Happiness and Joy, Part Two

This is part two of my rebuttal of Randy Alcorn’s assertion that happiness and joy are used synonymously in Scripture. In part one I explained why I think the difference between happiness and joy is an important one. In this post I will present my evidence that the Bible makes a clear distinction between the two words. In his article “Is There a Difference Between Happiness and Joy?” Alcorn makes the bold statement that, “An ungrounded, dangerous separation of joy from happiness has infiltrated the Christian community.” After citing an example of this “dangerous separation,” he says, “Judging from such articles… you’d think the distinction between joy and happiness is biblical. It’s not.” He is wrong; the Bible makes a clear distinction between the two.

First I want to explain why I will only use the New Testament in this argument. There is an important hermeneutical (interpretative) concept that demands we interpret a less clear passage with a more clear one. In this instance, Alcorn uses numerous Old Testament passages to support his argument. While I agree that we can learn much about God from the Old Testament, we must always use the New Testament to clarify the Old.

There are several reasons why the New Testament gives a better picture of God than the Old. The Hebrew language of the Old Testament is far less precise than the New Testament Greek. Also, the idea of progressive revelation leads us to understand that God revealed more detail about himself and his creation in the New Testament. Finally, God’s interaction with his people is significantly different after the Cross than before Calvary. Many of the errors that exist in the church today are a result of misunderstanding this important difference.

Second I want to explain why Alcorn’s argument about the English use of happiness and joy is irrelevant. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Scripture to use certain words, and I believe there is a reason for each and every choice. Neither Noah Webster nor any of the translators of English versions of the Bible can make the claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, so their opinions matter little. The New Testament Greek is a very precise language, far more precise than English in many cases, and the best Bible interpretation must take into account how the Greek handles any subject.

Third, I want to refute Alcorn’s argument that using happiness and joy in the same context proves they are synonymous. Quite the contrary, side-by-side use argues for a difference of kind or degree; it makes little sense to apply two words with identical meanings to a situation. This would be like saying the weather is wet and damp; that would be needlessly redundant. However, if one says the weather is cold and damp, the purpose of using two words is obvious. I believe this is precisely the reason for a Scriptural usage of both happiness and joy, even when they appear in the same passage.

Alcorn is correct to note that many modern translations use happiness and joy almost interchangeably. However, this is not reflective of the original Greek; the Greek has two different words with distinct meanings: chara (χαρα) for “joy” and makarios (μακαριοs) for what might be called “happiness.” Chara appears 59 times and makarios 50 times. The King James Version (KJV) does the best job of maintaining this distinction. The KJV translates chara as joy or a cognate of joy 55 times and gladness three times. Of the 50 occurrences of makarios, the KJV uses “blessed” 44 times and “happy” or a cognate the other six. In other words, the translators of the KJV recognized the difference between the words and rendered them as different.

It is noteworthy that the KJV used “blessed” for makarios. The English word “blessed” well reflects the Greek sense of makarios. One cannot have blessed (hear how strange that sounds). One can only be blessed; it is a reflexive verb. When circumstances outside a person are pleasant, the person is blessed; the person may feel happiness. Curiously, happiness is also a type of word that requires something to happen outside one’s self. Happiness results from good happening. Read any of the verses in the New Testament where makarios appears, and you will find precisely this type of situation. (eg. Matthew 5:11-13; James 1:25; Luke 11:27-28)

Because of the reflexive nature of the verb makarios, it is patently obvious that it cannot be commanded. It is illogical to suggest that God would command his people to have circumstances that would bring about happiness. God in his sovereignty can do such a thing, but humans are often powerless to change their situations. In fact, God has been known to do just the opposite. Consider Moses on the “backside of the desert,” or Jonah inside the whale, or Paul with his “thorn in the flesh.” It may be uncomfortable for Alcorn and others like him to admit, but God does not always orchestrate things for our happiness. God’s strength was shown in Paul’s unhappiness; Nineveh repented due to Jonah’s unhappiness; the Israelites discovered a strong leader following Moses’ unhappiness. God will be glorified with or without human happiness; it is his choice, not ours.

Chara or joy on the other hand can be commanded, and it is. I said in my previous post that I hesitate to call joy an emotion because I believe it is a spiritual state, and emotions reside in the soul, not the spirit. Certainly our joy can bubble over into an emotion, since our human condition is inseparably and mysteriously connected soul with spirit. But the strange irony is that we humans can experience sorrow and joy simultaneously. When my 33 year old sister succumbed to cancer and left a husband and four children behind, her funeral was heart-wrenching, yet we were peaceful and occasional laughter was heard as we rejoiced in the fact that she had been relieved from her suffering and was with Jesus.

Read the Bible verses that contain the word joy and you will see that it is not anything that could be called happiness. Peter and James admonish believers to have joy knowing that trials and suffering will be inevitable. It would be sick on the level of psychotic to say that we should be happy to suffer unless we recognize the joy that awaits our patience. Suffering does not bring happiness; knowing we can suffer and be carried through the suffering by the power of the Spirit and our hope in God brings joy, but not happiness. Even secular psychologists caution against seeking happiness indiscriminately, warning of a “shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life.” This sounds very much like Solomon’s estimate of such things as vanity.

It is ironic that Alcorn advocates for an emotional experience from the platform of Eternal Perspective Ministries. The true eternal perspective eschews emotional experience in favor of the spiritual. Perhaps Alcorn does not recognize the difference between the spirit and the soul, much as he ignores the difference between joy and happiness. This mistake is not insignificant. The web page touting his book, Happiness, says, “Christians are supposed to be happy…. this book is a paradigm-shifting wake-up call for the church and Christians everywhere.” His book does indeed shift the biblical paradigm; it shifts it from truth to falsehood.

It is unkind and unbiblical to claim as Alcorn does that God wants his people happy without qualification. God created the universe perfect and placed his human vice-regent in charge. Sadly, Adam rejected his proper role in that perfect world where happiness would have been the normal state and cast all humanity into the state of sinful unhappiness we now know as normal. Until Eden is restored, happiness is transitory and dependent on things mostly out of our control. Certainly we can have moments of happiness, but the Sovereign God dictates when those moments occur; we can only do what we are required to do and hope for the best on earth while sharing our joy with men of good will. Once heaven is realized, happiness and joy will be co-eternal for all God’s chosen.

Happiness and Joy, Part One

Here I am again, finding myself in a dispute with a well-known Christian author over an issue that many people would call trivial; some would even say it’s pointless. Being the semantic purist that I am, I naturally disagree. Words mean things, and Scripture word meanings have eternal consequences. In this case the dispute is whether happiness and joy are the same thing as far as the Bible usage is concerned. Randy Alcorn thinks so; I think not.

The publisher’s blurb for Alcorn’s latest book goes like this: “In God’s Promise of Happiness, bestselling author and noted theologian Randy Alcorn shares select passages and scripture from his latest hardcover release, Happiness, that provide insight, wisdom, and proof positive that God not only wants us to be happy, he commands it!” My dispute with this assertion centers on Alcorn’s conflation of two distinct words, two separate concepts within Scripture: joy and happiness. In interviews posted on his web site, Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM), Alcorn has repeatedly stated that he believes the two words are interchangeable. I disagree.

Before I refute Alcorn’s “proof positive” that joy and happiness are the same, I will explain why this is not just a trivial argument over the translation of a couple words. The Great Commission calls us to bring the light of the Gospel to a dark world. In bringing this light to a post-modern culture that doubts the very existence of truth, it is imperative that we relate the truth revealed in Scripture with extreme care. Sloppy exegesis leads to inaccurate portrayals of God’s eternal truth. There is no passage in the Bible properly translated that suggests God wants people happy, let alone that He commands it. Telling people they must be happy is not only misleading, it is cruel.

The question arises how Alcorn, an otherwise responsible Bible expositor, can make such an erroneous claim. He can make such a claim because he fails to distinguish between two different Greek words used throughout the New Testament for joy and happiness. God does desire that His people have joy; it is one of the benefits of grace, also called a fruit of the Spirit. Nowhere does Scripture command believers to have happiness or to be happy. Even in our English language it is easy to see why happiness cannot be commanded. Happiness is a result of circumstances; happiness happens to one rather than one having happiness. We can have joy, but we are made happy; it is a reflexive type word, something done to us or for us rather than something we possess.

The Greek use of these two words in the New Testament bears this out completely. The word for joy (chara) appears 59 times in the Greek Testatment; the word rendered happy by modern translators (makarios) appears 50 times. The Greek makarios is translated “blessed” 44 times by the King James Version (KJV). This older usage is closer to the Greek meaning than our modern “happy.” To be blessed (again note the reflexive nature of the word) is to have something done to us. It is the result of things happening outside ourselves. Chara, on the other hand, is a state of being; it is something a person can possess. Chara is never rendered as “happy” by the KJV, nor should it be.

I mentioned that misconstruing happiness for joy is cruel. I say this because happiness results from our circumstances which are very often completely out of our control. It would be cruel to tell a young mother who has lost her husband that she must be happy. Being happy in that situation would be entirely unexpected (unless the husband was abusive). However, that suffering mother can have joy in her time of loss because she knows there is a greater purpose for her life, and there is a greater goal than happiness in this world. Here we reach the crux of the issue.

The bottom line to me is that these two words have different meanings in the original language of Scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit. It clouds the understanding of God’s Word to make two different words synonymous. For my part, I believe that happiness is an emotion that results from positive circumstances and resides in the human soul. It is healthy, and our loving Father desires that we attain it when appropriate. Joy, on the other hand, is a spiritual concept (I hesitate to use “emotion”) which exists deeper within the “inner man,” and it is not dependent upon outside circumstances. The Spirit gives us inner joy in all circumstances; happiness is dependent upon that which occurs around us.

In my next post I will go into greater detail to refute Alcorn’s assertion that joy and happiness are synonymous. At this point I would simply say that confusing happiness with joy and then expecting it of all believers is akin to the prosperity preachers saying that God wants every believer healthy and wealthy. There simply is no proof of that in Scripture. (For more on this see Abraham's Promises.) Quite the contrary, we are commanded to be content in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, rejoicing, having joy, even in our want (Philippians 4). That sounds like a distasteful message to foist on a needy world, but the truth is that joy is eternal; happiness lasts only for the moment. For Randy Alcorn and Eternal Perspective Ministries, that appears to be ironically unimportant.

A Route 66 Adventure

Trip Log: Twin Lake, Michigan to Mesquite, Nevada.

We left Twin Lake in the rain and dark about 8:00 a.m. on Monday, December 14. After a quick stop at McDonald’s for breakfast, we hit the highway. It continued to rain off and on all day, and the wind picked up out of the southwest eventually blowing hard on the nose – so much for the fuel mileage. We slid across 80-94 in Indiana to I-65 south.

Being Good Sam Club members, we have a substantial discount when we use the Flying J/Pilot fuel card, so we were planning the trip around that brand as much as possible. The first fuel stop was in Dimwiddie (cute name), Indiana so that we would have enough fuel to make it across Illinois. At Roselawn we left the “big road” behind to cut across to Kankakee, Illinois. There we grabbed I-57 south to Champaign, and then I-70 west. We had chosen not to take the time to find Route 66 in Illinois, although there are a number of interesting sounding sites. We wanted to get to a spot where we could hook up the trailer and de-winterize in preparation for living aboard.

We spent the first night shivering in Cahokia, Illinois (suburb of East St. Louis) at an “urban” campground nestled among freight yards and commercial properties. It was colder on our first night out than when we left Michigan. (This would be a portent of worse to come.)  I wouldn’t recommend Cahokia RV Parque as a destination, but the Sawmill BBQ restaurant on-site is fabulous. We shared a half-rack and a couple sides and were very pleased: yum! If I am ever driving through the area at mealtime in the future, I would make this stop again just for the ribs. It’s really easy-off easy-on from the Interstate.

After a side-trip to a park where we could snap a picture of the Arch, we headed across the Mighty Mississippi into St. Louis, Missouri. We chose to skip a number of downtown Route 66 options in favor of a west side beginning. We connected with Route 66, “The Mother Road” in the suburbs and found it underwhelming for many miles – the Route 66 corridor is four-lane stop-and-go commercial for miles and miles. Nothing to see here, so at Gray Summit we reconnected with I-44 and skipped down to Cuba, MO.

The town of Cuba has some really neat murals on many buildings and a fully restored Phillips 66 station. Taking a left onto the Route again, we went to Fanning for a look at the world’s largest rocking chair (according to Guinness – the record book, not the stout). There’s also a neat mural on the shop there.

From the giant chair we continued down Route 66 into St. James. We had hoped to visit the wine museum at Rosati, but they were closed for the season. The winery/tasting room at St. James was open, however, and we found two cool Route 66 hats to add to the collection (there may have been a bottle or two of wine purchased as well).

Because the sun was getting low, we jumped back on I-44 and boogied down to Sarcoxie, MO for a stop at the Beagle Bay RV Park. We got in after the office was closed, but the owner gave us all the help we needed over the phone, so we set up for the night. We considered a fire under the stars, but the bed sounded better, so we packed it in for night two.

Day three may be one of my favorites. From Joplin, MO we took the Mother Road into Kansas, the state with the dubious distinction of having the fewest miles of Route 66. They may be few, but they are loaded with interesting attractions. My favorite was the town of Galena. The people have embraced their 66-ness in a big way. Besides having a quaint downtown restored to 30-ish style, there is a gas station on the outskirts with the truck that inspired film-maker, John Laseter, to create Tow Mater for the movie CARS.

The very friendly owner of the coffee shop in town told us that Baxter Springs, just down the Route, was the inspiration for CARS’ Radiator Springs and a local character who can turn his feet completely backwards gave Lasseter the idea to have Tow Mater run in reverse much of the time. He also told us to look for the Field of Dreams ballpark built for that movie when we headed into Oklahoma.

Because we were headed for a lakeside campground for the night, we wanted to get in early enough to enjoy the sunset (at four-something), so we bypassed the Route and made our way down I-44 to the 66 cut-off into Arcadia, Oklahoma. The City of Edmond keeps a really nice campground on Lake Arcadia where we pulled into a shoreline site just in time to watch the sun set over the lake while enjoying a couple adult beverages.

Night four in Arcadia was our first time without a full hook-up site, so I attempted to fill the water tank on our way in. As it happens, this was the first time we tried to use the on-board water supply, and I proved myself not up to the task. I connected the hose to what I thought was the filler and pumped away merrily until I thought we had enough for the night. When we switched the pump on, however, it spit and sputtered nothing but pink foamy winterizing antifreeze. This was fitting in a way since the temperature was dropping fast outside.

Thinking something was wrong with the system, we called a Shasta dealer in Oklahoma City in the morning and arranged for a service stop. What I learned was embarrasing; I had connected the water hose to the black water flush-out instead of the fresh water fill. Once they actually filled the tank, the system functioned perfectly. Looking back, my stupidity may have saved us a broken water line because there was heavy frost on the windshield that morning. Water in the trailer lines might have frozen overnight had they been filled. I often repeat the saw that God watches over fools and Englishmen, and I am both.

Leaving Okla City, we took I-40 to Elk City, Oklahoma where the National Route 66 Museum is located. Our guide book said this was a must-see, and we agree. Whereas every hamlet and town along the Route claims some kind of museum, the one at Elk City is worth the price of admission ($4 for seniors). They have four different subject specific buildings and a restored (transported) town square from the Mother Road heyday. If it hadn’t been snowing (that’s right, snowing), we would have spent more time. As it was, we wanted to get on the road and find the warmth we were snow-birding for.

With time and distance in mind, we climbed back on I-40 and headed for Amarillo, Texas. Worried about freezing water lines (again), we wanted a full hook-up site to get heat in the trailer to protect the lines. I ran the generator outside with a space heater under the trailer and furnace cooking inside, so we made it through the night. For dinner we ate at The Big Texan, following the theme of “giant alerts” in our guide book. As a bonus, they had a shuttle that took us right from our site in Amarillo RV Ranch to the restaurant. Everything there was big, including the prices, but the food was excellent, and the atmosphere was worth a couple extra bucks. (If you can eat 72 ounces of steak and all the trimmings in one hour, they will give it to you for free.)

 But what a disappointment: here we’re in Texas and freezing. The forecast for our next stop in Albuquerque was still sadly cold, so we shelved the Route 66 plans and decided to make a run for the thaw. We hit the road on that fifth day around 8 a.m. and I drove pretty much straight through until 2 a.m. Saturday when we hit Kingman, Arizona and temperatures above freezing. Because Route 66 parallels I-40 very closely, we did see a number of the sites mentioned in our guide book right from the Interstate. This was not exactly what we planned, but then neither was the temperature.

We slept in the Petro Truck Stop until 8 a.m. and had breakfast at the Iron Skillet; as truck stop restaurants go, this isn’t too bad in my experience. With breakfast over and a souvenir cactus garden in hand, we fueled up and headed up Arizona  Route 93 to Las Vegas, Nevada. We had to leave the remainder of Route 66 for another trip, since our final destination was calling us “home” for the winter. We slid past Hoover Dam and Las Vegas in a final run to Mesquite, Nevada, and pulled into Desert Skies RV Resort around 2 p.m. Mountain Time (we think).

 We are on the Time Zone and state border; Arizona is Mountain Time and Nevada is Pacific. The park we are in is literally ON the border of Arizona and Nevada, so we are setting our clocks to Pacific time to coordinate with the town where we will be shopping and dining  when Karen says the menu reads “Reservations.” As I write this, the clock says 4:20 (no jokes, please) and the sun is setting. We had a great adventure on the Mother Road, but missed enough to make another attempt worth trying. Maybe next year.

What Price Freedom?

Something floated across my Facebook wall the other day that scared me. It was an image of two women in burkas with a caption that read, “This has no place on American soil.” There are several ways to take that statement, but only one rings true for me. If the person who wrote the caption means that no women in America should be subjected to repressive behaviors, I can agree. No person anywhere in the world should be demeaned, diminished or degraded by an oppressive element in society. If the message was supposed to be about the freedom on the human spirit, I say amen.

That was not the first message that came to my mind. In the climate surrounding the Syrian refugee crisis and another Islamic terror attack in the US, I would wager that most people who saw the image of Muslim women in traditional dress thought otherwise. The first thing I thought was that radical Islamic ideology has no place on American soil. This led me to consider just what “radical” means when applied to religious ideals.

The burka represents one facet of Sharia law, a widely held system of rules which regulates Muslim behavior. Sharia is understood to be divine guidance for life on earth drawn from the Quran and other Islamic holy writings.  In America we have a similar situation with people who take biblical instruction about life more radically than others: the Amish – the Hassidic Jews. The only difference I can see is that there are no factions of Mennonites or Jews vowing to destroy America and create a world-wide religious government like the Islamic Caliphate.

I think we need to be very careful how we react to radical religious practices no matter what system they are based on. We would do well to remember the words Martin Niemöller, a Christian pastor who lived during the Nazi period in Germany:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The ruling by the Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage has placed many believers in a tough spot. Our belief that marriage is intended by God to be the union of a man and a woman has become “radical” according to many in America. Preaching the biblical injunction against homosexual behavior has been labeled hate speech. Teaching chastity until marriage is considered outdated by most of society. The biblical injunction to apply corporal punishment to our children has effectively been outlawed in some jurisdictions. Bible-believing Christians are slipping gradually into the “radical” class in America.

If America is to remain the bastion of religious freedom it has been for over two centuries, we might have to get used to seeing burkas as long as the religion that they represent is not violating anyone’s fundamental rights. Protecting the Muslim right to practice their faith protects my right to do the same. I don’t necessarily like it, but I don’t see any other way. Freedom for all, or freedom for none.

Pilgrims' Progression

The President of the Divided States of America (as he sees it) has made another gaff (as I see it). In Obama’s Thanksgiving address he compared the Syrian refugees to the Pilgrims: just a bunch of troubled people yearning to be free, so he says. My immediate reaction was to disagree: the Pilgrims were a peace-loving group; they were not driven from their homes by violent military force. Although they did experience a level of persecution, they were not being murdered daily for their beliefs. They  made intentional plans for their future relocation and paid for transportation to a place where they intended to start a new life supported by their own labor.

My first thought was discount the comparison of Pilgrims with Syrian refugees altogether. The Pilgrim’s plan was to start anew with a set of rules they believed were necessary to the proper arrangement of society. They wanted it based on the principles of their religion. They wanted civil government that mirrored their religious beliefs. If you reread those last three sentences and replace “Pilgrim” with “Muslim” there is a frightening likeness.

When I saw the similarity, I began to see things differently. Perhaps Obama was right. Perhaps the Syrian refugee situation is more like the Pilgrims’ than I realized at first. The Pilgrims landed in territory occupied by an established society which had divided opinions about whether to accept the “refugees” or drive them away. The Pilgrims forced their way onto a beachhead and defended their stand with the language of divine right. Eventually the European settlers who followed the original Pilgrims drove the indigenous people from their ancestral lands and claimed them for their own.

How like the current situation in Paris, France or Dearborn, Michigan or Minneapolis, Minnesota this is. Muslim pilgrims have taken over large segments of real estate in Western cities and planted civil/religious communities which have become colonies of sovereign Muslim settlement. Sharia law dominates in these areas almost completely. The police in these cities have for all practical purposes abandoned these zones to the Muslim pilgrims. While this may not be what Obama was trying to say, it sounds like a reasonable comparison to me.

There is one contrast that is quite stark: the Native Americans who faced the Pilgrims were technically backward compared to the invading Europeans. Quite the opposite, we have the technological superiority over the “invading” Muslims, but their crude ways can be strikingly effective. Simply hijack a plane, for example, and fly it into a building. Or build a simple bomb and leave it on a train. It is proving difficult to thwart this intrusion with technology; we must fight it with policy.

If the American natives had favored a policy less like Massasoit in his original acceptance of the invaders from Europe and more like his son, Metacom, who tried to resist with force, perhaps the Pilgrim landing would have been a disaster instead of a miracle of survival. If the tribes of the Eastern coastal regions of America had stood together against the Europeans, perhaps the wave of immigration from Europe could have been thwarted or at least substantially delayed. 

I am not suggesting that as Christians we should take up arms against any refugees, Syrian, Mexican, Cuban, who legitimately seek refuge here. As individual Christians, as the Church of Christ, we have the example of the Good Samaritan; we have Jesus Himself. But as a nation, we have a culture to protect and preserve by whatever means, practical and moral, we can devise. (For more see Man the Lifeboats) What I would propose sounds horribly un-politically-correct: accept a predetermined number of immigrants year by year who pledge to assimilate. By this I mean learn English, obey the laws, and respect the beliefs of others. The great American melting pot experiment has only worked because assimilation was the goal. We cannot be African-American, Mexican-American or Muslim-American; we must all be -Americans.

We will never know what might have resulted had the Americans who greeted the Pilgrims adopted a different policy position. However, from Metacom to Tecumseh to Sitting Bull there were “Americans” who doubtless regretted their ancestors’ actions. Their society was overrun and ultimately destroyed. I hope our great grandchildren don’t have similar regrets.

The Supreme? Court

Now that the furor over the Supreme Court's decision to mandate gay marriage in all states has died down, it may be possible to have a thoughtful discussion. My position on this issue may aggravate some believers, but I am convinced I am right. There are several ways to approach the topic that may engender debate.

First a fantasy: since the state must recognize a private opinion about who can be called man and wife, shouldn’t they also recognize a private opinion about who is my brother? The gays insisted they needed the institution of marriage for legal purposes such as IRS filing, hospital visitation and inheritance laws. The same kind of distinction is made by law concerning familial transactions. The passing of guns and other property as well as inheritance issues differ for family members as opposed to non-family. As co-adoptees of our Heavenly Father, I think we should have familial privileges. The fact that this means I married my “sister” shouldn’t bother anyone, given the latest redefinition of marriage, right?

Seriously though, I don’t see how Christians can argue against the Supreme’s right to mandate anything they can support from the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison set the precedent long ago that the Court determines what laws are Constitutional. If the people of any given state try to make a law that violates the US Constitution, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of the dispute. Never mind that numerous states have passed laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman only. The Supreme’s have declared those laws unconstitutional.

The real debate here is whether the Supreme Court has gone off the reservation in their recent interpretations of the Constitution. Forget “recent” and consider the 1973 Court decision that gave the right to murder children in utero. The Court has “discovered” all sorts of “rights” that defy traditional reasoning. I have no problem with Miranda rights, but that is just the tip of the iceberg of criminal rights. If there is a pendulum in that arena, it has swung too far off center.

The latest spate of dubious opinions from the Supremes casts doubt on the wisdom of Marbury. It creates a situation where five people can dictate the “meaning” of various principles of Constitutional law. The nonsense that came from the Court’s decision on the Obamacare state mandate and now gay marriage makes one wish for another way. The governor of Texas has made a start. After the Court decision on gay marriage, he announced that no one in State government would be required to force a fellow-Texan to violate their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religious beliefs. He may have done little more than tee up the next Supreme Court “interpretation,” but I say bring it on.

The Bible is full of admonitions to submit to the powers and give honor to whom it is due. It also says that we must obey God rather than man. The believers’ “supreme court” does not meet in Washington DC; it is held in an entirely different venue. Christian wedding planners and bakers may find themselves in awkward situations from time to time, but so far no one is being forced into a same-sex marriage or to abort a child. These unfortunate decisions are being made by people who think the Supreme Court has given them license; what they don’t realize is that they will answer to THE Supreme Judge one day. As believers we must continue to stand for what we believe and warn of the coming judgment. Oh, and love them all, from the Bench on down.

Stupitegrity

I know the title is not a word; I made it up. It represents my feelings about the "stupid" concept of "integrity." I shall explain. Being stupid is like being ignorant except that it's willful. There are times when one must choose to be ignorant of the consequences of one's actions. Practicing integrity of character can frequently bring on that situation. There are times when integrity demands the submission to certain rules or standards when the results are unknown. This is "stupitegrity."

Case in point: I bought a car from a private party and the Secretary of State wanted to know what I paid for it so the transaction can be taxed.  (I will reserve the rant about the Governor getting between private party sales for now.) I have been in this situation before, and I had a conversation with the nice lady behind the counter. She said politely that neither she nor the Governor cared what I paid for the vehicle; she just needed a number to report for tax purposes. Knowing that six percent of my answer would be going to Lansing, I really struggled with my answer.

My through-the-Bible reading schedule has me in the Gospels right now, so I am continually having those WWJD moments. “Hand me that title,” Jesus says. Looking at it he asks, “Whose name is on the document?” “The State of Michigan,” I respond. “Then render unto Snyder that which is Snyder’s, and unto God that which is God’s.” Then he turns away and leaves me to do what integrity demands… stupitegrity.

I might easily “get away with” saying I paid five hundred for the five thousand dollar car. But here’s what haunts me: when I ask God to bless the cattle in my fields, which in today’s world are Fords and Chevys or Deeres and Mahindras, can I honestly expect a blessing when I have not been obedient? I do not believe in the “Christian” version of karma which so many preachers shout about these days. Do good and your cars run great; do bad and get mechanical difficulties out the wazoo. I do however believe that I cannot live with myself if I “cheat” Caesar and expect the best from God. Stupitegrity.

Or on a far more serious level, a Christian marriage involves the expression of certain vows. When two love birds go all google-eyed and promise to love and cherish and all that, "for better or worse... etc," they have no idea what integrity might demand of them down the road. Too many marriages crash and burn because of a lack of integrity – they don’t take the vows seriously. Burn my toast once too often and you’re outta here, Baby. But I think of the guy who watches his wife descend into early Alzheimer’s or MLS or whatever and he stays by her side cherishing, honoring… that’s stupitegrity.

And there are encounters like this every day. You may call me simple, naïve, or even stupid, but this is what I think it means for a believer to have integrity. I recall reading something else Jesus said: “If you’re honest in small things, you’ll be honest in big things; if you’re a crook in small things, you’ll be a crook in big things. If you’re not honest in small jobs, who will put you in charge of the store? No worker can serve two bosses: he’ll either hate the first and love the second, or adore the first and despise the second. You can’t serve both God and the Bank.” (Luke 16:10-13 The Message) Stupitegrity.

Abraham's Promises = Solomon's Rules

As I was reading Ecclesiastes this morning it occurred to me that Solomon’s advice to those “under the sun” applies to people today who want the promises of Abraham in their lives. Maybe I should back fill that: I have always contended that the “prosperity gospel” preached by modern charismatics (mostly) is an attempt to apply the promises made to Abraham to Christians.  Prosperity preachers love to cite the blessings of obedience from Deuteronomy as their basis for claiming material wealth. What this position ignores is the fact that Christians are under a new covenant, one described by the writer of Hebrews as a “better covenant with better promises.”

The old covenant was an earthly covenant: land, progeny, prosperity in the physical realm. The entire account of God’s dealing with a physical people, from Abraham through the eventual nation of his descendants, was intended as a picture, an illustration of God’s principles of interaction with His creation. Paul says as much to the Corinthians. We are supposed to take lessons from the Israelites specifically so that we will not make the same mistakes they did. Yet here we are, focusing on the material things God can do rather than on the condition of the heart.

To understand what is better about the Christians’ promises, one need only look at Solomon’s view of life “under the sun.” He declared that all his wisdom and wealth amounted to vanity or fruitlessness because there was nothing gained beyond this world “under the sun.” No matter what you amass here, Solomon learned, it all passes on to someone else when you die. All men, rich or poor, wise or foolish meet the same fate: Sheol. As far as Solomon knew, that meant annihilation: cessation of existence. He knew nothing of a New Heaven, a New Earth or new anything after life; his concept was pretty much Old Testament dogma: when you die, it’s over.

Enter Jesus Christ who emphasized the Resurrection and the resurrection. It is interesting to note that one subject that repeatedly got Paul into trouble with the Jews and Greeks alike was the resurrection. Life after life is a controversial subject. But the issue I am talking about is life before the afterlife. It is my contention that Jesus’ whole point was that His Kingdom is not of this world. The disciples wanted to know when He would usher in His kingdom (They were picturing lands and thrones.); He told them to go to Jerusalem and wait.

What came of their wait was the Holy Spirit initiation of the church on Pentecost: the kingdom come. If the original twelve Apostles are any measure, material prosperity was not in the plans; tradition says they all died martyr’s deaths (except John) in material poverty. Many, if not most, of the early Christians were from the “lower classes” of society. James asks, “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom?” When Jesus told Pilate His kingdom was not “of this world,” He pretty much excluded getting rich as one of His priorities. Riches, as Solomon rightly noted, are “of this world.”

So as I said, Christians looking for material prosperity today are looking for Abraham’s promises; those who seek Abraham’s promises are bound by Solomon’s rules. I believe those promises would fall under the “vanity” description of Solomon, which means they should be meaningless to true believers, a “striving after the wind.” Jesus framed Solomon’s conclusion like this: “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” Solomon for all his wisdom did not understand that; he promised nothing beyond this world “under the sun.”

I prefer Jesus’ promise: “My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” Abraham will be there too, and Solomon, and they will be joined by the surprised prosperity preachers when they finally recognize the “better promises” really are better after all.

The New Downey Version

I joined 9.5 million viewers watching A.D. The Bible Continues last week and again last night. Producers Roma Downey and Mark Burnett have crafted a passable story line that draws on Scripture, but it has a few features that bother me slightly. It is not surprising that the story would be juiced up a bit, given Burnett’s filmography. The creator of such big reality shows as Survivor and Apprentice can’t be expected to simply stage what really happened according to the Bible. No one believes his other shows are not somewhat inventive when it comes to the “reality” part of reality TV.

In principle I have no quarrel with adding imaginative features to a Bible record to make it come alive. I did exactly that in my novel, Wings of Mentridar (out of print but available digitally on Amazon). The difference between my inventions and Burnett’s may be minor, but I find them significant. I took what little we know about the biblical account of Noah and added details that seemed plausible without contradicting the Scriptural facts. Even though I invented an entire angelic universe to go along with Noah, I strove to keep it aligned with what we know from Scripture.

Downey and Burnett have taken a half a step away from that position, in my opinion. There are three features of A.D. that bother me. First is making Pilate and Caiaphas central to the story. I did not put a stopwatch on it, but I would estimate that the political interplay of those two leaders filled far more screen time than the acts of the Apostles. I understand the need to fill a back story, but if screen time is money, too much was spent on fictional background and too much left out of the true story. Some vitally important biblical facts were omitted: for example, one would assume that Jesus only appeared after his resurrection twice briefly to the Apostles in the upper room. No mention is made of his dozens of appearances to a total of hundreds of people.

The second feature of the film with which I take issue is the prominent place given to women in every relationship. Outside of the biblical record, history teaches that women were not regularly involved in the political and religious decisions of the day, Cleopatra and a few others excepted. Pilate and Caiaphas are both badgered by intrusive wives. Given either Jewish or Roman culture of the day, this seems unlikely. Even Peter is strongly influenced by an imagined daughter, his wife having died, according to the script of A.D. There is nothing wrong with thinking women were players in a patriarchal society on some level, but the prominence given by Downey/Burnett smacks of feminist revisionism.

Another interesting bit of possible revisioning is making the Apostle John a black man. It is not impossible that Jesus could have found dark skinned men in Palestine to form part of his original twelve. There are specific instances of black men mentioned in Acts, most notably in 13:1 where a disciple named Simeon was “called Niger” which is Latin slang for black man. Also, the regions from which people gathered for the Passover as listed in Acts 2 include areas that could well have had blacks among the population. My difficulty with a black Apostle is only that I believe for theological reasons Jesus would have specifically called sons of Abraham and not sons of Ishmael (assume if you like that Hagar was a black woman). There is really no need to “color” the players in the Bible; truth be told, they would all be people of color by today’s standards, Jesus included.

There are those who will say I am picking at nits. They may be right. If Downey and Burnett were not cutting out so much we know is true and replacing it with things that are pure speculation, I would be less uncomfortable. The teller of any story presumes to share only that which supports the theme; the Bible itself is like that. The apostle John admits that endless books could have been written about Jesus; he made editorial choices to limit his tome. My beef with A.D. is that it left too much meat on the bone and served up too much fluff.

Outdoor Education Appeal

Full disclosure: this is a fund raising appeal. I belong to an organization called the Muskegon Environmental Research and Education Society (MERES). We operate the Muskegon Lake Nature Preserve on the east end of the lake. MERES has been working on the Preserve for almost twenty years, and we now want to sharpen our focus and broaden our appeal.

First some history: anyone who has been around Muskegon for long remembers when the Port City Princess used to dock on Lake Ave in North Muskegon. There was a boat launch ramp and a bait shop there for quite a few years. Just east of there was a piece of lakeshore where road crews, foundries and unidentified citizens dumped their rubbish. In 1996 the effort to reclaim the dump was begun by a group of dedicated visionaries. The beautiful Preserve people enjoy today is the result of years of committed volunteer work and generous financial support by individuals and groups who caught the vision of the early pioneers.

Those men and women who built the Preserve understood the value of an outdoor experience. I was fortunate to have a father who built us a family cottage on a lake where we could enjoy the Michigan water wonderland. He took me salmon fishing and deer hunting and sailing and passed on his love of the outdoors. I also had the pleasure of roaming the fields and woods around our suburban home. There are many young people right here in Muskegon who are not as lucky as I was. My wife taught in a local school district where many of her sixth graders had never seen Lake Michigan, let alone gone sailing or fishing.

The latest research shows that children who regularly experience the outdoors in a meaningful way are healthier and happier. It is not uncommon after a day in the outdoor classroom at the Preserve to hear young students remark that it was the best day of their life. Environmental education is not just enjoyable, it is essential to maintain a force for conservation and preservation in the next generation. A day at the Preserve sparked an interest in one young lady that carried through to a career in environmental education. Many others simply learn that peace and tranquility can be found by stepping into a small bit of nature preserved for their benefit.

This is our cause; this is why MERES exists. We have been able to do this for thousands of people, young and old, every year for two decades. Now we want to do more. Many people who enjoy the Muskegon Lake Nature Preserve think it is a public park funded by public dollars. Only a few of those who experience the Preserve and the River Walk realize that it is completely funded by donations.

To move to the next level of service to the community, we need to build an endowment fund that will allow us to maintain what we have and broaden our outreach. Our goal is to have sufficient funds to keep the outdoor education programs at the Preserve and the River Walk functioning and to construct an education center which will help us bring more programs to the people of Muskegon County. We want to see the realization of the vision of one of the early supporters who said the project could be, “a jewel in West Michigan.”  We have the stone in the setting; now we just need your help to polish it to gleaming brilliance.

To make a donation, visit the MERES website.

  http://www.muskegonlakenaturepreserve.org/

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of… ?

An article in the April issue of Reader’s Digest has the provocative title: “Happiness: It’s Not All It’s Cracked Up to Be.” The article is reprinted from one written by Emily Esfahani Smith a couple years ago in The Atlantic. Smith, a writer and editor for several publications, has written a number of articles on the place of happiness in relationships. This one really caught my eye.

Smith relies heavily on the work of Victor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning, a seminal book on the topic by one who honed his understanding in German concentration camps in WWII. Smith records Frankl’s assertion that, “It is the very pursuit of happiness that thwarts happiness.” Smith further quotes Frankl: “Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone other than oneself.”

Smith reports, “In a new study, which [has been] published in the Journal of Positive Psychology, … the researchers found that a meaningful life and happy life overlap in certain ways, but are ultimately very different. Leading a happy life, the psychologists found, is associated with being a ‘taker’ while leading a meaningful life corresponds with being a ‘giver.’” The authors write, "Happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desire are easily satisfied, and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided."

This sounds eerily like the slogans of recent years: “You deserve a break today” and “Have it your way.” Michael Harper in The Love Affair identifies a narcissistic self-love that he calls “personalism.” He believes that, “In the Western world it has become a multi-million dollar industry, offering to meet a need previous generations did not know existed…. It is so obviously self-centered that  one wonders why so many millions have been taken in by it.” Why indeed?

One could argue that the elemental statement in our premiere founding document declares the pursuit of happiness to be a God-given right. Does this lead people to seek personal happiness to their detriment? There are those who think that even the Founders realized this; that perhaps we have been reading the document wrongly. Pardon a descent into the deep weeds of punctuation: there is a belief that the period after “happiness” in the Declaration of Independence was not in the original. This would make the clause affirming God-given rights relative to that which precedes and follows it. In other words the central point is about the social contract to protect the common good rather than a declaration of the personal pursuit of anything.

None of this should be surprising to any serious student of the Bible. The core principle driving all appropriate actions is to be self-giving, agape love as demonstrated by Jesus himself. Submission, deference and sacrificial giving, principle virtues recommended throughout Scripture, all fly in the face of personalism of any kind. The proper attitude is that identified by Frankl and the psychologists as that which leads to a fulfilled, if not happy life: giving. As for my current condition, I can learn from Paul’s declaration in Philippians: “I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation.” For the Christian it’s all about life (in Christ), liberty (being freed from sin) and the pursuit of being content in any and every situation. That’s my declaration of dependence.

A Willing Suspension of Memory

I have tried to understand the liberal/progressive mindset. I know the people who promote the cause are not uneducated, ignorant or naïve (OK, maybe naïve in Obama’s case). But do they really expect us to forget everything they have done or said in the past, or perhaps they know that most people just aren’t pay close enough attention to catch their “inconsistencies.” Time and time again they make statements that contradict their own words or revise history to support their narrative.

The latest round of apparent amnesia involves Hillary Clinton. During the flap surrounding her use of private email while Secretary of State she asserted that she had only one device. She must have forgotten that during an earlier interview she admitted carrying both an i-Phone and a Blackberry. There may be some way to use new math or parse the language so that there is no contradiction, but it sounds to me like a debate over the meaning of “is.”

The fact that she had those two devices tied not just to a private email address, but her own private server begins to sound like an earlier situation she doubtless wants us to forget. Anyone who has been paying attention to the Clintons since Bill’s two exciting terms as President would remember the Whitewater scandal. Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records that were subpoenaed and thought lost mysteriously turned up at the White House. We are supposed to believe they were taken there from Arkansas innocently and unknown to the Clintons. This time we are being asked to believe that Hillary can be trusted with her email records – that she has not deleted any government emails while refusing to allow outside inspection of her server.

Then there is Benghazi. The assassination of the Ambassador to Libya and his brave defenders happened on Hillary’s watch. The precise flow of information to Madame Secretary may never be known, thanks to the private server issue (again), but it is public knowledge that she promoted the false narrative concerning the motivation of the rioters who precipitated the murders. There are also other information sources that reveal her complicity in delaying the revelation of the true nature of the attacks. The fact that the whole affair transpired during a critical political season only makes it worse.

How ironic it is that Hillary is the one remembered for the phrase, “willing suspension of disbelief.” Senator Clinton soundly criticized General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for the bad situation in Iraq in 2007. She told Crocker, "It's not only the Iraqi government that has failed to pursue a coherent strategy. I think our own has as well." One wonders what that woman would think of the current strategy in the Mideast.  One must admit that there is a kind of coherence in the Obama/Clinton efforts: one mistake led to another and another and another.

Then there is the health care mess. Everyone associates the line, “if you like your doctor, you can keep him” with President Obama. It’s interesting to note that in the same context Hillary said, “If you have health insurance and you are happy with it, nothing changes… because we want to maximize choice for people.” Perhaps we are supposed to forget that the first time national health care was seriously proposed, it was called Hillarycare. Four years into the lurching launch of Obamacare, the truth is somewhat less optimistic. The promise of a $2,500 decrease in annual health insurance premiums has not materialized. The $2,500 figure is prominent however; rates have risen that much on average. And health plans are being cancelled right and left, so keeping yours may not be one of your maximized choices.

If you are still reading you may be wondering how this relates to heaven. Thusly: as believers we have a responsibility to elect people who will represent our interests in an honest way. I know “honest politician” sounds like an oxymoron to some people, but there are a few. Even if your sentiments lean toward a progressive agenda, you must have an honest presentation of the policies and honest reflection on their historical results. Without this, it is impossible to make sound judgments.

The other day I listened to a couple Democrat talking heads extolling the great accomplishments of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They were enthusiastic cheerleaders, but the word disingenuous doesn’t begin to describe their argument. The world is a complex place; no one has all the answers. But at the very least, we should insist that those looking for answers are not going to dissemble, obfuscate and obstruct honest investigation once they find them.

Everybody Knows That

June is approaching fast, the month of weddings. Everybody knows that. But did you know there are some interesting theories to explain June’s popularity. According to the Examiner, one says it goes back to the Roman custom of honoring the God of marriage, Juno. Another says it is the most practical month in an agrarian society because the inevitable first child will not be far enough along to hinder the mother from helping get in the first harvest for the new family. One of the most curious says that during Medieval times May was the time of the annual bath, so a June wedding assured all concerned would smell their best. (Agh!)

The Examiner goes on to reveal that June is being edged out by August if you can believe Hallmark Cards’ statistics. (Don’t let me get started on the outrageous price of greeting cards.)There are other traditions associated with marriage that are equally arcane and equally baffling to me, but then I am still just a guy (cue Brad Paisley). If you add up the cost of the traditional elements in the modern, Western wedding, you have a budget-buster. Cost of Wedding.com reports that the average wedding in the US costs $25,200.

Not surprisingly, the largest expense is the venue with its associated accoutrements, catering and rentals. Couples spend over $3,600 on average just for a place to say, “I do.” Add a $500 for a cake and another $4,700 for dinner and you are quickly approaching ten grand. That’s before you add $100 for each of the tuxedo rentals and $1,200 for the bride’s gown. Top it off with the obligatory wedding photographer at $1,600 and 10K is gone. The web site lists fifty (50) other items that commonly appear in the expense column of the average wedding. Fifty.

At the risk of sounding completely tone-deaf to the cries of all those brides-to-be and their mothers, I would like to offer some suggestions for trimming the cost of the blessed event (Wait; that refers to something later, doesn’t it.) For the venue, since not everyone lives on a farm with a giant barn anymore, renting a church is a good option, especially if a religious ceremony is being planned. In West Michigan, churches can be rented for under $500, many being free to members.

A wedding dress is just about the most impractical item a woman could ever buy. It is intended to be worn only once; it glamorizes the one person who is already the star of the event; by the wedding day, there is no need to impress the guy (still a guy) standing at the head of the aisle. Incidentally, I feel the same way about “prom” dresses. If something uniquely special is essential, there are rentals available, but even that is money thrown away. A nice rig that can be worn to dress-up affairs after the wedding makes a whole lot more sense to me. And let the guys wear their “Sunday best” and let it go at that.

With all due apologies to my dear friend, Kirk, who makes his living as a photographer, are the wedding photos that get put in an album and parked on a shelf really worth $1,600? If one family member or guest knows how to operate a digital SLR, a few portraits of the bride and groom and maybe one of the wedding party can be taken and sent to Walgreens for enshrinement in a lovely binder at one tenth of the cost. For some great additional memories, place a disposable camera at each table and invite your guests to offer their photographic impressions.

If a sit-down dinner must be part of the event (as a kindness to attendees who are far from home), why not make it a pot luck? Everyone who lives close enough to participate in this very homely tradition can bring a dish and supply the recipe so the bride has a start on her own box of favorites. I know I am getting into some really wet sand here, but the real tradition of marriage is the celebration of community; what better way for the community to honor the new couple than with something homemade and helpful?  

Maybe you think that talking about average costs is unrealistic since the million dollar weddings weigh against the under $100 justice of the peace affairs. Consider then that the median number, the cost most couples incur, is still $10,000. What good might be accomplished by a believer with that amount of money? Meals From the Heartland packages meals to ship to hungry people around the world at a cost of about twenty cents per meal. Ten grand would feed an entire village of 500 people for over three months… or 22 families of six for a year. Or your diverted wedding expense could dig 277 wells to provide safe water for people in Africa. Get together with four of your soon-to-be-wed friends and pool your savings and support one overseas missionary for a whole year. Etcetera ad infinitum.

If this whole topic has been distasteful to you, post a reply below and tell me how you would defend the expense of an extravagant wedding. If this topic has made you rethink your plans for an upcoming event, share it with your friends. Christians believe that our possessions are not our own; how we spend our money is the truest expression of our faith. But everybody knows that.

Who's on a High Horse?

President Obama has said something remarkably stunning for its arrogance or ignorance, I know not which. At the National Prayer Breakfast in February, speaking of the violence perpetrated by radical Islamists, the President chided Christians for historical indiscretions saying, "And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. " (full text)

As a linguist I am fascinated by the President’s obviously condescending use of the first person pronoun “we.” No one thinks he imagined himself on any horse. This is an example of using inclusive language to surreptitiously exclude oneself from the intended class. The President then slips in a second person reference, more aligned with his true intention, calling his audience to “remember.” This implied “you” points the royal finger squarely where “we” think it belongs. Then, to complete the thought, our erudite leader finishes the sentence with a third person reference to the actual perpetrators of the actions he wishes to condemn.

Peter Wehner wrote an excellent review of Obama’s speech in Commentary. Wehner’s article makes one wonder if the President can truly be as clueless as this makes him sound. If there is a parallel between the Crusades and today’s war on terror, it is the fact that Western civilization is fighting an all-out war against Islamic extremists who want to conquer the world in the name of Allah. Invoking the Crusades serves to reinforce the historical context regarding the battle with Arabs.

The next thing I expect to hear is that Jews killed thousands upon thousands of “Arabs” according to God’s directive in the conquest of the Holy Land. Obama doubtless would suggest we redress those centuries-old grievous misdeeds by compelling modern Israel to return what they stole. For years the left has been has been claiming that what happened in 1948 and again in 1967 was internationally sanctioned terrorism – a land grab by the undeserving of the territory of those unprepared to defend their rights.

The historical sequence goes something like this: God gave Israel the land in perpetuity in the twelfth century BC. After centuries of gaining and losing the Promised Land, they were finally driven out by the Romans in the first century AD. They reclaimed their land in the twentieth century after a curious coalition of religious and secular groups lobbied internationally for over one hundred years. It is probably coincidence that Philistine sounds so much like Palestine, but it is not inaccurate to say that the two people have much in common, not the least of which is a long-standing dispute over a strip of land on the Mediterranean coast.

President Obama and those who support him are not ignorant; they know this history. However, they seem to ignore (the root word of “ignorance”) its implications. This is a holy war if for no other reason than the Islamists say it is. To equate defenders of religious freedom with Islamic terrorists is ludicrous.

The only high horse here is Obama’s, and it appears to be a childish rocking type rather than any sort of mature war horse. That Obama used the National Prayer Breakfast as his platform serves to underline the urgency with which Christians need to start mounting a defense against this kind of nonsense. If we don’t stand up soon, we may not have a leg to stand on, equine or otherwise.