Benevolent and easy-going Father:
We have occasionally been guilty of errors of judgment.
We have lived under the deprivations of heredity and the disadvantages of environment.
We have sometimes failed to act in accordance with common sense.
We have done the best we could in the circumstances,
And have been careful not to ignore the common standards of decency;
And we are glad to think that we are fairly normal.
Do thou, O Lord, deal lightly with our infrequent lapses.
Be thy own sweet Self with those who admit they are not perfect;
According to the unlimited tolerances which we have a right to expect from thee.
And grant us as an indulgent Parent
That we may hereafter continue to live a harmless and happy life
And keep our self-respect.

from He Sent Leanness, by David Head, referenced in Mark (The NIV Application Commentary), by David Garland.

The original prayer of general confession from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty and most merciful Father,
We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep,
We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts,
We have offended against thy holy laws,
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done,
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done,
And there is no health in us:
But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us miserable offenders;
Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults, restore thou them that are penitent,
According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord:
And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake,
That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life,
To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

No related posts.

“So it is,” said Mr. Syme.

“Nonsense!” said Gregory, who was very rational when anyone else attempted paradox. “Why do all the clerks and navvies in the railway trains look so sad and tired, so very sad and tired? I will tell you. It is because they know that the train is going right. It is because they know that whatever place they have taken a ticket for that place they will reach. It is because after they have passed Sloane Square they know that the next station must be Victoria, and nothing but Victoria. Oh, their wild rapture! oh, their eyes like stars and their souls again in Eden, if the next station were unaccountably Baker Street!”

“It is you who are unpoetical,” replied the poet Syme. “If what you say of clerks is true, they can only be as prosaic as your poetry. The rare, strange thing is to hit the mark; the gross, obvious thing is to miss it. We feel it is epical when man with one wild arrow strikes a distant bird. Is it not also epical when man with one wild engine strikes a distant station? Chaos is dull; because in chaos the train might indeed go anywhere, to Baker Street or to Bagdad. But man is a magician, and his whole magic is in this, that he does say Victoria, and lo! it is Victoria. No, take your books of mere poetry and prose; let me read a time table, with tears of pride. Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say!”

“Must you go?” inquired Gregory sarcastically.

“I tell you,” went on Syme with passion, “that every time a train comes in I feel that it has broken past batteries of besiegers, and that man has won a battle against chaos. You say contemptuously that when one has left Sloane Square one must come to Victoria. I say that one might do a thousand things instead, and that whenever I really come there I have the sense of hairbreadth escape. And when I hear the guard shout out the word ‘Victoria,’ it is not an unmeaning word. It is to me the cry of a herald announcing conquest. It is to me indeed ‘Victoria’; it is the victory of Adam.”

Gregory wagged his heavy, red head with a slow and sad smile.

“And even then,” he said, “we poets always ask the question, ‘And what is Victoria now that you have got there?’ You think Victoria is like the New Jerusalem. We know that the New Jerusalem will only be like Victoria. Yes, the poet will be discontented even in the streets of heaven. The poet is always in revolt.”

“There again,” said Syme irritably, “what is there poetical about being in revolt? You might as well say that it is poetical to be sea-sick. Being sick is a revolt. Both being sick and being rebellious may be the wholesome thing on certain desperate occasions; but I’m hanged if I can see why they are poetical. Revolt in the abstract is—revolting. It’s mere vomiting.”

“It is things going right,” he cried, “that is poetical! Our digestions, for instance, going sacredly and silently right, that is the foundation of all poetry. Yes, the most poetical thing, more poetical than the flowers, more poetical than the stars—the most poetical thing in the world is not being sick.”

from Chapter 1 of The Man Who Was Thursday, by G. K. Chesterton

Download an audio recording of this book from LibriVox.org

No related posts.

Mohler:

Joel Osteen is in the news once again, this time for saying that Mormonism is just another form of Christianity.
…
The main point of concern in Joel’s latest comment is the lack of any biblical standard of judgment and the total abdication of theological responsibility.
…
He doesn’t “get hung up” on doctrinal issues, nor has he “really studied them or thought about them.”

Not to heap criticism on Osteen, but Mohler is right that all Christians need to think deeply about what constitutes Christianity, and what beliefs separate authentic Christianity from non-Christianity.  We are constantly bombarded with different ideas about what “Christianity” should look like.  Are these different ideas just different opinions from various Christians, or do some of them deviate from actually being Christianity?

No related posts.

• You can help it along (intentionally or unintentionally)

You may not feel particularly tired, but if you lie still on a comfortable bed with your eyes closed in a dark, quiet room, there is a very good chance that after a while you will fall asleep. If you want to fall asleep, then you will be well served by doing these things. If you do not want to fall asleep, then it would be rather foolhardy to do these things.

Similarly, you don’t have to be completely smitten with someone to fall in love with them. If the conditions are right for falling in love, then it should come as no surprise that people fall in love, even if that was not their goal. If a young man and a young woman start spending lots of time together, conversing and sharing their intimate thoughts and feelings with each other, then it would not be unusual for them to fall in love. If two people are courting, they can “assist” the process of falling in love, by buying each other gifts, writing romantic notes, holding hands, etc. On the other hand, two people who are not in a position to marry each other should avoid these types of things.

• but you can’t force it.

Sometimes, though, despite all your attempts to fall asleep, you just can’t seem to do it. You’ve set the conditions properly, but you’re still awake. Maybe it’s a medical problem, maybe you had too much caffeine, maybe your mind is too preoccupied. Whatever it is, in spite of your desire to fall asleep, your body isn’t letting it happen.

While love is a choice, and you can always choose to love someone, you can’t make them love you back. And you might find that despite all your efforts, loving them is a challenge. Differences in personalities, interests, maturity, etc., may present significant barriers to falling in love.

• You can push it away

You can avoid falling asleep. It might even be unintentional. You’re engrossed in a movie or something on TV, something you’re reading, or a project you’re working on. If you had gone to bed hours ago, you would be asleep now, but because you have been preoccupied with something else, you’re still awake. Or, even if you are sleepy, you can force yourself to stay awake (for a while, at least). You can drink some coffee, listen to loud music, go for a jog, etc. It might get progressively harder to stay awake, but you can increase your efforts, and usually keep sleep at bay for much longer than normal.

Same thing with falling in love. You can avoid it by being preoccupied with other matters, or you can recognize the signs and take intentional steps to prevent it.

• but you can’t always avoid it.

Try as you might to stay awake, eventually your body is going to give in to exhaustion. Even in the midst of a situation totally unconducive to sleep, if you are tired enough, you will fall asleep at some point, like it or not.

Here, perhaps, the parallel is weakest. I don’t know that there are any situations where you absolutely cannot resist falling in love. The similarity exists though, because there are times when the natural process just happens, sometimes before you even realize it. You weren’t looking for love, or expecting to fall in love, but you meet someone seemingly irresistible, and BAM!, you fall in love. Maybe you even tried to avoid it, but the attraction was just too strong to resist for long.

I don’t think that there is one “right way” to fall in love. There is nothing inherently superior about instant mutual attraction versus an intentional process. There are times when romance should be avoided or delayed, but it can also be a sign of immaturity to resist or put off a relationship (due to fear or unreasonable expectations).  The key is to be obedient to God and use wisdom in the choices we make.

The phrase “falling in love” is somewhat problematic in itself, as it implies chance or accident, and feeds into the false perception of love as being equivalent to romantic feelings. In a sense, “falling in love” is a code-phrase for “the emergence of romantic feelings.” I’m not sure it’s necessary to reject it as a false or worldly concept, but we should seek to imbue it with more meaning and convey a full understanding of what love is.

No related posts.

Ten years ago, I borrowed $68,000 to buy a house.  If I had made the regular payments for the full 30-year term, I would have paid $101,076.80 in interest, repaying a total of $169,077.60 on that $68,000 loan.  Ouch!  That’s an overall interest rate for the life of the loan of nearly 150%!

Today, I went over to the bank, got a cashier’s check for the remaining amount, and mailed it off to the payoff department.

As it is, I paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $25,000 in interest and fees over the last 10 years (including initial closing costs and a refinance 8 years ago), which is about 34% of the $73,000 purchase price of the house.  Still a hefty chunk of change!

Looking forward to getting the title to our house in a few weeks!

No related posts.

The socialist prescribes methods for caring for each other, and assumes that people will comply with these methods.  They assume the productive will contribute just as much as before.  They assume the needy will become productive once their needs have been met.

The libertarian believes that people will generally do the right thing on their own, and that the few “bad apples” will be held in check by market forces.  They believe that self-interest is ultimately good, because each individual’s self-interest is best served by working in harmony with their fellow men.  They assume that the majority are forward-thinking enough to see the benefit in helping their neighbors so that society in general, themselves included, can be more prosperous.

Unfortunately for both socialism and libertarianism, there is no limit to the laziness, selfishness, and greed that lives in the heart of man (Jer 17:9, Eccl 9:3).

Under socialism, the producers will scale back, seeing no personal benefit to increased productivity.  The needy will not seek to be more productive, because someone else will provide for them.  Poverty will increase, and the powers that be will attempt to exert more and more control.

Under libertarianism, individuals will seek their own profit with minimal personal effort, and as each person’s goals conflict with others, society will decay into anarchy.  After a period of anarchy, someone will rise to power, seize control and crack down on the anarchy.

So socialists and libertarians desire the same thing, make the same mistake in estimating man’s goodness, and both lead to totalitarian control.

1. Socialist may not be the best label, but I am using it as a description of those on the very far left of the political spectrum.
2. Libertarian may not be the best label, but I am using it as a description of those on the very far right of the political spectrum.

No related posts.

No related posts.

On three corners of Fairfield and Airport Expressway stood a few dozen people holding American flags and a few signs.  We stood with these people, silently expressing our opposition to the hate on display on the fourth corner.  These co-counter-protesters were one audience, our presence communicating to them, “we’re with you.”  Unfortunately, some of our fellow counter-protesters unhelpfully expressed their disdain for the protesters on the other corner by shouting profanity at them.  I wish I could have told them, “I’m with you if you’re standing up for Christian love and patriotic honor, but I want no part of your counter-hate.”

Together, we told the audience of drivers and passengers in the passing traffic, “we honor our country and those who die in service to our country.  We oppose those who spew hatred.”  Some of those passing by tooted their horns appreciatively, expressing support and gratitude for our stand.  Others blew an extended blast of their horns at the hateful protesters as they drove by, extending the middle finger of fellowship through their window.  Unfortunately, some of the counter protesters cheered on this behavior.

On the other street corner, flanked by Fort Wayne police officers, four members of Westboro Baptist Church (WARNING: link to an offensive site) formed another audience.   They were there to protest America’s acceptance of homosexuality, happily rejoicing in the death of an American serviceman as evidence of God’s judgement.  We showed up to let them know that we disagree with the hateful things they say and the despicable way they spread their message.  (Denouncing homosexual behavior is not itself hateful, but the message of Westboro Baptist Church is filled with hate.)

I was also an audience member, on two counts.  For one, by putting my beliefs into action, I was demonstrating to myself that beliefs really matter, and beliefs should lead to action.  There are lots of people and things in this world that I disagree with, but I wouldn’t normally bother to protest most of them.  However, it is especially troublesome to have people who claim to be Christians, who claim to hold the truth of God’s Word, behave in such ungodly ways.  Because I cherish the truth of God’s Word and sincere devotion to following God’s commands, I felt that it was important to express my opposition to the way they twist God’s Word and character.

However, I was also an audience to the protesters from Westboro Baptist Church.  They weren’t just there for the passing traffic or the media.  As they waved their signs, trampled their American flags, and sang their songs, they were performing for those of us on the corners opposite them.  It makes me wonder if it would be better to just ignore them, rather than show up to be part of their audience.

No related posts.

Confession, at its core, is a statement or affirmation of what we believe. It can be a statement of what we believe to be right, i.e., a confession of faith, or it can be a statement of what we believe to be wrong, i.e., a confession of sin. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, in its definition of confession, notes that confession is “uniting in a statement that has previously been made by someone else.”

Our most important confession is that Jesus Christ is Lord. Churches or groups of believers have at times written confessions that explain how they interpret God’s word, and provides a basis for agreement (the Augsburg Confession, Belgic Confession, and Westminster Confession are three examples of confessional statements that arose out of the Reformation).

Confession is also an admission of sin. Sometimes, it means revealing to others sin that was hidden. Sometimes others were well aware of the sin, and confession is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and an opportunity to agree that something truly was wrong.

What things are we to confess?

I don’t think there is anything that we shouldn’t confess. We should not hide our faith, and we should not hide our sin. The question, then, is about who to confess to, and in what setting.

To whom should we confess (God, individual, church)?
How, or where, should we confess (publicly or privately)?

There are examples in Scripture of both public confession and private confession. Private confession could be made in prayer to God, or between individuals.

1. Sins that are against another person should be confessed to that person.
2. Sins that are against the church body should be confessed to the church body.
3. Sins that take place in the public eye should be confessed publicly.

Why should we confess our sin?

For starters, God commands us to. But there are two significant reasons why we should confess our sin, and understanding these two reasons can help us in determining who should hear our confession.

1. Confess sin in order to achieve reconciliation. When unity has been severed, or damage has been done to another person or group of people, we need to confess our sin to them in order to be reconciled. The other side of the coin in reconciliation is forgiveness, which the offended party needs to offer. The order is not important (someone may confront you with your sin before you confess), but reconciliation requires both confession and forgiveness.

All sin is offensive to God, so all sin should be confessed to God, but some sins also need to be confessed to other people, if those people have been hurt by our sin. If the sin was private, between you and God, then there is no need to reveal it to others, necessarily.

2. Confess sin to keep from being dishonest. Sometimes, other people have no reason to believe that we have committed a certain sin, or that we haven’t committed a certain sin. Just because we have, doesn’t mean we need to tell them about it. However, there are also cases where someone may be led to believe that we have not committed a certain sin, and it would be dishonest to continue to give that false impression.

No related posts.

You can read her speech here: http://americaviaerica.blogspot.com/

It’s not a bad speech, and there is certainly reason to be critical of the way public education is structured today.  Rather than cherry-pick quotes from the speech, I’ll leave it to you to read it in its entirety.

My question is this:  what would it look like if she got her way?

What if teachers quit “teaching to the test,” and we weren’t so worried about grades, and we didn’t try to make everyone take the same subjects?  What if teachers focused on encouraging students to pursue their passions, question authority, and spend their time being creative and innovative?  What if school was less about “training” and more about “expanding the mind”?

Particularly in the context of American public education, what would that look like?

I think it would be a miserable failure.  At least in our culture of entitlement and tolerance, I do not believe this approach would work.  There would be some students who would thrive, but the overall level of education and competency would drop significantly.

When objective facts are “too restrictive,” then we are left with subjective experience.  If someone doesn’t like something, isn’t interested, or wants to do something different, then who are you to tell them otherwise?

We have a society of adolescents who want life handed to them on a platter.  Do you think they are all going to buckle down and pursue their dreams if we just stop “oppressing” them with our ideas of what they should be learning?

Developing passion, exercising creativity, and implementing creative solutions are best developed under a mentor, not via classroom instruction.  Our American public educational system is not going to abandon classroom instruction, because it cannot afford to.  You can’t hire enough teachers to spend six hours a day with a few students.  Especially when it is expected to have programs for every activity someone thinks is worthy: sports, art, music, theater, etc.  The kind of interaction that helps children develop into thinking, passionate adults comes from parents, not a teacher in the front of the classroom.

So, rather than taking Erica Goldson’s critique as an impetus for (the wrong kind of) change in our education system, look at the home, and think about the values that parents should instill in their children.

(P.S.  For extra credit, write your own essay explaining the viewpoint that Ms. Goldson expresses when she compares workers to “slaves of the system,” decries the “inhuman nonsense of corporatism and materialism,” and describes schooling as “brainwashing techniques in order to create a complacent labor force working in the interests of large corporations.”)

(P.P.S.  For even more extra credit, write another essay discussing the following questions: Are humans “basically good,” or are humans inherently lazy and selfish?  Should we expect great things from people if they are simply encouraged to develop and pursue their interests?  Should a foundational element of education be instruction in past human failures and successes, and the benefits of knowledge and diligence?)

No related posts.

A necessary component of developing precise definitions is understanding how people interpret the things they hear.  I’m going to make some assumptions about what people think about a “Calvinist with tension,” but the most helpful thing would be for you to tell me what you think when you hear this.

One of the things I assume people hear in this statement is a distinction from a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist or a militant Calvinist who is completely unwilling to listen to objections or arguments from another point of view and thinks non-Calvinists are either uninformed, deceived, or worse.  That sort of Calvinist does not feel any tension; instead, they are rigid in their beliefs.  I would say that this understanding is, at least in part, a proper part of what it should mean to be a “Calvinist with tension.”

It’s also possible that hearers may interpret this as saying, “I consider myself a Calvinist, but there are aspects of Calvinism that I have doubts about.”  The understanding here is that the speaker favors Calvinism over other formulations, but isn’t really satisfied that Calvinism has the right answers.  While this is probably true for some people, I do not think this is a good understanding of what I would mean if I said I was a Calvinist with tension.  I think this understanding infers that the speaker is a Calvinist “for lack of a better option.”  If someone could show them a system that relieved their “tension” (doubts about Calvinism), they would gladly accept this other system in lieu of Calvinism.

In contrast, I would not define “tension” as doubts, but as a realization that some aspects of Calvinism may be difficult to grasp (not only for others, but for myself!).  I understand why people might have objections to Calvinism, and I recognize that some of these objections stem from principles that are true.  There are not always simple, cut-and-dried explanations that are satisfying.  It’s not a matter of a simple proof-text for all issues.  The tension comes from the very real need to reconcile things that are true that seem to be at odds with each other.

I think that an intellectually honest Arminian must also be an “Arminian with tension.”  This need not mean that they are not convinced of the truth of Arminianism.  It means that they don’t see objections as smoke-screens or man-made resistance to their position.  Instead, they recognize that a human explanation of divine truth may not be satisfactory to everyone.  There is limitation on both ends, in the human who gives the explanation and the human who listens to the explanation.

I believe that Calvinist positions are faithful to what the Bible teaches, but there is a tension between two (or more) different directions someone may take on an issue, and it is not always easy to explain how everything fits together.

No related posts.

The series is now over, and I find myself asking, “Can you have a good story without having a good ending?”  Reading a few reviews and comments on the series finale, you find some people who are completely thrilled and satisfied with how the series ended. Others, like me, are disappointed and feel like the ending lacked a sense of meaning and resolution.  We had followed the stories of the various characters, hoping to understand the connections between various events.  We were hoping to be let in on the secret story arc that explained “why,” but we walked away empty-handed.

In my view, the letdown is primarily the result of writers who have been infected by existentialism.  Many people have bought into existentialism, whether they realize it or not. To an existentialist, existence is meaningless, outside of the meaning that you bring to your existence. The individual, and their choices, is all that really matters. It is not important for there to be “reasons” that tie the story together.¹

The biggest problem with this (from the standpoint of a compelling story) is that when the individuals pass on, so does the meaning. There is no meaning for an outside observer; the “meaning” of LOST is trapped inside the church with all the characters.

Some good stories feature a mystery that is solved, or a problem that is overcome. When the mystery is solved, we understand what transpired and why certain things happened. When the problem is overcome, we are relieved, because we understand why the problem was bad and why the solution is good.

As LOST ended, some questions were answered and some problems were solved, but there was a lack of meaning. LOST had lots of storytelling, but the overarching meta-narrative or story arc was incomplete.  The smoke monster is defeated, but it’s never quite clear why he was so evil, so powerful, or what would happen if he wasn’t defeated. The island is saved, but it’s never quite clear why that was so important, what role its unique characteristics played, or what the consequences would be if it were destroyed. The primary role of the island seems to be a plot device that generated experiences wherein the characters could interact.

It’s okay to have a character-driven story without mysteries to solve or hurdles to overcome. However, one normally expects the characters to reveal something to us about ourselves or our fellow man.

Throughout LOST, there have been references to finding deeper meaning in life, to pursuing one’s purpose, and exploring the mysteries of free will and destiny. Although we should not expect a TV show to provide satisfactory answers for all these questions, many people were hoping for some explanations that would make some sense of all that has happened on the show.

In some sense, each of the characters discover their purpose and fulfill it. But it’s a hollow purpose that doesn’t add any meaning to the story. If Jack had failed, if Hurley had not taken his place, would it have really mattered? People have experiences; they do bad things; they do good things; they end up back together again with the people they love. But there is no substance behind it. There are no reasons to explain why those experiences mattered.  It might have even been okay if it had simply ended as a battle between good and evil, where good won out.  But the ending made the actual events irrelevant.  It’s simply, “here we are, all together again, isn’t this nice.” As Richard Vine blogged, “Heaven is a Drive Shaft gig: altogether now, ‘You all, everybody!’” Or, as one commenter summarized, “Sentimentality 1, Making sense 0.”

1. Contrary to existentialism, Christianity declares that God defines human essence, He gives us our purpose, and He determines our destiny. We belong to Him, and our life is meaningful if we live according to His purposes. Read/Listen/Watch John Piper give a great explanation of this reality.

No related posts.

I would just like to thank you for your many years of service as a representative for our area.  While I may not have agreed with every vote you cast or decision you made, I believe that you served our area well.  I do not doubt that you honestly tried to do your best to vote according to your convictions, and I believe that your commitment to godly standards and strong families is sincere.

Thank you, too, for not seeking to deflect or minimize your sin, and for doing the right thing in stepping down from your position.

As a fellow Christian, I encourage you to not back away from your church or switch churches, but to allow your elders and friends at Emmanuel to assist you in seeking complete repentance and reconciliation.

My wife and I will keep you in our prayers.

Sincerely,

Steve Long

No related posts.

Some of his detractors are practically giddy. (The only thing they would like better is if it had been a homosexual affair.)  Here is a conservative, evangelical Christian; a staunch proponent of family values; if anyone should take the high road, it should be him.  Yet here he is, caught in the worst kind of hypocrisy.

I’d like to examine that hypocrisy.

Here are a couple definitions of hypocrisy:

• a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. (dictionary.com)
• a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion. (merriam-webster.com)

In a sense, there are two ways in which one can be a hypocrite:
1) Saying something that you don’t really believe.
2) Doing something that is contrary to what you believe.

In a strict sense, hypocrisy mainly belongs in the first category.  As someone has written on Wikipedia, hypocrisy “is not simply an inconsistency between what is praised or admired and what is done.”  The line between the first and second category is sometimes blurry, as our actions typically reveal our true convictions.  However, there is a difference between pretense and inconsistency.

I think Souder’s hypocrisy falls into the second category, of failing to live up to his beliefs.  I do not think that his stated convictions have been a “put on” to appeal to conservative voters.  I suspect that he truly believes in biblically-based morality.  If his affair had gone undetected, and if he continued to serve in Congress, I think he would have consistently voted for laws that affirm Judeo-Christian ethics and strong families.

The reason I’m glad Souder is resigning, is not primarily because I see him as having a hypocrisy problem.  It’s because I see him as having an integrity problem.  Many of the things Souder supported are things that I support too, and I think that his convictions were honest.  The problem is that he failed to live according to his convictions.

Somewhere along the line, Souder allowed himself to believe a lie.

Maybe he believed the lie that his situation was special, and his actions were justified.  This is possible, but I suspect he fully understood that his actions were wrong.

Maybe he believed the lie that the benefit outweighed the consequences.  I’m speculating that he thought they could keep it under wraps, and that this “one little indiscretion” would not impact his work.

This is the type of lie that I’m prone to succumb to.  I know something is wrong, but I think it’s not really THAT destructive, and the payoff is worth it.

No related posts.

If you’re wondering who will be on the ballot, here’s a list of the Indiana primary candidates for all offices.

One of the most significant races is for the Senate seat that Evan Bayh will be vacating.  Bayh announced his resignation too late for anyone else to get on the primary ballot as a Democrat, so the party leaders get to pick the candidate who will be on the ballot in November.  Although it’s not official yet, the Democratic candidate is expected to be Brad Ellsworth, who is currently representing the 8th District in Congress.

On the Republican side, there are five candidates vying for the chance to go up against Ellsworth.

1.  Don Bates, Jr., who currently works in the banking industry.
2.  Richard Behney, who currently owns a plumbing business.
3.  Dan Coats, who was the 4th District Congressman from 1981 to 1989, Senator from 1989 to 1999, and Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005.
4.  John Hostettler, who was the 8th District Congressman from 1995 to 2007, when he was defeated by Brad Ellsworth.
5.  Marlin Stutzman, who is currently an Indiana State Senator (District 13), and was a State Representative previously.

I know very little about any of these candidates.

Coats certainly has the most experience, and was generally held in high regard for his previous service.  He is more conservative than either Bayh or Lugar, but probably not as socially conservative as some of the other candidates.

Neither Bates nor Behney has much name-recognition, which doesn’t mean they couldn’t go a good job, but it does make it unlikely that they will be able to get a lot of votes.   Nor does either candidate have any political or legislative experience of any kind.  Being a political newcomer isn’t always a bad thing, but a US Senator is the highest legislative office in the country; I think some kind of prior experience ought to be a prerequisite.

Hostettler and Stutzman are similar in a lot of ways, although they come from opposite ends of the state.  Hostettler has more experience and recognition, having been a US Congressman.  As a farmer, Stutzman may have more in common with the average Hoosier.  Stutzman has been endorsed by the majority of his Republican colleagues in the Indiana House and Senate, which speaks well to his character and effectiveness.

I’m not sure who I’ll vote for, but there’s a lot to like about Marlin Stutzman.  I’d like to see either Stutzman, Hostettler, or Coats take over Bayh’s seat, then I’d like for Lugar to retire and one of the other two to take his seat.

Mark Souder is also being challenged for his 3rd District Congressional seat.  Tom Hayhurst is running on the Democratic ticket, but there is also someone named Thomas Schrader.  I think it’s safe to assume that Hayhurst will be the Democratic candidate.  What’s not so sure is whether Souder will be the Republican candidate.  I’m guessing that he will, but there are three other Republicans who think they can do a better job:  Greg Dickman, Bob Thomas, and Phil Troyer.

No related posts.

It probably comes as no surprise that a Unitarian Universalist has no real grasp on the gospel.  However, it may surprise some people that an atheist is actually closer to the truth than someone who considers themselves a “Christian.”  I found it interesting to compare and contrast the views of atheist Christopher Hitchens and Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell in this interview between the two.

A few interesting exchanges are highlighted:

Sewell:

The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Hitchens:

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Sewell:

Let me go someplace else. [continues with next question...]

While Hitchens rejects God and the gospel, at least he understands what the gospel message is.  Sewell thinks you can have “Christianity” without the gospel, and doesn’t really want to talk about the gospel.

Sewell:

…I agree with almost everything that you say. But I still consider myself a Christian and a person of faith.

Hitchens:

Do you mind if I ask you a question? Faith in what? Faith in the resurrection?

Sewell:

The way I believe in the resurrection is I believe that one can go from a death in this life, in the sense of being dead to the world and dead to other people, and can be resurrected to new life. When I preach about Easter and the resurrection, it’s in a metaphorical sense.

Hitchens rejects faith (in anything outside himself, at least) as a basis for a reasonable worldview, but he recognizes that faith requires an object.  “Faith” by itself is meaningless.  We must have faith in something or someone.

Sewell:

Times change and, you know, people’s beliefs change. I don’t believe that you have to be fundamentalist and literalist to be a Christian. You do: You’re something of a fundamentalist, actually.

Hitchens:

Well, I’m sorry, fundamentalist simply means those who think that the Bible is a serious book and should be taken seriously.

Sewell:

I take it very seriously. I have my grandmother’s Bible and I still read it, but I don’t take it as literal truth. I take it as metaphorical truth. The stories, the narrative, are what’s important.

I wish more people understood Hitchens’ definition of a fundamentalist, rather than seeing it is an epithet  for stodgy narrow-minded people who think everyone should think and act just like them.  Sewell betrays that she really doesn’t take the Bible seriously, despite her claim to the contrary.  If truth is only revealed in metaphors, then each individual can decide for themselves what the metaphors really mean.  Truth is then simply what you make it, so the Bible is irrelevant.  If you only use the Bible to illustrate truths that you determine independently, you could just as well use the Koran, Mother Goose, or Dr. Seuss.

Hitchens:

[Some people think] that “faith” is an automatically good word. I think it’s not. When people say, “I am a person of faith,” they expect applause for it as we see in every election cycle. If I could make one change in the culture it would be to withhold that applause, to say, “Wait a minute, you just told me you’re prepared to accept an enormous amount on no evidence whatsoever.

Hitchens recognizes that faith must have an object, but he apparently thinks that such faith is always a “leap” with no rational basis.  That is not true of Christian faith.  Our faith in God is rational.  The Bible is worthy of trust.  A Biblical worldview is cohesive and is the only worldview that can consistently make sense of the world in which we live.

Sewell:

I don’t know whether or not God exists in the first place.  . . .  I don’t believe that God intervenes to give me goodies if I ask for them.

God is a mystery to me. I choose to believe because—and this is a very practical thing for me—I seem to live with more integrity when I find myself accountable to something larger than myself. That thing larger than myself, I call God, but it’s a metaphor. That God is an emptiness out of which everything comes. Perhaps I would say “ reality” or “what is” because we’re trying to describe the infinite with language of the finite. My faith is that I put all that I am and all that I have on the line for that which I do not know.

The God of the Bible describes Himself to us, and calls us to know Him.  Praise God that we don’t have to waste our lives pursuing that which we do not know.

I’m not sure why Sewell holds on to the Christian label; she certainly rejects everything that makes Christianity unique.  Hitchens sees through the facade that Sewell tries to portray as authentic faith.  For his part, Hitchens recognizes that humans are different than animals and that there is more to life than just the material world around us, but he can’t reconcile this with his rejection of the supernatural and a higher authority.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

No related posts.

When I think about this topic, I always recall Dale Ahlquist’s description of G.K. Chesterton in his book Common Sense 101: Lessons from G.K. Chesterton.

He seems so frivolous and so careless, but he gives money to beggars, not frivolously or carelessly, but because he believes in giving money to beggars, and giving it to them “where they stand”.

He says he knows perfectly well all the arguments against giving money to beggars. But he finds those to be precisely the arguments for giving money to them. If beggars are lazy or deceptive or wanting a drink, he knows only too well his own lack of motivation, his own dishonesty, his own thirst.

He doesn’t believe in “scientific charity” because that is too easy, as easy as writing a check. He believes in “promiscuous charity” because that is really difficult. “It means the most dark and terrible of all human actions—talking to a man. In fact, I know of nothing more difficult than really talking to the poor men we meet.”  (pp. 13-14)

I have given money to someone with a sob story, and afterwards concluded that I was scammed.  I have given a few bucks to someone in need, and afterwards regretted that I didn’t do more.  I have spurned a beggar’s request, and wondered if I did the right thing.

The thoughts from Jon Bloom and the example of Chesterton convict me that it is better to give than to worry about analyzing the situation and attempting to predict the outcome.

No related posts.

[D]on’t we live in a postmodern culture in which…appeals to traditional apologetic arguments are no longer effective?  Since postmodernists reject the traditional canons of logic, rationality, and truth, rational arguments for the truth of Christianity no longer work!  Rather in today’s culture we should simply share our narrative and invite people to participate in it.”

William Lane Craig responds:

In my opinion, this sort of thinking could not be more mistaken.  The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable.  Nobody is a postmodernist when it comes to reading the labels on a medicine bottle versus a box of rat poison.  If you’ve got a headache, you’d better believe that texts have objective meaning!  People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they’re relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics.  But that’s not postmodernism; that’s modernism!  That’s just old-line Positivism and Verificationism, which held that anything you can’t prove with your five senses is just a matter of individual taste and emotive expression.  We live in a cultural milieu which remains deeply modernist.  People who think that we live in a postmodern culture have thus seriously misread our cultural situation.

Indeed, I think that getting people to believe that we live in a postmodern culture is one of the craftiest deceptions that Satan has yet devised.  “Modernism is passe,” he tells us.  “You needn’t worry about it any longer.  So forget about it!  It’s dead and buried.”  Meanwhile, modernism, pretending to be dead, comes around again in the fancy new dress of postmodernism, masquerading as a new challenger.  “Your old arguments and apologetics are no longer effective against this new arrival,” we’re told.  “Lay them aside; they’re of no use.  Just share your narrative!”  Indeed, some, weary of the long battles with modernism, actually welcome the new visitor with relief.  And so Satan deceives us into voluntarily laying aside our best weapons of logic and evidence, thereby ensuring unawares modernism’s triumph over us.  If we adopt this suicidal course of action, the consequences for the church in the next generation will be catastrophic.  Christianity will be reduced to but another voice in a cacophony of competing voices, each sharing its own narrative and none commending itself as the objective truth about reality, while scientific naturalism shapes our culture’s view of how the world really is. (emphasis added)

from Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics

No related posts.

If you’re looking for a starting point, the author of the site has provided a 49-page “book” that he says, “weaves together most of my favorite ideas on personal finance and a lot of other goodies into one document.” It starts out with a single page covering “Everything You Ever Really Needed to Know About Personal Finance,” then explores the basic concepts throughout the other pages.

Click below to get it:

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/onepage/

No related posts.

Eight years ago when Shadow and I moved from my parent’s house into a house of my own, my mom went through a similar adjustment to life without Shadow around. The words she wrote then still ring true today. Here they are:

I never thought I’d miss him so much… that big, black dog who shed all over my house, who had to go out in rain or snow and then be cleaned up after.  I thought I’d enjoy the loss of those jobs.  But, oh, how I miss that “BBD,” (ed: Shadow’s occasional nickname, standing for “Big Black Dog”) my “Shadow!”

He was often waiting at the threshold of my bedroom door in the morning for the first sound or movement that would clue him that I was awake.  (Our bedroom was one of his “off-limits” rooms.)  As soon as I would stir, he would be right at my bedside.  (My bed IS right by the door, so it wasn’t TOO much of a violation!)  As soon as he got his morning greeting he would go into the room next to our bedroom while I showered and dressed.  Sometimes he would be right outside the bathroom door when I came out.

Next came breakfast.  If I were eating cereal, I’d usually eat standing up to save my sitting time for things that really require sitting.  Whether I was standing or sitting, Shadow would be right at my feet… just in case I dropped something or decided to share something with him!

After breakfast we would head for my sewing room/office where I read my Bible every morning.  He’d be lying near my chair. If it were a washday, I’d be popping up and down changing loads, folding clothes, etc.  If I was gone for too long, he would come to the room off the kitchen, “his” room, and lie there while I folded clothes.  Then we’d be back to the sewing room/office.  If I had ironing to do, as soon as I set up the ironing board, he would lie under it…on MY side!  I’d always have to send him to the end of the board so I had a place to stand to do the ironing!

If there were anyone around the house that didn’t belong, he would go off barking…a car or truck he didn’t recognize the sound of, a deliveryman, meter-reader, mailman, etc.  One day, two Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the door.    Shadow met them at the door with his ferocious, protective bark!   The youngest “witness” was off to the end of the porch in the blink of an eye!  He left his braver partner near the door to talk and offer me the usual booklet.  I decided Shadow was a great way to filter out salespeople and solicitors who weren’t brave enough to endure the challenge!  It wasn’t unusual for me to go to the door and find people in the middle of the porch waiting to talk to me!  They didn’t dare stand too close to the door!  I don’t always hear the doorbell or things going on around the house, so Shadow would “hear” for me.

Lunch would find us in the kitchen with him again at my feet…just in case, you know!  Sometimes I DO drop things or get full before I finish my sandwich.  And he loves to share my cheese, apples and grapes!  Good stuff!  Healthy for both of us, right?

Sometimes, right after lunch, I might sit and read for a while.   If I sat too long, he would whine at me, not to go outside, but to come into “his” room and lie on the bed to read so that he could lie next to me!  He was only allowed on one bed, Stephen’s, and only by invitation!  When I’d had the maximum amount of sitting I could take for a time, I established the habit of lying on Stephen’s bed to read, so Shadow could lie next to me.  He liked it!  What can I say?  We enjoyed each other’s company.  I’d say, “You want to go to your room, right?”  And off he’d go!

We usually walked a mile a day.  When it was really hot, we might walk before breakfast; otherwise we walked when I needed a break from sitting later in the morning.  As soon as I put on my walking shoes or went for my key, he knew it was walking time and headed for the door!

Supper preparation again found us in the kitchen with Shadow at my feet…just in case!  He knows the sound of the cellophane wrapper on the cheese and was up in a second when he heard that!  (He also knows the sound of my stirring homemade granola while it’s cooling, another of his favorite things!  That brought him to his feet, as well, and he’d get a nice chunk!)

One morning while doing my exercises, I was lying on my back in a room where he could come, and before I knew it I had the legs and chest of a 75-pound dog across me.  Try to do your exercises like that!  He just had to be a part of everything!

If Stephen was home in the evening, Shadow might stay with Stephen (he IS Stephen’s dog) or come in by me if I was working at my desk.  If Stephen was NOT home, Shadow would stay with me for a while, but then whine until we’d go to his room to read!

When our granddaughter arrived on the scene, Shadow began showing extreme jealousy whenever I was holding Alethea.  He would whine at me until I’d pet him, or tried to get his body or head between her and me!  He has shown no aggression toward her… just wants his share of the attention!

What a dog!  I find myself looking for him around every corner, expecting him to greet me every time I return home from somewhere and open the front door.  He sure won my heart in his five years of life!

No related posts.