No Matter What, It's HIS Story...

Check out the Interactive Sermon blog for a great commentary on the Evangelical flap over the movie and books in "The Golden Compass" series. Here's my take...

The books are in my house, one of my kids has read some of them and gotten some enjoyment. I looked over the flap both before and after the controversy and come away completely underwhelmed about the nature of the fight.

Yes, the author has written them out of his antipathy to Jesus, the Scripture and the Gospel.

But here's the truth, this is still a Christian story.

I'm not defending the author, I'm confirming that we live in God's world and can never get away from it. So he puts names on the bad guys that sound like they're Christians. If you strip the names off the story, you'll recognize it... It's a Christian saga. He's just confused.

No one in this universe can exempt themselves from God's story. I've no doubt that if you read our DNA it would read "Gospel" all over it. Rebellion. Loss. Redemption. Honor. Hope. Glory. This IS My Father's World!

So this book gives me a great chance to point out to my kids how even when somebody seeks to defame Jesus, they praise Him.

No need to march in the streets... Just raise my hands and praise Him here... That's why we don't match Islam in its fury when we're "defamed".

Relax... There's really nothing to fight for.

Jesus shall reign where e'er the sun doth it's successive courses run.

D--

... Contra Politics ... Contra Spirituality ... Jesus ...

I love life against the grain. I love the underdog. I love unexpected marriages and compassion in unlikely places.

My favorite wine is called Conundrum. It's a blend (Chardonnay and Riesling??? Pinot Grigio? I don't remember) with the quality of a varietal. Often blends use cheap varietals and mix them hiding the low quality. But Conundrum pairs an unlikely mix and winds up with distinct taste, not a bland mess.

I love Conundrum because I was introduced to this California wine when dining in a fine restaurant in Singapore captained by a Hawaiian chef.

My favorite dress shirt ever was a classic Nordstrom's pinpoint stripe. That year Nordy's had a blue stripe shirt, a green stripe shirt, a yellow stripe shirt, a black strip shirt and a red stripe shirt. You know the type of business shirt, alternating 1/4" strips of white and color. A little color but very very conservative.

Take that same shirt only ... make the back of one stripe combo, the front of another, the collar of another, the pocket and the placket of two more. You almost had to look twice to see that it wasn't just another stodgy shirt. The mix of things... that's where the beauty was. Color and fashion in an unexpected place. Traditional value lending the whole thing a classy air.

I met a gentleman tonight who is establishing a Christian philanthropy presence on Second Life, the hip alternative (or virtual) reality site. This is a wild and wooly place where Internet hipsters make a virtual life for themselves. They become anyone or anything they'd like to be, and live as that character throughout their time in that alternate universe.

This gentleman and a friend have established a site which links to Christian aid organzations... As people give in this alternate world, they can REALLY give... their results come up as changes to this presence... give money for a school and a school appears when it is really built.

Hipster tech meet Jesus... The Way, Truth and Life who told us to offer water to the thirsty and food for the hungry.

How about this... our next president makes a concerted effort to build a coalition government. He does not step down from his vision or his plans, but he includes the other political view, finding individuals who will work with rather than against from BOTH parties and a broad spectrum.

I love the wealthy man who takes off his coat and leaves it for the homeless man.

D--

... it's the Ultimate Big Tent...

Being with Jesus means that there are all sorts of people in this tent called His Church.

I've gone on and on lately about what I believe to be the best political approach. And I absolutely believe those things.

But beneath all that, above all that, is the truth that Jesus saves all types of people, and I'd darn well better not reject them. All I have to do is remember Peter's experience.

Just before Peter was asked to bring the truth of Jesus to a fully Gentile household, God gave him the ultimate learning experience, a divine vision.

God used the object lesson of the kosher laws. Peter was hungry and God laid out a spread for him... of entirely unkosher food. Gotta love pulled pork!

God told Peter to get up and tuck in. Three times. Three times Peter said, "No, Lord, I couldn't." Finally God said, "What I have made holy, don't you DARE call unholy." (Revised D-- Version)

Immediately a cadre appeared at the door asking for Peter to come minister to a Roman army leader.

Peter did. He learned his lesson.

Have I learned mine? All these years later... a refugee from the hyper-critical "bastions of truth", of fundamentalism, of arrogant positivism?

The reason for this diatribe? Don Imus. Reading a report of his return to the radio and his reaction to the time of his exile. He criticized his so-called friends that savaged him. He spoke highly of Al Sharpton.

"I'd rather be in a foxhole with Al Sharpton than a lot of my so-called friends."

Sharpton extended an invitation to Imus and had him on his (Sharpton's) radio broadcast.

Sharpton is a minister who claims Jesus. I don't know if he does, but I know this, his attitude of forgiveness was more Christ-like than most you'll see.

Jesus accepts all who come to Him in repentance. Do I?

D--

Will the REAL conservative please stand up...

So the link on Drudge says Huckabee is the False Conservative. The link takes you to a Washington Post article by Robert Novak outlining that Mike Huckabee is actually a tax and spend liberal wolf in GOP clothing. He takes broad swipes at Huckabee's Evangalical credentials and then slams him as a petty, nasty liberal.

Frankly, the snippy tone of the article says it all... that Novak is miffed that this outsider is gaining traction. But the charges are worth a brief examination.

Others have made the same charge against Hucakbee since he was responsible for the raising of some taxes in Arkansas. But are tax hikes always anti-conservative? Don't conservatives support some government programs?

I think honest conservatives will agree that taxes themselves aren't the issue, the issue is what the taxes are for. And from what I see, Huckabee supported taxes primarily to fix a damaged, broken highway infrastructure and a damaged broken education system. He lowered other taxes.

But the real kicker to me is when Novak compares Huckabee to Reagan and finds Huckabee wanting as a conservative. I have to laugh at that, because I believe the numbers show that while Reagan talked an extremely vital conservative talk, in actuality government grew faster than in Carter's time.

As Drudge would say... developing :)

D--

... Compassion from the Right

Here's the typical stereotype: The left is compassionate, the right is greedy and only cares about themselves.

I don't buy that. I believe that only the right is truly compassionate. I believe that the left may WANT to be compassionate, may seek compassion as a value first and foremost. But I believe that their methods produce more bondage, more greed and less real results for those in need.

There is no doubt that there are times people need just a "hand up". Reagan talked much of a safety net. And going back to the time of the Great Depression, we bought into a system that said that this was government's role.

My argument is that government is the LAST place this compassion should come from.

I believe government compassion will ALWAYS become twisted. While some may care about the people they are helping and serving, in reality, human nature says that greed will always become a factor.

I've worked in the dispensing side of a state's Human Services department. They had no interest in seeing people freed from poverty and government assistance. They wanted to see MORE if anything.

In addition, the idea of government assistance is confiscatory and unfair. There are winners and losers. It's government playing Robin Hood. But since it's government, it's faith neutral so there is no moral safeguard.

Why should government be allowed to take from me and give to someone else? Isn't that the kind of policy that drove the Colonists to rebel in the first place?

The foundation of governmental taxation has a purpose. All are levied to provide services all can take advantage of. Roads, fire, police, sewer, recreation facilities, these are things that enhance the community at large, provide more economic opportunities.

To be honest, there has been a lot of talk that the "Great Society" program actually DID have a civic purpose. In the mid-60s our cities were burning. The violence was astounding.

Stupid civic policy led to enclaves of poverty and racial inequity. These became enclaves of violence. Many students of the time have recorded conversations by both left and right that set up the social programs as a firebreak.

Once in place, these policies couldn't be moved for fear of igniting the violence again. The Great Society was more a tranquilizing drug than therapy for poverty.

Never mind many of the programs caused dramatically more ravaging of the social structure. Much has been made that forced integration killed both white AND black neighborhoods. That equal opportunity put a stigma on the black march to equity. That Aid to Families with Dependant Children has bred generational bastardy. Fathers had no reason to stay around.

The Great Society gutted American cities and urban black communities. The moral and ethical ground was nearly permanently poisoned and salted over. Not much can grow there.

Real compassion wouldn't have been a quick fix. It never is. We want quick fixes as a society. Conservatives have a tough sell with the truth that low taxation and requiring responsibility is a far better long-term solution.

But that is the solution. Work is the only way forward. Yes, logjams must be broken and only government can do that. But once those logjams are broken, government must get out of the way. He which governs least governs best.

Real compassion isn't a quick band-aid. It isn't feel good. It's facing the tough truths courageously. The vast middle of our country needs to hear this again and again. They've bought the pablum that only the left cares, that the right doesn't.

The right cares and the right knows that real change is slow, but effective. That the left's fast-change is a forever lock into poverty.

Oh yes, and a forever lock to the people watering at the trough of easy money. These people are miserable, but the little that they have they owe to the left. They become a powerful message and a powerful vote. And we evil right-wingers (who truly care and weep over the situation) are demonized effectively again and again.

D--

Truth ... Left and Right ....

SO... if it's so important to bridge the gap and get out of this demonization politics, why do I stay on the right? Wouldn't it be better to move left to the center, or just outright GO to the left?

I don't believe that's the correct way to be. I do have to say upfront that there are emphases on the left that we desperately need on the right if we are to be truly Christian. The Gospels and the James' Epistle make it clear that real faith MUST show a radical social commitment to the poor, the down-trodden.

But I believe the left hits it wrong... Let me point out some places where I think the flaws are serious.

First, there's the issue I discussed a year or more ago ... Most of the true left believes that man can keep getting better and better. This means that things like poverty and racism can get better and better.

But looking at the Bible it's clear that Man is STUCK in a miry clay. That sin surrounds us, that the world system is set against Jesus, and only Jesus is truly good.

YES, sometimes the secular system DOES right itself. Many times the Church has started that process.

However it comes, there is a certain level of common grace where this world periodically shudders and grudgingly realigns itself and rids itself of some evil. If this weren't so, there would be no living.

God holds this world together and Revelation tells us it's the Holy Spirit restraining evil that makes it so.

But yet, this world is mired. If you solve Black/White racism for a time, another evil divide will take its place. My politics have to take that into account, and I believe that separates me from the left.

I believe the left on the whole believes they can exert will and effort and fix things PERMANENTLY. But the Law of Unintended Consequences leaves us with things like Political Correctness ... a locking of minds and a new harsh repression of thought and speech. Give freedom in one place, another place devolves into evil.

Too, if you look to the state to be the change agent, the state usually simply swaps victims. Many believe that it's ok to pull back the rights of some to advance the rights of the formerly oppressed.

Friends on the left have told me they think that's ok ... that it's balancing things...

But payback is payback ... and that's what happens ... we just move from group to group being in vogue and demanding rights. It turns out not to be equal rights at all... it's actually often oppression. The French Revolution (admittedly an extreme case) devastated the rich to "balance" the damage done to the poor.

The problem is lthat only Jesus' power working through His people makes permanent change. That requires kneeling before Him... in humility. Only HE can show us that each of us is prone to be selfish with Him. And without Him our "movements" will be ultimately selfish.

How often does selfishness look like positive change?

The Bible actually tells us what why God invested governments with authority. The Apostle Paul laid out what the role of government was designed to be... Think of that, GOD actually designed government as HIS agent!!!

Romans 13:1-7
(1) Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
(2) Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
(3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
(4) For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
(5) Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake.
(6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing.
(7) Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

So government's role is to keep civil order. It's a pretty restricted role. It's role is NOT taking care of people. That's NOT God's design. So when government steps in on that role, it is actually usurping the Church. It is NOT health care. Again, that is something given to the church.

Government fails at all the social help issues. There is SOME safety net, but the more government tries to provide, the less people are motivated to work...

OOOoops, this belongs in another post... and there it shall be!

Back to the main point... I DO come at things from a right point of view and I believe that it's an approach for government that works better because it follws the design laid out by God.

D--

... Right On Man!

In my pontifications of yesterday (understand that I AM infallible in my pontifications, just like the pontiff...) I discussed my nomination for chief problem of our time. I suggested that we MUST find a way to bridge the left-right divide. That we must quell this bickering and get on with things.

The problem with blogging is that I end up mulling over my own posts. I've been mulling this over. Here's my difficulty...

I believe the left is damaging. I believe that the political construct of the left moves us to less freedom and to more bondage.

SO I'm a hypocrite. I say I want to open dialog and work in a shared manner.

But I'll admit, the answers have to come out in a way that my political template can accept. If they don't, I can't accept them.

Does that mean the divide will live? That truly this can't be dealt with? That we are split and that's just that?

My problem is that looking at the left I see a template that generally seeks government to solve problems. I believe if solutions come down that way, the unintended consequence is a government that grows ever-bigger, more onerous and more dictatorial.

My left friends believe that if my laissez-faire approach is followed, that the poor will suffer and the rich and powerful will run roughshod.

As Drudge would say ... developing

D--