of the new President's efforts. I am sure the Olinsky estate appreciates the newfound interest; the book is available on Amazon. Anyone curious about the mindset of someone who preaches social anarchy can read Olinsky and find direct links to the Obama technique.

But maybe Wright and Ayres and Olinsky hate America, and Michelle and Barak don't. Maybe down in their hearts they just want a different America. They want change; they told us that all through the long campaign to gain the White House. Maybe the people (we the people) have never been so disconnected from the founding fathers' vision. Maybe the entitlement mentality has only now infected enough minds for someone like the Obamas to rise to power. Maybe that is why no one like Barak and Michelle has been in the White House until now. Maybe things have changed. Maybe we won't know until 2010 whether the majority of the people are happy with the change.

Women in Church Leadership

Paul tells Timothy that women are not to have authority over men in the church because of a historical/ontological situation dating back to Genesis (I Timothy 2:12-14.) He does not cite cultural reasons, rather, he seems to be implying that the reason women are not to be in authority is rooted in the God-ordained differences in the roles of men and women, citing first the creation order (Adam was formed first) and then pointing out Eve’s deception by the serpent. If Paul’s concern were cultural as some infer, mentioning the place of women in 1st century society or even their separate seating arrangement (assuming they copied the Jewish synagogue,) he would not have needed to go to Genesis for his support. Were he interested in the cultural niceties, he could have used the arguments modern critics supply.

It is also interesting to note that the word translated “have authority over” is found no where else in the New Testament. The English words author and autocrat (those who act on their own authority) derive from the Greek word Paul chose. It also had rather severe connotations in early Greek writing, including the idea of murder or suicide and possibly sexual assault. Clearly, Paul used a word which implied domination or the usurpation of proper roles. In this light, it is easy to understand why Paul did not want women behaving in such a manner in the church. If one assumes that the proper role of women does not include leadership in the church, then Paul’s choice of this unusual word makes sense.

Support for the equality of women in church leadership is often drawn from another statement by Paul found in Galatians 3:28. In Galatians 3 the Apostle is emphasizing the oneness in Christ experienced by all those who come to Him in faith. As he compares three classes of believers, let us assume that parallels may be drawn between them. The first classes are Jews and Greeks. While his point in the preceding verses is well made that faith alone is the basis for salvation, he does well to point out that although he used the father of the Jews, Abraham, as his primary teaching example, in verse 28 he expands the concept of salvation by faith to Greeks (a code word for Gentiles or non-Jews.) It was not Abraham’s Jewishness which won God’s favor, but his faith. So to, Gentiles may achieve the same adoption as children of God through faith.
Likewise, Paul asserts a second pair of classes have similar advantages: bond and free. The bond to which Paul refers is clearly the economic slave of the first century, the Greek “doulos.” The free includes those who would be slave owners or masters. His point appears to be that faith places both slaves and masters in the same relationship with God, i.e. His adopted children. Since all Christians are slaves to Christ, the earthly distinction of master and slave (or freeman and slave) is erased in our heavenly position in Christ.

Finally, the third classes compared by Paul are male and female. Plainly, both men and women are brought into relationship with God through faith in Christ and they experience no distinction as spiritual children. All are one in Christ. And yet, we must see that the case Paul is arguing refers to believers’ position in Christ, and not their position in the world. One can not infer that the Jew relinquishes the benefits of his tradition. Although Paul himself regards his Jewish heritage as refuse compared to his knowledge of Christ, he nonetheless exalts the position of the Jews as bearers of the Scripture (Romans 3:2) and as the true olive tree onto which Gentiles are grafted (Romans 11:17) Similarly the slave remains in bondage to his human master because Paul never counsels him to break free of his earthly chains. On the contrary, slaves are told to continue to work respectfully for their masters. The slave, Onesimus, is sent by Paul back to his master, Philemon, to complete his servitude. Masters are never commanded to free their slaves. The earthly condition is not annulled by being in Christ.

If we are to maintain hermeneutical integrity, we can not assume that Paul meant to equate male and female in an earthly, societal sense, much less an ecclesiastical one. Jews and Greeks continue in their different cultural settings; slaves and masters stay deferentially related; male and female believers still operate under the constrictions of their ordained positions. Husbands remain the heads of their wives; men continue as the only appropriate leaders of the church.
It is for this reason that Paul can say, “The head of every man is Christ; the head of every woman the man; the head of Christ is God.” (I Corinthians 11:3.) It is noteworthy that in this context Paul again uses the creation order to support his position. The woman, he says in verses eight and nine, is created both of and for the man. By verse eleven he echoes his Galatian proposition that in the Lord, they are on similar footing: co-dependent, one might say. While men and women share a dependency on one another and upon God, there remains a distinction in marriage and in matters of church polity and practice. Headship does not grow out of cultural norms, but of created order.

Another argument for placing women in authority in the church is often drawn from the multitude of women reported in ministry in the New Testament. No one can deny that women are to be found in ministry, as well they should be. Every believer is given a ministry by the Holy Spirit upon his or her initiation into the family of God. Every believer receives a spiritual gift (I Corinthians 12:11;) every gift implies a ministry. Men and women alike are to minister in the body of Christ. The fact remains that there are no clear references to women in leadership roles in the New Testament or the early church fathers. If one assumes that the Holy Spirit was giving leadership gifts to women starting in the first century, then one would expect to find countless examples of women elders and pastors in the historical church literature. Such examples do not exist. The fact that a strong push for women in leadership did not arise until after the advent of the women’s liberation movement in the 20th century leads to suspicion that it is a recent idea and a safe conclusion that few if any women were called into leadership in the early church.

It is not from a lack of respect for women that some teach that they should not hold positions of authority in the church, but from a greater respect for the teachings of Scripture. If the biblical proscription of women leaders were cultural, one could argue that modern attitudes toward women trump Paul’s concerns. In fact Paul does not argue from the cultural order, but from the creation order. God saw a need to place men and women in the roles of head and helper respectively as recorded in Genesis chapter two. Sin, making its deadly entrance in chapter three did not create the roles, although it may have distorted God’s perfect purpose for them. Whatever his reasons for the roles, whether we can fathom them or not, our Creator’s design takes precedence over His creature’s desires.

The Fall as Death

I have become increasingly disturbed by the number of Christian authors and church leaders who express a muddled view of Biblical salvation. It is no wonder then, that the average person in the pew is confused as well. Semi-Pelagians will disagree with my Augustinian view of God’s sovereign role in the process. However, if we can agree to respectfully disagree on that issue, there remains a common need to be clear about the true plight of fallen humans and the real nature of sin.

Michael Wittmer’s book, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough proposes to answer some of the controversial questions of our day. By way of explaining his approach to the issues the author says, “But the most basic question, the one which determines to a large extent how we answer the others, is whether people are good or bad.” I believe statements like this one of Wittmer’s are misleading.

There is a more basic question than Wittmer asks. Goodness and badness are relative terms needing a standard from which to evaluate behavior. Problems arise immediately when we attempt to determine how good is good, or how bad is bad. Yet even this argument is specious because the Bible teaches throughout that no one is good enough to merit salvation. Being good or bad is not basic, but secondary to the real issues at hand.

The question that really determines how we answer the others is whether people are alive or dead. The Fall recorded in Genesis is referred to as death: “in the day you eat… you will die.” (Genesis 2:17) The death intended here is not a cessation of existence, rather a separation from God. Paul says humans are dead in sin, but made alive in Christ. He also calls us strangers and aliens separated from the life of God. (Ephesians 2:12, 19; 4:18

Humans don’t cease to exist when they die; they change their state of being. Note that theologians speak of the fallen state. The rebellion of Adam brought about the severance of his communion with God; the new state of existence for humans became one of separation from the Creator. The death Adam suffered was passed on to all his offspring; as the Apostle Paul explains, we inherit death from Adam and life from Christ (1Corinthians 15:22)

Discussing sin as behavior or action misleads; sin is state of being. Sin is a near synonym for death; to be in sin is to be dead. Getting saved is not as much about changing behavior as changing affiliation. To ask if homosexuals can be truly Christian misses the point. If we are not saved by our actions we are not unsaved by them either. This is not to say that sin is acceptable, but rather it is irrelevant to this discussion. Can a regenerated person sin? Clearly, yes. Can a regenerated person continue habitually in what he/she knows to be sin? Probably not. Why not? Because the attitude of rebellion (no remorse/repentance) indicates lack of regeneration.

Wittmer continues his explanation: “Because we start life totally depraved, it is easy to see why we need the dramatic rescue of regeneration. And since Scripture says that the Holy Spirit uses truth to do this job, it logically follows that only those who know and rely upon the basic facts of the gospel can be saved.”

Again, Wittmer misleads. “Depraved” is a theologian’s word; it is not frequently used in Scripture to describe fallen humans. The word “depraved” comes directly from a Latin word meaning to make exceptionally crooked or bent.. The idea of being bent leaves open the option to correct by straightening. Yet the Bible presents no such option for our condition post-fall. Humans don’t need straightening, they need remaking.

The Scripture word for our condition is “dead.” A dead person can’t know anything; a dead person can’t be corrected or bent back to life. The only cure for death is regeneration, a word meaning rebirth, just as Jesus told Nicodemus in John chapter three. Jesus told the Pharisee he had to be born a second time, from above to see or enter Kingdom. Jesus did not instruct his midnight pupil to study more to learn how to come to faith. In another place, in fact, Jesus told the friends of Nicodemus that they studied the Scriptures in vain, for He was revealed there not to them, but only to those of faith. (John 5:39-47) He implied that belief precedes saving knowledge.

Humans are not regenerated because they know something; they know something because they get regenerated. “There is no one that seeks after God…” (Romans 3:11) Scripture does not say that the Holy Spirit uses truth to regenerate us as Wittmer suggests. Scripture says that we cannot know or see or understand the truth until the Spirit regenerates us. Paul told the Corinthians that the carnal or natural (Greek: psychical) man can not understand the things of the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:14) We do not come to belief because we learn something we didn’t previously know; we learn things about God because we come to believe that He is and that He has previously sought, bought, and re-wrought us.

Salvation, in the final analysis, is a unilateral act of God saving human beings from death, i.e. separation from His presence eternally. Humans are born into this world “dead” because we are children of Adam. David said, “In sin my mother conceived me…” (Psalm 51:5) The only way to escape the fate of Adam’s curse (death) is to be reborn as a child of the Second Adam, Christ Jesus. Neither knowledge nor actions play any role whatsoever in the process of human rebirth through the Holy Spirit of God. We can not choose our spiritual birth parents any more than we can choose our physical parents. One is either in Adam or in Christ; either position is dictated by the sovereign will of God. (Romans 9)

All our bickering about behavior must be at the level of church discipline if corporate, or about fellowship with God if personal. Debating about certain sins as if they are relevant to salvation is to surrender the field to a faulty presumption. Let us have a healthy debate, but let us debate from right premises. The so-called post-moderns Wittmer cites in his book are really post- Christians because they are post-Biblical. A true reading of Scripture reveals that humans are not hell bound because they sin; they sin because they are hell bound. They are hell bound because they are dead. Our only meaningful offering to these lost ones is to make them aware that their Creator has provided an alternative. They must make the ancient choice: remain dead, or choose life through Christ. By God’s grace, through the gift of faith, the elect are enabled to choose life.

Living like Jesus is not enough, as Wittmer’s title suggests. Living in Jesus is the necessary and sufficient cause to warrant confidence of salvation. This condition is brought about by the effective work of the Holy Spirit and creates a state of being: being in Christ, as the Scripture puts it. It is not initiated by nor sustained by anything any human can do; “not by works, lest any one should boast.” (Ephesians 2:9) The question is not about doing, but about being.

Einstien Predicts the Existence of God

The title of this essay, looking as it does like a newspaper headline, is meant to sound dramatic. As far as I know, Albert was not particularly religious, nor did he ever make such a statement. What I mean to prove here is that his famous "discovery" of the theory of relativity itself has something to say about the possibility that God exists. It is my nature to look into the findings of science to uncover additional proofs for the postulate that a being of great intelligence and power not only exists, but can be seen to regularly interact with the events of our known universe. Because my own faith assumptions include the theory that the Bible is an accurate account of such a being's interactive existence, I am delighted when science "proves" one or another Biblical concept.

Before I get to the heart of the issue of relativity, I should take a moment to explain what I mean by "prove," and what exactly it is that Einstein did. Albert Einstein was, among other things, a theoretical physicist. One of the important activities of theoretical physicists is doing thought experiments. By this we mean that they observe the physical universe as it appears and theorize about why it behaves in a certain way. They then test their theories by imagining an experiment in which they operate in the imaginary universe according to their theory and imagine what the result would be. At approximately sixteen years of age, Einstein, for example, wondered what a beam of light would look like if he could run alongside it at the speed of light. It was this basic thought and ten more years of thinking which ultimately gave birth to the famous theory of relativity for which he is so widely recognized.

At first glance, any time spent ruminating about such an unlikely possibility would seem to be a waste of time -- daydreaming is what most would call it. This might seem particularly so in Einstein's 1905 when the fastest anyone could hope to go was that of a fast horse, say thirty miles per hour. But it isn't the actual performance of the thought experiment which lends it value. It is the ability of the imagined consequences in light of known physical laws to produce further theories regarding the behavior of the universe. It is these theories spawned in imaginary situations which populate the thinking of theoretical physicists and eventually trickle into "hard" science and thus into everyday life. The laptop computer on which I am typing this is a direct result of the application of the "theory" of relativity. So are microwave ovens, global positioning satellites and scores of other mundane items. (Yes, nuclear power and weapons also stem from this train of thought.)

Theoretical physicists state their conclusions in typical scientific fashion: if such and such is true, then so and so must result. Because of the "if" at the front of the sentence, the "result" at the end of the sentence is in the form of a probability. If I say for example that I am going to flip a coin into the air and it will land heads up, there is a one in two chance that I will be correct. In this simple "if" there are only two possible results: heads or tails. If I flip the coin one hundred times, it will land heads approximately fifty times and tails the remaining times. (I have to say approximately fifty because one hundred observations are not enough to say it will fulfill the statistical probability exactly.) So if I flip the coin, there is a fifty/fifty chance it will land heads up.

The more likely the "if," the more probable the "result." The "if" in Einstein's theory of relativity has been so convincingly proven to be true in the nearly one hundred years since he postulated it, that it would involve a massive shift in our basic paradigm of scientific understanding if it were ever proven wrong. Therefore, with such a strong "if," I feel confident in proceeding with my own thought experiment to test additional theories about the behavior of the universe. As long as I stay within the parameters of the rest of scientific knowledge, I can make assumptions about the universe with a fairly high degree of probability.

Before we get to my own experiment, however, I must give a rudimentary explanation of the theory of special relativity for those not already familiar with it. Contrary to popular assumption, Einstein's theory is not terribly difficult to state in such a way as to be understood by nearly anyone. It is the implications of the theory for physics which become increasingly complex as one delves deeper into them. The theory itself can be properly summarized to say that the laws of physics apply equally in any uniformly moving frame of reference. Or restated it says objects behave in accordance with the laws of motion no matter where the observer is as long as he is in a state of uniform motion. A simple inverse corollary to this statement would say that observers in different frames of reference will detect differences in the behavior of objects not moving in their frame of reference.

A simple thought experiment will suffice to demonstrate this aspect of the theory of relativity. Imagine you are tossing a tennis ball straight up and catching it again. From your perspective, you are standing still (at rest) and your environment is at rest around you. For our purposes, this is fulfills the requirement of a uniformly moving frame of reference: the motion at this point is none, or resting. You observe the ball travel straight up and then fall straight back into your hand. This behavior follows the laws of physics as you understand them. By applying force to the ball (throwing it,) you cause it to travel up until another force (gravity) causes it to stop and return to your hand. Nothing difficult to understand here.

For the sake of scientific precision, let us imagine you are a veteran tennis player so skilled that you can toss the ball up with exactly the same force on exactly the same path each time so that it travels exactly the same distance before being overcome by gravity. Further let us imagine that it is exactly one second between the time the ball leaves your hand until it falls back into your hand. You have become a human clock: "tick" is when you throw it up and "tock" is when it lands back in your hand. For each "tick-tock" of your clock, one second of time passes. Finally let us imagine the ball travels exactly three feet upward before being halted by gravity and returned to your hand. Thus we have a ball traveling at six feet per second (average speed for three up and three down.) As you observe the ball you see it going up and down, tick-tock at six feet per second each time you throw it.

Now lets imagine a second frame of reference. Now you are in a motor home traveling down the highway at seventy miles per hour. For the sake of this experiment, imagine a perfectly smooth, perfectly straight road with no hills or dips in the pavement. As you travel along at seventy miles per hour, you and your environment appear to be at rest. You can stand up or move about in the motor home without concern for the fact that you are in a frame of reference that is moving. This is because the movement is uniform. If the driver lurched to one side or slammed on the brakes, your peaceful sense of being at rest would be shattered very quickly. In fact if the brakes were applied hard enough it might be the windshield shattering as you passed through it.

Absent those sudden changes in movement, you could conduct yourself in the moving motor home as you would standing still on the side of the road. To pour yourself a cup of coffee you would not take the seventy mile per hour motion into account. You would hold the cup directly under the pot just as you would in your own kitchen. Because all the motion in the motor home is uniform, the laws of physics apply; this is Einstein's theory of special relativity.

If we were to conduct our human clock experiment in the moving motor home, we could duplicate the results we saw when standing still. You could toss the ball in the same tick-tock motion and keep the same time and speed observations. But imagine the motor home has a large window on one side and I am watching you from a point somewhere beside the road on which you are traveling? What would I see? Through the window as you passed by I would see you toss the ball up at one point and then catch it one second later at a point somewhere down the road. I would see the ball traveling not straight up and down, but following a curved path up from where you released it and back down to where you caught it. In fact, at seventy miles per hour, in the second it takes you to throw and catch the ball, you have moved over one hundred feet. From my frame of reference, the ball has traveled not six feet, but over one hundred and six feet. Since we know you are throwing the ball at the same speed as before in your frame of reference (six feet per second,) how do we explain the appearance that it traveled over one hundred feet from my frame of reference? (I warned you that the implications of special relativity would be complex.)

There seem to be only two possible explanations. Since we know the speed of the ball remains steady at six feet per second, either the time in the motor home slowed down to allow the ball to cover the distance required or the distance measure is different such that six feet equals over one hundred feet. I know this seems absurd at first, and I know that there is an obvious explanation which some in the audience have already reached. But let me make one more statement before I reveal the magician's sleight of hand I have used. Even though my proportions are hugely incorrect, the principle is correct as presented. Time and space are different quantities to observers in different frames of reference. This has been proven scientifically by flying highly accurate clocks at supersonic speeds and then comparing them to clocks left on the ground. The clocks in the jets came back a few billionths of a second behind the clocks that didn't move. The faster one goes, the greater the time discrepancy. (This phenomenon is know as time dilation.) If we could travel as fast as some significant fraction of the speed of light, we could begin to see the effects of time dilation on our everyday lives.

The reason my motor home experiment seemed to involve such a large time dilation can be seen by employing a third frame of reference. If you were in an Apollo spacecraft half-way to the moon and you looked back toward earth, it would be obvious that our "still" frame of reference on the side of the road was in fact moving at some speed up to one thousand miles per hour with the rotation of the earth. In addition, from the vantage point of the sun, you would see that the earth itself is moving some tens of thousands of miles per hour in its orbit around the sun's frame of reference. Hence, the seventy mile per hour difference between the moving motor home and the "still" observer was only a fraction of the thousands of miles per hour both were moving. This makes the time dilation in our very slow frame of reference so small as to be unnoticeable.

This completes the physics lesson for now. How does all of this "predict" the existence of God? I believe we can postulate that there is a frame of reference which is "at rest" relative to our known universe. The probability of such a thing is supported by the so-called "big bang" theory which follows from science steeped in the theory of relativity and itself ironically attempts to explain away the existence of a frame of reference from which our known universe might emanate. In fact, if the big bang did occur, it had to occur "somewhere", in some frame of reference. The universe as scientists now know it is expanding rapidly into that "somewhere" from its original bang. If one holds to the big bang theory, one must conclude that the universe has an outer limit, into which it is still expanding at its outermost reaches. In other words, the universe must have a boundary.

What is beyond the boundary? I conclude that it must be the same frame of reference in which the original big bang took place. Unless one takes the very unsatisfying position that the universe is infinite (an impossible position if one subscribes to the big bang theory,) it must have a boundary and that boundary must be infringing upon someplace "else." The theory of relativity instructs us that time and space are relative, so it is no stretch of the imagination to conceive of vastly different conceptions of them in an existence that is someplace "else." Furthermore, the big bang theory postulates that all of the elements which make up our universe were created in the super-energized instant of the bang and its subsequent interactions. It is again no stretch to imagine that "life" of some entirely different constituent elements might exist in that frame of reference somewhere "else." Nor is it impossible to imagine, finally, that a form of intelligence from that frame of reference somewhere "else" might have the capability to insert itself into our known frame of reference. It could be moving so fast or slow relative to us that we would not see it with our limited electromagnetic receivers (otherwise known as “eyes.”) It might have ways of communicating or otherwise interacting which we have no physical means of detecting. It might even be able to speed up or slow down to the point where it becomes physically measurable.

All of this is not only possible, but in my estimation, probable as a result of what Einstein's theory of relativity has taught us about our universe. When I realize that none of this need necessarily contradict the Bible, properly interpreted, I am the more impressed by the fact that the more we learn about the wonders of our universe, the closer we come to understanding the God who created it in the first place.