Category Archives: Spirit in the Night

Filings: Did Allah fall off the throne?

Posted on by
2

There are countless opportunities for us right-wing fundie evangelicals to take offense and grow wroth with the culture. Television, movies, magazines, the NEA, Clinton presidencies — it’s almost as if there are elements out there deliberately looking for sticks to poke us with. Each time X, Y or Z causes an uproar, my pastor has a common reminder for our congregation: “God didn’t fall off of the throne because of X, Y, Z.”

His point is that God is still in charge and undismayed and unthreatened by such goings on, and even laughs at the thoughts and plans of men. He’ll often go on to point out that we shouldn’t be shocked when sinners sin. The reason he does this is not to say that we shouldn’t be concerned about what goes on, but to help us change our perspective to see the big picture: how do we get the revelation of God’s grace and mercy to those who seem bound and determined to test it.

With the news this week detailing the reactions of Muslims – rioting, threats of violence, kidnapping and other intimidations – to their prophet being depicted in editorial cartoons it seems that there may be a fundamental difference in the way Christians and Muslims view the power of our God. I believe a Christian perspective is to hope that those who oppose us will live long enough to see the error of their ways and repent well before a final judgment; the Islamist approach appears to be to try and yank as many as you can to judgment right away.

It’s also interesting to note that our own culture and media are willing to celebrate, in the name of free speech, crucifixes soaking in jars of urine, religious icons smeared with dung or Kanye West portraying himself on a magazine cover as the crucified Christ, yet it cowers in the face of Muslims being outraged over a few cartoons. The mainstream press and television will pull the cartoons, or pixilate them, or fire editors and reporters for running the images and claim they do so out of a desire to be “sensitive” to their Muslim audience. No such sensitivity appears to be available to Christians who, despite the fears and portrayals of many, are not generally given to violence. Meanwhile, look cross-eyed at their faith and you’d think Muslims are a bunch of frenzied liberals reacting to Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell whenever she departs from the dogma that Democrats have nothing to do with the Abramoff scandal. (see photos of the banners Muslim protestors are carrying here).

Okay, deep breath. God is still on the throne.

I have done things in my life that were deeply disrespectful to Christianity and Christians. I did them at the time with little fear or awareness of possible repercussions though by the standards of the rioting Islamists God had every right to strike me dead. Actually, I agree with them – God had every right and more than enough power to do just that. Instead I lived long enough to meet Him and Jesus Christ in miraculous ways and to profoundly repent. Furthermore, the revelation that I have been spared helps me to see others, no matter how offensive, in a different light, even the same light that God sees them in: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

Some Muslims (and Christians) may think that God wants us to take heathens, pagans and infidels out; I believe he wants us to bring them in.

O, Stranger, where art thou?

Posted on by
3

As reported in the New York Times the other day, a provision in the border-security bill just passed by the House makes it a federal offense for anyone to offer assistance or services to illegal immigrants, punishable by as much as five years in prison and confiscation of property and/or assets. Churches, social service agencies and advocacy groups are raising an outcry.

Add my voice to that list.

While I strongly agree with providing the manpower and other resources to enforce our immigration laws and protect our borders (and agree that this is one of the powers of a federal government), this particular provision is both immoral and overreaching and my objections are not just philosophical but personal.

Here’s part of the story: In March of 1995, a man named Vladimir entered the U.S. illegally, using a fake passport — and then turned himself into the Immigration office in Bloomington, across from the Mall of America, and applied for asylum. He was processed, told to keep the office informed of his whereabouts, and shown the door. Within a couple of weeks through a series of bizarre, even miraculous, circumstances I met Vlad at my church and took an active interest in his situation. His story had begun several years before with him fleeing in fear for his life from what was then the Soviet Union. Still ahead, at the time we met, were another 20 months where the two of us would navigate the Immigration Service bureaucracy until a judge would ultimately rule in Vlad’s favor. I won’t go into all the circumstances and twists and turns of this ordeal here, but I do want to focus on one part of what happened and how it applies to this misguided law.

Once I and others from my church got involved and understood Vlad’s situation, we stressed how important it was for him, although in the country illegally, to obey the laws while he was there and his case was working its way through the system. Sounds simple enough, but in practice a significant challenge quickly arose. Vlad had some money with him, but certainly not enough to live on for however long it might take to get his status resolved. Fiercely proud and independent as well as handy and industrious, he wanted to work to earn money to live on and – once it was determined there were no legal aid groups available to assist him – pay for his legal counsel. Being undocumented, of course, meant that it was illegal for him to do that. Technically, the government was allowing him to stay while his case was pursued, but not allowing him to support himself while he did so. Hard as it was for Vlad to accept it, we were able to find homes where he could stay and the people in our church opened their hearts to him, blessing him with a bicycle and other gifts to help him get by more comfortably. When his hearing neared our small congregation also, in a single service, collected some $3,000 to pay for his attorney. Many of us wept in joy with Vlad when asylum was finally granted.

As I’ve stated here many times, my belief is that the government gets into far too many areas that ought to be left to individuals and to the church or communities of faith and that its intervention is usually disastrous when it comes to actually achieving what it hoped to accomplish by getting involved in the first place. God requires us to show mercy and compassion to others, including those “strangers who dwell among you” (see Leviticus 19:34 and 24:22 for starters) and to apply the same laws as those that citizens live under (implicit in this is that “stranger” receives the benefits and the requirements of those laws, hence our insistence that Vlad not work illegally). In Vlad’s case a small group of people – not the government – got involved to support him physically, emotionally and spiritually — and every bit of it would have been illegal if the proposed law had been in effect then.

The debate over what immigration laws are necessary and constitutional is multi-faceted and there are good arguments to be made from various perspectives in reaching a result that is just and merciful as well as practical. This particular provision in its current form, however, is simply wrong.

Another miracle of Christmas

Posted on by
Reply

Last week we had a special day where my wife, Marjorie, was ordained and we also had a graduation ceremony for our oldest daughter, Faith. That day was December 11, which I hope we’ll always remember. In talking about Christmas memories last Saturday night, however, it suddenly dawned on me that December 11 already had a significant place in our hearts, and the earlier memory also commemorated two events.

December 11, 1986 was the day we found out that we were pregnant with Faith. It was also the day that my dog, named Cat (nope, not going to explain that now), died. It was also the day before my wife and I were to host our first Christmas party as a married couple — and we were both devastated and in tears, but for dramatically different reasons.

A slice of Night Life: a good day

Posted on by
2

Sunday mornings in our house typically begin with my wife, Marjorie, bringing a tray with coffee and doughnuts or fresh bread and the Sunday paper upstairs to our bedroom. My daughters soon appear and vie for position next to Mom on the “big, comfy chair” — an armchair nearly the size of a double-bed — while we leisurely eat and take our turns with the comics-section before getting ready for church. Yesterday was quite different, however, because we each had our assignments and personal preparations to make in getting ready for a big day.

The true meaning of Christmas specials

Posted on by
4

 

Perhaps I was like Scrooge seeing Marley’s face on his door knocker, but I’m almost certain that when I watched the Charlie Brown Christmas special I heard Linus stand on stage and say:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree to render unto Caesar, and that all the world should shop and pay sales tax, and all went to be taxed, everyone into his own mall. And Joseph also went up from Shakopee, into Bloomington, unto the Mall of America, (which is called MOA) because he was an American, to shop with his wife Mary, they being great with debt. And so it was, that, while they were there, the items were purchased that needed to be delivered, and they brought forth their credit card, wrapped in promises to pay and laid it on the counter because there was no money in their checking account.

And there was in the same country stewards, abiding in their homes, keeping watch over their televisions by night. And lo, the commercials from Mammon came upon them and the glory of the goods shown round about them and they were sore afraid they would miss a good deal. And the commercial said unto them, “Fear not, for behold I bring you great tidings of a good economy, which shall be to all who do their part. For unto you is laid out this day, in a store near you, all manner of precious items, and this shall be a sign unto you: 40% off.” And suddenly there was within the commercial a multitude of friends and family praising their gifts and saying “Glory to the Giver with the highest credit card balance, and on earth peace, good will toward all, just $29.95.”

And it came to pass that I kept all these things and pondered them in my heart.

Fear not, for this is not going to be a complaint on how commercial Christmas has become. Frankly, those complaints have become as traditional and meaningless to most people as holly and ivy (if you don’t know what these represent, look it up). Complaining about how the true meaning of Christmas is being ignored, without actually dwelling on this meaning, is merely spiritual lip service; kind of like singing “Gloria In Excelsis Deo,” without knowing what it means. For me the issue is not that commercialism obscures the meaning of Christmas, but the cultural camouflage that diverts attention. As a case in point, let’s look at the Christmas specials we watch with our families.

Despite my parody of the Linus speech earlier, the Charlie Brown Christmas special is a classic and a true Christmas special because it is one of the few that deals specifically with the birth of Christ. “The Little Drummer Boy” is another old one and favorite of mine that also does this, while the Veggie Tales “The Toy That Saved Christmas” is the highlight of the new generation. Many so-called Christmas specials, however, purport to be about finding the true meaning of Christmas, but where is the Christ in “Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer,” “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” “It’s a Wonderful Life” or “A Christmas Story”? Watch these and most other shows and you’ll get the message that you can be what you want to be and you should do kind things for others, and that Bumbles bounce. Nice shows and nice sentiments all, but while Jesus would exhort us to be “nice” it isn’t why he came. Don’t forget that “for unto you is born this day in the city of Bethlehem a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

Enjoy the shows with your family, but look for ways to highlight fundamental Christian concepts within the programs, even if these messages appear unintentional. Since everything will ultimately prove the word of God true, teachable moments are everywhere if we are alert to them. The classic movie “Miracle on 34th Street,” for example, really focuses on the importance of faith, at one point virtually reciting Hebrews 11:1 and 11:5-6. Don’t miss the opportunity to call this to your children’s’ attention. I once sat open-mouthed (but not slack-jawed) watching the SpongeBob Squarepants Christmas program for the first time. The story is that SpongeBob has never heard of Santa Claus until his friend Sandy fills him in. SpongeBob gets so excited that he stands on a street corner proclaiming the good news to everyone (no one else has heard of Santa either) about how kind Santa is and about all the gifts he will bring. Soon, everyone is shouting, “We love Santa!” I turned to my daughter and said, “SpongeBob is an evangelist!”

Of course, SpongeBob is focusing on all the benefits that Santa brings, which is also a failing of modern evangelism. People are exhorted to “try” Jesus for all the blessings that will be added to their lives but if these don’t show up right away (or don’t show up in the way people expect) they get disillusioned, even bitter. This, too, happens in the SpongeBob Christmas show. We lose sight of the fact that the first benefit of the salvation we receive from believing in Christ is not in getting what we deserve, but in avoiding what we deserve.

A good story for illustrating this concept can be Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol.” You may think you know the story of Ebenezer (there’s a Biblical name) Scrooge, but look at it as a parable. Scrooge is greedy and cruel and oblivious to his iniquity. He doesn’t heed warnings to change, but because of another’s desire for him to avoid his fate, he is visited by spirits that convince and convict him of his sins and show him what is in store for him. In horror he repents and asks for forgiveness, vowing to change. He’s not concerned about the benefits of a new way of life; he just wants to escape the fruit of the old way. Waking the next morning and realizing his opportunity he says “Thank you (Holy Spirit) Spirits!” and is ever after known as “a man who kept Christmas (Jesus) in his heart.” (By the way, I happen to think the George C. Scott “Christmas Carol” is the best, but I’ll always have a soft spot for Mr. Magoo as well).

I’m sure there are many more examples in Christmas programs that I’ve left out but that have occurred to you. I’d love to hear what message or blessing you and your family get out of different Christmas shows, so feel free to leave a comment. Just don’t shoot your eye out!

Merry Christmas, my friends, and to your families!

Update:

Rob’s touching tribute to Linus’s speech about the true meaning of Christmas is posted over on The Llama Butchers (originally posted last Christmas).

Food for thought

Posted on by
Reply

Night daughter Tiger Lilly has a post called “Can You Put God in a Box?” over on the MAWB Squad today about Operation Christmas Child and her approach to filling shoeboxes with gifts for children in crisis areas. Among other things she writes that she likes doing stuff with charity organizations.

I can easily vouch for that sentiment because I remember a time when she was six years old. It was about this time of year and she was flipping through the newspaper looking for the comics when she came across a large ad from the Union Gospel Mission in St. Paul. The ad featured a picture of a ragged looking, bearded man with a full plate of food and a headline that said for $1.79 you could buy someone a full Thanksgiving dinner. She studied that for awhile and then asked if you could really get all that food for that amount of money. I told her it was so. A dawning realization came over her, and she said, “Hey, I’ve got $1.79 – I could buy someone dinner!” To prove it she went upstairs and brought down her stash, pulling out a crumpled bill and counting out 79 cents.

My heart in my throat, I tested her by asked whether she was sure she didn’t want to save her money to buy something else. It was such a rush then to see her respond so naturally and spontaneously that I now can’t remember her response word for word, but it was along the lines that no, she’d rather see somebody get something to eat for Thanksgiving. So a little while later she crammed the money in her pocket and I took her down to the mission where she could give it directly to a friend of our family who was serving as a chaplain there. She brought out her cash, he thanked her and gave her a receipt. I wrote out a check worth a few more dinners and we floated home.

Her $1.79 warmed more than one heart that year.

Filings: What can we glean from social justice?

Posted on by
2

My wife accepted an invitation from a friend of ours and has attended a couple of Social Justice Bible Studies. The invite came out of a conversation she and this friend, a Christian, had about his Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker and his belief that conservative Christians who criticize the federal welfare program aren’t concerned about the poor. To our friend’s way of thinking, this behavior is breaking faith with a fundamental premise of Christianity (and don’t we consider ourselves fundamentalists?).

There are certainly a lot of places where you can begin in taking on that argument, but my wife decided to start by going to the Bible study to hear what they were talking about, in part because she was really curious about what the group meant by “social justice.”

The group’s focus, as I’ve said, is on helping the poor and what we need to do as a nation to rectify this injustice. After my wife’s last visit I was curious as to what scriptures the group was using to support their position that this is the government’s responsibility and not that of the church or of Christians as individuals. The leader that time had cited either Leviticus 19:10 (“And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather [every] grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I [am] the LORD your God.”) or Deuteronomy 24:21 (“When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean [it] afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.”)

Well that’s pretty clear direction, but where the leader was missing it, in my opinion, was making the leap that the if people weren’t following that instruction then it became the government’s responsibility — ostensibly from a desire to do good — to pass a law requiring it. Oh, the peril of good intentions (and unintended consequences)!

It’s my take that when you’re trying to determine the nature or intent of God you should look for where the relationship is. Whether with the first Adam or the second, and through all the prophets in between and the apostles that came after, God has shown he is interested in establishing relationships, both between himself and people, and people to people. Now, in the case of the social justice bunch, it may seem like a natural step for God-fearing people to reflect this desire by delegating to their government the authority to act for this good. To me, though, that is also the first step leading to replacing a relationship between God and man with a relationship between man and the other big G – government.

Let’s play out the example of the gleaners. Man, or the church, through hardness of heart, is not leaving the gleanings for the poor. In an effort to be righteous (and concern that others aren’t being righteous enough), people get together and direct the government to pass a law requiring that gleanings be left. Then, if the poor aren’t doing a good enough job of picking up the gleanings (or if the more motivated ones are out-hustling the infirm or indolent) someone gets the bright idea that maybe they should put some of the poor to work collecting the gleanings and bringing the second harvest in where it can be distributed more equitably. If the people hired to do this were among the more ambitious ones mentioned earlier, they soon see that they get the same share no matter how much effort they put in to picking up the food.

Now, before the law was passed a poor man might pray and ask God to help him find the means to feed his family. Coming upon a field just harvested, he might thank God for bringing him to that place and giving him the strength and ability to collect the food his family needed. Maybe even a landowner passes by at that time and sees the man is diligent and offers him a job. After a time of living under the government’s rule, however, that man (or his now grown children) starts to see the law, not God, as his source and the excess harvest as something he’s entitled to; not because he’s a child of God, but simply because he’s poor. Furthermore, bitterness might start to set in and he starts to wonder why the owner of the field gets to have first pick, and why, instead of just leaving what falls during the harvest and what collects in the corners of the field, he can’t start also leaving every third row unharvested for the poor as well. Of course then the government has to hire more people to collect the additional food. The poor man’s belly might be full, but what is in his heart and his spirit? What was the result of all those good intentions?

And what benefit does the landowner get by doing it God’s way in the first place rather than being hard-hearted and subjected to government fiat? Well, certainly less interference in his life on a business level, but he also gains favor with God by following his commands and escapes judgment as well. As I’ve written before, when I stand before God and he asks if I helped the poor I’m not going to get very far saying, “Well, I paid my taxes!” Perhaps the most insidious harm from the welfare state isn’t the trap it creates for those who live from it, but that it disconnects everyone else from realizing their responsibility to get directly involved.

It’s a lesson that bears repeating even for those who are receptive, and I know that I don’t always get high marks on this test. Yet my family has at times taken people into our home, helped other people move into homes, and bought groceries or medical care for those who needed these things. Where possible we’ve also tried to disciple others so they could learn they can trust God and also avoid behaviors that might put them back in the same place. When the time comes when these people have no longer needed direct help from us or our church, we’ve been genuinely happy for their success and progress. If, however, it was my job as a government employee to distribute these things then I’d have to worry that if I was too successful I’d be out of a job myself!

Finally, I give the social justice group credit for wanting to do God’s work. I wonder, however, if they are as quick in desiring that the government enforce by law other scriptural commands such as those dealing with adultery and homosexuality. Perhaps my wife will raise this question at a future meeting. She finds the meetings pretty interesting and the conversation polite even though there are significant differences of interpretation and doctrine between her and a couple of the group leaders. She feels she is getting something out of it by hearing other perspectives, and hopes that the others are also benefiting. She plans to keep going back as long as they’ll have her.

It is, after all, all about relationships.

Update:

Similar thoughts are in this post from Stones Cry Out.

Filings: Sunday School dropouts?

Posted on by
Reply


Former Minnesota governor and professional wrestler Jesse Ventura was once quoted as saying that religion was a sham and something for the weak minded. I think the best response to this statement came from Jay Leno who commented that it’s a good thing nobody ever said that about professional wrestling.



Da Guv later amended his words somewhat saying that the people he really thinks are weak-minded are the “wackos and fundamentalists,” not the “typical” religious folks. Of course, Jesse – like the Devil and the StarTribune – are most useful when you just take it for granted that the opposite of what he says is closer to the truth.



The truly weak-minded are the ones whose convictions are easily swayed or intimidated, or those who really don’t know what they believe in the first place. After all, which is harder – to go with the flow (or the latest poll on what’s right or wrong), or to hold fast to what you’ve seen and experienced to be true when to do so is said to be unpopular or controversial?



Sometimes I wonder how an ostensibly “Christian nation” can tolerate – or even embrace – thinking and actions that are clearly ungodly. A large part of this perception is probably due to the fact that – except in unusual or extreme cases – events that show there is an active and interested God don’t make it into the news, and even when they do they are twisted or incomplete.



I think the real problem, however — and the reason why ungodliness is unwittingly celebrated — is ignorance. In our society a high school education is considered to be the bare minimum necessary to succeed. Spiritually, much of our “Christian” nation seems to be Sunday School dropouts. They have poor study skills and even less comprehension. The knowledge many have about what is really in the Bible may even be dwarfed by the number of things they think are in the Bible but really aren’t. No surprise then when policy is based on poll rather than principle. And no wonder that the best that so many can do when they struggle to come up with a spiritual answer for something they don’t understand is to say “the Lord moves in mysterious ways.” It’s only mysterious when we don’t know what the Word says!

And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ… (Ephesians 1:9)



It’s when I take my eyes off of the big picture, however, and focus on my life and the lives of those around me that I see just how tangible an impact Jesus Christ really is having. I know what’s happened in my life, and I know the testimonies of others who have sought and discovered what God’s will is for them in many areas. Therein is the hope for our world, for no lasting large-scale change can happen without the hearts of individuals being changed first.



The breakthroughs I see come in the lives of those who have permitted themselves to be discipled and who have committed to disciple others. While there’s no downplaying the importance of evangelism (how will they know, unless you go?), I think discipleship is just as important (how will they grow, unless you show?). Christians have a joint obligation to both learn from others and to help others learn. It is important to “study to show yourself approved of God” [2 Tim 2:15], but the breakthroughs in my life in healing, finances, and relationships have occurred not just when I’ve read the Word, but when I’ve also had it explained and seen it lived out. Furthermore, I’ve seen my breakthroughs get turbo-charged when I’ve helped someone apply in his life what I’ve learned in my life.



No matter where we are spiritually, there’s always someone who knows more than us, and always someone who knows less – and we need both in our lives. Furthermore, our world needs it. I know there’s lot of prayer going up for our nation, our government and for God’s will to be manifested, and I believe these prayers are and will be effective. I also believe that some of the fruit of these prayers, however, occurs when we move ourselves away from our pride and/or our self-interest and admit, first of all, that we need help and then – perhaps even harder – admit we have what it takes to help someone else.

It’s not what you think

Posted on by
3

The issue of abortion and Roe v. Wade has been the elephant in the hearing room in every judicial hearing since President Bush came into office and is front and center in the Harriet Miers nomination. In my view, in fact, Roe v. Wade was the catalytic event that lit the slow-burning fuse that ultimately launched terms such as “strict constitutional originalist” into our awareness. The Miers brouhaha has led to several thought-provoking (well, provoking anyway) posts on abortion that I’ve read recently such as here, here and here. It has also led me to ponder the way my own thinking has changed over the years.

Some background: I was a lusty 14-year-old boy when Roe v. Wade overturned the law of the land and made abortion legal. Looking back now I can see it as an event that separated me from my innocence as I started to make my way into the adult world. Innocence was lost because this was the first time that I recall letting my head overrule my heart in determining how I was going to run my life.

Some more background: I was raised in a mainstream Christian denomination that taught salvation through grace rather than through decision. When I was seven, however, my parents let me go to a vacation bible school course with my best friend. There the teacher said that if anyone wanted to earn extra credit we should watch the Billy Graham crusade on television that night and then make a report to the class the next day. Extra credit was always encouraged at my house, so I raised my hand. That night when Reverend Graham invited anyone who wanted eternal life with Jesus to stand up and come down front, I scarcely hesitated. Sure I was in my own basement, with my mother ironing on the other side of the room, but I stood up, walked to the TV and repeated the prayer. I figured if God was God, he’d get the message, and I followed my heart.

When I was thirteen, my parents let me stay overnight with another friend and go to a Bill Glass crusade with my friend’s Webelo pack. I thought I was going because Bill Glass was a former football player, and I loved football. I’m not sure if I remembered my TV experience then or not, but I again answered the altar call and made my way backstage from the second tier of the arena. There I was surprised to see that Mr. Martindale from my church was one of the counselors. We prayed and he gave me a workbook and then came over to my house once a week for six weeks to go over the six chapters in the book. About all I remember of the book is that I usually waited until the last 15 min-utes before Mr. Martindale arrived to whip through that week’s lesson.

So there I was at 14, hearing that abortion was legal and thinking, “All right! There’s one less reason for a girl not to have sex with me!” (Ugly, callow and shallow, to be sure, but there you have it: portrait of the writer as a young man.) At the same time I was thinking that, my heart was going “Ewww! How could anyone do such a thing?” It took a lot of mental gymnastics to overcome my unsophisticated heart, but I managed. By God’s grace, I was thankfully never put in a position where I had to put my new belief into practice.

Flash forward to December, 1987. Newly restored to God, and newly married, I watched the monitor intently as the ultra-sound traced my wife’s stomach, finally revealing a three-week old head, arms and hands, right where they were supposed to be (it was supposedly medically impossible for her to become pregnant). At once my heart soared while my mind plunged to its depths and pleaded, “My God, forgive me!”

Jump forward another decade or so and I was reading a StarTribune columnist (no longer with the paper) who also happened to be a pastor from the same denomination in which I grew up, relating how she was advising a member of her flock to have an abortion. I remember the writer described herself as someone “in the trenches” where there were no “hard and fast” rules when a woman’s life is concerned. Rather than anger, I felt a piercing sadness for her and for those under her care. It occured to me then that there’s a difference between a trench and a pit, and how important it is to know which one you’re standing in.

The unpleasant truth is that there are hard and fast rules for every situation, whether we choose to follow them or not. The struggle comes in trying to figure out a reason in our heads why the rules we know in our hearts don’t apply to us. Doing so, however, leads not to peace but to other, more desperate, situations that also have hard and fast rules — and even harder choices.

More painfully, I saw my former self in that columnist and realized that I didn’t have to ask how someone could be so deceived because I already knew. And then I had to ask the logical, but oh-so-difficult question: “God, what is the lie that I’m still believing? Where is it that I still let my head decide the way things really are as opposed to what’s in my heart and in your word?” I know the answers are there waiting, if I really dare to look.

In the final sifting of heart (what we believe) and mind (what we think), it’s not what we think that is going to matter.

Update:

Psycmeistr has succinct take on the Miers situation and the sentiment that conservatives must be loyal to the Party and the decisions of the leader:

Since the beginning of the Miers nomination debacle, we have been hearing from the “the elite Republican Priesthood” that our CIC, the head of our party, has made a decision, and that we need to be good little foot soldiers and fall in line. To that, I politely say BUNK!

…Folks, we live in the United States of America, under a government “by the People, of the People, and for the People”, not “by the Party, of the Party, and for the Party.” Ours is a bottom-up government, not top-down, and the rule is by the consent of the governed.

Further, while I would like Roe v. Wade overturned – and Ms. Miers may share my personal belief – the decision in this arena must be overturned because it is bad law and outside the intent of the Constitution, not because it is perceived to be immoral. That is why a constitutional originalist interpretation is more important than an evangelical one on the Supreme Court. If it comes down to the personal beliefs of whoever is on the court at any given time, then the judges become no more than bizarrely dressed politicians themselves.

Living for tomorrow brings joy today

Posted on by
1

“All honor, all glory, all power, to you.”

As our church’s musicians and singers completed the first verse and rose into the chorus of this familiar hymn Sunday morning, I could clearly pick out the soaring soprano of one of the vocalists. It was my eldest daughter, Faith (aka “The Mall Diva”).

I am usually moved by this song, but never quite in the way I was yesterday as my child, for the first time, was one of the ones leading our congregation deeper into God’s presence. I nearly reeled as my mind flashed through the memories of her as a baby in the church nursery, of her growing up through the children’s and youth ministries … and of her now not just worshipping God herself, but helping others do so as well. It was an unexpected parental dividend and I felt an almost electric sensation, one not of pride but of being a part of something almost too big to be seen except in sudden slivers of the sublime.

And I thought of Doug’s post from a week ago called “Living for Today” that was launched by an article in the Guardian entitled, “No kids please, we’re selfish.” The latter article somewhat anxiously considered the ramifications of an (arguably) increasingly self-centered Western culture that considers children too much of a bother. It sketched the lives of several successful people intent on wringing everything they could get for themselves out of life … as long as it didn’t involve children.

While I personally can’t think of any adventure with the scope, stakes and potential fulfillment of raising children, I’m not going to assume the childless are inherently “selfish” – or assume that those with children are automatically enobled by the experience. Indeed, those who have kids simply to “fulfill” themselves are every bit as selfish, in my mind, as those who can’t be bothered. Nor would I suggest that someone who shudders at the thought raising kids “owes” it to his or herself or to society to have kids anymore than I would encourage an inexperienced non-swimmer with a heart condition to take up whitewater kayaking. (My concern isn’t so much that there aren’t enough children coming along, but that there aren’t enough parents.)

Seeing my daughter take on a new responsibility, using talents I had no way of bequeathing to her or of coaching her in, was gratifying on a deep, deep level for me. Raising her and her sister has taken up a lot of my wife’s and my time, attention and money. There are innumerable things we might have invested these resources in if we hadn’t had kids but I can’t think of a one that could have given me a moment like yesterday’s – or the many, many other moments we’ve enjoyed in watching our daughters become blessings to us and, most importantly, to others.

My wife and I have always known at a certain level that we are not raising our daughters for ourselves, but ultimately for others. As a result, there have been decisions we’ve made to do things in ways that would be more difficult (at least initially) for the two of us but were part of our responsibility. I’ve known I have to pass something on, just as someone passed it to me; to give what I have received.

What would I, personally, have done with all that time and money if I hadn’t had my kids? Could I, like some of the people in the Guardian article, have become a force in the world, or someone important? Could I, like they, have written books? Perhaps. More likely, knowing myself, I’d have probaby frittered it all away with little to show for it.

Yes, perhaps I may have written books. Without my kids, however, I have no idea what I would have written about.