Merry Christmas

This week I was in a major chain store. After I made my purchase the cashier wished me a Merry Christmas. I thanked her for wishing me a Merry Christmas rather than "happy holidays" and told her she was the first cashier that had wished me a Merry Christmas this year. She looked at me a bit sheepishly and told me that the chain had reversed its policy banning the phrase and now allowed it due to complaints from quite a few customers. This conversation led me to ask myself a couple of questions.

First, why is the phrase "Merry Christmas" verboten? I know the argument is that some people might be offended or feel excluded. My family doesn't celebrate Halloween because we feel it conflicts with our Christian faith. However, I don't feel the least bit offended or intimidated if someone wishes me a "Happy Halloween". I certainly don't feel excluded, after all that's the whole point, I don't want to be included. I certainly don't want to be so self-absorbed that I want the 90% of Americans who do celebrate Halloween to pretend they aren't celebrating by substituting the generic "holiday" for Halloween. I wouldn't expect people to replace witches with colored leaves the way we are expected to replace the Christ child with snowflakes during Christmas. I suspect the real agenda the "tolerance" crowd has is not inclusiveness, but rather imposing their worldview on the majority.

Perhaps the people who are offended by the birth of Jesus could start their own holiday in the same way Ron Karenga did in the sixties with Kwanzaa (disclaimer for the hyper-sensitive; I am not suggesting people who celebrate Kwanzaa are atheists, it's just an recent example of starting a new holiday). They could celebrate Darwin's birth, call it "Charlesmas". Instead of "Peace on earth and good will to men" they could greet each other with something like "Random chance and survival of the fittest to you!".

The thing that really has me puzzled is this; why do Christians put up with this silliness. After all, we don't have the KGB or Gestapo monitoring our mail and pulpits for forbidden speech; at least not yet. Yet we send cards celebrating the same mysterious snowflake holiday as non-Christians. I know of many Churches that are going to be closed this Christmas because they know no one will show up. After all, we know that the true meaning of the "holiday" is about spending time with family and watching football. It is no longer about celebrating God putting off the imperishable to come to this earth in the form of a helpless baby with the express purpose of taking the punishment we deserve for breaking God's laws by dying a cruel death on a cross. Merry Christmas.

We are a bunch of manly men we're not a bunch of sissies!

I just "discovered" a blog called Cerulean Sanctum by Dan Edelen. I really like it. He really seems to try and make people think about things from a real Biblical perspective and get them out of the "we have always done it that way" mode.

Dan has a great post on men and the church that goes along with some things I have been thinking about lately.

Here is a snippet from Dan's post Another Look at the Church's Missing Men :

"I alluded to this earlier in my post "Advertising Ashes." The main reason that men are not in church is that they simply are not seeing the Holy Spirit move in power. At the risk of alienating the many women who read Cerulean Sanctum, I want to make a bold point: even if the Holy Spirit were not present in a supernatural way in our churches, I still believe women would still show up on Sundays. The Church has no problem attracting women because women are naturally drawn to the community and relationships that a church provides. However, this attractor does not work for many men. Men need a profound experience of God in order to get them to sit up and take notice. If the Holy Spirit doesn't fall on them in power, then the positives a church can provide outside of the supernatural make little difference. A church can hypermasculinize itself to death and still not break that three women to every two men ratio if the Spirit is barely discernible on Sundays. Men have a better built-in B.S. detector than women do and function more out of the rationale of "prove it to me." Without the manifest presence of the Holy Spirit in our gatherings, we have little to combat a set of crossed arms and a raised eyebrow."

He is right, there is no power of the Holy Spirit in a lot of our churches. I also think the reason men aren't t excited about church is that they see it is not changing the world. Churches are all about being comfortable and safe. We can't take any risks because we have to pay the mortgage and pay the staff and we certainly wouldn't want to lose our tax exempt status.

God created us men to "fight the good fight" as Paul put it. Give us a challenge that is bigger than ourselves, a battle to fight if you will, and we will be there. I think the issue of the Holy Spirits presence and changing the world go hand in hand. Could it be that we don't see the Holy Spirits presence in our Churches and our preaching is that we are just preaching and doing Church for preaching and Churches sake?

As Dan put forth in his post The Gospel's Only Choice: For Him or Against Him? if we preach a message of power then maybe we will get the Holy Spirits power behind it. Of course, like the Apostles before us, we might get a few riots also! :-)

I like his blog. He has some great pictures to go with his posts, not to mention some great things to say. I am going to add him to the blogroll. Check him out.

The Christian carnival is up

The Christian Carnival is up at Kentucky Packrat. I haven't gotten through a lot of them yet but there seems to be quite a few thought provoking ones. Quite a few good discussions on some "controversial" subjects sportsfans! Check it out.

Brain Damaged Firefighter Makes Recovery

"I want to talk to my wife," Donald Herbert said out of the blue Saturday. Staff members of the nursing home where he has lived for more than seven years raced to get Linda Herbert on the telephone.
It was the first of many conversations the 44-year-old patient had with his wife, four sons and other family and friends during a 14-hour stretch, Herbert's uncle Simon Manka said.
"How long have I been away?" Herbert asked.
"We told him almost 10 years," the uncle said. "He thought it was only three months."
Herbert was fighting a house fire Dec. 29, 1995, when the roof collapsed, burying him under debris. After going without air for several minutes, Herbert was comatose for 2 1/2 months and has undergone therapy ever since.
News accounts in the days and years after his injury describe Herbert as blind and with little, if any, memory. Video shows him receiving physical therapy but apparently unable to communicate and with little awareness of his surroundings.

Read the entire article...

Great post from Byron Harvey

Byron Harvey writes Why I am NOT "Anti-Abortion".

Byron writes (right before his tee time, by the way):

"I am pro-life. That means that I believe that innocent life ought to be protected by law...
... Note the terms that the media uses: they will call our side “anti-abortion”—though that is not what we call ourselves; they will oblige the pro-abortion crowd, calling them the benign-sounding “pro-choice”—which sounds so positive, so tolerant, so reasonable..."

It never ceases to amaze me how the liberal types can take a word or phrase and turn it into a prejoritive. For example, "Fundamentalist". Seems to me if you want to be a good golfer, baseball player or Christian you need to study the fundamentals. As you can tell from the title of my blog I consider it an honor when people use these sort of terms in regard to me. Next time someone calls you a "right-wing fundamentalist extremist" don't get your feelings hurt and lash out at them. Tell them, Thank you for the compliment!". You will be surprised at some of the dumbfounded looks you will get.

Anyway, I am not sure "anti-abortion" works as well as they would like. It's kind of like saying someone is anti-slavery or anti-holocaust. Most people would agree. I suspect the media will take up the mantra that I have heard some of the liberal leaders use lately. The term "anti-choice". Look for the term in a newscast near you, after all what reasonable person could be against "choice"?

Grace and works are not mutally exclusive they are indeed friends.

Great insight from the Jollyblogger.

He writes:

"He has fallen into the same mistake that many conservatives make and that is making enemies out of friends. Salvation and good works are friends in the mind of Jesus, with the latter flowing from the former. On the one hand good works are based on salvation. A good work cannot be a good work unless it is done from the basis of faith (salvation). However, a "salvation" that doesn't issue forth in good works is no salvation."

Amen brother. There are so many things we take up sides on and argue over that really are not mutually exclusive. Works versus Grace has been a big one over the centuries. JB is right, works and grace are two sides to the same coin as it were.

We just have to remember that works don't earn us grace, Jesus' finished work on the cross is what earned it for us. For those of us that are of the Baptist persuation, we just have to remember that "Faith without works is dead".

How To Be A Christian In Politics

I wanted to direct you to a post that John at blogotional put up in response to a post at 21st Century Reformation commenting on a post at Through a Glass Darkly.

The two posts John commented on basically said that Romans 13 says we should obey the governing authorities, the courts are "governing authorities", laws and facts are open to different interpretations and we must submit to their rulings without name calling. John contended that WE are the governing authorities in this country. I agree.

Here is a snip from John's post:

"I can't argue with the spiritual reality of being humble and gracious, but I wonder what that really means. Jesus called religious authorities "vipers," never denied who He was, and made a mess of the Temple courtyard. I think being "humble and gracious," at least according to the Lord's example, may include quite a bit of behavior that we do not normally associate with those words."

I have seen quite a few blogs complain about "name calling" by Christian bloggers in the Schiavo case. I would like to see some specific examples. If by name calling they mean we pointed out he has been lawless and flouting the US constitution I would say that is an accurate description not name calling. I would say since Judges Greer works for us and since "we the people" are in authority over him we have every right to point out when he is disobedient to the law.

You can read more about what I think on this in my post, What is the Christians responsibility in government?

Here are the comments left about Johns post:

Thanks for the trackback. I think you need to be a bit careful about using Jesus' statements to the Pharisees and his overturning of the money changing tables in the Temple courtyard as normative for Christian political involvement. First, neither of those examples were primarily political. In addition, neither example represents the actions of an ordinary citizen in a democratic society. Rather, they are instances in which the perfect Son of God expressed some of God's righteous indignation at how the religious leaders had misled God's people and perverted true worship, and asserted His authority and His claim to messiaship. As members of both the Church and of a civil society, our responsibilities to the civil authorities are primarily spelled out in Romans 13, which makes clear that our attitude should be characterized by respect. We represent the King of Kings, but in obedience to Him, we arrange ourselves under the governmental authorities, and serve society as salt and light until He returns.dopderbeck Homepage 04.19.05 - 8:30 am #

John,I was going to say the same thing doperbeck said. Our calling of the church which directly works in the name of the Lord must be called to not take that name in vain. Jesus in these instances "Matt 23 - 'brood of vipers', is calling the leaders of the church 'hypocrites'. This supports my point strongly. Christians to be faithful need to call the church to repentance and purity especially in this day. With respect to the world, our primary role is to call the world to Christ. re: "really, really important' . My attitude toward politics is going from I am going from really really a big distraction from our calling to build the church and witness to the world. Now, I am starting to say that, if we remain a witness of respect and love then we can speak into the political realities...but to treat the world like the church and call them 'hypocrites' is to simultaneously bring the world up and the church down.brad Homepage 04.19.05 - 10:02 am #

I guess I did not speak well.We are in a very different situation governmentally than Paul was then. Our government is based on our participation. respecting that authority means we do particpate, not simply submit. If it was an autocracy, then I would agree with you, but we are in a democracy.My comments in the post were primarily to say that, yes, political discourse today is much more coarse than it used to, but I do not think we violate our calls to humility and grace if we participate, even if we have to shout a little to be heard.John Schroeder - Blogotional Homepage 04.19.05 - 10:09 am #

John,Good post. I think I understand your point about Jesus and his sometimes harsh words. While it is true the words you quoted were directed at religious leaders I think the point was that Jesus isn't always as warm and fuzzy as we would like to believe. I doubt the money changers he drove out of the Temple were religious leaders either.I think sometimes Romans 13 is sometimes used as an excuse not to be involved. Since Paul, the writer of Romans 13, wrote a good portion of the New Testament from jail and all of the apostles except for John were executed for being disobedient to government somehow I don't think Romans 13 means what we say it means.You are right, "we the people" are the authorities in this country. I think God will hold us accountable for what He has intrusted us with.The key in involvement is to follow the example of people like Daniel and Paul who stood up for God while doing it with integrity.Mike Bennett Homepage 04.19.05 - 6:35 pm #

Drop by John's place and join in the discussion.

Stay tuned, I am working on a project to discuss exactly what the "Gospel of the Kingdom" is and how we apply it to our world.

We have not been given a spirit of fear

Ok, here I go being unpopular and politically incorrect again.

I enjoy reading Vox Day. Not because I agree with him, I probably disagree with half of what he writes, but because he does make me think. He has written an excellent commentary called "What would John Wayne do?" which I am in full agreement with.

Here is a snippet from the article:

"And while there is something about the modern American man that is absolutely worthy of criticism, I don't think it's exactly what these feminists had in mind. For you see, the main problem with men today is that they are not men, but frightened little boys – afraid of their bosses, their wives, their girlfriends and their government. They are afraid of their employees, their children and their children's teachers.

They are not men because the hallmark of a real man is one who is not ruled by fear. Consider the real men of history, the immortals whose names we still honor today. Leonidas and his Three Hundred did not run before the Persian army at Thermopylae even though they knew they would fall before the host of Xerxes. Winston Churchill, a military and political failure, did not quail before the might of Nazi Germany, but inspired the nation of Britain to stand with him. And not even years in the Soviet gulags could silence the brave voice of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose iron will enabled him to outlast the very government that imprisoned him.

Can you imagine one of these men meekly submitting to the harsh words of a boss? Can you imagine Cicero cowering before the sharp tongue of a nagging wife, who did not cower before an emperor? Or the Apostle Paul remaining silent for fear someone might take offense to his words?"

Now, I would probably insert Jesus' name instead of John Wayne's because Jesus is the toughest, most manly man I know of. Some may find the previous statement offensive or surprising. I think whether they realize it of not, most people think of Jesus as this sort of milque toast, Mr. Rogers kind of man. You know, he goes around with a lamb under his arm and always says nice, happy, non-confrontational things that wouldn't offend anyone. Since we are to emmulate Jesus as believers we do so according to our stereotype of Him rather than going by the picture painted for us in the Scriptures. You know, be seeker sensitive, non-combative, non-offensive.

Please do not get me wrong, Jesus is clearly the most loving and compassionate man that ever walked the face of the earth. However, we must have a balanced view of Him. This Jesus was the man who called them like he saw them. He called hypocrites hypocrites. He called people a brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs. He beat the money changer out of the Temple with a whip. He stood before the Pilate and told him he had no power over Him. The toughest act of all was the excruciating death he willingly suffered on that Roman cross.

If you look at most modern Christian men the most important thing to them seems to be safety and comfort. We are a bunch of air bagged, helmeted, seat belted, insured, non-confrontational sissies. We are raising our sons to be the same. We don't let them do anything dangerous or risky. We put knee pads on them so they don't skin their knees for crying out loud. We teach them to be "nice".

The days of chivalry are dead and gone. No longer do boys pass tests to prepare them for manhood. We tell them not to climb that tree, they may fall out and hurt themselves. Now, I am not advocating that we let our sons go out and do something that may seriously injure them, but we should let them run and climb and jump and do all of the things that boys naturally do instead of training it out of them. God must have designed those things into men for a reason don't you think?

I have a seven year old boy. I had no idea what kind of a sacrifice that God made in giving up His Son for us until I had a son of my own. My first two children were girls. I love them dearly but I have found there is a special bond between a father and son. I suspect there is a similar bond between mothers and daughters. The point is that I would do anything, including giving my own life, rather than let my son die. Yet that is exactly what The Father did for us. I just can't fathom it.

I want to raise my son to be the same kind of man that The Father raised Jesus to be. I am not afraid to let him skin his knees once in a while. I want him to grow up not fearing the battles that will undoubtedly come his way in life. I want to raise him to speak the truth in love. To rescue those in trouble, the damsel in distress if you will. To stand for what is true and lovely. Most of all to stand for the Gospel of Christ fearlessly.

I have been told their are some 365 "fear nots" in the Bible. Perhaps God was trying to tell us something. I have been asked how I can go in front of a group of people and share the Gospel without being afraid. I ride motorcycles and raced them in my younger days, people tell me how dangerous they are and how afraid they are of them. The thing is we have gotten our emotions confused with reality. Feeling fear is not the same as being afraid.

Sure, I feel afraid sharing the gospel or standing up for what is right or doing things that are "risky" by most people's definitions. The fact is that everything is risky. Motorcycles are risky but the fact is that more people are killed on bicycles and on foot in traffic every year than on motorcycles. People don't consider those activities risky however. The fact of the matter is that the only way to avoid risk is to not get out of bed in the morning. I indeed do feel afraid all of the time. I would only BE afraid if I let those feelings win out and I failed to do something.

It has been said that everyone in battle is afraid. Fear does not make you a coward however. Acting on those fears is what makes you a coward. Stonewall Jackson was asked how he remained so serene in the middle of battles and this was his answer, '"Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me." He added, after a pause, looking me full in the face: "That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave"'

Men, God has ordained the number of your days before you were even born; go out and live like it! FEAR NOT for the LORD thy God is with you!

DO NOT MAKE A LIVING WILL!

It seems there is a doctor that is in agreement with the stance I have taken against living wills (Do you think a "living will" or "end of life directive" will save you?) It is interesting that he wrote this warning in 1992. Who says the slope isn't slippery. It would seem Dr. Byrne called it correctly even though I am sure many accused him of being paranoid and extreme.



"Do not sign a living will or any of its variants. If you have signed one,rescind it immediately and destroy every copy. Do not sign an advance directive that would deny you treatment on the basis of vague and life-endangering language. Don't be deceived by "pro-life" packaging. Before you sign on the dotted line, read Dr. Byrne's informed analysis.

by Paul A. Byrne, M.D.Past President, Catholic Medical Association

In 1990, Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act. As much of the legislation enacted amidst the escalating disrespect for life that ensued in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade and Karen Ann Quinlan, the Act does not enhance but debases the legitimate rights of patients and physicians, while undermining everyone's right to life. Under the law, anyone entering a healthcare facility that receives any federal funds will be proselytized, if not pushed, to sign the misnamed "living will."

Read the rest here...

The starvation of Clara Martinez from Blogs4Terri

Thirty Days without Food
Pastor Guillermo Espinoza knows that he is fighting against the odds for the life of Clara Martinez, a stroke victim who has been purposefully deprived nutrition for close to 30 days. As pastor of a church in her neighborhood, he has chosen to speak out on her behalf.
Following a debilitating stroke one and half years ago, Clara has been incapacitated but able to consume water orally. She was cared for in the University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center and an intermediate care facility before being taken to her home.
Until recently, she received nourishment through a gastro-intestinal tube that was connected to an external pump. As reported by La Raza, her husband Salvador Martinez, 35 years old and also Mexican, resolved that his wife should not live “artificially”. He signed a “Do Not Resuscitate” order to keep her from being revived artificially and and is now withholding nutrition.
According to Espinoza, a doctor disconnected the pump but left the tube in place with the hope that her husband would change his mind. She has apparently lived for the past four weeks on water alone.

Read the rest...

More on Mae Magouirk and living wills

As I have been saying, if you think a living will is going to save you, forget it. DO NOT make out a living will, it is a death sentence. As I have said, living wills are just grease to make the slope more slippery.

Here is a snippet from a UK Telegraph story on Mae. "Here is a woman who was not comatose, she was not in a vegetative state, she does not even have a terminal condition and, more egregiously, she has a living will that states that she wants to stay alive, and what happens? Her grand-daughter snaps her fingers and decides her time is up," Mr Mullinax said.
"Everyone said during the Terri Schiavo case, 'Oh, if only that poor woman had made a living will.' Well, Mae Magouirk had a living will and it counted for nothing."


Funny you have to either read a blog or a UK newpaper to find out about this. Our crack (or is that "on crack") media are only interested in stories that promote their agenda.

Read the rest of the story...

Judicial voodoo vs. the cross

Here is an article from a former ACLU lawyer named Rees Lloyd. It would be interesting to know what turned him from the "Dark Side".

At any rate, it a great article and Rees hits the nail on the head. The judiciary of this country are now our "Caesars". They can tell congress and the executive branch what to do, they can legislate and they can overturn the Constitution at their whim. Rees agrees with what I have been saying for weeks that "IT IS OUR FAULT".

He says:
"This most recent judicial decision on the West Coast, like that of the judicial order to starve an American woman to death on the East Coast, where a governor was ordered by a court not to act to save an American life, is further evidence that the American people should and must stand up against and stop an out-of-control ACLU, and an out-of-control judiciary.
Manifestly, there is a need for Americans, the "We the People" of the Declaration of Independence, to stop acting as sheep before lawyers sitting as judges who are usurping the powers of the legislative and executive branches, and are sucking freedom and democracy from our republican form of government."

The Government derives it's power from the consent of the people. When the people don't take action the government perceives this as consent.

Read the article...

God Bless the Child

Catez Stevens at Allthings2all shares with us some of her experiences in street ministry. Very powerful.

Makes me wonder what I am waiting on when it comes to loving the unloved. I don't need a big budget or staff to do what she is doing, all I need is a vehicle and a little time. Why aren't I doing it?

Good Question.

Here is a bit of the article...

"Later, in the heart of the city we stop in a dark side street. We know this street now. It's where a group of child prostitues congregate and get picked up. There's just two of them there when we arrive. I sit on a low concrete wall and share a drink and some converstion with one, while another woman from our team does the same with her friend. I ask how old she is and she says 24. I can tell she's about 15-16. "I've got a knife for protection", she tells me. She's small, slim, and obviously wouldn't get far against an adult man if she was attacked.

I ask her why she is prostituting. "For the money", she says. "I like clothes". Across the road on another corner are two young men sitting watching - waiting for us to go so they can muscle the girls money away from them. The girls know they are there and why they are being watched. We talk for a long time. I gain an understanding of why money is so important to this kid who is trying to be sophisticated. "I can only handle one night a week of this", she says. What can I say to a girl whose parents think she is just having fun in the city and don't know she is selling herself on a street corner? What is my answer to a girl who was introduced to prostituion by an older relative - who promised it would be a means of independence and extra money to buy self-esteem? I listen, and she is open to things I have to say."

Read the rest here...

More on the where do we go from here front.

General Announcement For BlogsForTerri Crew

Expect several upcoming action announcements to come very soon. BlogsForTerri will continue to coordinate very closely with the Terri Schiavo Foundation and TerrisFight.org. The Terri Schiavo team is about to take on a more activist role, and will be coordinating with other groups in supporting respect for life and the defeat of the euthanasia movement. A third website, JusticeforTerri.org, will become a resevoir and aggregate for a substantial investigatory activity - to be fed by both blogsForTerri and TerrisFight.org. BlogsforTerri will continue to be a primary get-out-the-message medium for Terri's fight - one that has just begun.

Politicians and judges that have voted and ruled against life are our special targets. Republicans and Democrats alike, begining with the nine Republicans led by Don King in Florida. For a basic hint of where we are going on items such as this, read the Empire Journal article here. And don't think for a minute, not even a nanosecond, that we have finished with Michael Schiavo. We plan to see to it that he is remembered - infamously, for a long time. And we certainly expect that he will also remember Terri Schiavo, TerrisFight.org, and BlogsForTerri.

Many BlogsforTerri bloggers have posted extensively on background elements in Terri's injury and death, and will be asked to participate in an "investigative team" for past and future items of interest. Please be patient and understand that much is going on in the background, and we all have a big job ahead of us. Those of us that support life have a lot of catch-up work to do, the pro-death crowd and the MSM started early and have been working overtime. Our job of catching up and keeping up won't be easy.

Surveys: Young Adults Search Spiritually

This is an interesting article.

"They are often tarnished with labels like "self-absorbed" and "materialistic." But young adults are actively engaged with spiritual questions, two new surveys suggest, even if they are not necessarily exploring them through traditional religious practice.
One of the surveys, of more than 100,000 freshmen who started college last fall, found four in five reporting an interest in spirituality, with three in four searching for meaning or purpose in life, and the same fraction discussing the meaning of life with friends. The incoming freshmen also reported high expectations that their colleges would help them develop spiritually.

"The first surprise for all of us is we didn't expect the students to be in that much of a spiritual quest," said Helen Astin, professor emeritus of higher education and a senior scholar UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute, which produced the survey, to be released Wednesday. "We had focused on the materialism of students, the 'me' generation, only focusing on their jobs and the future."

The reason Helen Austin is surprised maybe because higher education has tried so hard to train spirituality out of students for the past fourty years. The problem is that the article stated that not all of them are turning to Christianity. Still it seems we may have some hope in turning the tide.

Read the rest of the article...