Christmas Eve 2008 and 40 Years Ago

In my 20’s in 1968, I heard the live broadcast of the Apollo 8 astronauts reading from Genesis 1 as they rounded the back side of the moon and saw the “earthrise” for the first time. A short time later, I bought some of the new postage stamps (6 cents at that time) with a photo of that earthrise and the words “In the beginning God …” and “Apollo 8”. To memorialize that event, I pasted one of those stamps in my Bible at the start of Genesis 1.

It was a fitting reminder after a horrible year: see The Voice Heard Round the Earth (and the Moon) for the setting. It’s subtitle is “In a year wracked by violence, America’s astronauts sent a biblical message of peace.”

Here is a selection from that article by John S. Gardner in National Review Online. You’ll want to read the whole thing.

As the astronauts flew above the lunar surface on their scientific mission, they gave a live Christmas Eve broadcast to the people of Earth, showing pictures of the Earth and Moon. Then, to conclude the broadcast, Anders said: “We are now approaching lunar sunrise and, for all the people back on Earth, the crew of Apollo 8 has a message that we would like to send to you.” He began reading from the first chapter of Genesis:
. . . Lovell and Borman continued with the passage until Borman reached verse 10:

And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Borman then ended with this: “And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas — and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth.”

What is really sad is that this Christmas Eve, on the 40th anniversary of that first manned trip around the moon and that broadcast, I heard nothing about it.

The Rocky Mountain News had this one sentence buried in an article about children’s books: “Space fans will love Moon Landing (Candlewick Press, $29.99, ages 8 up), written by Richard Platt and David Hawcock, a celebration of Apollo 11's 40th anniversary.”

This Christmas Eve, 2008, we could have used that reminder.

Christmas, Funerals, and Relationships as Signs

Yesterday I conducted a funeral for Aimee, the granddaughter of an old friend. Preparing for it, I remembered one of the three "echoes of a voice" from N. T. Wright's book, Simply Christian: Relationships. So, I stated this in the funeral message.

God’s love & grace are seen most clearly in human relationships. Each of us here today is connected to everyone else, if in no other way than through knowing Aimee or her mother or father. Our presence is a sign, a living representation of the relationship between God & us—those He created in His image.

This idea of human relationships being a signpost to point us to the relationship God wants with each of us is shown in a couple of familiar Christmas carols: "Hark, The Herald Angels Sing" and "O Little Town Of Bethlehem". Both speak of Jesus our Savior as our "Emmanuel"--God with us. In Jesus, God comes to dwell with us, abide with us, so we may forever abide with Him.

May your human relationships today reflect that perfect Relationship--the love of God within you and going out from you.

Merry Christmas to all.

Is It Any Different Now?

This 1949 editorial from the Wall Street Journal speaks to us again.

In Hoc Anno Domini When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage.

There may be civil order and stability when the government has complete control. There may be a sense of security when government promises bailouts to keep anything from failing; but something important is missing when that happens.

Follow Me?

With the new layout of my blog, it is now possible for you to subscribe to it and get updates whenever I post a new entry. Or, if you have a blog of your own, you can sign up to follow me on your blog.

Check out the "subscribe" and "follow me" functions on the right column. Then as you make comments, we can have a virtual dialogue. Thanks for joining in.

The Irony of Elastic Theology and Inclusiveness

In "The Upper Crust of Progressive Episcopalians", by George Will is this key insight:

“The Episcopal Church once was America's upper crust at prayer. Today it is "progressive" politics cloaked -- very thinly -- in piety. Episcopalians' discontents tell a cautionary tale for political as well as religious associations. As the church's doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an "inclusiveness" that includes fewer and fewer members.”

It seems people want to belong to a church or organization that actually stands for something rather than for the acceptance of "whatever". When there is no distinction between the church and the culture, what appeal does the church have? Why bother to attend church? Or, as in George Will's column, why bother to stay connected to that church when you can become part of one that helps you become better than the culture?

A Word from our Catholic Brothers and Sisters

An amazing video from CatholicVote.com--Powerful!

Surprised by Hope-- N.T. Wright on The Colbert Report

I've started reading N.T. Wright's new book, "Surprised By Hope, Rethinking Heaven, The Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church". There, Bishop Wright explains what he has come to see as "life after life after death"--the classic Christian doctrine of heaven and what it means for us, rather than the sentimentalized version prominant in popular culture (and even in some parts of Christian culture) today.

To see a brief video introduction of the concept, check out this interview of N.T. Wright by Stephen Colbert. Surprised by Hope: N.T. Wright on The Colbert Report.

Having been to four funerals within the past two months, the topic is relevant. I'll post more afer I finish.

Obama's Trip--The Times Online comment and The Washington Post editorial: One hilarious and one serious

I don't usually write about political matters, but it is of primary interest this year. Thanks to the Powerline blog for the following. Here are two “must-read” selections from major newspapers (one a commentary and one an editorial). Both are enlightening.

(1) From The Times Online (The Times of London, that is). The title and first paragraph:

"He ventured forth to bring light to the world. The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness."

You’ll want to read it all. Hilarious!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece


(2) From The Washington Post. The title and first and last paragraphs:

"Mr. Obama in Iraq
Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; Page A14
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable."

Again, you will want to read it all: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462.html

Thank You Tony Snow

By now everyone has heard that Tony Snow went to meet the Lord today at age 53. I didn't know him personally, but I got to know and love his personality.

Tony Snow and Tim Russert (who died last month) both were deeply mourned by members of the media and their audiences. It is encouraging to hear a common theme in the eulogies for both--they had their priorities straight. Family, faith, friends, community, country, and, of course, fairness in their journalism.

I liked Tony Snow because I always felt uplifted when I watched his show or saw him as Press Secretary for the President. He knew how to gracefully deal with the super-sized egos of those he interviewed or who asked questions of him at press conferences. His smile and positive attitude were contagious. I could learn from him--and I always hoped to learn more. Thanks Tony, you inspired us.

Comedy meets post-modernism

Comedy meets post-modernism
This is a great answer to the culture’s bias against any statement being Truth.
The Anchoress: This guy is like so right, you know?

The Relationship Between Culture and Government

Read the following and then click on the link to see its author and the entire article from which this is selected.

The Founding Fathers Knew: Good Government Requires Good Culture

One of the amazing things about the generation that founded America was that they knew we as a people would eventually drift into a crisis of bad culture and bad government. And they had no doubt which came first. They knew that bad culture leads to bad government -- and good government requires good culture.
Consider just a few quotes from our Founders:

"...there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained..." -- President George Washington's First Inaugural Address

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." -- George Washington's Farewell Address

"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

"Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness." -- Samuel Adams

"Reading, reflection, and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in which all religions agree." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Religion is the only solid Base of morals and Morals are the only possible support of free governments" -- Gouverneur Morris

"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." -- Benjamin Rush

Read the rest of this article to see what happens to a society when “bad culture [is] reinforced by bad government”.

Is It Christianity When . . .

All sorts of positions can be taken within a range of what can reasonably be called “Christianity”. Is it Christianity, though, when a pastor wants to discard the “theological detritus—her words—of the past two millennia…and build on its ashes a new spiritual movement…”

To illustrate, the article Taking Christ Out Of Christianity (from the Toronto Globe and Mail), says:

“She wants salvation redefined to mean new life through removing the causes of suffering in the world. She wants the church to define resurrection as “starting over,” “new chances.” She wants an end to the image of God as an intervening all-powerful authority who must be appeased to avoid divine wrath; rather she would have congregations work together as communities to define God – or god – according to their own worked-out definitions of what is holy and sacred. She wants the eucharist – the symbolic eating and drinking of Jesus's body and blood to make the congregation part of Jesus's body – to be instead a symbolic experience of community love.”

I came upon this article via this post Deconstructing Christianity, Itself from The Anchoress (who got it via Deacon Greg’s blog.

To see more of what Rev. Gretta Vosper of Toronto’s West Hill United church (referenced in the article above) teaches, here is a selection from her message to the Canadian Centre For Progressive Christianity

“In many communities of faith, the guiding light has been some form of church authority, based on literal or metaphorical Scripture, accepted traditional formulas, or official pronouncements. May we now look to the only light that can guide us into the freedom of faith and the privilege of responsibility - the truth revealed to us in the light of love. May we see and know that spirit within us, may it shine forth in us, and from us.”

Charitably, I have to applaud Rev. Vosper for her (partial) honesty. She admits that she no longer believes what the Church has traditionally taught. She no longer is putting on a mask of traditional Christianity while underneath knowing that she is living a lie. By her honesty she challenges those who hear her or read her books to examine what they truly believe.

Of course, I don’t agree with her beliefs or her approach. I think the truly honest approach would be to say, “I’m no longer a Christian.” Then she could join whatever group with which she feels most comfortable; and she could promote her own brand of spirituality freely.

Almost all you need to know about being a Personal Representative

So, you think you might want to be a Personal Representative (P.R.) of an estate? Or maybe you don’t want it but you find you have become one by default or request. You might know this role under the older title of “executor” of an estate.

Now what do you do? I recently sold a home that was in the estate of the mother of the Personal Representative. It seemed to me to be an overwhelming task—and a thankless one at that. My most recent real estate blog post will help you clarify your general duties, specific responsibilities, and possible liabilities.

Christian Compassion In Action

Inside a campaign video, an amazing story of faith and the presence of God in trials. You've got to see a video on Hugh Hewitt's Townhall blog in which a prison guard shows genuine Christian compassion in action.

The War Against Jihadism is a Theological Battle

In my last post I referred to an interview I heard with George Weigel. Since then I read his new book “Faith, Reason, and The War Against Jihadism-A Call to Action” (see link in left panel).

The book has 15 lessons about “things we cannot not know”. These lessons are grouped under three headings: “Understanding the Enemy, Rethinking Realism, and Deserving Victory”. I found it particularly satisfying to see someone write plainly and openly about the enemy that declared war on us. Abandoning political correctness while still retaining civility and fairness is rare. Weigel seems to pull it off in this concise and critical work.

Weigel correctly identifies the struggle not as a “war against terrorism” (a method), but a “war against jihadism” (an ideology which has no qualms about using terrorism to further its ends). He also correctly identifies that ideology as religious, as seen in his first “Lesson”: “The great human questions, including the great questions of public life, are ultimately theological”.

Ideas have consequences. Faith, and that which is the object of one’s faith, matters. Thus we are engaged in a war, though not of our choosing, which we will only win if we recognize and identify as a war of ideas as well as a physical war. Faith has to be considered along with reason in this battle.

It will involve “[c]hallenging the assumption in the American foreign policy establishment that the only answer to global jihadism is to convert 1.2 billion Muslims into good secular liberals…”. If it is a theological battle, not a secular disagreement, then our approach must be to begin to understand the theology that drives a jihadist to blow up those whom we (in our sense of logic and justice) consider “the innocent”. All 15 lessons are valuable and instructive. We might like to ignore or reject his last lesson that we cannot not learn (“There is no escape from U.S. leadership”), but this lesson and all before it derive from looking at the world situation realistically.

Get the book. Read it. And then ask your favorite candidate who is running for office this year what approach they have to winning this “war against jihadism”. Their answer will tell you whether they are serious enough to deserve victory.

Respect For Differences

I heard an interview where Catholic author George Weigel discussed what is needed for inter-faith dialogue between Christians and Muslims. See the transcript here. Weigel said:

The prerequisite for serious inter-religious dialogue is a frank acknowledgement of differences. Tolerance does not mean ignoring differences, as if differences don’t make a difference. Tolerance means engaging difference with civility and respect, but with a clear understanding of your own moral values as applied to politics, and why they’re worth defending.

This has relevance in other situations as well: political discussions between Republican and Democrat friends; theology differences between different Christian denominations; policy issues within religions denominations; or in disagreements within a church.

You find “politics’ in every organization, even a church. Good people disagree on deeply held issues. To often, though, we avoid discussing issues where we know there are strong disagreements. We don’t want conflict, and we end up shrinking from true dialogue.

Using Weigel’s formula for serious dialogue above, here are some suggestions for engaging in true dialogue with respect for each other.

· Frankly acknowledge that differences exist. Ignoring them is like trying to cap a volcano.
· Know that differences matter. If you strongly believe something, you don’t want to just be told that it’s OK to disagree and let’s move on. That is effectively saying your beliefs don’t really matter. They matter to you.
· If your beliefs and values matter, you want to defend them--respectfully. In Weigel’s interview he links this defense to reason, not emotion. Reasonable dialogue involves civility and respect; and it seeks to find common values that enable us to live and work together in harmony.
· Respectful and reasonable dialogue means discussing issues, not people. Another author I’ve heard recently said that “refuting” an argument “doesn’t mean reject strongly or angrily. It means to argue successfully against. . . . It involves rational discourse.”

We may differ on various issues, but if we can agree on certain values we can still live together in peace. You may not be able to find peace with everyone (you may want it, but they may not). Even then, Paul’s advice in Romans 12:18 applies, “ If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” Respect for differences and for each other makes it work.

Setting Goals-a bizarre way to start

This is a bizarre way to start a column on setting goals, but it’s very effective. Read the entire column (it’s short) at http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/01/02/setting-goals-for-the-new-year/. It’s called “Setting Goals For The New Year”, by JP Moreland at ScriptoriumDaily.com.

“It’s the time of year when we set New Year’s resolutions. However, before you do, I offer you something to ponder. Suppose I invited you over to play a game of Monopoly. When you arrive I announce that the game is going to be a bit different. Before us is the Monopoly board, a set of jacks, a coin, the television remote and a refrigerator. I grant you the first turn, and puzzlingly, inform you that you may do anything you want: fill the board with hotels, toss the coin in the air, grab a few jacks, fix a sandwich, or turn on the television. You respond by putting hotels all over the board and smugly sit back as I take my turn. I respond by dumping the board upside down and tossing the coin in the air. Somewhat annoyed, you right the board and replenish it with hotels. I turn on the television and dump the board over again.”