AntleHope

From PowerlineBlog.com: “Let Your Voice Be Heard”

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:46:00 +0000

The following excerpt is from PowerlineBlog.com

With the House of Representatives scheduled to vote on Nancy Pelosi's health care takeover bill, a watershed moment in American history is fast approaching. In this video, Congressman Mike Pence puts the battle over health care in the context of freedom and of the relationship between the individual and the state: [watch video]
Only massive public opposition has a chance to stop the federal usurpation that the Democrats are planning.

The House Republican Conference, meanwhile, has gone to the Herculean effort of tabulating the new federal boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs that would be established by the House bill--all in the name of cutting costs, of course! They add up to 111: [see list]

After viewing the list, how would you answer these questions:
1. Where can I find the specific cost allocated to each of these items?
2. How many new Government employees will be needed to administer these items?
3. How many of these items are necessary in order to achieve the goal of reducing health costs or health insurance premiums?
4. How many of these items, if they were necessary, could be handled by existing bureaucracies instead of starting new ones?
5. Which makes more sense, 111 new programs, bureaucracies, and boards that amount to a takeover of 16% of the American economy as seen here , OR the much less radical approach described by Republican Leader John Boehner: “There is a better way. Republicans have offered solutions to lower health care costs and expand access at a cost our nation can afford. You can read about them at www.healthcare.gop.gov."

RE: "Decline is A Choice"

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:41:00 +0000

I often like the comments I hear from Charles Krauthammer and read his online posts whenever I can. This one in The Weekly Standard entitled "Decline Is A Choice" shows his gift of stepping back and getting a perspective that is generally missed by others. Two quotes give a window into his insights and make me think about what I must do to help America make the right choice:

"For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline--or continued ascendancy--is in our hands."

and,

"And there's the rub. For the Europeans there really is a peace dividend, because we provide the peace. They can afford social democracy without the capacity to defend themselves because they can always depend on the United States.
So why not us as well? Because what for Europe is decadence--decline, in both comfort and relative safety--is for us mere denial. Europe can eat, drink, and be merry for America protects her. But for America it's different. If we choose the life of ease, who stands guard for us?"

All of the questions now being debated in Washington (and in real America outside the beltway): Health Care, Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, Stimulus, Energy, The Economy, Jobs, Cap and Trade (or "Cap and Tax"), Education, Immigration, Marriage, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and more--they are just double-sided pieces of a puzzle in which the picture only is revealed toward the end when we see the accumulated pattern of the individual choices made on each separate question.

What can I do? Work to elect those who will stand up and decide not to decline.

What can you do? Read "Decline Is A Choice" and make your own decision.

The beauty of Federalism in the health care debate

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:16:00 +0000

Instead of a centralized power, our Founders established the Federal system they called the United States of America. The Federal government didn’t grant authority to the states. Rather, the individual states, being closer to the people, had the authority over everything not specifically granted to the federal government.

This setup is perfect for trying out various schemes to improve society in different states, and then importing to other states those ideas that actually work. For health care reform, one could go to Massachusetts or Minnesota to see what they have implemented—what are the benefits, what do they need to change?

James Q. Wilson, writing in the Wall Street Journal Online, (A Life in the Public Interest )talked about what happens when the Federal concept is ignored and the process is top-down instead of bottom-up. He mentioned the law of unintended consequences:

“Launch a big project and you will almost surely discover that you have created many things you did not intend to create.

This is not an argument for doing nothing, but it is one, in my view, for doing things experimentally. Try your idea out in one place and see what happens before you inflict it on the whole country.”

The bills currently being developed in Congress don’t seem to have learned from the smaller experiments in separate states; and they certainly don’t project future experiments to try out reforms in smaller markets, and then to promote those reforms for other states. Instead they are attempts to jam down unproven reforms on everyone everywhere in the country.

Being Christian In A Political Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:06:00 +0000

I have written previously here and elsewhere about the health care (or health insurance) reform issue. I learned firsthand that stating an opinion in public can encourage debate, but it can also bring out the worst in people.

In a recent ScriptoriumDaily.com post, “7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square” John Mark Reynolds wrote “It is hard to talk to someone when you have nothing in common.”

Sometimes it is even hard, but not impossible, to talk with someone when you share some common values because of “how we prioritize values when good come into conflict.” We may “agree on the values”, but prioritize and apply them differently.

A few years back I encountered some faithful Christians with some doctrines that were radically different from mine. I was startled to conclude that they actually believe these things they are saying, but I respected them personally and I realized I needed to continue to relate to them as fellow believers. Sadly, some of them did not reach the same conclusion.

The same thing can happen with the health care debate. That brings us to one of Reynold’s suggestions: "Attacking ideas is different than attacking people". In response to one email about health care I sent which went viral, one person (who admitted that she didn’t know me) named me personally as a “Deather”. She was referring to those who seek disclosure of Barak Obama’s birth certificate and are called “Birthers” (but she didn’t refer to the “Truthers” –9/11 Conspiracy Theorists). Instead of debating the ideas presented, she attacked me.

Reynolds is right though in his 2nd suggestion: “Strong opinions encourage authentic dialogue.” It is only as people with strong convictions speak up and engage in civil debate with others of strong convictions that authentic dialogue takes place. If you strongly disagree with a policy or an idea but say nothing when others present their opinions, there is no dialogue. The recent town hall meetings may have been boisterous (and some participants may have gone over the line at times), but they had the desired effect of getting both sides of the issue before the public and their elected officials.

I encourage you to read the entire article 7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square.

In a previous post, John Mark Reynolds quoted Jim Wallis’ comment that health care is a “deeply theological issue, a Biblical issue and a moral issue”, and then replied that “Health care is such a deeply theological, Biblical, and moral issue that it cannot be trusted to the government.

Increasing government control over health care increases the number of ethical issues where government authority will have to be on one side or the other of these disputes.

Sometimes increasing state power is necessary, but it should also be done with care. When religious leaders like Jim Wallis pretend that it is obvious that government should increase its involvement in health care, they have confused the goal (universal basic care) with the means (government programs).”

Again, I encourage you to read the entire article: Too Great a Good for Caesar: Health Care Reform .

There are some health care issues that involve ethical decisions that cannot be entrusted to politicians or bureaucrats whose decisions are politically, not morally, based.

Christians have a responsibility to speak up about moral and ethical issues and not abdicate that responsibility to others. However, we must also be Christian in the manner in which we debate. I applaud John Mark Reynolds for his helpful suggestions as to how that debate can be Christian in tone and manner.

Health Care Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:01:00 +0000

I've been reluctant to jump into most political issues on this page. But periodically one comes along that demands a stance. The proposed health care "reform" is one of them.
Everyone says we need reform (regardless of the President's claim that some are standing in the way of reform because they are satisfied with the status quo). There are just competing ideas of what kind of reform is needed.
One kind of reform is akin to updating or remodeling an existing home that has many desirable features and some obsolete ones. The other kind of reform reminds me of the videos of a building being demolished by explosives so a brand new one can be constructed on the site.
National Review Online today has an editorial which succinctly expresses the unbelievable claims that the architect of the new building wants us to buy. Here are the first two paragraphs:
Snake Oil “President Obama’s press conference Wednesday night offered an ideal encapsulation of the Democrats’ case for their health-care-reform proposals: outlandish promises about benefits and patently dishonest denials of the costs. He said essentially all of the uninsured would be covered, the insured could keep their existing coverage and would be guaranteed to keep it if they lost or changed jobs, the quality of care would rise, waste and fraud would be slashed, the deficit would decline, and no one would have to pay a price for all this except a few millionaires. Oh, and by the way, the plan would also “keep government out of health-care decisions.”
If the president can persuade the American public of all that, then maybe we don’t even need medical care — we can just have him tell us all we’re perfectly healthy and we’ll go on our way.”
I have many issues with the proposed demolition of our health care system--too many to list here--and the greatest one is that I fear the loss of freedom that will come with the new system. Returning to my metaphor of a building being demolished, it appears to me that what is being proposed is that we tear down our hospital and replace it with a prison, and bureaucrats will be the guards who restrict our access to needed health care. More later.

Where Is Our Hope?

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:04:00 +0000

It's one thing to have hope when looking back after the Resurrection, and another to have hope when it's just after the crucifixion and burial. What went on in the minds of the Apostles?

WHERE IS OUR HOPE?

It’s over now.
We tried to say
There was something
Wrong with the way
He was doing things.

Now he is dead—
Crucified for some crime,
Some trumped-up charge
Which no one believed
He could ever do.

But what’s the use?
Who cares anymore?
We were fools to think
That he, or anyone for that matter,
Could really change the way it is—
And has been—and always will be.
Why fight it anyway?

Oh God, how we hoped
That he was really sent from You.
We just knew that You really cared
And that through him you were at last
Bringing salvation to those who trust in You.

Bah! What’s the use of talking like this?
Maybe even You died a long time ago.
Maybe You were never there at all—
Our fathers just said you were real
Because they could not explain life
Any other way.

Why don’t you answer me?
Why don’t You take away the ache
And give that mysterious peace I was promised?
If you are real, why don’t You reveal Yourself?

No. I have no right to criticize.
I am sure You have a purpose in his death.
I just can’t see it now.

Perhaps…If only it were possible…
He said he would rise again on the third day.
Then, oh then I could begin to hope again.
And what I seek is real, genuine HOPE.

Rudy J. Antle
April 3, 1974
© 2009

The So-called "Stimulus" Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:52:00 +0000

I just thought you might like to know where your money will go if the "Stimulus bill" is passed. A simplified printout in spreadsheet format has been published.

As a Realtor who has seen firsthand the devastating effect of the subprime mortgages, foreclosures, and short sales on the housing market (which was the primary reason we got into this mess) I am obviously concerned about what will be done to help shore up housing. See if you can find help for housing in this bill.

John Updike: Seven Stanzas At Easter

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:57:00 +0000

I came across this poem for the first time when reading about the death of John Updike in Christianity Today. The poem is referenced at the end of that article: “Kendall Harmon at TitusOneNine posted "Seven Stanzas at Easter," Updike's well-known poem on the Resurrection, last March.”

I like the way Updike creatively addresses classic arguments against the Resurrection and their manifestations in today’s theological debates with allusions to today’s scientific awareness.

Enjoy,

Seven Stanzas at Easter

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells' dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His Flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart that — pierced — died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck's quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.

--John Updike (1932- 2009)

Challenging Myself

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:07:00 +0000

Like many others I put 2008 behind me as the annus horribilis I want to forget. Looking to 2009 in hope for a better year in many ways, I set a goal to read at least one book a month ("and none of them with pictures" as I wrote on my Facebook page).

An article in The Wall Street Journal Online about the books President Bush reads challenged me to read more and watch TV less. So far my list of books to read in 2009 is up to 18. Notice I said, "to read" not "have read".

I've finished 2 so far, and one of them--The Blessing of Christmas, by Pope Benedict XVI--does have pictures. They are beautiful reproductions of classic paintings of Advent. It was a Christmas gift along with three others that are on my list: Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI; Truman, by David McCullough, and The Reason for God, by Timothy Keller.

I'll leave the one with pictures on the list as a balance to some of the others that are much longer and heavier (literally--Truman is hard to hold as I read it).

There are lots of other challenges ahead in 2009. I'm grateful to have one that I have set for myself and that I have some control over its outcome.

May your challenges in 2009 be ones you can have some control over, too. Happy New Year!

Christmas Eve 2008 and 40 Years Ago

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:47:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:22:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:39:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:55:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:36:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:21:00 +0000

An amazing video from CatholicVote.com--Powerful!

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:34:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:15:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:36:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:38:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:07:00 +0000

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 . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:58:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:48:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:11:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:45:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Rudy Antle) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:30:00 +0000

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.