The Generation Gap

I have been enjoying some time with my youngest child and grandchild this holiday season. It struck me that my daughter and I have about the same age difference as my father and I had. That got me thinking about my relationship with my dad and how similar it was compared to the situation I find myself in today. The biggest difference is that I thought of my father as old when we were at this stage. By comparison, I don't feel old at all; perhaps he didn't either, but he acted older, I think.

My father’s experience was vastly different from mine, so it stands to reason that he might have felt different. My dad lived through the Great Depression and served in the Army Air Corps during WWII. By contrast I lived through the “Great Extravagance” that blessed/cursed most of us Baby Boomers and missed being drafted into the service during the troubled Vietnam conflict. I am also mindful of the fact that people are just constituted differently. In one of my favorite Christmas movies, It’s a Wonderful Life, George Bailey’s father remarks that George is different from his brother because, “You were born older, George.”

There are genuine differences between my experience and my daughter’s too. I had Howdy Doody and The Wonderful World of Disney. She had Saved by the Bell and 90210. My married Rob and Laura Petrie slept in separate beds; her teen DJ spent a night in her older boyfriend’s apartment. My experience included Hippies’ free love and the mantra “sex, drugs and rock and roll” as scandalous; hers includes gay pride and feminism as civil rights. I knew of a few “bad girls” who were considered sluts; she is not uncomfortable with the idea of “friends with benefits.”  I had a few friends with whom I shared the occasional Kodak moment; she has hundreds of Facebook friends with whom she shares every waking moment. I had family dinners around a table every night; she eats every meal on the couch in front of the TV. The times they are a changin’.

So I can see that she may rightly feel as different from me as I felt different from my father. Likewise, I may be fretting needlessly over the differences I find between us, yet I am convinced that there are some things that should be passed unalloyed from one generation to the next. The command of the Shema to keep the law always before our children, echoed in Ephesians, is surely one of those things. I know that my own reception and application of the “law” unsettled my parents somewhat; there may be justifiable adaptations of the “law” in every successive generation such that parents will always feel that way.

The struggle to identify and defend the absolutes is what brings me grief. I can see from the lofty height of six decades and a historical perspective (lost on most of our current young generation) that some of the adaptations undertaken by successive generations have been departures from truth. No matter what else may change, one thing remains: the only way to truth and life (eternal) is through Jesus, the Way, the Truth and the Life. As I was so eloquently reminded last Sunday, the path to victorious Christian living, the abundant life as Jesus called it, is the way of devotion to Christ.

Historically this practice has been called “spiritual discipline.” Whatever it is called today, I trust that if my daughter and her generation seek an intimate relationship with Jesus, everything else will fall into place. I know I can trust God to do that; I just need my heart to hear my head say so. The generation gap is not what matters; the gap between our Lord and us does. May every generation strive to keep that gap as small as possible.

Super Mario Power

A recent minor surgery got me thinking about mortality... mine. It seems that as I age certain things don't work as well as they have in the past. I used to scoff at the doctors' recommended rest periods after various procedures. If they said two weeks, I bounced up in two days without dire effect.  This time I was still limping around after a week, thinking that maybe two weeks of reduced activity was going to be about right.

Last summer I did more heavy physical work than I have done in many years. I picked up huge chunks of tree trunk to throw into the truck or onto the splitter. I also fell in an Ax Men type accident and hurt my hand and elbow which still remind me occasionally, many months later, of the incident. When I mentioned these issues to my doctor this fall, he pointed out that just because I am able to lift heavy things and sustain injuries at my age does not mean I should do so. In other words, age has its consequences.

As I watched my grandson play Super Mario Brothers at my house this Thanksgiving, I saw a life-lesson. It seems that Mario can gain power by bouncing into various icons that float into the scene. Grabbing these icons will strengthen and lengthen little Mario’s life. Lesson: there are things that appear in life (sometimes serendipitously) which we do well to grab onto. I am thinking that one of these I should note is acting a little more my age. Then there are the obvious ones like eating healthy and getting appropriate rest and exercise. I am not personally ready for the food supplements and fad diets my Facebook friends are constantly recommending, but they do fall into the same category.

The same power pills exist in the spiritual life of a believer. Too many Christians, I fear, walk around like tiny Mario subject to defeatism at the slightest whiff of trouble. The Super Mario strength is available to every believer who just “bumps” the power. The most obvious analogy here is the Scripture. Even though just about every Christian knows reading God’s Word is a required part of a balanced “diet,” few actually make any real effort to feed regularly on their own. When Jesus told His disciples to “remain in Him,” He surely meant to read the Word on a regular basis, if nothing else.

A quote on my Facebook page from Leonard Ravenhill really struck me this morning; it read, “The only reason we don’t have revival is because we are willing to live without it.” Likewise, the only reason we go about our daily lives as if we are defeated is because we are satisfied with powerless living. I was reminded by Troy Champ at the Capital Church Christmas eve service that Emmanuel means God is with us no matter what the circumstance. The angel told Mary she could handle what was to come because God would be with her. That is a power pill like no other, and it is always hanging within reach. Just a little jump, Mario…

Well, What Do You Know!

I was with a friend Sunday who is one of those people I always listen to because he never fails to come up with something interesting to think about. In a context I have since forgotten he pointed out the irony that most Democrats associate with concerns that are not unionized, whereas Republicans typically own concerns that are union shops. His point was that Dems can blithely support the union agenda because they will seldom have to deal with the ramifications. I decided to do some research.

There is a revealing portrait of the current Congress at Constitution Daily. Only 209 of our congressmen or women list their background as business; one can assume some are Democrat: guess that about 50% are Dems and the number is about 105. 408 congressmen list either lawyer or public servant; a reasonable estimate (66%) of those who might be Dems is 270. Adding 118 who list professions which are stereotypically peopled by Democrats and the total comes to 493. In other words, the vast majority of lawmakers have no idea what it takes to make things, pay people and deal with unions in the process. I think it proves my friend right.

Congress is not the only place you can see ignorant people with the power to mess things up. The people who are currently making all the noise about police violence against blacks are equally in the dark. The facts of the two most well-known incidents (Ferguson and Staten Island) simply do not support the opinion that the police behaved in a prejudiced way. But the protesters don’t let the facts get in the way of their opinions. Ignorance does that.

We cross paths with ignorant people all the time. I recently heard a young woman who is otherwise an intelligent, responsible nursing student paying her own way through school say that she would rather die than be married – that her life would be over if she said yes to the young man who wants to propose something monogamous. She said that it would mean the end to her freedom. I was saddened to think what she meant by freedom. I can only imagine that she has seen too many marriages that were not of a winsome character, to say the least, and she believes that all marriages are bad. She has no witness to the beauty and true freedom that marriage provides. Ignorance strikes again.

Then there are the people who won’t go near a church because of all the hypocrites there or because they only want your money or because religion is the opiate of the masses or whatever ignorant excuse they offer. These are not unlike other people who claim that they believe in God, but there is no evidence in their lives to support the assertion; they are ignorant of the fact that true “belief” always entails a change in behavior.

This is not to say that ignorance itself is wrong or bad – not in and of itself. Ignorance on purpose is though (see Ignorance Is Not Bliss for an example). To be ignorant simply means to not know something. The older I get the more I realize I don’t know – the more my own ignorance becomes apparent. The danger is in being ignorant of ignorance, especially when the ignorance is behind significant behavior. There is a cliché that says ignorance is no excuse. That’s correct.

 Another cliché says knowledge is power. That is also true. The key to wisdom is knowing what is critical to know. If ignorance blindsides you, you have to know what to do about it. When Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free,” that is what He was talking about. The power to make the right decisions comes from knowing what to know. Since only God knows everything, knowing God is the key to the key. As Jesus said, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” There is nothing else you need to know.

More Than a Feeling

I am quite sure when Boston sang More Than a Feeling, they had nothing in mind like I am thinking, but I can't get it out of my mind since it dropped there. I have been reading a book by Michael Harper called The Love Affair which is challenging my beliefs about what love really means, or perhaps I should say how love really works. Ever since I first studied Greek in Bible college, I have believed that the love the Bible teaches, that Jesus demonstrates, is something unique. It is represented by the Greek word (αγαπη) transliterated "agape."

I have long taught that agape is a love of the will; that it cannot be anything else because it is commanded. God could not command the emotion usually associated with "love" in our generation, or in any generation for that matter. Harper suggests that the fullest sense of agape must be informed by our understanding of God's eternal, infinite character. He rightly points out that in the Old Testament especially, God is pictured as an emotional being. He longs for His people, pines for his people even. He mourns when they disappoint Him, as they regularly do. He is jealous when they have adulterous relationships with other gods, as they often do. He shows His wrath when dealing with people who deserve it.

That picture is not the sterile, compassion-less agape of will alone. Nor can one dismiss the most well-known verse in the Bible, John 3:16, "For God so loved the world...." The incarnation of that love, Jesus, was Love in person, the very demonstration of what it means to love as God loves, for He was God in the flesh. One cannot read the Gospels without seeing a Man consumed by love. The amazing thing is that He directed his love toward the un-loveliest people one can imagine: lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes, His executioners.

Perhaps it is this last category that most merits investigation. A cardinal principle of Bible interpretation demands that we first look at how the people directly involved would see the action or hear the dicta. The scene at Calvary is interesting, to say the least. The condemned Man had previously shown his compassion for the ones He knew would call for his death, by his wish to bring them to Himself, "as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings." Standing at the foot of the most torturous execution instrument the Romans could devise, the bystander would have heard the alleged Messiah forgive those who carried out his execution. Whereas the Jews who had asked for the sentence willed the blame upon themselves, Jesus absolved the Roman soldiers of blame. This irony would not have been lost on a perceptive observer.

This brings me back to the idea Harper planted that agape includes compassion toward the object loved. It is hard to classify compassion as anything but an emotion. A careful study of the love commanded by God in the New Testament proves it to be directed horizontally much more frequently than vertically, reciprocally. It is true that when asked, Jesus listed the great commandment as “Love God,” but he followed immediately with, “and love your neighbor.” The rest of Scripture seems to imply that Christians must demonstrate their love for God BY loving their neighbor. And if this is done as Jesus did, it is not without compassion.

I have said frequently over the years that we are not commanded to like anybody, but we have to love (agape) everybody. Now I think that biblical love may not be fully mature if it lacks compassion. I struggle to picture this until I imagine what Jesus would be feeling (WWJF). For example, I don’t like the way my neighbor/brother/spouse is behaving; it is decidedly un-Christian… unlovely. So I love (agape) them anyway, but what am I to feel? Compassion – pain that they have strayed from or never gotten close to God’s will. I feel their lost-ness, their need to be right with God. Love is more than a feeling, but it is, rightly expressed, also not without feeling. Not if it is God’s love, shed abroad in our hearts to be shared abroad in an unlovely world.

Calling a Sin a Sin

The widespread reaction to the Grand Jury verdict declining to indict Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri was sad, if predictable. Just as predicable was the President’s sympathetic reaction, but in a speech in Chicago he revealed something of his personal character and beliefs that is shocking in its import. Referring to the distrust between law enforcement and minority communities, the President said, "The problem is not just a Ferguson problem. It's an American problem," USA Today reports. Obama added, "If any part of the American community doesn't feel welcomed or treated fairly, that's something that puts all of us at risk, and we all have to be concerned about it."

Given the context, the President seems to be saying that we should expect violent reactions from people who feel that they are being treated unfairly. The context also includes the indisputable fact that the justice system worked as intended, but there are people who don’t consider it fair. The subject of the speech where he delivered his bombshell was his new immigration policies. I wonder if the President meant to imply that violence is the normal reaction to treatment that fails to meet someone’s standard of “welcomed.” I wonder if the President was hinting that we should expect violence from immigrants who don’t feel “welcomed.”

To his credit, the President did condemn the violent reactions, but he came very close to saying he not only understands, but sympathizes with the protesters. He wants us to be concerned about the “risk” of treating someone in a manner they don’t like. He seems to be sympathetic toward the perpetrators instead of the victims of violence. I wonder if President Obama feels sympathy toward Cain, the slayer of his brother Abel; Cain felt as though he was treated unfairly. Perhaps we have been misinterpreting the first murder; perhaps it was Cain who was wronged, and Abel just got what he deserved for being so unfair to his brother.

We saw this same kind of misguided sympathy soon after we were attacked in 2001. People asked why the Islamic terrorists hated us so; they wondered what we had done to “deserve” the attack. Perhaps if we had treated them more fairly they wouldn’t have attacked. To ask such a question betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of history, of radical Islamic culture, and of human nature itself. (The Christian Post has an excellent article on the Islamic hatred of the West.) One of Cain descendants, Lamech, expresses the fallen human tendency well, “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold.” Islamic terror is simply revenge for a perceived wrong.

It is a human tendency to get even, sometimes even when the slight is trivial or innocent in itself. Abel didn’t deserve to die; America didn’t deserve 9/11; Ferguson’s merchants didn’t deserve the violence perpetrated against them. These were all acts of vengeful individuals who felt as though they had been treated unfairly. Obama is correct that humans can be expected to do such things. What worries me is that he seems to be on their side. He seems to be saying that we are responsible for their actions, as if it were our fault for being unfair.

It is wrong to imply that we bear some sort of national blame for the sense of injustice some African Americans feel toward our justice system. To be clear, Christians must stand for justice, but we must also stand against injustice of the kind perpetrated by the protesters in Ferguson. The system declared Darren Wilson innocent of wrongful actions. The Grand Jury based their decision on facts of evidence, not on a preferential treatment of whites or disregard for blacks. The pressure under which they labored surely would have pushed them to indict if there were the slightest evidence of wrong doing. They declined. To protest that decision with violent action is to commit sin. Those violent acts betray the darkest regions of human fallen nature. Those acts do not merit any sympathy.

We can be sorry that a young man lost his life as a result of a police officer performing his duty. We can be sorry that a situation exists in America where a segment of our citizens so distrust the police and the justice system that their default attitude is set on grievance. We can even be sorry that our ancestors treated African slaves so badly for so long that they feel aggrieved. What we should not feel is sorry that Darren Wilson was declared just in his actions. And we certainly should not feel sorry for the sinners who are burning Ferguson because of that decision. Not to contradict the President, but I think we Americans should be concerned about the risk of bowing to the demands of sinful human nature instead of calling a sin what it is: sin.

Slip-slidin' Away

The first real winter weather has hit West Michigan, and once again, it seems like everyone has forgotten how to drive on slippery roads. Is it really that hard to remember to slow down and leave lots of extra space between you and the car you are following? Really? The people who end up on the curb or in the ditch all seem to have the same surprised look on their faces. They can't all be from Florida experiencing their first winter drive.

Then there are those people in their four-wheel-drive vehicles. (Full disclosure: I drive one.) Apparently they imagine that having all the wheels driving the car makes the laws of physics void. Not so much. It doesn't matter how many wheels put power to the road, once the accelerator is released and brakes are applied, all vehicles are more or less equal. If the road surface is slippery, braking becomes a matter of how well the car/driver can modulate the slowing of the wheel rotation. Anti-lock brakes are a wonderful invention (when they work), and they work independently of the drive mechanics: 4WD, AWD, FWD, RWD will all skid if too much brake is applied.

Stopping on slippery roads is more or less equal between all vehicles of the same weight. Physics again dictate that a heavier vehicle will take longer to stop than a lighter vehicle; it's all about inertia and mass and other such inevitability. Good tires, bad tires, any number of drive wheels on either end of the car all skid according to the inertia and mass involved. Once a wheel has stopped turning (definition of "skid"), the laws of physics are driving and the human driver is helpless. The only way to increase traction is with studs which are illegal for us everyday folks.

While it might feel safer in a big, heavy vehicle, it is not often the case. If you are in the one hitting another vehicle which is lighter than yours, there is a small advantage. If you are hit by a smaller vehicle there is a similar small advantage. But in all other cases, size doesn't matter. If you hit an immovable object like a tree or bridge abutment, the deciding factors will be your own weight and the safety measures installed and functioning. The airbags and seat belts will help prevent injuries, but every body in a car that suddenly stops will continue to move at the previous speed until it hits something, large car or small.

If it seems like I have turned into a driver ed instructor, it may help to know that I am one, rather, I was once. So what has Heaven to do with this. The laws of physics apply to believers as well as the rest of the population. However, I believe we have the advantage of a sovereign God who cares about even our slippery commute to work, or church, or shopping, or wherever. What this means to me is not that I can speed along oblivious to conditions, but that I need not panic when black ice is more prevalent than tarmac.

If I end up in a ditch, it is because my Lord wanted me there for some reason. It may be to teach me humility regarding His physical laws related to friction. It may be that I need to witness to the tow truck driver who will pull me out. It may be that He parked me there so I would not be in the 247 car pile-up that I would have encountered. I don't know. And I don't care. I trust Him. When I was driving for a living, people used to ask if I wasn't stressed out by having to drive thousands of miles every week in bad weather. My answer has always been, "No. I trust the Lord I serve to take care of me -- no matter the weather."

This same attitude should apply to all the risks we face in our dark and dangerous world. Nothing can overtake us that is not under the watchful eye of the Creator, Sustainer, Completer God. No terrorist, mugger, stalker, geo-physical or weather demon can thwart the plans God has for us. That even has to apply when any of the above seem to overtake us; they are not in control; God is.  Peter and John proved this when they led the hymn-sing in prison. My advice is to tune in to some good music and slow down; enjoy the drive and the everlasting arms in which you drive. It's my belief that you can never slip out of those arms once you are in them, no matter how slippery the road may be.

Veteran's Thanksgiving Day

If you can read this, thank a veteran. I know, there were teachers involved too, but the system of free public education within which your teachers labored was made possible by the sacrifices of tens of thousands of American servicemen and women. Then there is your freedom to use the Internet -- bought by vets. The job where you earned the money to to buy this computer -- secured by those who defend us. You'd be hard pressed to name anything  connected to the American dream that is not in some way established or maintained by those who served or are serving in the armed forces.

And let us not make the mistake demonstrated by David Masciotra of Salon.com. If you read only the first few paragraphs of Masciotra's article, it sounds like any other liberal panty-waist who doesn't like anyone who carries a gun. He is clearly not in favor of the foreign policy decisions made by recent administrations (Democrat or Republican). He is also rightly disgusted by the miscreants who sometimes get into uniforms and do awful things. But he makes the mistake of saying that only the "the soldier who runs into the line of fire to protect his division" or "the police officer who works tirelessly to find a missing child" are really heroes. His mistake is in thinking that the infrastructure behind those truly heroic acts is not essential to the commission of the valiant acts themselves.

Everyone who has served in uniform deserves the thanks of those of us who benefit from their service. The uncommon bravery of a few must be recognized, but the common, even mundane acts of service by all the rest are also worthy of our esteem and honor. The financial hardships borne by either military or law enforcement qualify as acts of service (enlisted persons on food stamps). The stress borne by the families of those who answer the call to serve is another form of sacrifice (wives and children without husbands and fathers). The real demon of PTSD which was overlooked in the past, but which haunts our society. The thousands of wounded warriors who would have died in earlier conflicts, but because of medical marvels are living scarred among us.

Honor to whom honor is due, the Apostle Paul commands. There are none in America on this or any day who deserve honor more than our veterans. Thank you, all of you!

Hooray! We Won... Now What?

If you have read much of what I have to say here, you will not be surprised to know I am elated with the results of the 2014 mid-term elections. It would seem that maybe (but just "maybe") the electorate has realized the error of hoping for "hope and change" Obama-style. But I am not overly optimistic: the new legislative leadership under McConnell and Boehner is not going to be able to transform our government quickly or easily. Much of what disturbs conservatives is entrenched bureaucracy (think IRS targeting conservatives), judicial over-reach (think Ninth Circuit overturning a vote of the people) or executive hubris (think Obama's threats to use executive orders to steamroll his policies into practice).

I still believe what I said back in August of 2012: Obama is not the problem. It may be that all we saw last Tuesday was the populace saying they want a better, stronger, more effective form of socialism. That may sound like a terribly pessimistic and warped conclusion, but voter turn-out statistics may support it. Because of the pathetically low rate of participation, a small minority of the electorate made Tuesday's choices. (More on that in the conclusion.) US News reports that disenchanted Democrats stayed home while energized Republicans voted.

This could mean that a majority of the voters still want the "free" hand-outs of a socialistic government, but they are fed up with Obama's failure to get it done.

Then there are those other nasty realities that the new Republican leadership must face. The behemoth that is the Federal bureaucracy did not go away with Tuesday's vote. Millions of worker bees with billions of dollars in their budgets are still fully empowered to continue to implement bad policy both new and old. Combine this with the President's clear intention (threat) to use (abuse) his pen to make law by executive order despite anything Congress might say or do. Those orders can be undone by the next President only if he or she is of a different stripe. (More on that later, too.) Finally, the third branch of government tilts leftward far enough use judicial fiat to bring into practice countless things the voters openly eschew.

Each of these gloomy predicaments has a positive resolution, but it did not resolve on Tuesday; it may not even be in the works. McConnell and Boehner have not enthusiastically supported the conservative wing of their party; both in fact have at times worked around or against them. According a New York Times story last March, “I think we are going to crush them [Tea Party candidates] everywhere,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said in an interview, referring to the network of activist organizations working against him." This does not bode well for those of us with Tea Party type imaginations.

As for the gargantuan bureaucracy, dismantling it will take years of concentrated legislative effort. The first step requires a will to begin; I'm not sure the crop of politicians we elected Tuesday are up for that. Some doubtless are, and they have proven their mettle (Scott Walker in Wisconsin). Others are too afraid of disappointing the forty-plus percent of Americans who are beneficiaries of government programs to even talk about shrinking, let alone ending them.

Lastly, the judiciary is supposedly insulated from the partisanship of electoral cycles, but history proves that to be a thin protection. Every administration since George Washington has tried to put its favorites on the benches of the federal court system. The Washington Post reported last June that there were 57 judicial nominees awaiting approval. The Senate is not supposed to consider partisan bias in their role of "advise and consent" to the President's nominees, yet both parties have tried to block candidates of whom they disapprove (eg. Robert Bork).

So where is "heaven" in all this (WHAMM)? Tuesday did not even come close to winning the war against conservative ideas in this country. A major skirmish went our way, but the battle rages on. Any Christian who could have voted but did not vote last Tuesday should be ashamed. The Epistle of James says, "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them." Believers have a responsibility to take part in the process that allows them to make choices about who governs.

Voting is a major part of that responsibility, but it does not stop there. Remaining educated about the issues is critical. The founders realized that the experiment in representative Constitutional government they began would only work if the electorate remained informed. Jefferson believed that even democracy could devolve into tyranny if people were not properly educated. It is also important to continue to support and advise those who represent us after we elect them. There really is a feedback loop that affects how legislators think about the bills they support. According to Tim Hysom of the Congressional Management Foundation, "Members listen to the views of their constituents through all kinds of means…. They take all that information … and they craft their views and policies.

So while Tuesday's election results are a step in a positive direction for conservatives, the road back to a conservative America is long and it stretches uphill all the way. Human nature being what it is, people will always want something for nothing. And since being ignorant is easier than being educated, vast numbers of voters will make bad decisions. Believers must not grow weary in the march toward the next presidential election (although it sure is a relief to be without the political ads for a while). Keep up the conversation with friends, neighbors and, yes, your elected representatives.. Believers seldom fall prey to "sympathy for the devil," but sadly many are guilty of apathy toward his schemes; the end of either is the same. It would be a shame if we lose our freedoms because of our own apathy.

Take-away From The Giver

Here I go again, writing about a movie I haven't seen yet, but since people are talking about The Giver now, and I won't see it until it hits the video store (too late to be relevant), I am going to comment anyway. I do know the plot, since it is based on a novel by Lois Lowry and a summary is available on Sparknotes. From the reviews I have read, the point of Lowry's novel, that to have meaning, life must have passion, is preserved in the movie.

The mistaken idea in Lowry's imaginary Utopia is that restraint (moral or otherwise) is the cause of the unrest and unhappiness in society. In her fiction, Lowry creates what I would call a "soul-less" society: no love, no hate; no right, no wrong; no passion; no striving; nothing that makes life worth living. With Robin Williams death, I am reminded of a line from my all-time favorite movie of his: Dead Poet's Society.   As Professor Keating said, "We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion….  poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.

When someone like Robin Williams takes his own life, many people express surprise. His public persona would lead one to believe he had it made. A deeper look reveals a dark, troubled soul. Like so many before him, his tragic end proves that money and fame do not buy happiness -- not even a down payment on happiness. In another award-winning role in Good Will Hunting, a Williams' character (a psychologist, ironically) encourages a troubled young genius to follow his passion even if it means rejecting the offer of almost certain wealth and fame.

The Giver seems to imply that a society without passion, without soul cannot satisfy the human spirit. I agree. But there is more to making life work than passion; there must be a way to regulate that passion, or it will run wild into anarchy. Humans are hard-wired for control, for boundaries. It is a practical impossibility to allow everyone to have complete freedom; eventually what I want will conflict with what you want, and one of us will have to defer. The trick is finding the best way to manage that deference.

There is an age-old answer to managing human passion: it is the moral code handed down from the Creator and revealed in the Bible. The One who made us knows best how to manage us. Societies that have followed this management system have fared well; those which have abandoned it have collapsed. A study I mentioned in an earlier post proves this is true regarding sexual morality, a large part of the moral puzzle. Societies collapse when the management system known as marriage is dissolved. This should be no surprise since family is the most basic unit of any society. Wreck family and you destroy the foundation of society.

The Muslim extremists have a pretty good handle on what it takes to make life meaningful: you need a passion, and you must believe that passion aligns with the fundamental elements of the universe. They are correct in their philosophy, but they have the wrong understanding of the universe. The universe is not controlled by a stern magistrate who just waits for us to step out of line so he can zap us as they believe. Nor is the universe simply waiting for us to discover our passion as Lowry seems to imply.

The universe, as I understand it, is created and controlled by a loving God who has laid out a plan for his creation to align their passions with His and live a truly fulfilled life. We don't need to ride a bike (or a sled) to some imaginary "Elsewhere" to find our purpose. Our purpose, as the Westminster Catechism says is to, "glorify God and enjoy Him forever." That's my "memory" from the True Giver.

Teachers or Testing?

One of the banner ads on my Facebook page caught my eye today. It asked me to vote "for" teachers and "against" standardized tests. Huh? My first thought was that this is like voting for peaches or winter. (Actually, my first thought was, "How stupid!") There is a ground swell of resistance to certain academic practices that showcases the failure of certain academic practices. Anyone who can place testing and teaching in opposition clearly needs some teaching. Assessment (testing) is an integral part of teaching; this applies to standardized tests as well as other assessments created by individuals or publishers.

I imagine this resistance to standardized tests is a corollary to the backlash against Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Those who oppose CCSS often mistake it for "curriculum" and assume it dictates what teachers must teach. As I have previously written, this is a misunderstanding. CCSS, like any set of standards, merely establishes benchmarks to measure the academic progress of students. Standardized tests are supposed to be the tools to measure said progress (or lack thereof). Admittedly, I have been displeased with much of what has been offered as "standardized" testing, since it is often the result more of political process than academic research. However, the concept of testing students to determine their mastery of certain concepts is sound educational practice and should be encouraged.

I wonder what the detractors of testing and standards are in favor of. The current sorry state of public education in this country should be enough to drive anyone toward efforts to improve. To measure improvement, standards are necessary. Imagine a football field with no yard markers on the field and no goal line. Officials would have no way to award first downs -- no way to call touchdowns. The game would be pointless. Standardized testing puts the yard markers in the classroom. Testing allows easy comparison of teachers, programs, and schools. Testing gives everyone a goal to strive for. 

The misapprehension among the detractors is that standards place onerous demands upon teachers and schools, taking away their autonomy. This is true only in the sense that standards force teachers and schools to show where their students are on a scale that can be used to measure them across district, state, or national boundaries. What I have seen of the CCSS looks like a robust but achievable set of standards for educators. What we need is an appropriate test to measure mastery of those standards. I don't know if such a test exists yet; Common Core is too new for definitive judgment.

In my education classes at the seminary (eons ago), I was taught that God desires the best from each of us -- that excellence is the standard we must establish. I also learned that no human product will ever be perfect, but that striving for perfection is our duty. The Common Core State Standards are not perfect, but they are an effort to prod educators toward excellence. I don't see anything wrong with that. I vote for teachers and testing, thank you.

Make Time for Timeless Truth

Sky News reports today that the Church of England has approved the ordination of women as bishops in the UK church. Since several other national Anglican branches have already made this move, it comes as a dull surprise. The female head of the American branch of the denomination last year, "mocked most of the crucial doctrines of the Christian faith, including the God of creation, the Incarnation, and the Trinity," according to an article on Beliefnet. With such a low view of the authority of the Scripture, it is no wonder that another tenet of the historic Christian faith has toppled like London Bridge.

My Sunday School class had an interesting discussion recently when we pondered why the children of the "Greatest Generation" are leaving the church in droves. (According to Barna, 59% of Millenials are "walking away from either their faith or the institutional church at some point in the first decade of their adult life.") We came up with the theory that even though many parents had a sincere faith, it was not worn on the shirt sleeves for all to see. What the children did see was their parents striving for material success and presenting "church" as an add-on. Lacking any reasonable motivation to continue the weekly charade, the fledglings left "church" in the nest once they flew.

My own children have attended Bible-preaching churches every Sunday (twice, and once on Wednesday) pretty much all their lives, yet I still hear the hint of post-modern relativism creeping into their conversations and lifestyles. I will never forget the night I was explaining why homosexual behaviors are not acceptable for Christians, and one of my own offspring said, "Oh, Dad, that's just your interpretation of the Bible." Ouch! I know God has no grandchildren, but I had hoped that His children who sprang from my loins would mirror my heartfelt beliefs. Maybe someday.

The retreat from traditional belief is thought by some to be a way to attract young people. I believe, rather, that people of all ages seek something timeless, solid, dependable. Far from winning faltering believers, backing away from the absolute into the relative only makes a belief system less attractive to real thinkers. Society is ripe with examples of harsh systems that engender fanatical allegiance: urban gangs, extreme religious cults (like Islamic jihadism), the Amish. Watering down the faith washes out the floundering.

Jesus' teaching emphasized sticking to the truth behind the rules of his day. Certainly, he blasted hypocritical observance that sought public recognition without inner motivation. But far from weakening the rules, he strengthened them by highlighting the inner reason for the outer behavior. Read his Sermon on the Mount for proof of this. Maybe what was missing from our parenting was the explanation for why we did what we did and an open expression of its connection to the Scripture. 

The Beliefnet article points out that the mainline denominations which have embraced relative truth are dying. The only churches that are growing are the ones telling the "old, old story" and living it in meaningful ways. Ships can ride out some pretty serious weather if they have a good anchor. People today are desperately looking for an anchor in ride out life's storms. They have only the shifting sand of relativism; we have an anchor for the soul. That anchor is our hope in the God of truth -- the absolute, timeless truth. If we show that to people, young or old, they will be knocking down our doors instead of leaving through them. As Edith Ann (Lily Tomlin) used to say from her rocking chair, "And that's the truth!"

Supporting the Chinese

An article in The Week turned my crank this morning. In the June 17 article, Jonathan Merritt blasts Hobby Lobby for claiming to be a Christian business while operating in an unchristian manner. His main objection is that the store chain stocks many items that are made in China. Merritt believes that since the Chinese have such a deplorable human rights and religious liberty record, Hobby Lobby is wrong to buy from them because it indirectly supports non-Christian practices like abortion.

In an editorial response in the Rutland Herald, Hobby Lobby Vice-president and chief legal officer, Peter Doblebower defends the store purchasing practices saying, "Virtually all Hobby Lobby’s vendors are small entrepreneurial businesses without control over their government’s abortion policies." What he does not say is that the "small entrepreneurial businesses" are the salvation of many third world people. If not for global outreach (aka outsourcing), there would be no "small entrepreneurial businesses," and the people would probably be added to the statistics of starvation.

It is also worth noting that Merritt and the people at the Huffington Post and elsewhere who charge Hobby Lobby with hypocrisy undoubtedly toast their self-righteous attitudes with Russian vodka after kicking off their Italian loafers while sitting on their Swedish sofa having driven home in their Japanese car they fillled up at a Dutch/British/Venezuelan oil company's gas station. We thrive in a global market where it is almost impossible to define American-made. With Toyotas made in America and Mustangs made in Canada, who is driving the "foreign car?"

Much of what I have said is echoed by John Stonestreet in an excellent article in the Christian Post. But neither Stonestreet nor anyone else I've read mentions a very important perspective. Critics of Hobby Lobby mention the shockingly low minimum wage in China. What they don't consider is the relatively low cost of living in China. According to one source, a white collar worker in Shanghai averages the equivalent of $1,000 US monthly salary. This is considered a comfortable wage in the highest cost city in China. Minimum wage in Shanghai is $290. This 3-1 difference is almost exactly the ratio of minimum wage to average white collar income in America.

It is always dangerous to mix Christianity and business (or politics), but it seems to me that as believers we should consider how to interact on a human level with other humans of all nationalities. Hobby Lobby is not the US government and the small entrepreneur making the cheap products is not the Chinese government. Neither one necessarily approves of the policies of the government under which they labor. Both must do what they can to live according to their beliefs within the framework of that government.

I am comfortable thinking that I support the small Chinese entrepreneur by shopping at Hobby Lobby. If you disagree, shop elsewhere. The situation with Hobby Lobby's outsourcing to China may not be perfect, but I challenge you to find a merchant more concerned with doing things Christianly than Hobby Lobby. In a complex world, half a loaf is better than none. In this case, the half loaf may just feed a family that would starve without it.

Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking

I am upset, frustrated, disappointed and bordering on angry. I know I should not let emotion into this, but it is hard to watch my fellow conservatives make donkeys of themselves. The braying I refer to is about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for education. I have written about this before, but I must do so again in response to an article that floated onto my Facebook wall today.

I have been following a news service called the Tea Party News Network (TPNN). They certainly lean toward the right fringe, but much of what they say has been worth reading -- until today. The article in question by Jennifer Burke reports that a school in California following Common Core standards asked students to write a critical analysis of the holocaust deniers. At least, that's the way I see the assignment. Burke sees it quite differently.

Burke went ballistic calling the assignment openly anti-Semitic. According to the article, students were told to weigh the evidence from history using whatever legitimate sources they could find against the argument presented by the deniers. I think this is a wonderful assignment; what better way to convince young people that the deniers are full of hooey. Apparently, Burke does not believe the truth will be evident in an open debate of the facts. I want to ask Ms. Burke how she knows the holocaust is true and the deniers false. I suspect she would claim it is an opinion based on real evidence whereas the opponents' argument is conjecture and contrived conspiracy theories.

The spokesperson for the district involved in the kerfuffle, Syeda Jafri, defended the assignment with a logical assertion: "Teaching how to come to your own conclusion based on the facts, test your position, be able to articulate that position, then defend your belief with a lucid argument is essential to good citizenship." Amen. Using this method on the TPNN article reveals that they are on shaky ground rhetorically and logically.

First, I say again that the Common Core State Standards are not curriculum. The school did not get the assignment Burke decried from CCSS. Each district, each school, each classroom teacher makes decisions about what curriculum to use to meet the standards. In this case, the standard calls for teaching critical thinking. The assignment in question is perfect for this: it is current; it is controversial; it has plenty of coverage in terms of source material. 

Elsewhere in her tirade Burke criticizes "Common Core based anti-American lessons that have been reported across the country." These undoubtedly do exist, but they cannot be blamed on CCSS; liberals pervade our education system, so the lessons they teach will appear frequently. Given the freedom CCSS gives to local entities to come up with curriculum, Ms. Burke should be calling on conservatives everywhere to get involved in their local schools. (Ironically, CCCS actually requires the teaching of our country's founding documents, one of the rare curricular demands.)

Second, Burke displays the very weakness the CCSS are trying to strengthen: the lack of critical thinking skills. Besides confusing standards with curriculum, she peppers the article with loaded language (anti-Semitic) that begs the question: the assignment is only anti-Semitic if you assume the students could correctly side with the deniers. Is the truth of the holocaust so fragile that it cannot stand up to critical analysis? I don’t think so; Burke implies that she does.

Sadly, the district succumbed to pressure brought by a contrived media campaign and had Jafri announce, “This was a mistake. It should be corrected. It will be corrected. We all know it was real. The Holocaust is not a hoax. … I believe our classroom teachers are teaching it with sensitivity and compassion.” Burke then blasts Jafri for saying the school's critical thinking approach to the truth has no "sensitivity and compassion." I beg to differ with Ms. Burke; it is terribly insensitive and dis-compassionate to give our students facts but not the ability to distinguish truth from error.

As believers we are called to test the spirits, to judge the fruit, in short, to be critical thinkers. I believe part of the reason so many young people are disinterested in the church today is because they were told for a generation or more NOT to question the faith. They were spoon fed a diet of doctrine which may have been theologically correct, but they were reprimanded for asking questions or "experimenting" with new ideas. I say, give them the tools to do good critical thinking (in this case, good Bible study methods) and let them at it. I know the case for Christianity can stand up to scrutiny. I wonder what Ms. Burke is afraid of.

The Cold Facts of Packing Heat

This morning while I drank my second cup of coffee I stumbled across a blog by Nathan Roberts debating whether a Christian should exercise the "right" to self defense using deadly force. Stand your ground, the Castle doctrine and concealed carry debates swirl around every news report of the latest shooting incident. The debate over the godly response in these situations dates back to the aftermath of Cain v. Abel, I imagine. So what is a Christian supposed to think?

Roberts fell into the trap of letting one verse control his thinking on this issue. I do not believe the command to “love thy enemy” extends to allowing my enemy to exercise his evil schemes without constraint. Tasers and pepper spray may be non-lethal substitutes for a firearm, but they are also less effective, in some cases ineffective. I too once thought I should allow God to protect me and my family from evildoers without my assistance. I have changed my view. I now see Romans 13:1-4 as a license to provide self defense against evil. Who is to say I am not the “minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”? And it is not solely out of fear that I do this as Roberts supposes; it is also as a wise watchman seeking to keep his city safe (Psalm 127:1).

One of the comments on Roberts’ blog points out that on a larger scale this issue becomes the debate over just war theory. When is it right for a nation to “execute wrath” upon another nation that is perpetrating evil on others? Should the Allies have “loved” Hitler and allowed him to continue to exterminate Jews? Some would say that only nations or governments in general have the Romans 13 right to execute wrath. The text only says that God has ordained that some authority exists, and that authority has the right to “wield the sword.” I believe the state delegates that authority when it issues concealed carry permits to lawful citizens, or when it upholds the stand your ground or Castle doctrines.

Roberts is correct to observe that we serve a God of love who commands us to love; but he seems to forget that our God is also a righteous God who seeks justice and employs human ministers to execute that judgment. Our understanding of God’s love must be informed by the recognition of his wrath. I am prepared to be that guy in the audience attempting to take down the crazed teenager with an AK-47 and saving Nathan Roberts’ life and maybe dozens of others. I do not hope for that situation to occur, nor would I relish it. But I would do it if I had to. If you want to pray for me, pray that I will shoot straight. I will take my chances with the Judge when I see Him.

Social In-Security

I have become a welfare case, and I am not ashamed. I did not change my opinion of the entitlement culture the American welfare system has spawned. I still think people who are young and capable should work for a living as much as possible. I don't even object to short term unemployment "benefits" to tide one over a period of looking for work. This is actually a form of insurance that an employer partially pays for on behalf of employees; it can be considered part of the worker's wage. I am not in favor of the federal government turning unemployment insurance into a welfare program as it has recently. I also think the system needs to be revamped so that a person could work part time and still collect unemployment benefits, but that is another subject.

The subject here is my welfare -- literally. I have reached the statutory age at which Social Security Retirement benefits are available. And I am happily collecting my fair share. I use the word "fair" intentionally because it is only fair that I should get a return on my "investment" in the Social Security system that has been confiscating my wages for 46 years. When I started weeding the fields at Weller's Nursery at 16, the federal government began taking a portion of my paltry $2.50/hour earnings and stashing them away for my eventual retirement. (OK, I know the money was never "stashed away;" it was spent as soon as they got their hands on it, but let's pretend.)

Here is how my "investment" in Social Security might typically look. If I had earned an average of $30,000 per year over my 46 year working lifetime and invested 13% (SS contribution) at 5% interest, I would have an account balance today of approximately $553,344 (based on annual contributions, not monthly -- that would be a higher number). If I invested that amount as a lump sum at age 62, I could draw $27,667 every year if my investment earned the same 5% for the rest of my life. When I finally die, my heirs would still get $553,344 in my estate.

My Social Security retirement benefit is less than half of $27,667. The odds are I won't make it to 92, so I won't collect anywhere near what I have "invested," and my heirs cannot inherit any remaining "balance" of my Social Security "investment." In other words, I am not sponging off the system taking money I haven't earned; rather, I am being short-changed, and so are my children.

As a Christian, I subscribe to the biblical principle that senior citizens should eat of the labors of their own hands. I do not think it harsh that the Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians that one who would not work should not eat. I contend that I have worked for the bread I now eat, even though it is paid for from my Social Security benefits. I earned those benefits and then some. I am sorry that our government turned the system into a giant Ponzi scheme by spending instead of investing my contributions and those working today are funding my retirement from their earnings. In a way, even that arrangement reflects a biblical principle that the younger should care for their older.

I regularly thank the students in my classes for endeavoring to improve their lot and earn better incomes. (Yes, I work part time to supplement my meager benefits; but I must take care not to earn too much or my benefits will be reduced even more.) My advice to anyone under the age of 50 is to save and invest every dollar that can be allotted. All Ponzi schemes eventually topple, and the one known as Social Security is quickly headed for a fall. Young people who are not investing for retirement are violating another biblical principle: look to the ant, grasshopper.

Common Core Commonalities

I am about to get myself in trouble with a bunch of my friends. Common Core is not the monster many people think it is. An article by the Associated Press posted on Fox News makes my point perfectly. Let me start by re-stating what I said in an earlier blog: Common Core is not a curriculum. The standards in Common Core simply state what things students should know at certain grade levels. How those things are taught and what materials are used remain at the discretion of the local school districts and even classroom teachers.

What the AP article says is typical of overblown criticism of Common Core by ignorant parents and educators who try to paint it as an effort to wrest local control or dictate what specifics must be taught. The truth is that the standards are not asking for more than what any reasonable parent or educator would want from a decent school program. It asks that the students be taught how to think, not what to think.

The AP article mentioned above says, "Adopted by 44 states, the Common Core is a set of English and math standards that spell out what students should know and when. The standards for elementary math emphasize that kids should not only be able to solve arithmetic problems using the tried-and-true methods their parents learned, but understand how numbers relate to each other." The article highlights the frustration of parents who cannot handle the concepts their children are being taught. I contend that this is not a problem with Common Core, but rather a problem with the parents' education.

For about a generation now, our schools have been teaching students the answers to the questions instead of teaching students how to think. Educators have finally realized that teaching pat answers won't be sufficient if the questions change (as they have). Suddenly, we realize that the ability to think creatively, critically is more important than knowing the "answer" to a prescribed question. Parents who have only been taught the "answers" are now complaining that they can't think alongside their students. Good.

I am regularly amazed (shocked) by the inability of my college students to think creatively. They come to me expecting to receive answers, not to think about the possibilities of answers. They want me to tell them what to think rather than how to think. They are utterly unprepared to read or hear on their own and make informed decisions about critical matters. If they have opinions, they are untried and unconsidered. If there was ever a fertile ground for mass indoctrination, this is it. 

Maybe this is how Hitler or Stalin or Idi Amin were able to accomplish their atrocities. Maybe they had a population that had been rendered helpless to think for themselves. I know the Common Core standards are not perfect. I know the implementation can be misguided. But if the main objection is that Common Core asks more of the next generation that of the last, is that really a bad thing? I mean, do we want Justin Bieber as our next President? After all, he's not even a citizen... but who cares... really? Aren't Christians supposed to be about tolerance and all that? Wouldn't Jesus and Justin be best buds? Really, dude.

The Dumbing of America

The College Board announced recently that it will take another step backward on its flagship SAT college entrance exam. The SAT, once the dominant test for high school juniors hoping for a seat in a discriminating college, has lost its numerical advantage. On the coasts of the nation, it is still the test of choice in most schools. In the mid-section of the country, however, the ACT has steadily gained numbers so that it now has surpassed its rival in numbers of test takers nationwide.

It cannot be said for certain that the College Board is changing because of the competition from the ACT, but the fact remains that recent changes will bring the venerable measure closer to its younger foe. The real story of what the College Board has done comes into focus with a little historical perspective. The SAT has been gradually dumbed down to accommodate our increasingly less capable high school population. Back in 1994 the College Board succumbed to pressure to remove the devilish antonym and analogy questions. These questions measured both vocabulary and critical reasoning skills, two elements found dwindling among high schoolers. Anyone who works with college freshman and sophomores as I do can attest to their poor vocabulary and paucity of reasoning skill. To protect them from ego damage, the SAT stopped asking them hard questions. I think that is metaphorically called punting (and I don't mean using a long flat bottomed boat.)

The other major change in the SAT is the removal of "SAT words," a term of derision that has been applied to any word that the hearer does not recognize. In other words, erudition is passe; we be down with dumb. The remarks by one high school student concerning the changes are telling. Commenting on the old test which had, "hard words and stuff," she was relieved to know her vocabulary would not need to grow much to score well on the test. I can't wait to get her in Composition class.

On another front there is a furor over Common Core standards in education. Many conservatives are joining the fight against them. Rachel Alexander of the Christian Post makes a false statement typical of many objectors: "Conservatives are in an uproar over Common Core, an educational curriculum being forced upon the states by the Obama administration." First, Common Core is not a curriculum; it is a set of standards. Curriculum is what and how you teach; standards, like Common Core, are the goals you hope to achieve by teaching what you teach. The Common Core is simply a set of concepts that students are expected to know at a given stage in their education. It is up to the local school, even the classroom teacher sometimes, to decide what materials and lessons to use. Second, Obama is not forcing any state to adopt Common Core. Sure, there is federal money available for those who do, but just like many federal programs, states can choose not to take the money.

Alexander also cites Diane Ravitch, a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, saying Common Core has not been proven. That is not true either. Tennessee has vigorously applied Common Core standards along with a rigorous teacher training and accountability regime and their student scores have rocketed toward the top in national rankings. Meanwhile Michigan dithers over what to do and our student scores are rapidly sinking toward the bottom. There may be honest objections to how standards are applied and how and when students are tested, but objecting to standards is like saying you don't care if students learn anything.

We cannot spank them anymore; that would be abusive, so they misbehave with impunity. They might sue if we make onerous demands on them as teens, so they have freedom without responsibility. Schools purport to teach diversity and end up promoting mindless uniformity. Across the country nearly 20% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Year after year American students fall farther behind students from many other countries. If I didn't know better I would suspect a sinister conspiracy to produce a generation of mindless automatons who will stand for nothing and fall for anything. That sounds suspiciously like the technique used by the Serpent in the Garden. Surely we wouldn't fall for that again.

A Hill Worth Dying On

April 15 has come and gone once more. Like many Americans I dread its coming, work madly to complete the endless forms (or pay to have someone else do them), and grumble more loudly than usual that I pay too much for needless programs and wasteful spending. I am not going to fight the income tax battle here, but I did notice a couple interesting sideshows in the news that got me thinking.

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy apparently was willing to pay his dues for the privilege of grazing cattle on federal land up until 1993. Then something changed his mind. Amid all the flag-waving and shouts of government heavy handedness, the true position of Mr. Bundy as a law-breaker may have been lost. Gracy Olmstead has a good summary of the situation in The Federalist this week. Politico reports that Bundy is more than just an aggrieved rancher; he is a radical activist who does not recognize the authority of the federal government. He's sort of like a holocaust denier in that way. I suspect many of the tea party flag wavers who gathered on his ranch this week are ignorant of the real story.

A strangely similar fight has been going on in a completely unrelated arena over Common Core educational standards. According to an article in The Foundry this week, fifteen states are backing out of their association with Common Core. This too is being framed as a battle against federal over-reach, but as in the Bundy case, ignorance abounds. Articles like one on Fox News website chronicle the activities of people who object to Common Core, but offer nothing substantive about their objections. A quick look at the standards themselves can dispel most of the objector myths. (There is a good myth-buster at the Common Core web site.)

What scares me most is not that the government wants to take our money or set standards for educating our children. I fear the kind of people who can jump on a band wagon without knowing where it came from or where it's really going. These are the same people who are swayed by half-truths and misdirection perpetrated by crafty policy salesmen. It is the grifter's trick to get you to look at his right hand while he steals your watch with his left. Only in this case we are not losing our watch, we are losing our freedom.

It is misguided for Christians to be fighting Common Core or the Bureau of Land Management. What we should be doing is taking a majority stand against the tyrannical minorities which are systematically stripping us of our Constitutional rights to practice our religion freely. A handful of atheists got prayer and Bible reading removed from public schools. A tiny minority has insisted that homosexual practices must be accepted as an alternative lifestyle and to disagree is bigotry. Although a Pew Research poll shows that Americans agree 4 to 1 that abortion is morally wrong, it remains legal to kill unborn children.  And I wonder how many people are really offended by Merry Christmas. Really.

The Bundy ranch has no hills worth dying on, but any one of the issues just mentioned qualifies. (OK, not Merry Christmas.) The Great Commission commands believers to make disciples. If we took that charge seriously we could effect the only change that matters in the long (long) run: changed hearts. That is why Jesus died on the hill he knew was worth the cost. The price paid on that hill must move us to pick our battles carefully, but pick them. There are hills worth dying on.

An Open Letter to My Children

The full title of this post is really "An Open Letter to My Children and Anyone Else Who Wants to Hear Clair Blather About the Joys and Disappointments of Parenting". Many years ago when we still had three children living in our home, I lived under the delusion that I was a pretty good parent. It wasn't until the three little birdies left the nest and started families of their own that I began to doubt my self assessment.

Each one of my dear ones has made it clear on separate occasions that they would not have been in unreserved agreement with my measure of my parental perfection. Likewise, each has exhibited some behavior which would cause any concerned parent to have some degree of disappointment. Please do not misunderstand, my children (or you listeners-in); I am still proud to call myself your father, and nothing you have done or can do will diminish my unconditional love for you.

And there it is: the major flaw in my parenting which has been pointed out by you and, at times, by your dear mother. I cannot seem to craft a compliment or statement of praise without inserting a "but" in it. You must hear echoes in the halls of your memory of me saying, "You did a good job! But..." Each of you has received deserved praise from respectable sources throughout your lives. Yet I wonder if I ever said how proud of you I am without sticking my "but" in it.

Perhaps each of you has reason to "hate" me. (I am using the 21st century, Gen-Y version of "hate," not the Bible version or the Webster version.) I know if my father was as you perceive me to be, I would "hate" him. I look back on the situations when I behaved really badly and cringe. I have said and done some really dumb things. And while it may be true that there is no excuse for stupid, there is a difference between stupid-mean and stupid-thoughtless. If I had only thought better...

So now that you are all parents yourselves, I want to encourage you to break the mold (if in fact there is a mold). Let your children know how great they are. Sure, you will correct them at times. But there must be more times when you simply praise them. If as parents we are to model God's love, it is imperative that we remember what manner of love we enjoy, "That while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." When Jesus went to the cross, it was the Father saying,"I love you this much." And there are no "buts" about that. 

A Flood of Questions

I haven't seen the movie Noah, and I doubt I will see it for quite a while. I gave up first run movies in theaters in protest of the price long ago. You can judge how long by the fact that I think I paid the princely sum of $5.00 for the last ticket. My children, who did not inherit the frugality gene, tell me it now costs north of $10.00 for the ticket and the typical drink and popcorn adds another ten-spot. No thanks. As much as I would like to see the flick, it's not worth $40.00 to take my wife and I when it will be $2.00 at Family Video soon, and free later on Netflix if it isn't too big at the box office.

But I do feel compelled to write about Noah, if only because I am hurt that it means I have probably lost my chance to write a screenplay for the novel I have been waiting to have discovered. You may not be aware that I have been peddling my own historical fiction, fantasy adventure romance novel about the life and times of Noah and his angelic helpers. The Kindle version is still available on Amazon, but I think it can be considered "out of print" as my on-demand publisher, Xulon Press, has not received my annual &*@#$24.99 maintenance fee for several years now. (That seems like a scam to me; can it really cost twenty-five bucks per year to keep a digital file available?) Maybe if enough people try to order it, they will "find" the file in some archive. Who knows?

Back to the movie. I did read some reviews. Sophia Lee of World Magazine calls Noah "a dark psychological thriller wrapped up in a horror film."  She remarks that, "Noah makes serious attempts at grappling with deep theological questions.... But Christians shouldn't be surprised that a secular production would miss the most important and critical element of this Genesis story—the gospel of Christ." Peter Bradshaw of the Guardian says the film is "a big muscular movie" that is "bombastic and redundant and subtly disappointing." Bradshaw also says that writer/director Darren Aronofsky has pretty well expunged God from the story line. What a surprise: Hollywood ignores the elementary role of God in a biblical story. Who would have guessed that?

I will wait to see the movie for my final judgment, but I have to give Aronofsky credit for seeing what I saw in the story of the biblical Noah (Great minds...). My motivation for writing a Bible-based fiction/fantasy was the realization that all the characters in the Bible were real human beings with real human foibles and they struggled with real human (and demonic) enemies. Even though Aronofsky is an avowed atheist, he does invest what he calls "personal passion" in the Genesis story (according to Lee). He also claims to have done 10 years of research, which may explain how he ended up with a story idea so similar to mine.

Maybe the best thing about all the fuss over Noah, the movie is the fuss itself. As a wise woman in my Sunday School class said, it opens the door to spiritual conversations. Anything that turns that knob is at least partly a good thing. Maybe I should stop sulking and take advantage of the moment. Maybe I just did.