Episcopal priest says she’s also a Muslim

SEATTLE (AP) – The Reverend Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal priest for 20 year, says she became a Muslim last year, but still considers herself a Christian as well. Redding, who says she accepted Islam after being profoundly moved by Muslim prayers, is to begin teaching the New Testament at Seattle University this fall.

Until recently, she was director of faith formation at St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral. Western Washington Bishop Vincent Warner says he accepts Redding as both an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.

The 55-year-old Redding says she doesn’t feel that she has to resolve the differences between her two faiths — especially over whether Jesus was God or just a prophet — and hopes sharing her story can help ease religious tensions.

read the article in its entirety

Delusions of grandeur not withstanding, how about opening your eyes! Those who attack all of us
out of hate, using Islam as their justification (rightly or wrongly) are going to look at this woman as if she where slandering Islam, which is a death sentence (literally) in many Islamic nations.

As the full article states, you cannot be truly Christian, and truly Muslim, they have conflicting basis for their respective faiths. The fact that her bishop is supporting her tells me that the Episcopal Church is trying to be, from their perspective, societally relative, however, more and more, that is coming at the expense of their Christian faith.

You cannot share the Gospel if you no longer understand, or believe, your faith.

I, as a Christian, believe I stand as a voice that tries to get this lost world to hear God, and to follow God’s ways. The question really is, how to get people to listen when they don’t want to. How do you get people to listen when what is said is the opposite of their desired behavior?

I don’t have an answer. Watching the news, political hacks, various “cause” websites, and everything that is spewed forth, I’m not sure that love can be heard, except in private personal conversation, and depending on the individuals involved, maybe not then either. We have a situation in this country with anger. I’m not talking about gangs, gun violence, moronic parents who take their children’s sports too seriously. Politics, and much that is important involves politics, is anger. If one person is more angry, than they get more coverage. In response, even people who would otherwise not be angry, have an automatic escalation in tension. Sadly, that tension gets connected to the issue, and then discussion of the issue no longer becomes a way to discuss (and hopefully solve) an issue, but a rant.

Some of the best discussions about certain issues are happening out of the limelight. Some serious solutions are coming out of those discussions, but they do not see the light of day because those who are truly trying to solve the issues aren’t angry about them.

How did I get here from the beginning of this post? Simple, the way things are going currently, I cannot discuss where I see something being wrong, without someone reacting as if attacked. The sad part is, I feel a need to help them. I am moved by love to help them. I certainly don’t hate those I seek to help, what would be the point. Are they my enemies? Not from my point of view, however, from their point of view, I am their enemy, as is my faith.

How do you share in love, when the only currency that is understood is anger?

The true goal is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If a person has a living vital relationship with Jesus Christ, it is that relationship that will change them. It won’t be fancy arguments. It won’t be facts. It won’t be tirades. It won’t be the shallow love of a human being. It will be the gracious, faithful, living, and deep love of God, lived through Jesus Christ, felt and experienced through the Holy Spirit.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

The first piece is an interview with James Shikwati, a Kenyan economics expert.

The second piece is a more in depth review, which is, frankly, quite depressing.

So where does this leave us? As much as we want to, and we should want to, help others, this should give us pause in how we help others. I am not advocating abolishing compassionate assistance, but this is no different than welfare here in the States. I will have to say that much of the same criticism that has been leveled at welfare, should also be leveled here.

It is not whether we should help them, because that is not in question at all, but how they who are being helped may be best enabled to no longer need assistance. For by freeing them from that need, the chains will fall from their feet and arms, and they will be able to go forth with heads held high with hope

• …much of American culture right now is built on an adolescent fiction. The fiction is that life is all about you as an individual—your ideas, your appetites, and your needs. Believe me: It isn’t.
• Religious faith is always personal, but it’s never private. It always has social consequences, or it isn’t real.
• …if we remove God from public discourse, we also remove the only authority higher than political authority, and the only authority that guarantees the sanctity of the individual.
• think the word tolerance itself is a kind of problem. Tolerance comes from the Latin words tolerare, which means to bear or sustain, and tollere, which means to lift up. It implies bearing other people and their beliefs the way we bear a burden or a really nasty migraine headache. It’s a negative. And it’s not a Christian virtue.
• …tolerating lies about the nature of the human person is a sin.
• …using “tolerance” as an excuse for not living and witnessing Jesus Christ in our private lives and in our public actions is not an act of civility. It’s a form of cowardice.
• If you want to serve the common good and build a better future, you’ll never do it by hiding your faith in the closet.

Now, I would argue, as would many, about his view of the Roman Catholic Church in the Church Universal, but his conviction of most (including myself) is truly universal.

Jason Lee Steorts has written a piece, not so much discussing Spong’s book itself, but about Spong’s own failures of faith (although neither Steorts nor Spong name it such). Spong’s words outside of his book, should have caused the Episcopal Church long ago to excommunicate him. Although it is probably too late, they should do it now. The Episcopal Church is in the midst of a crisis, and people so far outside of even today’s Episcopal liberal theology, should not be granted the stature that Spong has, and the Episcopal Church can remove much of that stature by excommunicating a man who is a heretic.

There, I said it. Spong is a heretic. One is supposed to excommunicate the heretics. I could hope that the Episcopal would have some strength remaining, but I don’t. The true bedrock of its strength, faith, is leaving by way of parishes severing their ties to the Episcopal Church, and true to its current path, the Episcopal Church it is doing its best to step on them, and proving that it is now of the world, not of the Word, by legally stealing the property of the parish (who, according to Episcopal rules, HAVE to have the Diocese on the property deed) who have, in good faithful conscience, decided that they can no longer be a part of an organization that insists traveling down the Apostate Freeway.

He believes that we need to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He also believes that if we have a true relationship with Jesus, we cannot but help to seek a holy life. I am not saying that I am going to become a Roman Catholic, but one of my biggest beefs with many of the denominations (not, noticeably, an issue with the Church of the Nazarene), is that they are so pig-headed (mea culpa: I used to be one of those pig-headed ones) that they cannot see the wisdom that is coming forth from other denominations.

I am a professor of human biology at Baruch College, City University of New York. I sometimes get involved in discussions with ‘gay’ students on issues of biology and homosexuality, but such discussions have always been respectful and educational. For example, a young ‘gay’ man told me he was opposed to all the hatred directed against ‘gay marriage’; why couldn’t the government recognize the equality of ‘gay’ unions? I asked him about the lifespan of nations, compared to the lifespan of individuals. He acknowledged that nations span many generations. I added that, in fact, one of the few real responsibilities of the national government is to ensure that there will be future generations of citizens. Therefore, I said, is it not really the responsibility of the federal government to provide special protection to the very institution that guarantees future generations of citizens, i.e., marriage between a man and a woman? His reply: ‘That sounds fair.’ And he walked out of class satisfied. We all know that youth tend to be possessed of idealism, which is these days so often confused with, and perverted into utopianism. But youthful idealism is really the love of truth, and nothing makes it shine like truth!

A letter to the editor of the Patriot Post (The Brief, Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 16 | 16 April 2007)

When a land is in rebellion, it has many rulers, but with a discerning and knowledgeable person, it endures.

Proverbs 28:2 (HCSB)

There are a lot of people trying to be “leaders” right now. I fervently hope that most of them have the needs of those whom they purport to represent in mind, rather than their own power. The weakness of a true democracy (which the United States is NOT) is that with so many voices, the loudest and/or shrillest ones are heard over others. In this day and age, it is those that have their representation in the media. Sadly, with the current state of the media, loudness and shrillness are what seize the day.

Newt Gingrich (not the most shrill, but certainly not the least) recently had a “gentlemanly” debate with Mario Cuomo. The reason it was gentlemanly was they were discussing issues, perspectives, and solutions. A reasoned debate. Something lost on most these days. But that is yet another aside.

The 20th century saw a lot of rebellion for many good reasons: women’s suffrage, integration, racial and gender equality. However, there were bad rebellions as well: feminism (what is now feminism, not equality), the 60′s drug and sex era, the anti-Vietnam war. However, it seems to have become a state of mind for far too many. Rebelling for rebelling’s sake. That’s what this passage of Proverbs brings to mind.

Granted, this has been repeated time and again, but I believe that this upcoming presidential race will be key. Is the United States headed for oblivion, or for greater things? To be honest, the instability in both major political parties could have a significant effect upon a “third” party candidate, making it possible for one to be successful. Also, with the instability of both parties, the candidates selected could be anyone. In addition, with all the states moving their primaries to be close together, we won’t have the test of stamina (and I am not talking about money) of the candidates, which could truly be a catastrophe in the making.

I must admit that I don’t know if a republic or democracy can be without many leaders (it is the nature of the beast, after all), but there is no true leader.  Pres. G.W. Bush seems to have burned out his leadership resources, so now everyone, including him, seem to be fighting over the scraps.  The mainstream media certainly isn’t helping by their amplification of the lonely, strident voices.

In the past few months, though I still consider my self an American (and still proud of it), I’m beginning to view my nation in its proper perspective, as a nation (kingdom) that is certainly not the kingdom of God, therefore not nearly worth as much of my concern.

As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth that shall be different from all the other kingdoms; it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it into pieces.

I was reading Daniel 7:19-27, and it struck me that the United States of America may very well be the fourth beast. The first response of some will be that the USA is not a beast, of course their opposites on the political spectrum will say that it is. The Book of Daniel is very much a prophetical and vision based. It is not literal.

“…shall be different from all the other kingdoms…”. The United States of America is different from any other country.

“It will devour the whole earth…” From a political standpoint, and sadly much in a cultural viewpoint, this is reality as well.

As much as I love my country, the current divide between the lovers and loathers (American Citizens all), tells me that the USA is on its way out. It won’t go down easily, or soon. What ten kingdoms, then will it devolve to?

We call the USA a “Christian” nation. It was. It is no longer, and hasn’t been for a great many decades (which decade in the 20^th century is up for debate). As sad as this makes me feel, the kingdom to which is owed my greatest loyalty is not of this earth, and that kingdom shall not pass away.

millionsoulsaware.org is a not for profit project started in march 2007 that has the mission to raise awareness by featuring an article on an important topic that needs attention. Millionsoulsaware.org doesn’t ask for donations, but asks you to spread the word. The millionsoulsaware.org goal is to get one million souls aware on the current subject. This goal is measured by the project counter on the mainpage. Our goal will be reached by asking people on the internet to spread the awareness by promoting millionsoulsaware.org. We believe the internet is the perfect way to reach a wide audience worldwide. Awareness is the starting point for a better world!

The current issue is refugee camps, and while there will probably be some disagreements on the cause, effect, and resolution of the issue that MillionSoulsAware.org will bring up. At this point, I’m not going to argue that at least their first issue is definitely worth learning about.

Also, please note that I have added a text box at the top of the left-most column, as I want more people to learn about these issues.

Dr. Hawking, with all due respect, that theory has been around for quite some time now. My biblical calendar is pretty useless, but I think its about 6000 years old.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:1-5

The SCA said in a press release that Americans without a “God-belief” are more distrusted than any other minority group in the nation. The organization said that surveys suggest the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist president even if he were the most qualified candidate.

Hmmm, now why would that be? Perhaps, those that have a “God-belief” have a basic structure of morality, outside of themselves, upon which their thoughts and actions can be judged upon, and hopefully their thoughts and actions will be in concert with¹.

Lori Brown of the SCA says:

It starts breaking down people’s misunderstandings of who we are when they start seeing that this person, who has served in Congress for over 30 years of exemplary service, may have a different belief system … but is a perfectly patriotic member of our society.

I remember Pete Stark from my life in California, not positively either. Just because a person has been in Congress for any length of time, does not make them patriotic, nor does it mean they served “exemplary”, it means that they have successfully negotiated the morass called elections. That’s it.

Now for a tad bit of intellectual honesty. According to the Unitarian Universalist Association, I can believe in God and still be a member. In fact, the Unitarian trumpet themselves as supporting religious (their words, not mine) self-expression, including believing in god (I won’t capitalize it, as their definition does not seem to meet either the Jewish non-Jesus or the Christian view of God).  Pete Stark, in an email to the New York Sun, did say he was an atheist Unitarian.  This boggles the mind.  Pete Stark, in his pew at his “religious” service at Unitarian, could very well sit next to some sort of theist.  A comment comes to mind from a non-practicing Jew who said, “Unitarians are those who want to be part of a church, but don’t want God to interfere.”

A lot of the “non-liturgical” churches seem to have much of the same perspective as they do not do things that older churches have done for centuries, because the older churches do them.

As one of those people who still crosses himself, but restrains himself because of a lack of understanding by others, it was refreshing to see this commentary in Christianity Today.

There’s a stereotypical assumption among Christians in the nonprofit world that capitalism means greed or selfishness, and “therefore has got to be bad,” says Nash, founder and managing partner of Piper Cove Asset Management LLC. Using goals to measure progress—standard practice in the business world—is seen as “cold-blooded and materialistic.”

I can’t say I’m particularly shocked. It does seem to many people outside of business that this is the case. Especially with high profile failures in morals, ethics, and leadership, of a number of “leaders” (leaders used generously) in the business community. The sensationalist treatment by the media certainly doesn’t help.

It’s too bad, really. Business, in the form of truly free capitalism, provides a good grounding for a successful and free society. The company I work for is a great example. They care for their employees, understanding that they are the reason the company is successful, and even in business. Of course we have metrics, and honestly, it is a good thing. As long as the leadership of an organization isn’t the browbeating time, learning where one falls short and where one excels helps the employee and the company.

The funny part is that Christians are lumped together with “evil” capitalistic Republicans, and yet, if this description of Christians in non-profits is true, many Christians actually belong in the “left” because of their view of business.

Without a doubt, a business exists to make money. That is its purpose. The purpose of a Christian non-profit is to fulfill its mission. By swapping money for mission, a business becomes a non-profit. And yes, it is as simple as that.

Serendipitously, David Gushee, a Baptist minister, wrote in Christianity Today (see the article Jesus and the Sinner’s Prayer) about revisting the view of salvation.

While I find his questioning of whether or not we are saved once we accept Jesus interesting, it is his further musings about why we may not be that I find more interesting. He points to the possibility that these may be the requirement for being, and continuing to be, saved:

1. Believe in Jesus
2. Love God with all one’s heart
3. Love one’s neighbor as oneself
4. GIVE UP YOUR LIFE TO PICK UP THE CROSS THAT IS YOURS, BY GOD, TO CARRY.

Most of have heard of (1) and understand the need of fulfilling that requirement first. Loving God (2) at first seems easy, but continuing on through to items (3) and (4), it’s not so easy anymore. (3) in many ways seems difficult, but if we examine the parable of the Samaritan, perhaps it is not so intimidating. For the basic truth of that parable is to recognize that we are all travelers on the same road of life, recognizing the brotherhood that that is. The next part of it is compassion; help one another (which, in the Nazarene tradition, can be not doing something so that person does not sin, although there has to be some limit). Of course, there is a differing perspective on what is “helping”. I do not wish my fellow man to sin, so if I try to explain how their sin separates them from God, in truth, I am trying to help them, for I have no desire to see my fellow man in Hell. Should I get to Heaven, which I believe I will (but perhaps God will decide that I was a branch that needed pruning), I have no intention or desire to gloat over my fallen fellow man.

The last part of it is (4). For me this has been a struggle, as the cross that I believe God wants me to bear is to be a pastor. I have finally surrendered to this call, and feel some peace, but there is a lot of apprehension as this will eventually require a major life change for me and my family. I have said “no” for more than 8 years, but my pastor delivered a sermon that convicted me. He said, when we say “no” to God, we are more than just sinning, we are turning our back to God.

God wins, and eventually, I will, tool

The biggest issue to me is intellectual honesty. If evolutionists were honest, they would acknowledge that evolution is a theory. Both creationism and evolution are theories according to the scientific method, as neither is reproducible, as humans do not live such extended lifespans as would be required to observe the evolution of species, especially man. However, as we are not God, we cannot reproduce creationism either.

The end result both are equally based upon FAITH.

Chuck Colson, in one of his daily Breakpoint Commentaries, talked about a woman who decided against aborting the child of an unplanned pregnancy.

Through sharing her own story of coming to terms with unexpected pregnancy, Fields gives hope to women who often feel their only choice is abortion. She shows how God can redeem even the most difficult of circumstances and give a mother love for the surprise child who seems, at first, more like a curse than a blessing.

Please read the transcript of this commentary, for I believe that women such Leslie Fields need the support of family, friends, and churches to make the choice of loving God’s greatest surprises, children.

Whatever we may now think of the old visions of creation, we can remain sure of one thing: without the speaking of the Word—without language—we would have no science today with its striking power to illuminate the world.

Read the orginal commentary in its entirety at The New Atlantis website.

And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said unto Him, “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned but what sayest thou?” This they said testing Him, that they might have cause to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not.So when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.And they who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the eldest even unto the last, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing in the midst.When Jesus had lifted Himself up and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?”She said, “No man, Lord.” And Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.”

I’m sure most people have at least a passing familiarity with this story, or at least the quote, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” This phrase oten is used as a default attack, or at least deflection, when someone brings up another’s sinful behavior (along with the splinter/plank quote, which I will discuss another time).

However, the user of the phrase, and usually the person at whom the phrase is thrown, accept the phrase as meaning something it doesn’t.

Jesus tells us that the second GREAT commandment is, “love your neighbor as yourself”. What does that have to do with this? Well, the Scribes and Pharisees didn’t come in love, they came to test. Granted, they found an adultress, of course, they seem to have, shall we say, disregarded the adulterer, which is a contradiction. The Scribes and Pharisees didn’t bring her to Jesus out of love of God, God’s love, or love in anyway shape and form.

As for the stone (or rock), Jesus was telling them that they should indeed mete out punishment for her sin, but only if they were sinless. At least, to give the Scribes and Pharisees credit, they acknowleged they weren’t without sin. However, I would like to point out that had they just finished the scapegoat aspect of sin forgiveness, they would have been sinless according to the law, so perhaps the “without sin” part is not quite what it seems.

Now onto Jesus’ last statement, “neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.” Again, when taken into context, this statement is not what it seems at first blush. The comdemn in this statement refers to condemning the adultress to death. In other words, tossing the rocks at her until she dies.

However, Jesus doesn’t forgive her, which I find quite interesting. Elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus seems to just toss forgiveness around, but not here. I wonder if that tells us something about God’s view of adultery, perhaps it won’t be forgiven by God unless the agreived parties (those whose trust the adulteress and adulterer betrayed) forgive them first. I digress.

Jesus tells her to “sin no more”. This implies the fact of her sin. Jesus convicts her of her sin. He tell her not to do it again.

Where does that leave us? I believe that if a person is guilty of sin, they should be reprimanded. “Go and sin no more.” In fact, Paul actually provides a methodology to confront a person with their sin, but it is specifically aimed at members of the Christian church. Another aside is the Ted Haggard fall. As is beginning to come out, many people within his church knew there were issues (no one has admitted, as far as I know, that they knew of Haggert’s homosexual proclivities). They should have dealt with this. Back to the blog entry at hand.

So what are we, as Christians, to do with people outside the church? First, we must love them. How can we show that Jesus Christ is worthy of their love, if they do not experience the love of Christ? There, of course, is the issue of people feeling unloved because a person says their behavior is bad, and, frankly, there little one can do with how they feel about what is said. One can be gentle about it, but not too gentle. If one is too gentle, they will be ignored. I am also flatly against people hating. Of course, there is not an insiginificant portion of the population that says I/we hate them because I/we believe that what they do is wrong. I do not hate them. I’m not sure that I hate anyone.

If we truly believe what we say we believe, then we must say something.

A number of my posts in the past, and I’m sure many more in the future, will revolve around the church and homosexuality. I’m not deliberately picking on homosexuality, or homosexuals, but on the current political, social, and religious focus of the time, which just so happens to be homosexuality. Homosexuality, for better, or worse, has become a major issue. For better, because I don’t want people to live in fear, for worse, because I still don’t agree with the behavior, and I have grave concerns regarding a greater acceptance, and even encouragement of the behavior.

The last two significant issues that were prominent in all three spheres (politics, society, religion) were divorce and gender equality, which are both topics I will leave for other times. If I were living in those times, and the internet were in existence then, I would be blogging about that.

I know people, whom I do call friends, that are homosexual. Do I love them as I love my fellow man? Of course. Do I agree with that love-challenged church in wherever that “God Hates F***”? Absolutely NOT!

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16

What part of “loved the world” do folks like those not understand? Does that mean I seek to give homosexuality a pass? I would much rather just love and accept homosexuals as they are. It certainly would be easier. However, I don’t have that luxury. For, you see, a behavior that is unacceptable does not suddenly become okay if you love and “accept” a person. I love my children very much, but throwing things in the house is not a positive behavior, and as much as I love and accept my children, I will not accept their behavior. I will forgive, however.

That is how I see God looking at us. We are his creation, his children. That is not to say we are perfect. By giving us free will, God freed us to make mistakes. REALLY BIG ONES. I could start with Original Sin, but that is for others to speak more intelligently on. What I can speak on, only somewhat intelligently, is everyday sin–the things we’ve done and left undone (as the Lutheran confession states).

In an article publish in Christian Week (26 August 1997), John H. Redekop (in a piece titled “Revisitng Homosexuality”) states:

…when Christians respond to homosexuals that Jesus modeled such responses for us, we must be extremely careful not to compromise the clear biblical condemnation of such behavior. … The real point is that all of us are born into sin with strong proclivities to sin. Some, it seems, have a strong and innate desire to steal, some to lie, some to cheat, some to indulge in adultery, some to overeat, some to intoxicate themselves, perhaps some to practice homosexuality, and some to practice pedophilia. The fact that these tendencies may appear to be innate does not make them acceptable.

Redekop discusses two other salient points. The first is that Christians, if anyone, should understand people surrendering to innate desires. We ALL sin. The second is that Christians should respond to everyone with love.

What’s funny, or actually not so funny, is that an easy Commandment to understand (“Love your neighbor as yourself”) is very hard for a fallen, sinful humanity, to implement, even for we Christians, who truly understand just how fallen and sinful we are.

The most frustrating part of the whole shoutfest (why bother calling it a dialogue) is the redefining of the vocabulary. In the english language, tolerance is not a synonym for acceptance. For example, when one of my children throws a temper tantrum before bed, the major contributing factor is exhaustian. I will tolerate the tantrum (not letting it get out of hand, but not trying to stop it quickly either). However, if we are at the store, and one of them throws a tantrum, I will not accept that behavior, and put a stop to it quickly.

The truth is “hate the sin, love the sinner” has to be the modus operandi. If I truly love someone, and I believe that their behavior will cause them to be literally hellbound, why would I not try to help them sin no more. What is love? Is it allowing someone to self-destruct (yes, I understand that sometimes that is the only human course), or should I do what I can to guide them (not force them) onto the path where I can spend eternity with them in the loving grace and presence of God?

As much as the mainstream media and those of the ideoloigical left and extreme right like to malign religion, I truly believe that faith, especially faith in Jesus Christ,  will continue to be the ballwark defending the human psyche from the madness of its own creations.

The Catholic Church of Scotland has begun stating its concerns, and I hope churches around the world start paying attention to something I feel will be a major concern very soon.

I’ve gone back and tagged/categorized older articles, in addition to newer articles as they come up.

In a way, this is a zeitgeist, that seeks to gather together the peculiar afflictions of technology, from my point of view.

I do have to point out that this article in the New York Times continues to reinforce the false view that those of us who oppose embryonic stem cell research oppose all stem cell research. That is shoddy journalism.

Please note that after extracting the single cell, a lot of the embryos were still killed. NOT acceptable. This report also brought up another train of thought, is in vitro fertilization (IVF) a good thing? I could never minimize the pain and anguish of not being able to have children. Knowing how much joy and love (and frustration, but we’ll skip that for now) my children bring into my life, I could not imagine what it would be like without them, nor what it would be like to not be able to have them. Embryonic stem cell research would not be possible without IVF. An excellent argument by proponents of embryonic stem cell research, is that there are millions of embryos from IVF that are in freezers just “sitting” there. Most of them will never be implanted. To me that is almost as bad as killing them to extract stem cells, but at least there is still a chance of them becoming the people they are already are.

The Church of England now finds itself in, what one would think, need of making a pretty simple decision. Give Mr. Hart (I refuse to call him “Father”, “Reverend”, or “Pastor”, since he has, in my opinion, deserted the faith that imbues those titles) a chance to recant, if he doesn’t, the New Testament, and church law, makes it pretty clear. Kick him out.

The truly sad part is that this was foreseeable. If people such as Katharine Jefferts Schori can lead a “christian” church, why not a Hindu priest.

In one of her post-installation interviews (2 Nov 2006 Miami Herald) she says, ”It feels a bit un-Anglican to insist that we can’t talk to each other.” However, it is her very beliefs that are “un-Anglican”, and un-Christian.

In an interview with the Associated Press (reprinted here in the Washington Post), she is described as “Jefferts Schori personally believes in a relationship with God through Jesus but does not see it as the only true path.” I’m confused. What Bible is she reading? I know it’s no politically correct. It hurts my heart to say and believe it, but Jesus says that the only way to the Father is through him. As a member of a purportedly Christian church (let’s not even touch the priest, bishop, and now presiding bishop), she is supposed to believe in Jesus. The Episcopal church regularly recites the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds, but this proves the very danger of the creeds and the liturgical tradition as a whole.

Here we have a person who speaks the creeds, has even taught theology, and yet while she swears that she believes these creeds, she theologically opposes them.

The Nicene Creed states:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

The Apostle’s Creed begins:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord…

Yet she argues that Jesus is not the only way. Yet she swears that he is her Lord. It is this confusion that is part and parcel of all the mainstream Protestant and Lutheran denominations.

Her original occupation as a oceanographer, her seeming desire to challenge the seeming “men-only” clubs, also seems to be a driving factor. Are the churches so desperate for clergy, that they cannot, or choose not to, see what they are committing themselves to?

As I have focused so long on the fall of the Episcopal Church, it must be obvious that that particular church is important to me. I was baptized when I was three months old. It was the church of my childhood, not necessarily my faith (another area where the Protestant and Lutheran churches are failing, the bringing up in faith of their youth). I will still watch and pray, but the Episcopal Church can no longer be looked upon as a torch bearer of faith in Jesus Christ.

The Episcopal Church is often referred to as the “Catholic-Lite” church, but now, however, it is the “Christ-Lite” church.

On top of that, an article in Christianity Today discusses a survey, “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades”, from the American Sociological Review which describes the increasing loneliness of Americans.

Today, a friend sent a link to an article from Psychology Today which discusses depression, anxiety, self-esteem, and parenting.

Last of all, a link to Der Spiegel (in English), reporting on European towns removing traffic signs, and its effects on people’s behavior.

What on earth do these all have to do with each other? It’s very simple, yet not. All of the articles revolve around balance. At an increasing pace, we are removing ourselves from the very interactions that make us human.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:13

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.
Mark 13:31

What do these passages in the bible have to do with each other? The Word of God is eternal. It predates history. Before Creation, there was the Word. After the end of Creation, there will be the Word.

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9

Nothing is new, including redefining God’s Word. What made Christianity so different from the culture it started in was that it DIDN’T involve homosexual behavior, multiple sexual partners, sex out of wedlock, gluttony, drunkenness, sacrifices at the local god’s temple. In fact, Paul preached against it. However, here we are now, in this “modern” age, and we are being told that the bible should be recognized as applying to the culture in which it was written. As Solomon wrote, there is nothing new here. Instead of these mores coming after the behaviors, now the behaviors are coming after the mores.

We are told that the bible wasn’t speaking against homosexuals in a loving monogamous relationship. No one in New Testament times had a monogamous homosexual relationship? How do we know this? We do know that rampant homosexuality was present in the Roman Empire during Paul’s preaching career. In fact, we know that homosexuality was ACCEPTED (more so than it is now, by far), yet Paul still preached against it.

Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Mark 5:17

One of the scribes approached. When he heard them debating and saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked Him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”
“This is the most important,” Jesus answered: “Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. “The second is: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Mark 12:28-32

Another argument is that Jesus tells us to love God and each other. I can’t, and won’t, disagree with that. However, loving God means doing your best to follow His commandments, not pick and choose. And that’s hard. REALLY, VERY, hard! Everyone falls down into sin, even Paul did, so I do not anticipate sinless humanity (on their own part, merit, or works). Yet a man sleeping with another man as if with a woman, is one of a very few acts that earns the term blasphemous.

This wasn’t going to be a harp session regarding homosexuality, and in truth homosexuality is a mere (yes, mere) surface issue. However, it is a sign of a rot pervading the Christian community, that the Word of God is not what it is.

It is timeless. It is universal. It is Eternal.

However, I will add my $.02 to the stem cell debate itself.

First and foremost, the troubling part about many of those that are using stem cell research as a political flaming arrow (whether for political office, or for some proposition), is that they always say that so-and-so opposes stem cell research, but the truth is that so-and-so (usually) opposes the “destruction” (euphemism for KILLING) of embryos for the harvesting of embryonic stem cells. The person (or people in the case of propositions) don’t oppose stem cell research per se, but the source of the stem cells.

What is particularly appalling, is the “pie-in-the-sky” cures that are being placed at the alter of stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research. John Edwards during his and John Kerry’s presidential campaign, fell deeply into that trap, saying that Christopher Reeve would walk again, and other, well frankly, absurd claims. I am not saying that stem cell research will not allow paralyzed people to walk, or cure Alzheimer’s, or cure Parkinson’s, but in certainly won’t happen soon, REGARDLESS of the source of stem cells.

Also, those that are using stem cell research as part of their political arsenal, either refuse to acknowledge or are deliberately not speaking of (because it interferes with their TRUE political aims, whatever they might be) adult stem cell research. There have been a number of publicized stem cell treatment studies, which only when read in their entirety, mention that ADULT stem cells are what are being used.

From what I understand, at this point, embryonic stem cells are only producing tumors. If that is the case, why is it being pushed? Because of its “potential”? If that is the reason, then these same folk should be trumpeting adult stem cell research (especially in light of its currently greater successes), pushing for the same federal and state funding they are trying to direct towards embryonic stem cell research.

They say pharmaceutical and bio-engineering companies don’t have the money to fund embryonic stem cell research. Yet these same companies have the money to fund adult stem cell research, and are close, supposedly, to a couple of successful treatments. It is disingenuous to say that companies are afraid of the political backlash on supposedly moral and ethical grounds, while, on the other hand, accusing the SAME companies of gouging the American public for medicinal treatments (i.e., unethical and immoral behavior).

The other part of this that I have an issue with is, is the hypocrisy. People who are out agitating for the killing of embryos (or destruction of same, if you wish), and genetic therapies on humans, oppose animal research, including genetic research, and also oppose genetically engineered tomatoes (for longer staying power in the stores) or fish (can’t remember the rationale for this one) or grain (to increase yield, especially for countries with FAMINE and STARVING children). Why is it okay to mess with the incredibly complex and still quite unknown (we’ve mapped the human genome, but do we REALLY know what it means) of human beings, but we can’t mess with fish, tomatoes, or grain?

Just so it is understood, I am against artificial genetic engineering (farmers have been naturally genetic engineering since the beginning of agriculture), whether it be fish, tomato (granted, tomatoes are yucky anyways), or human. Part of lure of genetic engineering is the thought that, for example, my child will be “perfect”, which completely fails to take into account the entirety of the human condition, of which genetics is only a part. The world in the movie Gattaca is a world where genetic perfection is normal (this was also touched upon in the book Red Genesis by S.C. Sykes), but Gattaca also demonstrates the true power of the human spirit, and how it, if the individual is willing, is the true individual, not their genetics.

Back to the topic at hand. What is the motivator for all the emphasis on embryonic stem cell research? I read a report (Stem Cell Research and Applications) sponsored by the AAAS (despite their attempt to appear unbiased, their sponsored papers and seminars show otherwise), and it is quite clear that there is NO evidence that embryonic stem cell research will produce good “fruit”, and they say as such. Yet the paper says that we must continue it. Why? Especially, as it appears, that there are successful treatments using another stem cell source. What is going on?

I have heard is postulated that those that are advocating embryonic stem cell research are advocating that particular branch of research, because abortion can be “dovetailed” into it as a source of such stem cells. I hope that that postulate is wrong. VERY wrong. However, I fear it is true. As far as I can tell, those who advocate embryonic stem cell research (and also disregarding adult stem cell research), and are agitating for it politically, are also pro-”choice”, thus seeming to bolster the “need” to continue to have “choice”. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE could be so detached from their own humanity to think that way. So again, I hope that that postulate is wrong.

The true conflict is between worldviews, and not incomprehension of science as many claim. The questions that seem to apply purely to this topic, and have differing worldviews, are as follows:

• Where does life begin?
• When is it okay to alter genetics?
• What is the value of a human life?

The first question is the hardest, mostly, and is the source of the conflict. For me, it is at conception, which of course causes a conflict with hormonal birth control, and I recognize the inconsistency, and struggle to conform them. Before I go further, I heard someone say yesterday that no one has funerals for miscarriages, while that is not universally true, on the other hand, when my wife miscarried we both mourned. That lost life was valued by us. Those that support embryonic stem cell research usually seem to be pro-choice, which seems to have the view that life begins whenever the pregnant woman says it does. If she calls it a fetus, it is abortable. If she calls is a baby, everything must be done to preserve the child. This is regardless of the child’s (which is what I call it) gestational age. THAT is inconsistent.

The genetics question was discussed above, but the abbreviated answers are: for me, never artificially; for supporters of embryonic stem cell research, the answer seems to be, on humans, when ever we want to, for animals or plants, never. Which segues into the next question.

This, now that I think about it, might actually be harder than I thought. For people such as Peter Singer (a professor of “ethics” at Princeton), the value of human life is whenever that life is valuable to him, or of value to whomever the question is asked. For him, by way of clarification, those that are a burden (such those with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Autism, you name it) should be “removed” so that they do not use up valuable resources. For me, human life is always valuable, however, sometimes (not for convenience’s sake) human life must be taken, but I believe that an unborn child deserves a whole lot more protection than they are getting now.

Those that support or oppose embryonic stem cell research both deserve to be listened to, but by painting embryonic stem cell research as all but the entirety of stem cell research, cannot even lead to possible discussion, but its premise is based on falsehood.

Christ Our Lord Anglican Church (currently the front page is the rebuttal to the above)

Washington Post article (sorry, registration required)

There was a time I would have identified myself as an Episcopal. To be honest, the Episcopal Church (of the USA) has been in trouble for years. My wife, coming from a different Christian background, and I settled on a local Lutheran church (ELCA), but that is another story. She became one of the youth leaders, and we went to a retreat at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. They had the youth play out various animals (why I’m not sure), but they started imitating snakes, and although before then I was still reconciling faith with the world, I had no problem seeing evil there. And it got worse through the night. I was glad and relieved that I was no longer a part of the Episcopal Church.

The part about this conflict that is regularly ignored, is that this go-it-alone spirit is quite typical of the ECUSA. Here come the tension, however, as an American, I, too, have some of that same spirit. Americans, on the whole, seem to have more of that than others, though we all have that issue because of our sins. That’s great to a point, but when you are part of a Communion (as the ECUSA says it is) you don’t go off on your own. Unless you are willing to really mess things up.

On of the current trial balloons being floated is to have two separate U.S. “Parental” organizations, the ECUSA, and some “orthodox” one. Bad idea! The Anglican Communion needs to simultaneously formally sever ties with the ECUSA, and create a union that adheres to the acknowledged doctrines of the universal church, and the doctrines of the Anglican church, setting forth the requirement that admission into it means adherence and acceptance of them.

Observe the inversion of justice here. Benevolent, individualistic, life-loving Americans, and death-worshipping, collectivist, nihilistic Arabs—such as the dancing Arabs who celebrated 9/11—are regarded as equally worthy of protection by the American military. The exception is if the American is a soldier and the Arab is a civilian, in which case the Arab’s life is of greater value.

To the extent that Just War Theory is practiced, it leads to unnecessary fear, suffering, and death visited on innocent nations—and to the rise of evil movements and regimes—all while it claims to be virtuous and practical.

Happines is, as a great many people throughout history have observed, short-lived. As defined in this series of posts, happiness must be short-lived. It is a human pursuit (the United States’ Declaration of Independence discusses this briefly). It is a human pursuit precisely because it is short-lived.

An example would be stories told at a wake. The (living) participants would be in the midst of grieving, but a funny or happy story is told. Everyone smiles and is happy either listening to the tale, or recalling it from their own memories. However, the grieving hasn”t stopped, but a brief, superficial, surge of happiness is experienced.

Another example would be a devoted loving married couple, who have just had a fight. The love and devotion of the marriage hasn”t changed, but is overlain with anger. Once the anger disapates, the underlying love and devotion has not changed.

The lesson here is not to apply a single emotion across multiple emotional or relational levels. Or put another way, don”t simplify the complex, and don’t define human emotions as simple.

Someone who hasn”t survived depression cannot fathom it. Too many people confuse this with the “blues”, or with those times when a person is grieving or feeling some type of emotional pain.

Just as life cannot be explained without living it, neither can depression. Analyzing depression from a purely clinical perspective actually limits the true ramifications of it.\

The most dangerous perspective to both the individual and the Body of Christ is that , if you are depressed, your faith and your walk with Christ are either a sham, or so shallow that they might as well be a sham.

It is difficult for someone who has not experienced depression to discuss it without appearing condescending.

Why is this important? For many reasons, occurances of depression are increasing. As people become separated physically by technology, true physical community becomes limited. In fact, civic and religious communities are what remain of many communities, and both of these are experiencing decline. That is why, in churches especially, it is critical to reexamine perspectives of depression.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

As a supposedly “confessing” church, the ECUSA (and the EC-Canada) is supposed to confess that the Bible is the Word of God. A lot of the “redefining” of the bible that has been going around has been arguing that it is all about cultural and historical context. John 1:1 disagrees. Before cultural and historical context, before humanity, before the animals, before the earth, before the sun or the moon, before anything was the Word. That is pretty profound when you really sit down and think about it. In fact, a lot of arguments surround the bible and it not fitting into the modern world don’t matter when you look at them through the lense of John 1:1.

Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of those people in the clerical world have a very similar problem to the secular academic world. A kind of Ivory Tower Syndrom, if you will. There are a few, and sadly I believe that Gene Robinson is one of them, that will redefine anything so that they don’t have to confront the real issue. The real issue was first shown in Genesis. Sin. Thinking through the harshness of Levitical law (which the Gentiles are, mercifully, free of), I wonder if its harshness was because, we, fallen humanity, fail to recognize (through conscious or unconscious avoidance) just how truly sinful we are.

There are a lot of people who are stuck on Gene Robinson’s sexual orientation. There are those that are stuck on the fact that he abandoned his marriage vows (and thus his wife and children). To me it’s bigger than that. Gene Robinson and his election to the bishopry are a natural step for the ECUSA (and soon, I’m sure, EC-Canada). It is a failure by the leadership, those that are to watch and care for Jesus’s sheep, to confront sin, and ALL of the discomfort that that confrontation would cause.

A lot of this is about choosing to no longer believe that the bible is the Word of God. However, it is also, frankly, the malaise of a modern society that wants to so desperatly avoid confrontation, that the action of not confronting evolves into an act of tolerating, then acception, then celebrating, then encouraging behavior that is condemned by the bible.

[24 October 2006: This was, originally, going to be a single post, but with the fallout continuing, it will be connected to at least one other entry, but probably more. See also: Ignoring the Sin Won't Lessen the Pain]

June 8, 2003

Why America Outpaces Europe (Clue: The God Factor)

By NIALL FERGUSON

XFORD, England — It was almost a century ago that the German sociologist Max Weber published his influential essay “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.” In it, Weber argued that modern capitalism was “born from the spirit of Christian asceticism” in its specifically Protestant form — in other words, there was a link between the self-denying ethos of the Protestant sects and the behavior patterns associated with capitalism, above all hard work.

Many scholars have built careers out of criticizing Weber’s thesis. Yet the experience of Western Europe in the past quarter-century offers an unexpected confirmation of it. To put it bluntly, we are witnessing the decline and fall of the Protestant work ethic in Europe. This represents the stunning triumph of secularization in Western Europe — the simultaneous decline of both Protestantism and its unique work ethic.

Just as Weber’s 1904 visit to the United States convinced him that his thesis was right, anyone visiting New York today would have a similar experience. For in the pious, industrious United States, the Protestant work ethic is alive and well. Its death is a peculiarly European phenomenon — and has grim implications for the future of the European Union on the eve of its eastward expansion, perhaps most economically disastrous for the “new” Europe.

Many economists have missed this vindication of Weber because they are focused on measures of productivity, like output per hour worked. On that basis, the Western European economies have spent most of the past half-century spectacularly catching up with the United States.

But what the productivity numbers don’t reveal is the dramatic divergence over two decades between the amount of time Americans work and the amount of time Western Europeans work. By American standards, Western Europeans are astonishingly idle.

According to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the average working American spends 1,976 hours a year on the job. The average German works just 1,535 — 22 percent less. The Dutch and Norwegians put in even fewer hours. Even the British do 10 percent less work than their trans-Atlantic cousins. Between 1979 and 1999, the average American working year lengthened by 50 hours, or nearly 3 percent. But the average German working year shrank by 12 percent.

Yet even these figures understate the extent of European idleness, because a larger proportion of Americans work. Between 1973 and 1998 the percentage of the American population in employment rose from 41 percent to 49 percent. But in Germany and France the percentage fell, ending up at 44 and 39 percent. Unemployment rates in most Northern European countries are also markedly higher than in the United States.

Then there are the strikes. Between 1992 and 2001, the Spanish economy lost, on average, 271 days per 1,000 employees as a result of strikes. For Denmark, Italy, Finland, Ireland and France, the figures range between 80 and 120 days, compared with fewer than 50 for the United States.

All this is the real reason that the American economy has surged ahead of its European competitors in the past two decades. It is not about efficiency. It is simply that Americans work more. Europeans take longer holidays and retire earlier; and many more European workers are either unemployed or on strike.

How to explain this sharp divergence? Why have West Europeans opted for shorter working days, weeks, months, years and lives? This is where Weber’s thesis comes up trumps: the countries where the least work is done in Europe turn out to be those that were once predominantly Protestant. While the overwhelmingly Catholic French and Italians work about 15 to 20 percent fewer hours a year than Americans, the more Protestant Germans and Dutch and the wholly Protestant Norwegians work 25 to 30 percent less.

What clinches the Weber thesis is that Northern Europe’s declines in working hours coincide almost exactly with steep declines in religious observance. In the Netherlands, Britain, Germany, Sweden and Denmark, less than 10 percent of the population now attend church at least once a month, a dramatic decline since the 1960′s. (Only in Catholic Italy and Ireland do more than a third of the population go to church on a monthly basis.) In the recent Gallup Millennium Survey of religious attitudes, 49 percent of Danes, 52 percent of Norwegians and 55 percent of Swedes said God did not matter to them. In North America, by comparison, 82 percent of respondents said God was “very important.”

So the decline of work in Northern Europe has occurred more or less simultaneously with the decline of Protestantism. Quod erat demonstrandum indeed!

Weber’s vindication has profound implications for the next year’s enlargement of the European Union, when the Baltic States, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and the Czech and Slovak Republics will become full European Union members.

A crucial feature of this enlargement, compared with those of the 1970′s and 1980′s, is that the material gap between old and new members is far wider this time. In 1974, the richest old member (Luxembourg) was twice as rich as the poorest new member (Ireland) in terms of per capita gross domestic product. Today, the average Luxembourgeois is more than five times richer than the poorest new member (Lithuania).

The impact of adopting the European Union’s economic and social rules is bound to be far greater for this generation of new Europeans. They should remember what happened in the 1990′s to the East Germans, who initially celebrated their accession to the vastly richer West German Federal Republic, only to discover it meant unemployment for roughly a third of the work force.

This is where productivity statistics matter. Even after more than a decade of free-market reforms, productivity levels in the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary are as low as one third of the French level. What this means is that unless wages in those countries are set at around a third of French levels, their workers will not be able to compete.

East Europeans are currently able to compensate for their low productivity by working longer hours. The average Czech worker does more than 2,000 hours of work a year — a figure steadily rising since the collapse of Communism, even as working hours in Western Europe were declining. Unfortunately, European Union labor legislation will reverse this, to prevent what the West Europeans disingenuously call “social dumping” — the competition from low-wage economies. Czechs will be obliged to work less by a combination of legal entitlements to a shorter working week, longer holidays, higher minimum wages and generous unemployment benefits when their employers go bust because of all this.

The question is how much the Czechs will care about the ensuing enforced leisure. Like nearly all the 10 new members of the European Union, the Czech Republic is a predominantly Catholic country. (The exceptions are Protestant Estonia and Latvia.) But one striking consequence of 40-plus years of socialist rule in Eastern Europe has been a decline of religious belief almost as marked as that in Northern Europe.

According to Gallup, 48 percent of Western Europeans almost never go to church, but the figure for Eastern Europe is just a bit less, at 44 percent. Meanwhile, 64 percent of Czechs regard God as not mattering at all — a higher rate than even in Sweden. In this respect the difference between “old” and “new” Europe may turn out to be less than many Americans now believe. Enlargement of the European Union may simply confirm the eastward spread of the leisure preference in an increasingly work-shy and Godless European continent.

The loser will be the European economy, which will continue to fall behind the United States in terms of its absolute annual output. The winner will be the spirit of secularized sloth, which has finally slain the Protestant work ethic in Europe — and Max Weber, whose famous thesis celebrates its centenary by attaining the status of verity.

Niall Ferguson is a professor of financial history at the Stern School of Business, New York University, and a senior research fellow of Jesus College, Oxford. He is the author of “Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power.”

You always hear the usual stories of pennies on the sidewalk being good luck, gifts from angels, etc. This is the first time I’ve ever heard this twist on the story. Gives you something to think about.

Several years ago, a friend of mine and her husband were invited to spend the weekend at the husband’s employer’s home.

My friend, Arlene, was nervous about the weekend. The boss was very wealthy, with a fine home on the waterway, and cars costing more than her house.

The first day and evening went well, and Arlene was delighted to have this rare glimpse into how the very wealthy live. The husband’s employer was quite generous as a host, and took them to the finest restaurants. Arlene knew she would never have the opportunity to indulge in this kind of extravagance again, so was enjoying herself immensely.

As the three of them were about to enter an exclusive restaurant that evening, the boss was walking slightly ahead of Arlene and her husband. He stopped suddenly, looking down on the pavement for a long, silent moment.

Arlene wondered if she was supposed to pass him. There was nothing on the ground except a single darkened penny that someone had dropped, and a few cigarette butts. Still silent, the man reached down and picked up the penny.

He held it up and smiled, then put it in his pocket as if he had found a great treasure. How absurd! What need did this man have for a single penny? Why would he even take the time to stop and pick it up?

Throughout dinner, the entire scene nagged at her. Finally, she could stand it no longer. She causally mentioned that her daughter once had a coin collection, and asked if the penny he had found had been of some value.

A smile crept across the man’s face as he reached into his pocket for the penny and held it out for her to see. She had seen many pennies before! What was the point of this?

“Look at it.” He said. “Read what it says.”

She read the words, “United States of America.”

“No, not that; read further.”

“One cent?”

“No, keep reading.”

“In God we Trust?”

“Yes!”

“And?”

“And if I trust in God, the name of God is holy, even on a coin. Whenever I find a coin I see that inscription. It is written on every single United States coin, but we never seem to notice it! God drops a message right in front of me telling me to trust Him? Who am I to pass it by? When I see a coin, I pray, I stop to see if my trust IS in God at that moment. I pick the coin up as a response to God; that I do trust in Him. For a short time, at least, I cherish it as if it were gold. I think it is God’s way of starting a conversation with me. Lucky for me, God is patient and pennies are plentiful!”

When I was out shopping today, I found a penny on the sidewalk. I stopped and picked it up, and realized that I had been worrying and fretting in my mind about things I can not change. I read the words, “In God We Trust,” and had to laugh. Yes, God, I get the message.

It seems that I have been finding an inordinate number of pennies in the last few months, but then, pennies are plentiful…

… And, God is patient…

This particular Sunday afternoon, as it came time for the Pastor and his son to go to the streets with their tracts, it was very cold outside as well as pouring down rain. The boy bundled up in his warmest and driest clothes and said “Okay, Dad, I’m ready.”

His Pastor Dad asked, “Ready for what?”

“Dad, it’s time we gather our tracts together and go out.”

Dad responds, “Son, it’s very cold outside and it’s pouring down rain.”
The boy gives his Dad a surprised look, asking, “But Dad, aren’t people still going to Hell even though it’s raining?”

Dad answers, “Son, I am not going out in this weather.” Despondently the boy asks, “Dad, can I go– Please?”

His father hesitated for a moment then said, “Son, you can go. Here are the tracts and be careful.” “Thanks, Dad!” And with that he was off and out into the rain.

This 11-year-old boy walked the streets of the town going door-to-door and handing everybody he met in the street a Gospel tract.

After two hours of walking in the rain, he was soaking bone-chilled wet and down to his very last tract. He stopped on a corner and looked for someone to hand a tract to but the streets were totally deserted.

Then he turned toward the first home he saw and started up the sidewalk to the front door and rang the doorbell.

He rang the bell — but nobody answered. He rang it again and again, but still no one answered. He waited but still no answer. Finally, this 11-year-old trooper turned to leave but something stopped him.

Again, he turned to the door and rang the bell and knocked loudly on the door with his fist. He waited; something held him there on the front porch. He rang again, and this time the door slowly opened.

Standing in the doorway was a very sad looking elderly lady. She softly asked, “What can I do for you, son?”

With radiant eyes and a smile that lit up her world, this little boy said, “Ma’am, I’m sorry if I disturbed you, but I just want to tell you that JESUS REALLY DOES LOVE YOU! I came to give you my very last Gospel tract which will tell you all about Jesus and His great love.”

With that he handed her his last tract and turned to leave. She called to him as he departed, “Thank you, son! And God bless you!”

Well, the following Sunday morning in church, Pastor Dad was in the pulpit and as the service began he asked, “Does anybody have a testimony or want to say anything?”

Slowly, in the back row of the church, an elderly lady stood to her feet.

As she began to speak, a look of glorious radiance came from her face. “None of you in this church know me. I’ve never been here before. You see, before last Sunday I was not a Christian.”

“My husband has passed on, some time ago, leaving me totally alone in this world. Last Sunday, being a particularly cold and rainy day, it was even more so in my heart . . . as I came to the end of the line where I no longer had any hope or will to live.”

“So I took a rope and a chair and ascended the stairway into the attic of my home. I fastened the rope securely to a rafter in the roof then stood on the chair and fastened the other end of the rope around my neck.”

“Standing on that chair, so lonely and brokenhearted, I was about to leap off when suddenly the loud ringing of my doorbell downstairs startled me.”

“I thought, ‘I’ll wait a minute, and whoever it is will go away.’”

“I waited and waited – but the ringing doorbell seemed to get louder and more insistent and then the person ringing also started knocking loudly.”

“I thought to myself again, ‘Who on earth could this be? Nobody ever rings my bell or comes to see me!’ I loosened the rope from my neck and started for the front door, all the while the bell rang louder and louder.”

“When I opened the door and looked, I could hardly believe my eyes! There on my front porch was the most radiant and angelic little boy I had ever seen in my life!”

“His smile! Oh, I could never describe it to you! And the words that came from his mouth caused my heart, that had long been dead, to leap to life as he exclaimed with cherub-like voice,”

“‘Ma’am, I just came to tell you that JESUS REALLY DOES LOVE YOU.’”

“Then he gave me this Gospel tract that I now hold in my hand.”

“As the little angel disappeared back out, into the cold and rain, I closed my door and read slowly every word of this Gospel tract. Then I went up to my attic to get my rope and chair.”

“I wouldn’t be needing them any more.”

“You see, I am now a happy child of the KING, and since the address of your church was on the back of this Gospel tract I have come here to personally say, Thank you to God’s little angel who came just in the nick of time, and by so doing, spared my soul from an eternity in Hell.”

There were now no dry eyes in the church. As shouts of praise and honor to the KING resounded off the very rafters of the building, Pastor Dad descended from the pulpit to the front pew where the little angel was seated.

He took him in his arms and sobbed uncontrollably. Probably no church has had a more glorious moment and probably this Universe has never seen a Papa that was more filled with love and honor for his son, except for one:

This Father, God, also allowed His Son, Jesus, to go out into a cold and dark world. He received His Son back with joy unspeakable, and as all of Heaven shouted praises and honor to the King, the Father sat His beloved Son on a throne far above all principality and power and every name that is named.

There may be someone, reading this, who is also going through a dark, cold, and lonely time in your soul.

You may be a Christian, for we are not without problems, or you may not yet know the King. Whatever the case and whatever the problem or situation you find yourself in, and no matter how dark it may seem, I want you to know that I just came to tell you, “JESUS REALLY DOES LOVE YOU!”

One day, when I was a freshman in high school, I saw a kid from my class was walking home from school. His name was Kyle. It looked like he was carrying all of his books. I thought to myself, “Why would anyone bring home all his books on a Friday? He must really be a nerd.”

I had quite a weekend planned (parties and a football game with my friends tomorrow afternoon), so I shrugged my shoulders and went on.

As I was walking, I saw a bunch of kids running toward him. They ran at him, knocking all his books out of his arms and tripping him so he landed in the dirt. His glasses went flying, and I saw them land in the grass about ten feet from him. He looked up and I saw this terrible sadness in his eyes.

My heart went out to him. So, I jogged over to him and as he crawled around looking for his glasses, and I saw a tear in his eye. As I handed him his glasses, I said, “Those guys are jerks. They really should get lives.” He looked at me and said, “Hey thanks!” There was a big smile on his face.

It was one of those smiles that showed real gratitude.

I helped him pick up his books, and asked him where he lived. As it turned out, he lived near me, so I asked him why I had never seen him before. He said he had gone to private school before now.

I would have never hung out with a private school kid before. We talked all the way home, and I carried some of his books. He turned out to be a pretty cool kid. I asked him if he wanted to play a little football with my friends. He said yes. We hung out all weekend and the more I got to know Kyle, the more I liked him, and my friends thought the same of him.

Monday morning came, and there was Kyle with the huge stack of books again. I stopped him and said, “Boy, you are gonna really build some serious muscles with this pile of books everyday!” He just laughed and handed me half the books.

Over the next four years, Kyle and I became best friends. When we were seniors, we began to think about college. Kyle decided on Georgetown, and I was going to Duke. I knew that we would always be friends, that the miles would never be a problem. He was going to be a doctor, and I was going for business on a football scholarship.

Kyle was valedictorian of our class. I teased him all the time about being a nerd. He had to prepare a speech for graduation.

I was so glad it wasn’t me having to get up there and speak. Graduation day, I saw Kyle. He looked great. He was one of those guys that really found himself during high school. He filled out and actually looked good in glasses. He had more dates than I had and all the girls loved him. Boy, sometimes I was jealous.

Today was one of those days. I could see that he was nervous about his speech. So, I smacked him on the back and said, “Hey, big guy, you’ll be great!” He looked at me with one of those looks (the really grateful one) and smiled. “Thanks,” he said.

As he started his speech, he cleared his throat, and began. “Graduation is a time to thank those who helped you make it through those tough years. Your parents, your teachers, your siblings, maybe a coach…but mostly your friends. I am here to tell all of you that being a friend to someone is the best gift you can give them. I am going to tell you a story.”

I just looked at my friend with disbelief as he told the story of the first day we met. He had planned to kill himself over the weekend. He talked of how he had cleaned out his locker so his Mom wouldn’t have to do it later and was carrying his stuff home.

He looked hard at me and gave me a little smile.

“Thankfully, I was saved. My friend saved me from doing the unspeakable.”

I heard the gasp go through the crowd as this handsome, popular boy told us all about his weakest moment.

I saw his Mom and dad looking at me and smiling that same grateful smile. Not until that moment did I realize it’s depth.

Never underestimate the power of your actions. With one small gesture you can change a person’s life. For better or for worse.

God puts us all in each other’s lives to impact one another in some way. Look for God in others.

You now have two choices, you can:

1. Pass this on to your friends, or
2. Delete it and act like it didn’t touch your heart.

As you can see, I took choice number 1. “Friends are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.”

However, participation only goes so far. This country was founded on freedom. This freedom was based upon the fact that freedom is a gift of GOD, not the government. Sadly, in the years since the founding, the citizens’ view of freedom has changed. Once the view was that the government existed to preserve the “unalienable” rights of man (the general term applies here), and the citizens granted certain powers to the government to protect those freedoms. No longer. Now the predominant view seems to be that it is the governement’s perogative to grants freedom to the people. The emphasis has dangerously changed.

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Is ‘Mainstream Christianity’ Morally Relevant Right Now?

Tom Marsland
Thursday, March 20, 2003

Pope John Paul II recently condemned America and Great Britain’s “alliance of the willing” for wanting to liberate the Iraqi people and stop Hussein’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Clearly, Pope John Paul II is a decent man by almost any standard, but he’s somehow sadly devolved the notion of peace to a level not consistent with the intent of his (and my) faith’s fundamental beliefs.

This moral confusion is not just a ‘Catholic leadership thing.’ Guilt abounds everywhere, as the blood of Saddam’s victims lies at the feet of virtually all of mainstream Protestantism as well!

In condemning free nations for desiring to liberate oppressed peoples from despotic regimes, virtually all World Council of Churches member congregations have sided against war … therefore against freedom for the Iraqi people, and thereby with Saddam, and with the U.N. too.

One would expect the U.N. to be corrupted by this world’s ill values, but would not expect the same corruption of values from the mainstream Christian Church. The ‘liberal church’ has said, “Wars are moral only when approved by the U.N.”

This turns the traditional moral authority given the church over to the U.N., a worldly organization with despotic regimes such as Libya at the head of its Human Rights Commission. Even Iraq is in key leadership positions at present.

From abortion to homosexuality, there is wholesale flight from godly virtue in many, if not most, denominations. Forgotten are the faith’s once noble stands for the oppressed, for the innocent of this world, for those without a voice (perhaps abortion has promulgated this?).

Statements such as “Jesus would never endorse warfare” sound good, but are totally false.

Jesus’ teaching offered the church’s founding fathers perfect moral clarity. Through inspired writing, the Christian Bible set in stone immutable principles for the governance of His Church in this world.

From Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus said: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

In Luke’s Gospel, He said: “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” and “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

From John’s Gospel: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives.”

In essence, he is self-defining his ‘peace’ as being different from that of the world’s peace, which usually looks at peace as ‘absence of present hostilities.’

Peace is NOT the eternal absence of warfare amongst nations, which would only ensure ‘victory by default’ for every evil regime! Righteous undertaking of warfare by nations is commanded by God in Christianity’s book! Such a nation ought therefore to believe its own inspired writings or bail on the faith, as commandments are not a voluntary matter.

I am not saying right-thinking Christians ought to look at Iraq as a Holy War. Let’s leave that sort of talk to Islam. I am simply stating that there are religious principles that direct nations to justly quench the flames of evil, not fan them with appeasement and rhetoric.

The Prophet Jeremiah warned us (nation states) that turning one’s back on the suffering of others made one guilty too, and subject to God’s punishment as well: “Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done – burn with no one to quench it.”

Now, you may or may not share any of these beliefs, but it’s not your beliefs I’ve been writing about. I am referring to inconsistency of belief and actions in the mainstream church. Why does modern Christianity ‘walk’ on these elements of God’s nature? It does disservice to all, as it provides an incomplete picture of His nature and our responsibilities.

If honest, there is at least one thing that all may agree upon: It is hypocritical to say you are a Christian and then live by a code entirely outside the principles of Jesus, a believer in just war and the author of a terrific book about it.

Editor’s note:
Become a member of NewsMax’s “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave” Club – get the T-shirt – Click Here Now

“A father, his son, and a friend of his son were sailing off the Pacific Coast,” he began, “when a fast approaching storm blocked any attempt to get back to the shore. The waves were so high, that even though the father was an experienced sailor, he could not keep the boat upright and the three were swept into the ocean as the boat capsized.”

The old man hesitated for a moment, making eye contact with two teenagers who were, for the first time since the service began, looking somewhat interested in his story.

The aged minister continued with his story, “grabbing a rescue line, the father had to make the most excruciating decision of his life: to which he would throw the other end of the life line. He only had seconds to make the decision. The father knew that his son was a Christian and he also knew that his son’s friend was not. The agony of his decision could not be matched by the torrent of waves.

“As the father yelled out, ‘I love you, son!’ he threw out the life line to his son’s friend. By the time the father had pulled the friend back to the capsized boat, his son had disappeared beneath the raging swells into the black of night. His body was never recovered.”

By this time, the two teenagers were sitting up straight in the pew, anxiously waiting for the next words to come out of the old minister’s mouth. “The father,” he continued, “knew his son would step into eternity with Jesus and he could not bear the thought of his son’s friend stepping into an eternity without Jesus. Therefore, he sacrificed his son to save the son’s friend. How great is the love of God that He should do the same for us. Our heavenly Father sacrificed his only begotten son that we could be saved. I urge you to accept his offer to rescue you and take a hold of the life line He is throwing out to you in this service.” With that, the old man turned and sat back down in his chair as silence filled the room.

The pastor again walked slowly to the pulpit and delivered a brief sermon with an invitation at the end. However, no one responded to the appeal. Within minutes after the service ended, the two teenagers were at the old man’s side.

“That was a nice story, politely stated one of the boys, “but I don’t think it was very realistic for a father to give up his only son’s life in hopes that the other boy would become a Christian.”

“Well, you’ve got a point there,” the old man replied, glancing down at his worn bible. A big smile broadened his narrow face. He once again looked up at the boys and said, “it sure isn’t very realistic, is it? But I’m standing here today to tell you that story gives me a glimpse of what it must have been like for God to give up His son for me. You see, I was that father and your pastor is my son’s friend.”