A couple of months ago I was asked if I would be interested in leading a “Summer Forum” study on Hebrews 11 with a fellow member, David Beaty. The tentative title was “Portraits of Faith”. It turned out to be a 5-week study, so it expanded a bit over what I had originally thought it would be.
Dave and I started meeting weekly, and over the past 10 weeks we have had a blast getting to know each other and discussing what we would do in the forums.
The study, and my relationship with Dave Beaty, has taken me to places I haven’t visited in a while. The concept of faith as trust, obedience, believing something, being trustworthy and faithful, and holding onto “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3 NIV) challenges me to examine and reaffirm my own faith.
It’s not enough to study about faith and to teach about faith. The teacher, as well as his students, must have faith himself. Hebrews 11:6 says it clearly, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
The basic meaning of “Faith” is trust—a sense of confidence in another that allows a relationship between the two parties to exist and to continue. It’s what keeps a marriage together, what develops a sense of unity to develop in an army unit or sports team, what enables those in a society to live with each other in harmony, and what keeps order in a democracy—the trust that citizens have in their leaders. It’s opposite, distrust, is of course what causes anarchy, wars, a breakdown of unit cohesiveness, and divorce.
Our faith in God, then, is more than just believing that He exists. It is a relationship with God in which we trust His promises, rely on His presence, and have confidence that He will lead us and enable us to carry out what He asks us to do—be His witnesses and ambassadors in the world to bring others into His kingdom. For Christians, “…faith is primarily the relationship we have with God through what Jesus accomplished in His death and resurrection.” (William L. Self, Holman Bible Dictionary).
It is that relationship I hope to foster in myself and the students through this study.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Friday, October 29, 2010
Good News for My Treatment
My previous post had good news (as good as it can be with a diagnosis of cancer): the cancer is limited to my prostate. It hadn't spread.
I had to wait until yesterday to meet the radiation oncologist and get his recommendation regarding treatment. That too was good news.
I first watched a video that explained the three primary treatments that are used in low to moderate prostate cancer: hormonal therapy, radiation seeds, and external beam radiation.
In the clearly moderate risk category (where there is some evidence of cancer outside the prostate but not affecting lymph nodes or bone) they might employ all three treatments.
In the borderline low to moderate risk category they often use hormonal therapy and the radiation seeds.
Even though mine is considered low to moderate risk, all the factors together led the radiation oncologist to say he thinks we should treat it as low risk rather than moderate risk. That means no hormonal therapy. Just the radiation seeds should suffice. Yea!!
The procedure itself is a one-time insertion of 70-80 or more seeds, performed in an outpatient surgical center. A day or two of limited activity and I should be able to get on with life and work. That's good news to me. If I have to have a cancer diagnosis, I'm blessed to have one that is curable with the least amount of trauma and side effects.
As I watched the video, I realized that the 45-minute or so procedure is only part of the process, though. There will be a couple of things done prior to the procedure and multiple visits for the next few years to follow up. That was new information, and it surprised me a bit. But that would be so with any of the other procedures. I'm thankful that I'll be getting a one-time radiation treatment instead of 8 weeks or so of radiation 5 days a week.
Thanks again to all who have been praying and those who have called or sent notes of support. I appreciate all of you and thank the Lord for you.
I had to wait until yesterday to meet the radiation oncologist and get his recommendation regarding treatment. That too was good news.
I first watched a video that explained the three primary treatments that are used in low to moderate prostate cancer: hormonal therapy, radiation seeds, and external beam radiation.
In the clearly moderate risk category (where there is some evidence of cancer outside the prostate but not affecting lymph nodes or bone) they might employ all three treatments.
In the borderline low to moderate risk category they often use hormonal therapy and the radiation seeds.
Even though mine is considered low to moderate risk, all the factors together led the radiation oncologist to say he thinks we should treat it as low risk rather than moderate risk. That means no hormonal therapy. Just the radiation seeds should suffice. Yea!!
The procedure itself is a one-time insertion of 70-80 or more seeds, performed in an outpatient surgical center. A day or two of limited activity and I should be able to get on with life and work. That's good news to me. If I have to have a cancer diagnosis, I'm blessed to have one that is curable with the least amount of trauma and side effects.
As I watched the video, I realized that the 45-minute or so procedure is only part of the process, though. There will be a couple of things done prior to the procedure and multiple visits for the next few years to follow up. That was new information, and it surprised me a bit. But that would be so with any of the other procedures. I'm thankful that I'll be getting a one-time radiation treatment instead of 8 weeks or so of radiation 5 days a week.
Thanks again to all who have been praying and those who have called or sent notes of support. I appreciate all of you and thank the Lord for you.
Friday, October 22, 2010
My Prostate Cancer
I appreciate the concern expressed by so many concerning my recently diagnosed prostate cancer. Some has come personally, some by phone call, email or cards, and some on Facebook. Many have prayed for me. Thank you. This email is to honor that concern by keeping you apprised of my situation.
When my urologist called to tell me the results of the biopsy, he said it looked like we caught it early (Stage 2) and that it should be completely curable. He wanted me to get an MRI and a bone scan to confirm that it likely was limited to the prostate and hadn’t spread.
Monday I had those two tests. I had an appointment set for today for Lindsey and me to see the radiation oncologist. At this appointment we were to learn the results of the two tests and hear what kind of treatment would be recommended for my condition.
Yesterday I got a call saying we needed to postpone the appointment until next Thursday because the doctor had a meeting scheduled that he needed to attend. We didn’t want to wait until next week to get the results of the tests, so I asked for a copy of the test results to be sent to me.
It was good news—the cancer appears to be contained within the prostate. The tests didn’t show evidence of extension outside the capsule of the prostate (nothing shows in the lymph nodes, other tissue, or bone).
Lindsey and I were able to relax some. We still have to wait until next Thursday to determine what treatment will be used, but at least we know the treatment will be limited to the prostate. Whatever the treatment, it will not start until December (so the prostate can recover from the biopsy first).
Thank you again for your concern and your prayers.
Update: The urologist's nurse just called to confirm that what I saw in the report was true. It is localized to the prostate.
When my urologist called to tell me the results of the biopsy, he said it looked like we caught it early (Stage 2) and that it should be completely curable. He wanted me to get an MRI and a bone scan to confirm that it likely was limited to the prostate and hadn’t spread.
Monday I had those two tests. I had an appointment set for today for Lindsey and me to see the radiation oncologist. At this appointment we were to learn the results of the two tests and hear what kind of treatment would be recommended for my condition.
Yesterday I got a call saying we needed to postpone the appointment until next Thursday because the doctor had a meeting scheduled that he needed to attend. We didn’t want to wait until next week to get the results of the tests, so I asked for a copy of the test results to be sent to me.
It was good news—the cancer appears to be contained within the prostate. The tests didn’t show evidence of extension outside the capsule of the prostate (nothing shows in the lymph nodes, other tissue, or bone).
Lindsey and I were able to relax some. We still have to wait until next Thursday to determine what treatment will be used, but at least we know the treatment will be limited to the prostate. Whatever the treatment, it will not start until December (so the prostate can recover from the biopsy first).
Thank you again for your concern and your prayers.
Update: The urologist's nurse just called to confirm that what I saw in the report was true. It is localized to the prostate.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Update: Solving The Illegal Immigration Puzzle
[Update: this was originally posted April 5, 2006, and Update 2 was added 8/24/10]
So much has been in the news about the illegal immigration issue, and with so many different voices, I can’t sort it all out without writing it out. So here goes.
Everyone I hear speak on the issue, whether from the anti- or pro- side, focuses on one or two factors in this very complicated issue. That’s probably because they know that on television or the radio what matters is easily digestible sound bites. If they try to cover it in all its complexity they will be ignored at best, or their position distorted at worst.
How complex is it? In just a few minutes I jotted down 15 factors related to the illegal immigration issue. There are more, I’m sure, but let’s just deal with those. Think of them as 15 pieces of a puzzle. Leave out a piece and it soon becomes evident that something important is missing. Try to argue your position using only one or two pieces, and you’ll soon be exposed as either shallow or deliberately misleading.
I’ll list the 15 factors and only briefly cover each one.
1. Security. We are less than five years after 9/11 and there are still people who want to kill us and eventually impose their ideology on us. Some them have come across our borders without a visa and some have overstayed their visa and disappeared into the shadows.
2. Border Integrity. The lines don’t show up on a satellite photo, but they are on a map for a reason. A nation (or state or city or school district) that doesn’t keep its borders well defined will eventually lose its identity. Even simpler, as a Realtor®, I am constantly trying to make sure my clients’ property lines are well-established and that there are no encroachments. A survey will show whether the fence the neighbor put up is on the boundary line or a foot into my client’s property.
3. Current Illegal Alien Population. It’s not politically correct to use the term “illegal alien” but for the sake of clarity, let’s call it what it is. The first definition of “alien” as a noun on www.dictionary.com is “An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.” And, if that noncitizen or alien entered or remained in the country contrary to the law’s requirements, they are an illegal alien.
All sorts of numbers are used for this population. I’ve heard anywhere from 10 million to 20 million. Most of the time the numbers of 10 to 12 million are used. Let’s just say “X Million” and know that it’s a lot.
The major point to be made in quoting X Million illegal aliens here is that it is impossible to conceive that all X Million will be rounded up and sent back to the country where they are citizens.
4. Burdensome Costs On Infrastructure. Citizens, by paying taxes and paying for health insurance, support schools, government services, hospitals, and medical care. Illegal aliens who also pay taxes and have health insurance also support those services; but it’s no secret that many illegal aliens aren’t paid legally and therefore don’t pay taxes (and many don’t have health insurance either). The services they use (sometimes mandated by federal or state laws) become a burdensome cost on the institutions and/or the citizens who do pay for them.
5. Impact On Wages. A complaint of unions is that the workers who will gladly take a job at low wages (because it’s better than they would get at home and because the employer knows they can’t complain) drive down wages for citizens.
6. Enforcement Of Laws. Reasonable laws must be enforced or the population will scoff at the law as a whole, and citizens will lose respect for all authority. Unreasonable laws should either be repealed or changed to protect the integrity of the legal system. [2010 Update: see the absurdity in the Obama administration's lawsuit against Arizona for that state trying to enforce federal law, while the federal government continues to ignore cities and states who have a "sanctuary" policy that thwarts federal law. Are we a country of laws, or of political whim?]
7. Businesses Who Want Workers. Some businesses say they need whatever workers come here because they have jobs which American workers shun. Or there just aren’t enough workers to fill the need.
8. Businesses Who Exploit Workers. Those who can’t complain without risking deportation are sometimes taken advantage of. Low wages, horrible living conditions, taxes withheld but not sent in to the IRS or state, long hours without overtime pay, and on and on. There are many ways to exploit the helpless.
9. Businesses Who Must Do Government’s Job. The current law requires employers to document their employees’ legal status. Employers can be fined if they don’t comply; and the mandated documentation is itself an unreimbursed cost to the employer.
10. Secure Documentation. False documents are widespread, so a business is at risk regardless of how diligent it is. It doesn’t seem difficult to get a false driver’s license, social security card, or whatever document is needed.
11. “Guest Worker” Programs. One proposed solution to the problem of filling the existing jobs with willing and legal workers. However the solution itself has its critics from many directions.
12. Unsettled Source Countries. Whether it’s a matter of poverty, corruption, dictators, or other problems, there are millions of potential illegal aliens in this hemisphere and millions more in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc.
13. Effect On Applicants For Legal Immigration. This is the “crowding in at the head of the line” problem. Two individuals want to come to the United States. One plays by the rules and spends years waiting to be admitted. The other just walks across the border. Is this justice?
14. Effect Of “Amnesty” On Others. Grant amnesty (or anything close to it) now, and it becomes an incentive for others to arrive illegally. They know that all they have to do is make it here, and eventually they too will be granted amnesty.
Right now there are X Million illegal aliens in the United States. Most of them have jobs, we’re told. The economy is growing, and they can find work. What will happen though when the economy takes a downturn or there are 2X Million or 10X Million illegal aliens here? If it’s a matter of justice and compassion to treat the X Million illegal aliens well, admit them to citizenship, and give them all the services they require, why not do the same thing for 100X Million? Surely there must be a line beyond which one must say, “No more”.
15. Compassion And Justice. As a Christian, I too want to befriend the “stranger” in our midst. I know that those in poverty and oppression will do what they think must be done to feed and protect themselves and their families. I don’t feel right about turning anyone away.
Well, there are my fifteen pieces of the puzzle. Coming up with more won’t change the nature of the problem much, so let’s go on from here.
The next question is how to prioritize them. We hear the call for a “comprehensive approach”. Some insist that we try to solve everything at the same time so there is no one-sidedness to our approach.
Sometimes, though, there are not enough resources to tackle the issue with a comprehensive approach. Reality demands that we take the steps one at a time. When that is so, responsible leaders must guide the country to avoid simplistic solutions and approach the problem rationally. Yes, that in itself is utopian and unrealistic thinking, especially when all we see are vote-seeking “leaders” being led by those with the loudest voices or harshest emotional appeals.
A good analogy is the complexity of the scene of a major disaster or accident. Emergency personnel know to set up a triage process to determine who can best benefit from their limited care resources. And when treating one injured individual, the common wisdom is to follow the ABC’s (Airway, Breathing, and Circulation). Some things must be done first to save the patient’s life.
With all these puzzle pieces, where do we start? It’s not unlike putting a jigsaw puzzle together. First you start with the border to provide a frame. From all I hear, and my own logic suggests, I believe the first step in dealing with the illegal alien problem is to stop the flow.
To stop the flow, some of the puzzle pieces will have to be put into place almost at one time to provide the border of the puzzle (border security, enforce current laws or revise them so they become enforceable, provide secure documentation, and cut off employment to those without the proper secure documentation).
Once the flow of illegal aliens has been stopped or abated, then it will be imperative to deal compassionately with those already here, and even realistically provide a way for them to eventually earn the right to full citizenship if they desire it (with all its responsibilities as well as its rights) and if they renounce their citizenship to their country of origin.
16. I hate to bring up what could be a 16th piece of the puzzle, but it is necessary to at least say that what has made American immigration work (and European immigration start to fail) is assimilation. We can’t allow the cancer of unassimilated millions gathered in cultural ghettos to grow as we’ve seen recently in Paris. The goal of immigration has to be to produce assimilated Americans, not hyphenated Americans.
UPDATE: The recent inability of the Senate to come to agreement on a proposed law, and the demonstrations in the streets by thousands who want some kind of "acceptable revision of the immigration law" has led many (including Jay Leno on The Tonight Show) to wonder how a new law will be respected any more than the current one has been. It seems to me that as a country we first have to demonstrate that we can and will enforce the laws we have and secure our borders. Only then will the word get out that America welcomes immigrants who come legally and is serious about its future.
UPDATE 2: So much has happened since 2006, yet so much is the same. Given the divisiveness of the illegal immigration issue and its return to the scene with the Obama administration suing Arizona over that state's new law, some additional pieces of the puzzle have surfaced. I'm adding four to the 15+1 in the original post.
17."Anchor Babies": The 14th Amendment, enacted to justifiable grant citizenship to newly-freed slaves (who were brought to this country by force and against their will), has been expanded by practice to include anyone born on United States soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. This has led to rich people from across the oceans paying thousands of dollars for a package deal to get the pregnant mother to the U.S. just in time for her to deliver her baby here; and it's led to thousands of women coming over the southern border to get free medical care, delivery in a U.S. hospital, financial aid while here, and the bonus of citizenship for the baby born here. The baby then becomes the "anchor" for the family to eventually come to the U.S.
18. The draw of a welfare state: In a reductio ad absurdum argument, if there are no national boundaries (as some would have it) and no restraints on people moving from one area to another, then a "community" (with no national boundaries we can't call it a "country") that offers free medical care, free retirement benefits, free welfare for those who can't or won't work will attract everyone who can get there. Soon, that "community" will exhaust its ability to help its own needy people, much less those who keep coming in.
19. Identity theft: To some, it may seem like a petty misdemeanor for an illegal alien to use someone else's Social Security number to get work. But this kind of identity theft doesn't stop there. They also use the false I.D. to get credit cards and other loans, and the person whose identity was stolen has their own credit wrecked; and thousands of dollars and hours of time are required to get their life back. A lender told me of one homebuyer who got upset because as her credit was being checked, the lender discovered the Social Security number didn't match her life. When told the number was not good, the "buyer" (an illegal alien) said, "Of course it is good. I paid $500 for it."
20. What "amnesty" of millions of immigrants, many of whom have incomes that would qualify them for the "Earned Income Tax Credit", would do: there would eventually be social upheaval when there are more people who don't pay income tax than there are who do pay income tax. One can always get the vote from John to tax Paul and then redistribute the money back to John. But then what does that do to the society as a whole when the "Pauls" of the country lose incentive to work?
Again, there are probably more pieces of the puzzle. It's enough for now to see that those who only focus on "Christian compassion" or others who only focus on "border security" have a too simplistic perspective to help move the issue to resolution. It's even worse when those with simplistic perspectives claim the moral high ground over others without the same perspective.
The issue is complex. What is needed is leadership, not political tricks to win votes. The security and the future of the United States is at stake. If this country fails, where can those seeking freedom and prosperity go?
So much has been in the news about the illegal immigration issue, and with so many different voices, I can’t sort it all out without writing it out. So here goes.
Everyone I hear speak on the issue, whether from the anti- or pro- side, focuses on one or two factors in this very complicated issue. That’s probably because they know that on television or the radio what matters is easily digestible sound bites. If they try to cover it in all its complexity they will be ignored at best, or their position distorted at worst.
How complex is it? In just a few minutes I jotted down 15 factors related to the illegal immigration issue. There are more, I’m sure, but let’s just deal with those. Think of them as 15 pieces of a puzzle. Leave out a piece and it soon becomes evident that something important is missing. Try to argue your position using only one or two pieces, and you’ll soon be exposed as either shallow or deliberately misleading.
I’ll list the 15 factors and only briefly cover each one.
1. Security. We are less than five years after 9/11 and there are still people who want to kill us and eventually impose their ideology on us. Some them have come across our borders without a visa and some have overstayed their visa and disappeared into the shadows.
2. Border Integrity. The lines don’t show up on a satellite photo, but they are on a map for a reason. A nation (or state or city or school district) that doesn’t keep its borders well defined will eventually lose its identity. Even simpler, as a Realtor®, I am constantly trying to make sure my clients’ property lines are well-established and that there are no encroachments. A survey will show whether the fence the neighbor put up is on the boundary line or a foot into my client’s property.
3. Current Illegal Alien Population. It’s not politically correct to use the term “illegal alien” but for the sake of clarity, let’s call it what it is. The first definition of “alien” as a noun on www.dictionary.com is “An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.” And, if that noncitizen or alien entered or remained in the country contrary to the law’s requirements, they are an illegal alien.
All sorts of numbers are used for this population. I’ve heard anywhere from 10 million to 20 million. Most of the time the numbers of 10 to 12 million are used. Let’s just say “X Million” and know that it’s a lot.
The major point to be made in quoting X Million illegal aliens here is that it is impossible to conceive that all X Million will be rounded up and sent back to the country where they are citizens.
4. Burdensome Costs On Infrastructure. Citizens, by paying taxes and paying for health insurance, support schools, government services, hospitals, and medical care. Illegal aliens who also pay taxes and have health insurance also support those services; but it’s no secret that many illegal aliens aren’t paid legally and therefore don’t pay taxes (and many don’t have health insurance either). The services they use (sometimes mandated by federal or state laws) become a burdensome cost on the institutions and/or the citizens who do pay for them.
5. Impact On Wages. A complaint of unions is that the workers who will gladly take a job at low wages (because it’s better than they would get at home and because the employer knows they can’t complain) drive down wages for citizens.
6. Enforcement Of Laws. Reasonable laws must be enforced or the population will scoff at the law as a whole, and citizens will lose respect for all authority. Unreasonable laws should either be repealed or changed to protect the integrity of the legal system. [2010 Update: see the absurdity in the Obama administration's lawsuit against Arizona for that state trying to enforce federal law, while the federal government continues to ignore cities and states who have a "sanctuary" policy that thwarts federal law. Are we a country of laws, or of political whim?]
7. Businesses Who Want Workers. Some businesses say they need whatever workers come here because they have jobs which American workers shun. Or there just aren’t enough workers to fill the need.
8. Businesses Who Exploit Workers. Those who can’t complain without risking deportation are sometimes taken advantage of. Low wages, horrible living conditions, taxes withheld but not sent in to the IRS or state, long hours without overtime pay, and on and on. There are many ways to exploit the helpless.
9. Businesses Who Must Do Government’s Job. The current law requires employers to document their employees’ legal status. Employers can be fined if they don’t comply; and the mandated documentation is itself an unreimbursed cost to the employer.
10. Secure Documentation. False documents are widespread, so a business is at risk regardless of how diligent it is. It doesn’t seem difficult to get a false driver’s license, social security card, or whatever document is needed.
11. “Guest Worker” Programs. One proposed solution to the problem of filling the existing jobs with willing and legal workers. However the solution itself has its critics from many directions.
12. Unsettled Source Countries. Whether it’s a matter of poverty, corruption, dictators, or other problems, there are millions of potential illegal aliens in this hemisphere and millions more in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc.
13. Effect On Applicants For Legal Immigration. This is the “crowding in at the head of the line” problem. Two individuals want to come to the United States. One plays by the rules and spends years waiting to be admitted. The other just walks across the border. Is this justice?
14. Effect Of “Amnesty” On Others. Grant amnesty (or anything close to it) now, and it becomes an incentive for others to arrive illegally. They know that all they have to do is make it here, and eventually they too will be granted amnesty.
Right now there are X Million illegal aliens in the United States. Most of them have jobs, we’re told. The economy is growing, and they can find work. What will happen though when the economy takes a downturn or there are 2X Million or 10X Million illegal aliens here? If it’s a matter of justice and compassion to treat the X Million illegal aliens well, admit them to citizenship, and give them all the services they require, why not do the same thing for 100X Million? Surely there must be a line beyond which one must say, “No more”.
15. Compassion And Justice. As a Christian, I too want to befriend the “stranger” in our midst. I know that those in poverty and oppression will do what they think must be done to feed and protect themselves and their families. I don’t feel right about turning anyone away.
Well, there are my fifteen pieces of the puzzle. Coming up with more won’t change the nature of the problem much, so let’s go on from here.
The next question is how to prioritize them. We hear the call for a “comprehensive approach”. Some insist that we try to solve everything at the same time so there is no one-sidedness to our approach.
Sometimes, though, there are not enough resources to tackle the issue with a comprehensive approach. Reality demands that we take the steps one at a time. When that is so, responsible leaders must guide the country to avoid simplistic solutions and approach the problem rationally. Yes, that in itself is utopian and unrealistic thinking, especially when all we see are vote-seeking “leaders” being led by those with the loudest voices or harshest emotional appeals.
A good analogy is the complexity of the scene of a major disaster or accident. Emergency personnel know to set up a triage process to determine who can best benefit from their limited care resources. And when treating one injured individual, the common wisdom is to follow the ABC’s (Airway, Breathing, and Circulation). Some things must be done first to save the patient’s life.
With all these puzzle pieces, where do we start? It’s not unlike putting a jigsaw puzzle together. First you start with the border to provide a frame. From all I hear, and my own logic suggests, I believe the first step in dealing with the illegal alien problem is to stop the flow.
To stop the flow, some of the puzzle pieces will have to be put into place almost at one time to provide the border of the puzzle (border security, enforce current laws or revise them so they become enforceable, provide secure documentation, and cut off employment to those without the proper secure documentation).
Once the flow of illegal aliens has been stopped or abated, then it will be imperative to deal compassionately with those already here, and even realistically provide a way for them to eventually earn the right to full citizenship if they desire it (with all its responsibilities as well as its rights) and if they renounce their citizenship to their country of origin.
16. I hate to bring up what could be a 16th piece of the puzzle, but it is necessary to at least say that what has made American immigration work (and European immigration start to fail) is assimilation. We can’t allow the cancer of unassimilated millions gathered in cultural ghettos to grow as we’ve seen recently in Paris. The goal of immigration has to be to produce assimilated Americans, not hyphenated Americans.
UPDATE: The recent inability of the Senate to come to agreement on a proposed law, and the demonstrations in the streets by thousands who want some kind of "acceptable revision of the immigration law" has led many (including Jay Leno on The Tonight Show) to wonder how a new law will be respected any more than the current one has been. It seems to me that as a country we first have to demonstrate that we can and will enforce the laws we have and secure our borders. Only then will the word get out that America welcomes immigrants who come legally and is serious about its future.
UPDATE 2: So much has happened since 2006, yet so much is the same. Given the divisiveness of the illegal immigration issue and its return to the scene with the Obama administration suing Arizona over that state's new law, some additional pieces of the puzzle have surfaced. I'm adding four to the 15+1 in the original post.
17."Anchor Babies": The 14th Amendment, enacted to justifiable grant citizenship to newly-freed slaves (who were brought to this country by force and against their will), has been expanded by practice to include anyone born on United States soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. This has led to rich people from across the oceans paying thousands of dollars for a package deal to get the pregnant mother to the U.S. just in time for her to deliver her baby here; and it's led to thousands of women coming over the southern border to get free medical care, delivery in a U.S. hospital, financial aid while here, and the bonus of citizenship for the baby born here. The baby then becomes the "anchor" for the family to eventually come to the U.S.
18. The draw of a welfare state: In a reductio ad absurdum argument, if there are no national boundaries (as some would have it) and no restraints on people moving from one area to another, then a "community" (with no national boundaries we can't call it a "country") that offers free medical care, free retirement benefits, free welfare for those who can't or won't work will attract everyone who can get there. Soon, that "community" will exhaust its ability to help its own needy people, much less those who keep coming in.
19. Identity theft: To some, it may seem like a petty misdemeanor for an illegal alien to use someone else's Social Security number to get work. But this kind of identity theft doesn't stop there. They also use the false I.D. to get credit cards and other loans, and the person whose identity was stolen has their own credit wrecked; and thousands of dollars and hours of time are required to get their life back. A lender told me of one homebuyer who got upset because as her credit was being checked, the lender discovered the Social Security number didn't match her life. When told the number was not good, the "buyer" (an illegal alien) said, "Of course it is good. I paid $500 for it."
20. What "amnesty" of millions of immigrants, many of whom have incomes that would qualify them for the "Earned Income Tax Credit", would do: there would eventually be social upheaval when there are more people who don't pay income tax than there are who do pay income tax. One can always get the vote from John to tax Paul and then redistribute the money back to John. But then what does that do to the society as a whole when the "Pauls" of the country lose incentive to work?
Again, there are probably more pieces of the puzzle. It's enough for now to see that those who only focus on "Christian compassion" or others who only focus on "border security" have a too simplistic perspective to help move the issue to resolution. It's even worse when those with simplistic perspectives claim the moral high ground over others without the same perspective.
The issue is complex. What is needed is leadership, not political tricks to win votes. The security and the future of the United States is at stake. If this country fails, where can those seeking freedom and prosperity go?
Monday, August 02, 2010
Abraham Lincoln on the role of the State in Economic Development
In reading “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin, I’m impressed by Abraham Lincoln’s view of the government’s role in supporting economic development.
Economic development provided the basis, … that would allow every American “an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.” In Lincoln’s mind, the fundamental test of a democracy was its capacity to “elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all.” A real democracy would be a meritocracy where those born in the lower ranks could rise as far as their natural talents and discipline might take them. (p. 90, 91)
For Lincoln, infrastructure improvements (schools, roads, railroads, waterways, etc.) were essential for a state or nation to flourish because, as Goodwin says, they “would enable thousands of farming families to emerge from the kind of poverty in which the Lincoln family had been trapped.” (p.90)
Economic development results when the state provides the path (literally and figuratively) for individuals and private companies to get their goods to market without unnecessary barriers and burdens. The goal is to enable the state (or town or nation) to grow by liberating people from what traps them in the station in life into which they were born. This is best done by freeing individuals to pursue their dreams with their own energy and industry (so they can “receive a full, good, and ever increasing reward for their labors”) (p.90), not by removing incentives to escape from poverty.
Lincoln knew about poverty from his personal experience. When obtaining an elected position, he didn’t argue that the state should distribute money to the poor. Rather, the state’s role was to remove barriers that kept the poor in poverty. His remedies were designed to help people learn to contribute and businesses better able to grow so jobs would be available.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Monday, November 02, 2009
From PowerlineBlog.com: “Let Your Voice Be Heard”
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."
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."
Monday, October 12, 2009
RE: "Decline is A Choice"
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.
"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.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The beauty of Federalism in the health care debate
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.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Being Christian In A Political Debate
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.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Health Care Reform
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Where Is Our Hope?
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
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
Saturday, February 07, 2009
The So-called "Stimulus" Bill
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.
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.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
John Updike: Seven Stanzas At Easter
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)
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)
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Challenging Myself
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!
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!
Sunday, December 28, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
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?
“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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)