Saturday.....War On Terror.....Gunga Din

         It may surprise some, but the 1939 film Gunga Din, starring Cary Grant, Victor Mclaglen, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., and Sam Jaffe is on some "Best 100 Movies of All Time" lists. Very loosely based on facts, I think that it would be interesting to watch in light of today's events. According to the film, the Thuggee Cult of India worshipped the Hindu goddess Kali and rampaged the country with strangulation murders before the British defeated them.
          Historians generally say that it was a religious cult but some think that it was more of a crime organization. Their modus operandi was to infiltrate caravans, befriend the travelers and then murder them and capture the caravan. The British did use strength, discipline and the help of informants to wipe them out, this in the early 19th century. Rudyard Kipling's famous poem Gunga Din ends with this line, "Though I've belted you and flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din."
          In the film, Gunga Din wanted more than anything to be a soldier but was only a waterbearer. The shenanigans of the three British sergeants got them into trouble and the whole British regiment was heading into a trap of the Thuggees. Gunga Din climbed atop one of the Thugge temples, and with his bugle sounded a warning to the troops. He died doing so. The Thuggee was hard to prosecute for their was no weapon to be used as evidence for they used their scarves to strangle. A small fanatical (probably) religious cult had held a whole nation in terror. The Thuggee existed for over a century and one thing is certain, there would be no talking them out of their ways. In the film, the leader of the cult, seeing that the three sergeants held him captive and his followers were delaying the attack because they feared the British sergeants would kill him, he jumped into a pit of venomous snakes, freeing the Thuggees to attack.
         There are "Gunga Dins" in Moslem lands today, in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is hard to forget how Anwar Sadat, seeing his attackers coming at him on the day of his assassination, stood up and faced these murderers as they fired at him. There is another scene worth repeating, Victor McLaglen had just tricked Douglas Fairbanks Jr. into reenlisting (a key plot of the film as Fairbanks was leaving the army to go back to Britain with Joan Fontaine,) and a fight was commencing....until the Thuggee attacked them, everything was put aside to resist the Thuggee. The radical liberal element did not have such wisdom in the last seven plus years.
Had this been the attitude back then, India might still be fighting the Thuggee. This certainly is not a profound blog entry, I only submit it because the terrorist of today, also, will not be talked out of their mission and there are some in these lands who make us understand Kipling's line "You're a better man than I am Gunga Din."

Friday...America.....1st Day of The Week

         I'm only a few pages into a new book THE PECULIAR LIFE OF SUNDAYS by Stephen Miller but I wanted to relate his opening comments to lead into the topic of "Sundays in America." In 1941, Billie Holiday recorded a hit song that reportedly inspired numerous suicides. It was called "Gloomy Sunday." Miller continues by relating how a number of literary figures commented on the dreariness of the day. Now, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from August to January, Sundays are anything but gloomy for this is "Steeler Country." The men I work with are consumed with NFL football and spend large amounts of time researching and preparing their Fantasy Football. Miller quotes John Keats, "The church bells toll a melancholy round, Calling the people to some other prayers, Some other gloominess, more dreadful cares, More hearkening to the sermon's horrid sound."
         I imagine this book will be like another one I read by Alexis McCrossen called HOLY DAY, HOLIDAY: The American Sunday, in that it is a secular perspective on the day, researched very well but missing completely God's purpose for the day. Most know of Blue Laws where communities prohibit certain stores form opening on Sundays. America has kept sort of a schizophrenic relationship with the day. It tried to honor it but would have to admit that, other than sports, there is not a whole lot of profit to be made. Back to the Steelers, owner Art Rooney was instrumental in moving the game day from Saturday to Sunday and what has become "Steeler Sunday" in Pittsburgh.   
           I don't want to get into the history of the day here for these two books will do that just fine for whoever is interested. What I want to do is present the alternative, from the viewpoint of the Christian faith, understood by some today but many yesterday. By the way, the film CHARIOTS OF FIRE does a good job of describing the reformed Presbyterian view. I also want to admit that even within Christian circles there are differences of opinion. Luther was reacting against the Roman Catholic practices for the day when he tried to put forth that the fourth commandment was abrogated to a certain degree. The English Puritans had time to assess the situation once the turmoil of the Reformation quieted down and returned the church to a more scriptural view.
         Today's modern Christian pastors are "more enlightened" and enjoy passing on God's gracious nature in giving us advice that sport is a blessing and what better day to have a blessing than Sunday. I see it differently and will give a very short summary. God gave us many things in the world to enjoy and pursue and we have six entire days to do that, but it takes its toll on us. It is for our benefit that He said that one day in seven is for Him and in enjoying Him, it is for us. I walk into church (reformed Presbyterian) every Lord's Day pretty much beaten down with having to deal with one of my worst adversaries all week, me.
         I spent about twelve years of my Christian life going to church, smiling, laughing, enjoying, singing praise choruses loudly and settling down to a good football game. In short, I was dealing with "me" for seven days a weak. Today, I only want to hear the glories of Christ preached and my sins still covered by what He did for me. The joy is there far more than it was but it is rushing through my veins instead of spilling off my tongue. I had to search far and wide to find a pastor that considered preaching who Christ is and what He did instead of sharing with me his wisdom on how to live. If the Lord's Day is ever to take precedence again in America it will be because of a change in preaching to Christ.
          I don't blame the secularist for not seeing the power in a sermon. In that situation I think that I would say, "Write it down in a pamphlet and send it to me and I'll get some needed sleep on Sunday." Just one quick story. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the great Baptist "Prince of Preachers" from 19th century England wrote that he was a church-goer but not saved until one Lord's Day blizzard where he could not get to his church. He stopped in a small Primitive Methodist church where even the pastor could not get there. I have to laugh at Spurgeon's account of the incident "The minister did not come that morning, he was snowed up, I suppose. At last a very thin looking man, a shoemaker, or tailor, or something of that sort, went up into the pulpit to preach. Now it is well that preachers be instructed, but this man was really stupid. He was obliged to stick to his text, for the simple reason that he little else to say. The text was "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." He did not even pronounce the words rightly but that didn't matter. There was, I thought, a glimmer of hope for me in that text." (Spurgeon, A New Biography by Armold Dallimore isbn: 0851514510)

Wednesday.....Culture.....Christmas Shopping

         Christmas 1963, my mother and I lived in a community about eight miles out of Pittsburgh. She didn't own a car and we took a bus "downtown" for Christmas shopping. The transit line was the "Lincoln Coach" that went back and forth from Pittsburgh to Greensburg, most of the way traveling the famed "Lincoln Highway" that spanned the country from New York to California.
         We were part of "Americana". There was a new shopping center called the "Miracle Mile" that was causing a mild sensation but downtown was still the place to go as Petula Clark's 1964 hit song DOWNTOWN proclaimed. Shopping always started at Kaufmann's, biggest of the three main stores that were in a triangle in this new renaissance city whose confluence of three rivers was nicknamed "the Golden Triangle." If we got lost, we would meet at the giant clock outside the store, a scene that still finds its way to watercolor paintings. The escalators just seemed to keep going up in Kaufmann's and we were usually a little bit laden down with packages by the time we walked (always cold and usually snowy) to the next stop, Gimbals Department Store.
         A longer walk and we ended up at Hornes. In between was a hat store that I always like to stop in. There were no ballcaps here but different styles from fedoras to English driving caps. It was a place of imagination to me, my Discovery Channel. The biggest treat of all was dinner at this amazing new restaurant that was near the point and faced these huge golden skyscrapers, it was called The Flame! You could see the fire from the grill that cooked the steaks when you turned in from any one of the street corners that led to it. Steaks were $2.99, which we could afford, and came with a salad and baked potato. I looked forward to it every year. Today, it would simply be a Bonanza, that you might go to if the fancier restaurants had long waiting lines, but I still like Bonanzas and Ponderosa!
         Anyway, it was a big day for me. I bought a 45 record by the Beatles with She Loves You on one side and I Want To Hold Your Hand on the other. Our other big purchase was a 110# weight set that still sits, sometimes used, in my basement (with a few more pounds added.) We had to take a cab home that night and I think that you could easily find and afford a taxi ride in those days. This year, I was in a number of glamorous malls with huge posters of half-naked men and women telling the youth where happiness is. Kiosks are everywhere and overall the senses become a little bit overwhelmed.
          A few months ago we visited the giant mall in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. We parked and it took about forty-five minutes to walk through. We decided to eat at a restaurant there and I said that I would walk back and get the car while my wife waited in line. The mall had closed just then and I had to walk outside. It was like walking around the "Green Zone" in Baghdad must be like. There was different levels and parking garages and I got lost. I went into a restaurant and asked a waiter the easiest way to get to my car (my wife had been seated by this time.) He laughed and said that this happens a lot and grabbed his keys and drove me to the other side of the mall. I tried to force him to accept six dollars for his help but he refused and told me to put it in the nearest charity kettle. Some people haven't changed as much as shopping itself.
         There is one thing today that takes me back a little to those days. Our town (two blocks) has "Light Up Days," and the crowd dresses up warm as they walk in the cold, in and out of each store. The trees are lit up and at the town gazebo you could stop for a free cup of cider and donut. Pittsburgh has its "Light Up Night" but there is sadness about "Downtown" to me today that builds up the rest of the year that I can't get put of my mind at Christmas.

Tuesday.....International.....John Maynard Keynes

         During the recent boom, prior to the crises that world economies are experiencing, Germany was looked at as a slow growth, boring economy. Lack of risk taking protected them somewhat in the crisis that followed. Now, Europe is pressuring Germany to invest heavily in the government sponsored remedies to the crisis and Germany is very reluctant to do so but probably will. In the crash of the Japanese economy of the 1990s, Japan sponsored an enormous infrastructure building program that wound up prolonging the recession.
          John Maynard Keynes revolutionized economics in the 1930s. He emphasized working on employment issues and therefore "demand." The classical theory would look more at means to increase supply. The debate went back and forth throughout the decades. Was Keynesian economics responsible for the sluggishness of the 1970s? Did monetary policy bring about the robust 80s? Most of us were raised being taught that Roosevelt's economic policies brought us out of the Depression. Others say the Roosevelt prolonged the Depression and that only the advent of WWII brought us out of it. Keynes was right about one thing. Europe had no magnanimity towards Germany after WWI. Hitler used a giant works program to put his people to work and build a following that supported him but his building included a military that would wreak havoc on the world along with Hitler's maniacal tyranny.
         Jonah Goldberg wrote a book in 2007 called LIBERAL FASCISM (ISBN 0385511841) that I highly recommend. It was Amazon.com's history book of the year. His thesis is that liberalism can breed fascism. I believe this for when radical liberals get power, all bets are off, and they seek to rule with abandon because, well because they are "right." This is a monumental financial crisis that we are in. In my mind, throwing enormous amounts of money around when many other variables not directly related to an economic theory is dangerous.

Monday.....Miscellaneous.....48 Year Cycles

         I'm a Boomer, so you may have to try to see from my perspective on this. 1960 does not seem that far away to me. John Kennedy seemed to usher in a new "present age." We can talk about him today and it is not as if it is ancient history. Hollywood seemed to change in that year. One particular movie sticks in my mind, it was STRANGERS WHEN WE MEET with Kirk Douglas and Kim Novak. It dealt with suburbanites and marital infidelity. I have not seen this movie in, I'm sure, 40 years or more, but one scene still lingers. Kirk Douglas was washing his car in his driveway and a neighbor gave him a critical look because it was on a Sunday. The house was of a modern architecture that that developed around that time and we still think of this type of house as an embryo of today's modern housing. He drove around in, what might have been a 1960 Thunderbird.
         Elvis may have been around a few years but pop music that we still hear on the oldies channels was coming into its own, and even Elvis changed dramatically after coming out of the army. Interestingly, the previous 48years seems to me to be unified in a similar way. The Titanic sunk in that year (1912) and world wars followed, a depression was experienced. It ended with the development of atomic bombs and a cold war.
         Another 48 years backwards and the Civil War was ending. The goal and methods of the universities were changing, Ministers were not sought after to head institutions of higher learning. Curriculums were changing. Another 48 years and the Napoleonic Age was coming to and end. I can go on but I'm not trying to present a firm theory.
          I'm sure there are many holes in my examples here. What I'm concerned with is that we do seen to be coming to the end of what we grew up with. Something new along these lines seems to be coming and it does not seem to be good. Then again, maybe everyone at the end of these ages probably would say the same thing. This financial crisis appears to be far more than most government leaders let on. A struggle over total globalization is on right now. I don't mean just free markets that open up trade all over the world but a whole new financial creation where everyone must acknowledge that we are all chained to one another.
         As I mentioned in a previous blog, it is hard to argue with the logic of those that believe that a "One World Government" is the only remedy for the threat of small nations, even small groups, using nuclear or biological weapons. There are two perspectives of looking at this "change" that I see, one discouraging, and the other with a perpetual hope. Of the former, change is coming. We can't cling to a period, history lays this fact out before us. On the latter, The mindset of the Christian ialways remains the same....where we have to deal with our own fallen nature and sin, and with a world that will, at times, let us go only so far in proclaiming how only the imputed (not infused) righteousness of Jesus Christ can cover our sin.
         Alan Greenspan has been a believer in the "Objectivism" of Ayn Rand where man's happiness and productiveness through reason should be his goal. Greenspan, commenting on the catastrophic sequence of events in the financial crisis said "Everyone has (an ideology)-to exist, you need an ideology. The question is is whether it is accurate or not," with astonishing insight and humility he continued "Yes, I found a flaw...I've been very distressed by that fact." What he hit on that he does not realize is that humanity itself is fallen....and that philosophies that rely solely on the logic and reason of man that is presumed to be fundamentally good are doomed to disaster.

Sunday.....Christianity.....Fundamentalists

         A few months back a national survey organization asked if I wanted to be a part of their "panel." I said yes and since have filled out about one in-depth survey a week on anything from politics to religion, health concerns to lifestyles and advertising. Yesterday's survey was on "newspapers," what papers and what parts of the papers I read. Tucked in there was the question "How favorably do you look at Christian Fundamentalists?". I have noticed from time to time an ever so subtle bias in the surveys against evangelicals. They wanted a 0 to 100% response with 100% being most favorable. My answer was 90% favorable.
         The following is my incomplete chronology of Fundamentalism. It came into existence about a century ago. The post Civil War period saw a great move toward secularism, particularly in the universities. German "Higher Criticism" of the bible quickly became entrenched in the Yankee states and seminaries. In this void of true Christianity and its doctrines, the turn of the century saw numerous new pseudo Christian religions arise. Bible believing churches that had strengths but not in doctrine searched for visible assurances of their faith not realizing that the discarded doctrines of scripture provided all that is necessary for living the Christian faith. They manifested what they incorrectly thought was the "gifts of tongues," and have since grown into a formidable Pentecostal church. The rest circled the wagons around five "essential" truths of the faith that they would defend, at all costs, against the onslaught of secularism. They were "Fundamentalists" in the eyes of the unbelieving world.
         The advent of Billy Graham moved many of them into what would be called "Evangelicalism." The "Evangelical" later came to include just about everyone, Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, Charismatics and later the Moral Majority's political element and James Dobson's family element. Most recently, mega-churches, the Emergent Church Movement and portions of mainline denominations that fight against abortion and the same-sex marriage agenda came into the fold. At one time, the survey asked me a "yes" or "no" question if I was an "Evangelical." Their question was based on the perception of an Evangelical as one who is born again and seeks to proselytize. Well, I am "born again" and also seek to evangelize others so I had to answer "yes," although I am more accurately to be described as a Reformed Christian holding to the traditions of the Reformation. To the secular media, everyone is grouped together, adding much confusion to any national debate on religion.
          Returning to the original question, and my answer of 90% favorable to Christian Fundamentalists; nearly a century ago they set out to defend the essentials of the Christian faith as they saw them, and this they remained true to. They experienced, and continue to experience, severe ridicule. They sometimes defend the gospel against encroaching non-Christian religions such as Mormonism, when many more "successful" Christian elements have deemphasized the gospel itself in order to appear tolerant. They remain a key ingredient in the hope of seeing America return to a God-fearing nation. Jerry Falwell was the quintessential Fundamentalist. He may have made unsound ministry decisions from time to time but his unflinching proclamation of Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior on news shows such as "Nightline" is what will always be etched in my mind.
          So why 90% and not 100%? Fundamentalism has within it a hard-bitten element that has lowered the banner of "law and grace" and raised the banner of "law only." There will always be the Fundamentalist" element in the church. It will remain relatively ineffective in reaching the secular world but if I can continuously examine myself then I can learn much from their steadfastness in the faith against all odds. The same can be said of other elements within Christianity that are branded "Evangelicalism." Still, what is necessary for the church to strengthen and influence this nation, is a return to the Reformation banners of salvation by "Sola Gracia," grace alone, through "Sola Fide," faith alone, in "Solus Christus," Christ alone, also "Sola Scriptura," Scripture alone, and "Sola Deo Gloria" to God alone be glory!

Saturday.....War On Terror.....THE ENEMY AT HOME

         Dinesh D'Souza is a research scholar at the Hoover Institution and author of many best selling books. In 2007 he wrote what I believe to be one of the most important books on terrorism called THE ENEMY AT HOME The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility For 9/11. It was unmercifully panned by both liberals and conservatives even though it also was a best seller. D'Souza's message, and my thoughts also previous to the book, is that the fundamentalist Islamist hates us because we export our decadent culture to their lands. He says "We undermine their traditional patriarchal family and promote secular values in non-Western cultures." His thesis is summed up on the inside cover where he states, "What traditional societies consider repulsive and immoral, the cultural left considers progressive and liberating."
         D'Souza says that liberals think that if we simply leave the Muslims alone....then they will leave us alone. The Right rejects D'Souza's conclusions because they think that we are hated because of our freedoms and because we are good and not because we are what the Muslims see as "Brand America" everywhere. The Left rejects them because they consider thenselves the great defenders of the rights associated with decadence spread around the world.
         I in no way mean to detract from the aggressive defense of this country that President Bush has waged. He is the "Churchill" of today, but we have to analyze why we failed to see consequences of what we have wrought. This does not give one iota of legitimacy to the hate, tyranny, murder and quest for world dominance of those who react against it. My only disagreement with D'Souza is that he does not include us all in constructing this society. We cannot demand that others change if we cannot see our own culpability. We will change no one's mind on this if we do not see our own faults. The Left's remedy would be total futility in stopping terrorism and the Right's may stop the terrorist with an explosive in his hands but not the one learning now to take it up later. D'Souza lays at the Left's doorstep, responsibility (to put it mildly) for difficulties in the wars being waged and I concur. Should D'Souza have moderated some of his comments? Possibly, but the book needs read or at least the concept of us "reaping what we sow" needs considered.

Ethics

         Corporations have had to deal with all sorts of new situations with their employees over the past few decades, for instance they cannot discriminate because of race, religion, ethnicity or age. More recently, they cannot take a person's sexual orientation into account, nor can they discriminate because of a disability. "Whistleblowers" are protected by law. Ramadan has become an issue in many places.
         It is my hope that a new peculiarity arises which employers are forced to respect. Let me lead into it with this analysis; corporate America, in general, has fallen into a "profits are the only thing that matters" mentality. The officers of these corporations have purposely distanced themselves from everyone below them in that they set their goals at the beginning of the year and nothing, 'come hell or high water' is an excuse for not achieving them. The vice-presidents below them are given the task of accomplishing this. Managers in the various locations know that their jobs are on the line. Supervisors and first line foreman, who at one time had much wider authority...and goals that also included concerns for the general welfare of those below them...have been relegated to being disciplinarians. The employees, who played a great part in building the company, are now mere numbers. Safety remains important because it has monetary implications but the mental and physical health of the employee is only given lip service.
          Unions, in far too many cases, have jettisoned any concern for the health of the nation and are on a sole quest for getting "what they deserve." The law profession, well you have heard the jokes, have tunnel vision for winning cases irrespective of what implications they might have to other humans. Higher education has a political agenda and politics, well just read the daily paper. The entertainment industry is oblivious to the concept that movies have to become more and more outrageous. Finally, journalism has lost much of the sense of purpose in informing the public in order to have a well informed citizenry. This has been the general trend for some time as I see it.
          All these things result from the abandonment of ethics as a necessary ingredient in keeping a free society. I am not saying this as an ethical person that decries the unethical conduct of others. Rather, I am placing myself firmly in the middle of a society that must change in this area or see total collapse. Who, or what, is to blame for bringing this about? I have ideas, others probably have ideas but the "blame game" will only put off the inevitable. I am hoping for a day, and soon, when there are so many people that are questioning ethical lapses in our workplace that corporations are forced to deal with them with respect. This financial crisis hopefully has shown many of us that accumulating money, as if it alone could insulate us from the hazards of an increasingly troublesome world, is chasing an elusive and gilded dream.
          I would like to recommend a movie that can be rented for some cold and snowy winter evening, it's THE WINSLOW BOY, a David Mamet film made about five or six years ago. It takes place in London as the Victorian Age has come to a close. Based on a real story, it concerns a father and son, honor, the law, society and a tinge of romance.

Christian Presidents

         Who was our last Christian president? You might think that this is an easy question for it would be George W. Bush, the "evangelical" president. Another might say "Ask me again on January 21st and I'll say Barack Obama." OK, I admit that we cannot, with certainty, say who is and who is not a member of the "invisible" church on earth as opposed to only the "visible" church. I can only make some comments that I wish I didn't feel necessary to make.
          As for Barack Obama, he was asked his definition of sin, his reply was that it was "going against his own personal values." He is a member of one of the most liberal Christian denominations in the Disciples of Christ.
         Now just about every evangelical would say that surely George W. Bush is a Christian. He talked about his life changing experience with a revivalist pastor and also his relationship with Billy Graham. It should be noted that in the early days of Billy Graham's crusades, only 3% of those going forward were found to be in a church upon later research. That figure has improved but is still quite low. President Bush's recent remarks on his belief that the Bible is probably not literally true should, and I'm sure has, set many Christians back on their heals in shock.
         Bill Clinton? George H. W. Bush maybe? How about Ronald Reagan? I remember a testimony from Pat Robertson from the early 80's where he was in a prayer meeting in Washington D.C. and of the men in a circle, he was holding the hand of Reagan and felt something that could only be described as a supernatural message from God that this was the man. Well, for all his qualities, Mr. Reagan's wife was deeply into astrology, you would think that a Christian would see the occult error here and put a stop to it.
          Ok, well we can at least put a stop to this search with Jimmy Carter the famous "born-again" president. No matter what your politics, no one can question his religious faith in Christ....right? I remember reading an interview with President Carter in which he was asked if Mormons were Christians, his answer was "certainly." Explain to me how a Christian of any maturity can believe that the Mormon proclamation of Jesus Christ can save.
          Some of these men may truly be Christians. I'm not writing this about them as much as the modern concept of what a Christian is, and it is everything about the good one might do instead of the deserved punishment from God, withheld only because it was placed upon our sinless substitute, Jesus, and His righteousness imputed to us through faith alone.

"It's A Wonderful Life"

It's A Wonderful Life.....12/13/08       

         It is pretty much a sure thing that at this time of year, Frank Capra's IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE will be on television. George Bailey has become a part of the consciousness of America. Unfortunately, it's a good example of how film can use emotion and a good story to make that which is false seem like truth. Confronted with failure of the Savings & Loan which was entrusted to him, George contemplates suicide. God, then sends an angel who successfully convinces George that he has done a lot of good. The angel gets his wings and America wipes aways tears of joy as it fails to spot a false gospel of works.
         Am I looking at something like this too closely? Here's another thought. George has just had a wonderful first evening with Mary culminated by falling into the high school swimming pool. They begin to get philosophical on the walk home and Mary asks George what he really wishes for. George proceeds to list the things that he is about to do including travel, education and culminated by great accomplishments in design and architecture. A moment later George's uncle arrives with the news that will change his life and plans. His father has suffered a stroke. Mr. Capra's message here may have been that God would indeed use George to do great things...but they would be right where he lived and not all over the world as he desired.
          The more serious error in this otherwise wonderful film is that 'good works' are presented as a means to salvation. This concept and the fact that I know it is being happily accepted each holiday season in America is what makes me cringe. Enjoy the film....but acknowledge the error in the message ....and maybe take the opportunity to bring it up in conversation with friends and loved ones!
        

Magnanimity

         As I remember it, the story goes like this; The Civil War's end had begun at Appomattox Courthouse when General Robert E. Lee surrendered his army to General Grant. The Confederate Army was filing by Union troops and laying down their weapons. Their heads were down as the anguish of defeat and a lost cause stripped them of everything they held dear. General Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain stood in the Union ranks and saw the once proud army that had fought with honor in what he believed was the wrong cause... but their cause nonetheless. He then committed an act of magnanimity that was in line with what we have come to know of Chamberlain. He commanded his Union troops to attention with the purpose of giving this beaten enemy a measure of honor that their acts of bravery and obedience to their cause deserved. The Confederates were astonished by this. They stood up tall and continued to file by and leave their weapons but now with a little bit of hope restored that the future might acknowledge their efforts.
          Lincoln showed magnanimity towards the south in the short time he lived after its defeat. John Wilkes Booth struck out in murderous hate because of the South's defeat and the North eventually showed little magnanimity towards the south in Reconstruction, many put Jim Crow laws on this doorstep.
         Enormous amounts of money were spent in rebuilding Germany after World War II, as well as magnanimity given towards Japan that proved wise in how Japan eventually progressed to where it is today. Many historians believe that a lack of magnanimity towards Germany at the end of World War I gave Hitler what he needed to enslave the minds of his followers. Stalin and Mao were responsible for the deaths of millions after their "victories."
         If someone has been successful in their pursuit of wealth, do they show magnanimity towards those who had not been successful? Many corporations were sailing swiftly in the winds of a climbing stock market, did they take to heart the lives of those employees who pulled the oars when the winds died down and were not enough? It appears that a mantra of unionism is "never give up what has already been won!" We are in a culture war in America right now and one side or the other may win it. If this new liberal, this progressive secular leftist element wins and decides to once and for all to rid America of religious myth and tradition, it will lead to disaster. If the conservative, the Bible toter, the family values element (of which I am one) wins, and if we fail to recognize that our conservatism can be greed, our Bible toting can be pride and our family values can be smokescreens, then this also will lead to disaster. Should the Lord give us any victories in life, may He give us discernment to see when magnanimity is called for.

Postmodern Debate

  I remember doing a paper on Robert Maynard Hutchins in college. I chose him to write about because he seemed the ultimate traditionalist as he fought the trend in universities to move away from classical education towards viewing what the student wanted as more important. He was the president of the University of Chicago and one of the most influential educators in America in the first half of the twentieth century.
         Today's Wall Street Journal mentioned him in a piece written by L. Gordon Crovitz. Hutchins and others had the idea that using the "great books" in the history of literature would serve as a primary learning tool to increase knowledge of the world and build character. They used a Hutchins quote.... "That the people must save themselves by strengthening their minds so that they can appraise the issues for themselves."
         Robert Hutchins said way back when what many have been trying to remind us of today, that for many and various reasons we have lost the ability to think through issues. Maybe it was the effects of postmodernism, maybe a steady diet of trivial entertainment pursuits or maybe the loss of the education that Hutchins tried to defend?
          When I was in high school, the debate team was very accomplished. I was not part of this but they wore jackets and ties and used a combination of facts, analysis and logic to win trophy after trophy that still adorn the halls. Debate was two people taking different sides on an issue and trying to convince the judges that their argument was the most legitimate. Debate teams have recently made the newspapers nationwide as two college coaches yelled and screamed at each other. I decided to do a little bit of research on debate today and found that "postmodern" debate is growing. One does not even have to stay on subject and he/she can employ various tactics such as emotion and even verbal bullying. It took a while for this turn of events to sink in.
         Yes, political debate today is usually sound bite in depth and avoidance of the main question in method, but surely the art of debate in an academic environment was true debate. I enjoy sitting down to a conversation and giving my thoughts, hearing the other person's thoughts and relying on both of us to consider what we heard. It seldom happens. It's as if debate has become an oral game of Monopoly, for a "get out of jail card" does not look at any particular crime committed. Hotels on a property have no ethical meaning behind them. Community Chest is getting something for free. Owning all the railroads has no societal impact and the one who finishes with the most money is the winner. Our corporations, unions, political campaigns and many more facets of our everyday life seem to be ruled only by that little white pamphlet of Monopoly rules.
          We cannot save ourselves as Mr. Hutchins wrote, and this was typical of his philosophy, but we can and must turn around this vacuous way of forming opinions that we are mired in. Hutchins would say that reading and familiarizing ourselves with those who came before us is one way to escape the bog. I certainly agree to a point. There is a verse in the Bible that says the same thing to the God-fearing person "Seek ye the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it. Then you will find rest for your souls." (Jeremiah 6:16)  Unfortunately, the following verse in Jeremiah is "But they said, we will not walk in it."

Theological Differences

       Calvinism and Arminianism are the two belief systems describing the nuts & bolts on how a person becomes a Christian. The Reformation of the sixteenth century restored the gospel to the church. Soon after, a debate ensued as to whether God chose us or we chose God.
        Calvinism is just a nickname that was applied to the former, after the writing and preaching of one of its main proponents... John Calvin. Arminianism is also a name applied after James Arminius who defended the latter. The former (Calvin) won the day and was the dominant belief in the church up until sometime in the nineteenth century (in America anyway) when America turned to Arminianism become the dominant doctrinal way of seeing salvation.
         I was Arminian for about fifteen years until I saw from scripture that I would never have chosen Jesus Christ unless he regenerated me first but this is not the topic of this post. I've come to believe that Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:19 address this. "There must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." (ESV) We have two major interpretations on baptism and three on the Lord's Supper. How are we to look at this? Is one side right and the other an agent from hell? Yet, surely one is right and the other is not. Or do we go the other way and say that all this doctrine stuff does not matter?
         The current situation of the church in America might give a clue. There is one church ministry on television that fills an large indoor arena yet the gospel is not even mentioned. A better life for us is the message. We have mega-churches with drama and coffee shops that draw the people to church. Have you noticed that even the secular comics see the absurdities of these mega-churches?
         Arminianism is a teaching that fit well in the independent, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, mentality of America. I believe that it is in error but an error with a purpose. There has to be factions among us or else we might become a tyrannical church that rules without ever examining itself. It's when the gospel itself is gone where the Calvinist and the Arminian both must come together in defense of that gospel.
         Issues like this can discourage a young (or new) Christian. They tend to either burn all bridges and passionately cling to the first Christian message they heard or else they throw up their hands take the position that doctrine divides. What we tend not to realize is that we have to work through our salvation. It requires perseverance and humility. We cannot quit after one failure, or even many failures. Even if we have come to see that we have bought into major error.... we are to lay it aside and keep going. Are we in competition with other Christians to see who is the most correct? Ultimately, we should have to look no further than our brothers and sisters in Christ that are suffering real persecution in other countries to motivate us to navigate the shoals of pride that have battered our Christian proclamation.

.What's Next

         At some point every day I either hear or read some expert comment on the financial crisis that we are in. Today's advice was typical, 'patience is needed for the market will certainly come back.' I have yet to hear even a hint of a potential additional nosedive due to a terrorist attack on our nation. Should this not at least be mentioned?
         Israel has a decision to make, and soon. Are they going to let Iran produce nuclear weapons? Israel's decision and those of their enemies effect us. Can we simply wish this situation not to exist? With a Republican administration, Israel could wait and let the West try to twist Iran's arm to end its nuclear program. With Barack Obama, they most likely feel that negotiations will drag on until Iran has the weapons. With a Republican administration they could rely on strong American support if they attack Iran's weapons sites. With Barack Obama, they probably are not sure and may even doubt support beyond verbal condemnations.
         We can talk all we want about what is right and wrong but in my estimation, this is present day reality. If Israel waits for the new administration, then I believe that turmoil, at least with Israel involved, will be a few years away. Israel may have three weeks to a month to act if it wants President Bush in office at the time. We know that there are numerous terrorist cells in America. What they have available to them... we do not know. We can only speculate on what these enemies would consider the ideal time to launch another attack on our homeland.
          Would they hold off on an attack on America with Barack Obama in office thinking that they might get more results from an America that wants to cut its national defense and end international interventions? Do they think that an attack when Barack Obama is president would be responded to with far less vigor than what President Bush responded with? These are questions being bandied about by the agencies involved with our national defense.
         Have our enemies considered that an irony would be if American response was far greater with a Democrat as president for there would not be an opposition party attacking the president for strong responses? We simply do not know the response of Arab neighbors if Israel attacks Iran. Israel also may feel pressured to act now for Russia is establishing themselves more and more in Iran. So back to Wall Street, economic indicators may be positive or negative, yes they matter, but what about the war we are in? It would be nice to hear someone at least tie these two issues together for a moment, and while they are at it they might mention possible societal upheaval in China.

Friday.....America.....Religious Neutrality?

        One of the biggest areas of contention in America today is religion. Just today (12-5-08) it was reported that the University of North Carolina has banned Christmas trees in their two main libraries. This past year one could find one book after another on the shelves of Barnes and Noble that ranted against the concept of and belief in God. 'Religious disputes lead to wars and murders around the world,' these authors say, and that is evidence enough that "no religion" would mean less wars, but does anyone really have no religious belief? There is the monotheism of Christianity, Islam and Judaism....Hinduism proclaims thousands of gods....and Buddhism is pantheistic. We have a revival of paganism even in America and numerous smaller religions, but is being religious limited to these visible religions?
         I highly recommend that you try to find a copy of a book that addresses this question. It is THE MYTH OF RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY An Essay of the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories by Roy A. Clouser, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Trenton State College, New Jersey. He explores in depth what similarities and discrepancies various religions have. He points out that a religion does not necessarily have to have a deity, nor rules and ethical codes, nor rites and rituals. He points out that the gods of the ancient Epicureans did not care at all how humans might live. The divine Brahman-Atman of Hinduism was "being-ness" and not a "being."
         The essence of his book is that "religious beliefs all have in common that they believe in something as the non-dependant divinity on which all else depends." In other words, something (theories also) where everything else depends on it but it itself depends on nothing. Professor Clouser writes that "the ancient Pythagoreans regarded 1+1=2 as a religious belief." The book is fascinating from beginning to end and is helpful, even necessary, in understanding how Americans think. These authors that write books against belief in God are religious themselves as science can be their god and the laws of physics the only thing that everything depends but it itself depends on nothing.
         Professor Clouser is a biblical theist and concludes his book describing how man's presuppositions relate to God. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has no concept of their own theories as to what everything ultimately depends yet depends on nothing. Their perfect society is based on fallen man whom they consider to be essentially good but mislead. They can't see that the great minds of science past that brought us to where we are in knowledge, were predominantly religious. They can't fathom the thought that they are merely the "latest" philosophers, not necessarily closest to truth nor capable of great error. How many times have we read about a marvelous new scientific discovery that will make necessary "rewriting the textbooks?" Yet they are certain that their presuppositions on God will never have to be rewritten.
         Is there honesty in saying that religion leads to wars when the twentieth century has produced much more death at the hands of atheists. One honest philosopher is Antony Flew who lead the charge for atheism for decades before coming to the conclusion and openly admitting that "some sort of intelligence must have created the universe."

Culture.....Wednesday.....The Written Word

We have become a society that relies more on visual sources of information than the written word. Newspaper circulation is near a crisis point. Libraries continually add more computers and rely on their DVD collections. Book publishers continue to struggle and even their biggest source of sales is novels where we are not gathering information. The Discovery and History Channels grab the attention of the youth more than a book and we learn how to cook and do home improvements from television. Michael Moore and Bill Maher become our political science teachers. The golden arches tell us that it is a McDonald's. In the evangelical world, impressive architecture draws people to a church and the absence of a pulpit that hides the stylish clothes of the preacher are more important than proclaiming scripture in keeping them there. President Bush is an evangelical but from his comments in interviews, it doesn't appear that he has read much, if anything, in the faith he proclaims. Barack Obama, on the other hand. has written two autobiographies and even liberal commentators are amazed that he has revealed nothing of who he really is in these books. We have been able to delve deep into the mind of great historical figures through collected letters. The closest we come to that today is the collected emails of some business or government figure as revealed in their trials. R U :) happy about this, or R U

:( ?

God choose the written word to reveal His Son to us in. Jesus responded to Satan's temptations with "It is written..." For further reading on this concept I recommend THE VANISHING WORD: The Veneration of Visual Imagery in the Postmodern World by Arthur W. Hunt III isbn: 158134404x. Other good books somewhat related are AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH by Neil Postman and THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND BY Mark Noll.

Wednesday.....Culture.....A La Carte Cable

         If only it were just a "vast wasteland!" Unfortunately, television sculpts and molds the American mind. We have become a society that learns from visual sources rather than the written word and we are at the mercy of the cable package. There is a bill in the senate on giving us the right to choose our stations but its purpose was to lessen our cable bill but some say that it will not do that. I don't care. I want to support only stations that have prefigured the effect on a society into its programming. Boycotts cannot do the job. Give us a year of "a la carte" and some networks will respond. In my mind, this is not a minor thing. I can see a major improvement in how our society forms a consensus on many issues simply by weening itself from what television throws at us. If you agree with this please talk the issue up and contact your representatives and senators