The Birth of a Savior

Is it hard for you to maintain focus on the meaning of Christmas during all the hustle and bustle of Christmas? It is for me. But one of the things I always do this time of year is re-read Philip Yancey's The Jesus I Never Knew, specifically his chapter on Jesus' birth. I am so thankful to have grown up with in a Christian family which brought me to church. One of the drawbacks, however, is that I have heard the Bible stories so often that sometimes I don't think about what I read. Yancey's book helps me maintain my focus on the Gospel though. In his chapter on the birth of Christ Yancey writes:

"Today as I read the accounts of Jesus' birth I tremble to think of the fate of the world resting on the responses of two rural teenagers. How many times did Mary review the angel's words as she felt the Son of God kicking against the walls of her uterus? How many times did Joseph second-guess his own encounter with an angel as he endured the hot shame of living among villagers who could plainly see the changing shape of his fiancee?

"Nine months of awkward explanations, the lingering scent of scandal - it seems that God arranged the most humiliating circumstances possible for his entrance, as if to avoid any charge of favoritism. I am impressed that when the Son of God became a human being he played by the rules, harsh rules: small towns do not treat kindly young boys who grow up with questionable paternity.

"Malcolm Muggeridge observed that in our day, with family-planning clinics offering convenient ways to correct 'mistakes' that might disgrace a family name, 'It is, in point of fact extremely improbable, under existing conditions, that Jesus would have been permitted to be born at all. Mary's pregnancy, in poor circumstances, and with the father unknown, would have been an obvious case for an abortion... Thus our generation, needing a Savior more, perhaps, than any that has ever existed, would be too humane to allow one to be born.'

"The virgin Mary, though whose parenthood was unplanned, had a different response... Often a work of God comes with two edges, great joy and great pain... Mary embraced both. She was the first person to accept Jesus on his own terms, regardless of the personal cost."

May this advent season be one that we may connect with Jesus, enrich our faith, show His grace and mercy to others, and await His return.

2008 Presidential Race - An Early Look

So now that the 2006 election is over, all eyes are turning to the Presidential election in 2008. Here's my take on the early possible runners. Today I will cover a few of the Republican contenders.

First impression of Republicans:
So far, a pretty weak field. As was evident in the last election, the Republican Party seemingly lacks a leader after George W. Bush leaves office. No one in the House or Senate has stepped up to take the mantle, except for perhaps McCain. Another indication that the Republican field is weak: Rick Perry is rumored to be a possible VP selection! How does this happen? That's as big a sign of desperation as naming Trent Lott minority whip. Oh well, here's the early candidates:

1. John McCain -
positives: name recognition; seen as a Maverick so would draw independent votes; veteran; has supported and criticized Bush.
negatives: seen as a Maverick which has ticked off many in the Republican base; supported and criticized Bush; his age (he'll be 72 in '08)
chances of winning nomination: At this point, he would be the front-runner, if he can assuage the Republican base over the next 2 years, while maintaining his independent flavor.

2. Rudy Giuliani -
positives: Strong leader during 9/11; "America's Mayor;" Has little legislative record for opponents to run against; Cleaned up NY city; Well-liked.
negatives: very liberal on abortion and gay marriage; left his wife for an affair(family values?); besides being Mayor, what else has he done?
chances of winning nomination: While he is the early front-runner in many polls, there is simply no way he can secure enough of the Republican base to win the nomination.

3. Mitt Romney -
positives: Somehow as a Republican, he was elected Governor of Massachusetts; He gave Ted Kennedy his toughest election in 1994; Successful businessman; Conservative.
negatives: While this may seem very fickle, I am not sure that evangelicals in the Republican Party would support a Mormon for President. But his record and charisma may overcome his religion.
chances of winning nomination: His success in Mass. might be intriguing for voters looking to make in-roads in the NE, but his religious affiliation may hinder his bid.

4. Condoleezza Rice -
positives: She has the most foreign policy experience of any presidential candidate in 2008; She is very articulate and brilliant.
negatives: Her attachment to Bush and the Iraq War has badly wounded her chances; Unless public opinion changes, she may be doomed by the war; Also, although we claim to have come a long way over the last 40 years, she is a woman, she is black, and she is single.
Chances of winning nomination: There has been one single president in our history, 0 women presidents, and 0 black presidents. She is highly qualified for the job, in my opinion, but there are many factors that would unfortunately limit her electability in the South, where prejudice still runs high, and among independents, who are currently against the Bush foreign policy. I hope she runs, though.

5. Bill Frist
positives: Senate majority leader; Conservative on many issues.
negatives: Senators make terrible candidates, traditionally; He is out of office now, so it will be difficult for him to remain in the public eye; He supports stem-cell research, which may hurt him among the conservative base.
chances of winning nomination: I give him little chance. He seems like a boring candidate to me. Alienated many conservatives by supporting stem-cell research.

Any of those names get you going? See what I mean - so far a weak field. That doesn't mean that one of these candidates couldn't make major advances over the next two years. Political opinion changes quickly. Just ask Bush.

Next post: Possible Democratic nominees for President.

Election 2006 - A Reflection

So it turns out the polling was pretty accurate. For all the hoopla surrounding the pre-election polls, it appears that a majority of Americans oppose the War in Iraq and disapprove of Bush's leadership. While most prognosticators predicted a House takeover, few thought the Democrats would pick up 6 Senate seats. Ah, but I think there is much more to this election than just Iraq. And I think the next two years will prove very interesting with a touch of irony. Let me explain:

1. War, What is it Good for?
The War in Iraq was the winning issue for the Democratic Party this year. Six in ten voters oppose the war, and those voters voted overwhelmingly Democrat, tilting all the tight races in favor of Democrats. Clearly, the Bush administration has observed this as well, with the swift removal of Rumsfeld yesterday. (In all fairness, Bush said this was in the works for a while now, but he wanted to wait until after the election, so as to not make it a political issue. Not replacing Rumsfeld pre-election was terrible election strategy, so I believe him in this.) Bush calls on Texas A&M President Robert Gates to take the helm. Obviously, Gates jumps at the chance: What would you rather deal with - Aggies and Coach Fran's coaching strategy, or Iraq and terrorists? Pretty easy decision really. Hopefully, Gates can re-evaluate and make appropriate changes to win the war and secure the area. And hopefully he will have bi-partisan support. But...

...The Democrats campaigned on the war - calling for withdrawal of the troops and blaming everything on Bush. It was a winning issue for them. The Republicans supported the war, and it was a losing issue for them. So, in a bit of irony and hypocrisy, I believe these next two years, while the Democrats run Congress, there will be no withdrawal of the troops, but a continued gripe at Bush and the war. Finding "their" issue, the Democrats want to keep the war going to keep the pressure on the Republicans and maintain the winning issue for 2008. The Republicans, on the other hand, politically want this war to go away. So over the next two years, we may see politics reverse, with the Democrats secretly wanting the war to continue and the Republicans secretly, or publicly, wanting the war to end. If this happens, it will be politics at its worst, but I do not think it is beyond reality. (I realize this is a skeptical view of politics, but does anyone disagree?)

2. Scandals for the Party of Values... "Anti-Religion" Party Finds God?
Since 1980, the Republicans have owned the "values voter." The Religious Right has taken credit for Republican victories. But this year, results were different due to two things
a. Republicans had some scandalous dogs on the ballot. Republicans lost traditionally Republican districts due to DeLay, Foley, and some others who had contributed to scandal. One Republican candidate had his office raided by the FBI, an affair with a woman made public, and accusations that he abused his mistress as well. Great "family values" candidate there. Even George Allen ran into trouble with his mouth and lousy campaign. So much for his presidential bid in '08. After 12 years in power, many Republicans had become what they used to despise - corrupt, power hungry politicians out of touch with the real world.
b. Democrats found God - at least some did. Many Republicans were defeated, not by crazy left-wingers, but by pro-life Democrats. Heath Shuler is an example of this. Easily could be a Republican, ran as a Democrat and won. A number of pro-life, anti-homosexual marriage Democrats won this year - it will be interesting to see if the party changes, or if these are just temporary blips on the radar.

Predictions: This could be either a more conservative Congress than the last, or the Democrats will implode while trying to unify radical pro-abortion Dems with the new pro-lifers. It is easier to be in the minority party than the majority. We'll all see if the very liberal Pelosi will squelch or embrace the conservative Democrats, or whether the conservative Democrats were just wolves in sheep clothing. If the Democrats open the floodgates to investigations or impeachment hearings, I think their reign in Washington will abruptly end in '08. This was a close election, albeit one that the Democrats won. But many of these Senate races were decided by very few votes, and many of the House races too. This election could be good news for Republicans. To be out of power until '08 will allow them to run an opposition campaign to the Democrats in '08 much like the Dems did this year. And they shed the party of albatrosses like Foley, DeLay, Chafee, etc. If they're smart, they will continue to clean house and nominate stronger, scandal free candidates in '08.

Big Winners: The big winners in this election were the "Evangelical Left," led by Jim Wallis. (He would actually prefer the label of "the moral center," but he has spent much of the past 6 years hammering Bush and the Religious Right, so he is in effect functioning as the "Religious Left." Also, I am unaware of any Republican candidates he supports.) In his book, God's Politics, Wallis laments the fact the Religious Right had limited religious values to only abortion and gay marriage, while the political left held so much disdain for the religious voice. He has pushed for "values" to include abortion and gay marriage as well as poverty, war, and healthcare. He now has some voices in Congress who will echo his sentiments. At least in 2006, Wallis has shown some credibility in influencing the Democratic Party. He calls the election a "defeat for the Religious Right and Secular Left." He will now be a major player in 2008 much like Dobson and Falwell have been since 1980.

I'll talk about how I see this election influencing the choice for President in 2008 in my next post.

Arlington and Its Future Part 3

Arlington has been discussing downtown revitalization for years and years. And yet, nothing has ever happened. However, it seems that recently more and more groups are showing a real interest in Arlington, specifically the downtown, entertainment, and UTA areas.

The construction of the Cowboys stadium near the Ballpark is perhaps the catalyst behind the recent excitement, making the half cent tax increase well worth it. The development of Glorypark near the two playing fields will be a wonderful addition to the entertainment district, hopefully providing a unique atmosphere for people to spend their evenings in Arlington, rather than Fort Worth or Dallas.

UTA plans to attract investors to develop a stretch of area near the campus and downtown to create a college atmosphere, with restaurants, shops, etc. While UTA is traditionally seen as a commuter school, the drive to bring more of a residential campus benefits the downtown area greatly. I have always referred to UTA as the concrete campus - hopefully a little beauty and uniqueness, along with cool restaurants and shops will change my opinion of the university's appearance.

Finally, plans for the dreaded Division street are in the works. Division street - used car lots, shady motels, ugly sidewalks, and prostitutes help define this street. It is difficult for businesses to want to locate in this area; however, apparently the ball is rolling with advice coming from the person who helped shape Sundance Square in Fort Worth. These three projects will add a little spice to Arlington, and provide better alternatives for eating and shopping than Arlington currently has to offer.

One obstacle cited by OK Carter and others - Mission Arlington. Mission Arlington is an amazing ministry - reaching thousands of residents in poverty by providing hope through the meeting of physical and spiritual needs. I have seen firsthand the power of Christ moving through this organization all around the city. While governor, George W. Bush came to Arlington, calling Tillie the Mother Teresa of Texas and promoting Mission Arlington as a role model for others to follow. I am glad Mission Arlington is here and hope it continues to reach those in need while spreading the Gospel.

For downtown investors though, Mission Arlington is a problem. Many of the buildings in or near downtown are owned by Mission Arlington, and the traffic in and out of Mission Arlington scares many prospective business owners. One can walk out of UTA bookstore and see the whole operation in progress, with donations piling on the sidewalk, people milling about, and constant activity taking place on the premises. The question presented is: what to do with Mission Arlington?

A couple of suggestions: 1. The city and redevelopers should embrace the presence of Mission Arlington as a necessary and unique partner to downtown revitalization. Oftentimes, cities hide their homeless and poor populations from tourists. With Mission Arlington in the heart of the city, this will be difficult to do. But we don't need to hide the problem of poverty, but instead seek ways to include Mission Arlington in the process. As the businesses open, jobs will be available. Perhaps encouraging businesses to hire some referrals from Mission Arlington will be a good start. And it makes us an honest city. By not hiding our population that is in need, Arlington can become a beacon for other cities seeking how best to revitalize a downtown area without kicking the homeless to the outskirts.

2. Mission Arlington should invest in its infrastructure to make it aesthetically pleasing. Although Mission Arlington has renovated many of its buildings over the last 20 years, let's face it - many of the Mission Arlington buildings are plain, boring, or even ugly. If Mission Arlington would invest in creating eye appealing landscaping, building structures, and organization to its many properties, it would put investors more at ease. There is no reason why Mission Arlington should not invest in its infrastructure to make it "fit in" with the plan for downtown. After all, I believe it is part of showing gratitude to the community that helps support it. OK Carter somewhat criticized FBC and Mission Arlington for engulfing so much property downtown. FBC is doing much to enhance its structural appearance. Mission Arlington should do the same, while continuing to meet the needs of those in the community.

These are not easy problems to solve, and there will always be those who are prejudiced toward the poor; but Arlington should strive, with cooperation of businesses and ministries, to make downtown a destination place for more than just those going to pay a ticket at the courthouse, or seek help at a mission. At the same time, Arlington must continue to assist those in need, by providing for their physical needs, increasing educational and job skill programs, and reducing the number of families in poverty.

Arlington and Its Future Part 2

So where does Arlington go from here? OK Carter discussed two issues facing Arlington in recent columns. One, that the city must respond to the changing demographics, and two, the need for a UTA strip (and Glorypark). First, over the last 16 years, Arlington has become more racially diverse. Carter cites figures that show Arlington's racial demographic to be 50% white, 50% minority. He brings up the term "White Flight" as part of Arlington's future. The practice of White Flight is racist at its worst, ignorant at its best. White Flight out of major US cities caused innercity communities to become forgotten, rundown, and crime-ridden. (Interestingly, many major cities have begun revitalization projects which have brought "the downtown" back to life.) The thought that a city will decline simply because of racial demographics is a product of the south - and of prejudiced rationale by those moving. However, Carter does not give any solutions in his article, but simply brings the conversation to the forefront.

The more pressing concern for Arlington residents shouldn't be race, but socio-economic make-up of residents. How Arlington manages to provide needed resources for those in need while also remaining an attractive city for young families to live in and invest in is the main issue Arlington faces. With the plethora of churches in Arlington, including Mission Arlington, Arlington Urban Ministries, Salvation Army, and the Life Shelter, the needs of many residents are able to be met, or should be met, by churches and ministries. The city should depend on these agencies and ministries to provide for the material needs of the people. Not by providing government funds, but by encouraging these ministries to take charge, as many already have, in this area. And local churches should carry the burden, not complaining about what the city is doing or not doing to help meet material needs. Church being the church, salt and light in the communtiy. (This is a separate issue altogether, but one that churches need to face. Churches must begin to reflect their communities, reaching out to those in need - and perhaps in the process, become more diverse. Afterall, it was MLK, Jr who said that 11:00am on Sunday morning is the most segregated time in American life. That is a stinging indictment on the hypocrisy in the church concerning issues of race and inclusion. And one we must address as Christians. Better community = better church = better city.)

What should the city do? Providing quality education for all Arlington children in the key. Arlington teachers should be the highest paid teachers in the area, the school buildings, even the ones on the east side of town, should be equipped with the best curriculum, computers, playgrounds, etc., including aesthetically pleasing buildings and landscaping. If Arlington schools continue to be among the best, by attracting the best teachers, paying the best, and offering the finest in environmental conditions, then the city will remain attractive for families, and even become more attractive. Is this idealistic thinking? To a certain extent, but providing an excellent educational environment supersedes other issues facing the city.

Next, our police should be among the highest paid, and more police should be hired and in place around the city. With smash and grab robberies of vehicles escalating, more needs to be done to follow leads in these "minor" cases, in order to stem the rise of this type of crime. Better paid and more numerous police officers will help in this process. Cameras at intersections and other public locations would help as well. It is not an invasion of privacy to use technology to stop crime, no matter whether it is just running a red light or something more severe like assault in a parking lot. Cameras equipped with face scanning technology are necessary. This is not Big Brother, but rather, advances in technology that will help make Arlington a safer place to live, with the best officers assisting in lowering the crime rate in our city.

Education and safety are key ingredients to maintaining a vibrant, attractive city. Too expensive, you say? We can't afford not to do it, I believe.

Next item: what should downtown look like, including the "eye-sore" that OK Carter sees in FBC and Mission Arlington sprawling across six city blocks downtown...

Arlington and Its Future

I am an Arlington apologist. I admit it. I love this city and always will. This is due in large part to the amount of love, sweat, and tears my grandfather and others like him poured into this city over the last 60 years. Taking a small town nestled in between Dallas and Fort Worth and having the vision of making it something more than it was, something nationally known, is due in large part to the leadership of people like my grandfather and his contemporaries. I know his love for this city directly influences my feelings as well. And yes, I realize that Arlington has its problems. But nonetheless, I love this city... and I think it still is and can continue to be a great city, better than ever before. Let's settle a couple of matters though...

Arlington is not a suburb. Former Mayor Richard Greene said it best when he once told some critics that "Arlington is nobody's @#$% suburb." Every year, a ranking of the area suburbs comes out, and some ignoramus continues to place Arlington on the suburb list. Then they try to compare Arlington to highly overrated Frisco, or Flower Mound, or Mansfield. It's not fair to classify Arlington as a suburb and rank it according to suburban characteristics. In addition, nothing drives me more crazy than when someone who resides in Arlington tells others that they are from Dallas (We're not even in Dallas County!). Absolutely drives me crazy! I find the hairs on the back of my neck standing on end when someone dismisses Arlington as a suburb of Dallas, or as nothing special, or as a dying city. 350,000 reside in Arlington, the Rangers and Cowboys play here, we have great schools - please for the love of all that is good - tell people you are from Arlington, not Dallas or DFW or Fort Worth.

Does Arlington have a promising future? I believe so. I will write about it in upcoming posts. But for today, if you are an Arlington resident, be proud of where you are from, where you reside, and where we are headed as a city. We need to be cognizant of our city leaders' plans, and stop being defeatists by saying nothing will ever happen. Instead, let you voice be heard, pray for wise direction, and stay positive.

Security v Liberty

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

I was reminded about this quote last week in relation to our war against terrorism. It sparked a discussion of whether the Patriot Act, wire-tapping, and other security measures go too far in protecting our freedoms. In essence, where do we draw the line in trading individual liberty for national security?

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declared the wire-tapping program as in violation of the first and fourth amendments, ruling that the government would need warrants to conduct such wire-tappings. This ruling comes just after 23 terrorists, who were plotting another terror act in the air, were arrested in the UK. Their arrest is attributed to the tracing of phone calls, including calls the US government was monitoring.

Bush is basically in a no-win situation here. He is blasted by his opponents for violating individual rights on this issue; however, if the program was not in place and the terrorists had struck again, Bush would have been blasted by those same opponents for not doing enough to thwart terror. Aargh - the frustration of everything in this country being so political and partisan! (Joe Lieberman even is too conservative now - did you see where Kerry compares Lieberman to Dick Cheney?) So what to do?

When I get on an airplane, I gladly do whatever is asked of me to go through security. Take off my shoes? No problem. Check my bag? Go ahead. If that is what it takes to make the plane safe, I am fine with that. In fact, I would be fine with not being allowed to bring any electronics or carry-on bags in the plane. I choose security over privacy or comfort here.

As far as wire-tapping goes, if anyone is listening to my phone calls, they must have the most boring job in the world. The fact is, the government is only listening to calls of suspected dangerous people. They are not concerned with my phone call about what time I'll be home, or what the kids did today, etc.

But where is the line we draw? Ben Franklin may be right in his quote; however, he didn't live in the 21st century. He was remembering British troops coming into Americans' homes. He was fearing a rebirth of a monarchy or a state established church. And besides, as wonderful as our founding fathers were, they are sometimes wrong (ie, slavery, 3/5 compromise). I am comfortable with what the current surveillance law authorizes, even though I realize that once the government controls an element of power, it does not relinquish it willingly.

Ah, but here is the great thing about our constitution - and where the founders were brilliant. We have checks on the branches of government, and a judge in this case has made her ruling, a ruling which will now be appealed and argued again. And if it is still ruled unconstitutional, then the Congress can implement a new plan, or the people can demand as much. I am thankful that our government does sometimes make rulings like this, it enables our government to reason through what is right and wrong, giving us security that if one day the government goes too far, there will hopefully be checks in place to protect our essential liberties.

In this case, our freedom of speech is not violated. We are not punished for what we say, but rather only if we are planning a terrorist act. Isn't that what we want? Do we want to be hit again? I don't think so. And I will be surprised if a majority of Americans, after hearing the facts, would oppose wire-tapping of suspected terrorists or criminals. If we are not safe, we have no liberties to truly exercise.

Anyway, if we are so concerned with privacy in this country, then why have blogs, myspace, and personal web pages become so popular?

The Price of the Vision

I read something today out of Oswald Chambers' My Utmost For His Highest that made me stop in my tracks and re-read:

My vision of God is dependent upon the condition of my character. My character determines whether or not truth can even be revealed to me. Before I can say, 'I saw the Lord,' there must be something in my character that conforms to the likeness of God. Until I am born again and really begin to see the kingdom of God, I only see from the perspective of my own biases. What I need is God's surgical procedure - His use of external circumstances to bring about internal purification.
Your priorities must be God first, God second, and God third, until your life is continually face to face with God and no one else is taken into account whatsoever. Your prayer will then be, 'In all the world there is no one but You, dear God; there is no one but You.'"

May my character be such that I can discern what God desires, so that I can be the husband, father, son, brother, friend, minister, student, professor, package handler, and neighbor that God created me to be. What's best for all those I come in contact with is for me to be so connected to Christ that it is His voice I hear and His voice I follow, not my own ambitions or desires, but His.

Theology and a Three-Year-Old Part 3

A couple of nights ago, Grant and I were taking the garbage out to the curb, and then starting the sprinkler system. As we were watching the sprinklers, Grant noticed that the wind was blowing some of the water against his window, "like when it rains." He then asked why God makes the wind. Before I could answer, Grant said, "I think God has a really huge fan that blows the wind and goes round and round. And the rain comes from his sprinkler system." He could be right.



On another note, Grant and I won a July 4th contest at my sister-in-law's house for "most original dessert." As we were trying to decide what to make, Grant mentioned that an air conditioner cake would be cool. So we decided to make one. We went to the store and bought two bundt cakes, white icing, black icing, and a small fan. After we stacked the two cakes, we ran the fan cord down the middle of the cake and out the bottom, fitting the fan into the top of the cake. We then mixed a little black icing into the white to get gray(I remember my art classes!) and spread icing around the cake. We then took the black icing to make vents and wrote "Grant Air USA" on the top. When the fan was plugged and running, it was perfect. We added a caption "What's More American than Air Conditioning?" So with this father-son masterpiece, we won "Most Original." Best of all, Grant thought I was the coolest dad in the world because I helped him make an air conditioner cake.

Is God Sexist?

A recent meeting by the Presbyterian Church USA has decided that it might be time to change or alter referring to the Trinity as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." [Full Article: http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/issues/trinityfinal.pdf] The reason for the change? Some feel referring to God as Father is not inclusive enough. Suggestions for amending the Trinity: "Mother, Child, Womb;" "Lover, Beloved, Love;" "Rock, Redeemer, Friend;" "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier."

Ok, so what does all this mean exactly? Is it sexist to refer to God as Father, or use the pronoun He? Is it offensive that Jesus is male? That he prayed to His Father? Should we change the Lord's Prayer to be more inclusive?

I am really put off by those who claim referring to God as Father somehow isolates others. The argument: "Some people have had bad experiences with their fathers so referring to God as father is insensitive to them." My answer: yes, some people have had bad fathers, or no fathers at all. What better way to help them see God's love for them than to introduce them to their perfect Heavenly Father? To understand that for all our shortcomings as people, we worship a perfect God, who loves us and made us in His image.

I have heard people pray to "Our Father/Mother" or "Our Parent." Or refer to God's blessings as "God has given us God's blessings. We must worship God and give God what is God's." In scholarship, this is an appropriate usage, but should we be so pc in church? Does this kind of usage create a distance between us and God in our prayers, by refusing to refer to God more personally as Jesus taught us? How great is it that we who are so small can refer to God, Who is so big, as our father, our daddy. He allows us such access to His throne, to His glory, love, and grace. Why fear embracing His name, His perfect love for us as our Heavenly Father? CS Lewis wrote: "He is not an ogre who terrifies us with hideous cruelty, nor the kind of father we sometimes read or hear about - autocrat, playboy, drunkard - but he himself fulfills the ideal of fatherhood in his loving care for his children."

Is God male? No. Does God call Himself Father? Yes. Is God like a mother? Yes, He speaks of longing to gather us a mother hen gathers her chicks. Does God call Himself Mother? No. Does this mean that men are superior to women or that God is sexist? No. It's just how God refers to Himself and we don't need to apologize for Him about it. We need to focus on introducing others to Him.

The Homeless

I met a homeless man this morning. His name is Rich. When he introduced himself, he said, "I'm rich in spirit, not in money." I am bad at guessing ages, but I would say Rich is 55 years old. We spoke for a few minutes, where I learned that Rich was once a postal worker in Omaha, Neb, until alcohol did him in. He lost his home and job due to his alcoholism, spiraling him downward to the bottom of life. A few years ago, he moved to San Antonio to begin again. Three years ago, Rich came to Travis Park UMC where he began to grow closer to God while attempting to recover his life. He's in the process. He sees his ministry as helping others who are homeless realize that God has a purpose for their lives as well. There's Rich, rich in spirit, not in money, who is attempting to recover his life while also helping others along the way. I am glad I met Rich today.

This morning during worship, I sat behind a homeless man. His name is John. John brings his own tambourine to worship, although he is not in the official praise band. He is however, the best tambourine player and most authentically enthusiastic worshipper I have ever met. He didn't miss a beat the entire worship service, and I should say, he added to my worship of God by being an example to follow of a worshipper on fire for Christ. John is homeless, but mentally he is brilliant. He has a photographic memory, he has drawn an entire map of Texas along with a detailed drawing of the human body including organs, muscles, etc., just from remembering pictures he saw in a book. John is bi-polar, which has led to his homelessness. But John lives with enthusiasm and hope because of Jesus Christ. I am glad I met John today.

We have a lot of stereotypes when we think of the homeless. But 22% of the homeless are employed at least 20 hours a week (not including day laborers or migrant workers, so this percentage is a bit higher), and 39% of homeless are children - hardly a picture of the dirty homeless man we picture in our minds when we think of homeless. Next time I pull through a drive-thru window, go to tip the waiter at the restaurant, or look at the kids coming out of the local high school, junior high, or elementary, it will cross my mind that this person just might be homeless.

Jesus calls us to reach out to the marginalized in our society. I am thankful for my encounters with John, Rich, and many others who have shown me that I have a long way to go to be the person that Christ has called me to be - a person on fire for Him.

Theology and a Three-Year-Old Part 2

We recently hung a hammock in our backyard. It is great - to relax, swing between the trees, enjoy the outdoors. A few days ago, Grant and I were lying down in the hammock, enjoying a nice father-son time. I told him that we should close our eyes and listen to all the sounds. I thought it would be great to relax and see what we could hear. I said, "Grant, I hear the wind in the trees and the wind-chimes." Grant replied, "I hear the air conditioner." Oh well, nothing theological from this encounter with nature, except that I enjoy spending time with Grant. And he is very perceptive. I love my family.

Jury Duty

Monday May 22nd - I went to downtown Fort Worth to report for jury duty. This was my first time to ever be called to go, so I had no idea what to expect. As I am going through the metal detectors, I realize I still have my nice pocket knife on my key chain. The cop looks at me and tells me to get it out of there. Not having time to go all the way back to my car, I stashed it under a trash can out front. (However, 2 hours later when I had a break, my pocket knife was already gone.)

Anyway, back to what happened next. I went into a room packed with people, every chair was full and people were standing in the aisles. After watching a cheesy inspirational video on jury duty, they started calling names for each jury panel. (We had to be there at 8am, they started calling names about 9am.) At 10am, my name was called. It is the closest thing I will ever get to a sports draft. (I was the 43rd selection out of 60 for the 371st District Court.) We each filled out a questionnaire, and then they told us to report to the 371st at 1:30pm. Since it was just slightly past 10:30, I decided to wander around downtown FW. (This is when I discovered my knife was gone.) I ventured to the Barnes and Noble, looked through an assortment of books, headed over to Billy Miners, ate lunch, back to BN, then finally back to the courthouse. From 1:30 to 2:30, all 60 of us were just standing in the hallway. Then finally they file us in.

Voir Dire begins. Prosecution asks questions to us as a group, questions looking for bias. This is where many people, in order to get out of jury duty, began saying "Yes, I think everybody is guilty... I cannot follow the law here... I am biased... The Mavs game is tonight and I want to be out of here..." This process was quite frightening. Not the questions asked, but the answers given. I don't ever plan on being on trial, but if I were, I worry about the number of complete and total, for lack of a better word, morons who are roaming our streets, waiting to be selected for jury duty. Anyway, at number 43, and with no questions asked directly to me, I thought there would be no way that I would be selected. Plus, I always heard they never pick ministers, so I was just listening, observing all the peculiar people filling this room. Then they send us back into the hallway again.

5:00pm - they call all 60 of us back in and make their selections. And for the final juror spot, spot number 12, they call my name. I was shocked and I think I said audibly, "Oh geez." 48 people relieved, 12 of us wondering what in the world happens next. The judge tells the 12 of us to be back at the court room by 9am the next morning.

Tuesday May 23 - 9am - the bailiffs lead us through a side entrance to the very cozy jury room. It barely fit the 12 of us - and this is where we spent most of our time. A very nice selection of people. My earlier fears were relieved when I got to know the 11 other people in the room with me. A wide variety of people - as young as 20 and as old as 65. 8 men, 4 women, 7 whites, 4 blacks, 1 Hispanic. Successful career people, waiters, blue collar, educators, etc. It truly was a good segment of the population. It was fun going to lunch with them, all wearing our juror badges, walking around FW.

The case - SP was charged with a felony for knowingly attacking his wife by hitting her and/or choking her. SP was a 35 year old Vietnamese male, who, according to the lawyers, spoke little english and was illiterate. He was married to RA., who had called 911 April 2005 to report the attack. However, now, a year later, she was saying how much she loved SP and that he didn't attack her, she attacked herself. So here was the prosecution's obstacle, convincing the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that SP had attacked his wife on April 7, even though now she was saying otherwise. 2 days of testimony - police officers, RA, social worker, RA's father, plus numerous pieces of evidence, the 911 recording, pictures of RA's neck after the attack, and a previous attack, letters SP wrote her from prison saying such things as "If you know what's good for you and your children, you will drop the charges." "I will never hit you again." Anyway, after two days of the hearing (most of which was spent in the jury room, while the lawyers argued over what evidence was allowed) we were handed the case to make a verdict at 5pm on Wednesday. It did not take us long. We asked to hear the 911 call again, we each examined the photos, and we read through the letters SP had written. 30 minutes later, we found SP guilty 12-0. The judge, Judge James R. Wilson, sets the punishment at a later date, but we were told he will probably get 10 years and then be held due to immigration issues after that.

After the trial was over, the Judge came back and spoke to us briefly, thanking us for our service. We each got a coffee mug with his name and court number on it. And, because he was defeated in the last primary, it is now a collector's item. He said one time a bailiff saw a mug at a garage sale for 20 cents. He was a very nice man and after the trial, I looked him up on google. (This was the judge of the infamous case of the homeless man stuck in a woman's windshield for days.)

Then the prosecution and defense team came into the jury room and spoke with us, asking us to evaluate their arguments for them. After two days of avoiding them in the hallway and elevators, it was nice to get to hear from both sides away from the courtroom. Anyway, it was a great experience and has strengthened my confidence in the legal system. As annoying as it was to spend three days on jury duty while work piled up at the office, I was still proud to have done my civic duty and helped justice be carried out.

Everyone always tries to get out of jury duty, and I understand why - it is inconvenient, but I think we all, especially Christians, should do our part to serve on a jury. So next time you are summoned, don't try to get out of it, but instead answer your questionnaires honestly and pray that God will allow you to serve. Besides, one day you might be on trial and I promise you, you will want the best jurors, not the 48 cast-offs in our jury pool. (Actually I am sure that many of them were very nice people, just the ones who spoke seemed to lack sense.)

By the way, for my jury duty time, I was paid $6 for Monday, $40 for Tuesday, and $40 for Wednesday for a whopping $86. Take away $15 for parking, $25 for lunches, another $5 for snacks, and some more for gas money. Cheap labor if you ask me... But worth it.

Reality TV and Why I Love It

OK, so I admit it - I love reality TV. Now I know this is nothing new anymore - reality TV is everywhere, but I still love it. Not all of it - just the really good stuff. I don't know why. But maybe it's because I can picture myself doing well in Reality TV shows. I can watch baseball and know I will never be a baseball player. I can watch Dirk do incredible things on the basketball court and know I will never be a good basketball player. I can watch rock stars and know I will never be one of those (which is why American Idol is not one of the reality shows I like - plus it's kind of boring.) But let me watch Aras walk off with the million dollars, or the hippies struggle to win the Amazing Race, and I think - maybe, just maybe I could do that. (I mean, if I got in shape a little.)

If only one reality show was allowed to be on the air, I would choose Survivor. It's the original and it's the best. Yes, I get "tired-head" listening to Jeff Probst explain how the challenges work - but to see people interact, to see people who are oblivious to their idiosyncrasies, captivates me. The classic illustration of this is from this past season when Courtney (the fire-dancer - what's that exactly?) was so upset because people voted her the most annoying. What me annoying?, she asks. Then, with Bruce writhing in constipation pain, feeling like he is going to die, Courtney starts singing to him. In pain he says, "Stop." She continues singing, Bruce in more pain now and obviously annoyed by Courtney once again asks her to stop. She doesn't even realize that she is annoying him. We all know people just like that - if you don't, then you are probably that person.

[On a side note, when I think about Survivor, I am always reminded of my preaching class in seminary. After one of my sermons for the class in which I used an illustration from Survivor (this was season 2 back in 2001), one of my classmates, during his critique said, "I think we as Christians should not watch such shows as Survivor. It's just un-Christian." Really? My text for that sermon was Deuteronomy 23:12-14 and was titled "Being a Responsible Camper." Of course, if you know that passage, you can probably guess that if someone was upset with Survivor, they would be upset with my choice of scripture as well. (And I admit one of the reasons I used the scripture was to rock the boat a little.) When someone in the class approached me after class and said "I think your text was inappropriate." I replied, "Well, God said it to Moses, and Moses shared it with the people, are you saying that God is inappropriate?" He nervously laughed.]

So Survivor shares a special memory in my life. But it is also a fascinating look at people. As hard as one may try to put up a front, ultimately, Survivor reveals them for who they really are. I think we as Christians could use a little more "Survivor" in our lives. To be forced to interact with others that we normally wouldn't. To learn how they tick, to see how they view us. We as Christians should be open to sharing our strengths and our weaknesses. To take off our masks and admit that we don't have all the answers and that we are not perfect. (This is especially true when we are around other Christians - we so often put up a spiritual front to look good.) To admit that, yes, we are hypocrites and we do wrong people at times. To take risks, build relationships with strangers, and stretch ourselves physically and mentally. And to remember that when all seems hopeless and when we have been bruised by life, we know that our hope is not found in what we can or can't do, but our hope is found in Christ. He is the one who gives meaning to life, who accepts us whether we are annoying, hypocritical, etc.

Reality TV - we do star in it, I guess. People do watch us, we do vote people in and out of our circles, we do compete for prizes in life. I guess that's why I like Survivor so much. Ah, now if only I could just throw a baseball 95 mph...

Culture War and the Love of Christ

Last week I read an intriguing article from "Christianity Today," entitled "Furrowed Brows Inc." (You can access the article at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/004/25.100.html )

The author of the article discusses the consequences of our "Culture War in America." The battle over morality and the defense of traditional moral values, according to the author, is so often fought without the love of Christ shining through. He writes, "It is hard to believe someone who speaks of love through clenched teeth." This is the difficulty of engaging in such a culture war - how does one reach out to a lost world and at the same time "wage war" against them?

Those engaged in culture war are often surprised when lost people act lost. I don't get it. Why do we spend our time protesting television shows, boycotting certain entertainment indistries (but not all of them), and demanding that a school allow a Christian group to meet on its campus? We expend a great deal of energy, time, and resources fighting our culture to "win." And at what cost? How many people came to Christ after boycotting Disney or Will and Grace? How many more turn a deaf ear to the message of Christ because of such war-like tones coming from the mouths of "Christians"? Isn't there a better way?

Back to the article. The author writes that Jesus also confronted sin: "Jesus was hardly shy about confronting the patterns of sin in his culture - though he was consistently harder on the pious than he was on the pagans... But everywhere Jesus went, life blossomed." So how do we impact the world for Christ and allow life - abundant, resurrection type life - to abound?

Christians must engage their culture, but not in a way that brings clinched teeth and seething disdain for others. I heard this morning a radio talk show host asking pastors how they could support immigrants who have contributed to immorality by coming to the US illegally. My answer? The same way pastors support, or should support, to all of us - and the same way Jesus accepts all of us. "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was in prison and you came to visit me... whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." (Matthew 25:35ff)

Our culture is in need of correction. But the correction it is in need of will not come in the form of a war against culture, pitting "conservative values" against "Hollywood." It will come in the form of a servant, reaching out in love to those around us, examining our own lives for areas we need to get right, and confronting sin in such a way that offers a blossoming life. We have this ability as Christians, through the love, grace, and mercy of God, to truly impact our culture. Maybe it won't win votes, but it will win hearts - and create a climate where life can bloom.

Theology and a Three-Year-Old

So how do I explain God to my 3 year old son? A couple of nights ago, we were sitting on the couch for a final few minutes before "bedtime." (We were watching a little American Idol.) I cannot remember exactly what we were talking about, but Grant asked me "Where's God?" I began to explain to him that God is everywhere. He didn't quite grasp that concept. I explained how God is everywhere; He's even in our house. Grant, as if trying to call for God to come out of hiding said loudly, "God is in our house?" I explained more and told him that God is in our hearts, too. Grant asks, "God is in your heart?," and, "God come out of your heart?" Now I'm thinking I have him confused, causing him to think that God is ready to pop out of his body at anytime, but I think he is understanding what I mean. He then asks, "Where's Jesus?" So now, I am trying to figure out how to explain the Trinity to my 3-year-old?!? This whole adventure was one of my favorite conversations I have had with Grant. Jessica and I have been praying that one day, when he gets older and is able to understand, he will put his faith in Christ. Here, at 3 years old, are the beginnings of his upbringing in faith. That night, as I tucked him into bed, he prayed to God, repeating my words, thanking God for his family and telling God that he loved Him. I love my son, and I love God. How amazing and frightening it is as a parent to feel the responsibility for "training up your child in the way he should go." It is neat to see him start to think about God and Jesus, and begin to understand what exactly it means when we sing "Jesus loves me." But I guess we are all still figuring out what "Jesus Loves Me" means. Simple statement, but a profound truth to grasp. "Faith like a child." I am looking forward to seeing how Grant's faith will impact my own.

Last night we had a huge rain storm. Claire slept through it, but Grant woke up about 1am. He said this morning that he covered his ears while God made it rain and thunder. "Why does God make it rain?," he asked. I guess he wanted to water the plants, I tell him. Grant replied, "God make it rain in your heart, too?" Oh man, I can only imagine what is running through his head thinking about that. Does he even know where his heart is? However, Jessica and I thought about how we need the reminder to allow God to "reign" in our hearts. As we live out our faith and show God's love to our children and to others, hopefully one day Grant and Claire will come to accept God's grace as well, allowing God to truly reign in their hearts.

Perhaps tonight Grant will want to discuss predestination...

Why is Church Often Boring?

Is church boring? (When I speak of church, I don't mean any particular church, but the "church" as a whole.) As America slides toward increased secularization and less church attendance, this is defintely an issue that must be addressed. Why do so many children raised in the church end up leaving the church, or attending once or twice a year, once they are adults? Has church become boring?
This week, many people will make their bi-yearly visit to church. Easter - a good occasion for one to go to church. And what do churches do? They try to figure out how to attract these people to come back the following week. Year after year churches try to offer engaging incentives for these Easter attenders to come back more often. But to what success?
Perhaps we should be doing more each and every week to attract and keep attenders coming, making each week Easter - from the time our kids are in the nursery to the time we bury our grandparents. Which gets us back to the title of this entry - why is church boring? For many, it has become too routine. We have habits in churches of keeping everyone comfortable. We don't like to rock the boat too much or too often. But perhaps we should. Maybe our young people leave the church because they haven't been challenged in their faith - they haven't been given opportunities to stretch and engage their faith with their world. Their faith has not been applied to their daily lives, but rather compartmentalized into an hour or so a week worth of "spirituality." We are often teaching our children to do the right thing, which often leads to a list of "don'ts", "be safe"s or "be good"s. Maybe our theology has been watered down, presenting a "church-lite" to people thirsty for something a little stronger. Or maybe we have allowed tradition to trump authenticity. Or maybe a combination of many factors.
I believe we can handle a God of love and wrath. We can handle a God of the Old Testament and New Testament. We can handle a God who may not be like the Civil Religion God of America - but we can only handle it if we are taught and believed in. If we aren't challenged to grow in our faith, to question what we believe, to step out in faith and take a risk, to explore the magnitude and glory of God, which includes both His love and wrath, His grace and judgment, then why keep going to church? After all, we can get the social life in other places.
Yes, church is often too boring. But God is far from boring. As Rich Mullins wrote "the reckless raging fury that they call the love of God" needs to be experienced more than the moral do good lessons(however those are important as well). Rather than telling our kids to "Be good," we need to tell them to "Be God's." (also a Mullins' quote) When we are His, wow - what a ride - far from boring. But it takes commitment, risk, encouragement, love, and accountability to make it happen. I hope to raise my children to take risks in their faith - to allow God to call them out and allow Him to work through them. And I hope to model that in my own life - listening to the movement of the Holy Spirit, delving into His Word, stripping myself of my American concept of God and clothing myself with the biblical description of Him - allowing my faith to permeate all areas and relationships in my life. Maybe this can be my goal this Holy Week, this Easter - to live with an urgency for God, a thirst for a hearty gulp of His spirit, not settling for the "church-lite" that we so often offer instead.

City of God

My wife and I finished watching perhaps the most gut-wrenching movie I have ever seen, City of God. My heart breaks for the lives depicted in the movie. How someone like Lil'Ze becomes so evil is beyond my understanding. And yet, my heart breaks for Lil'Ze and others like him. As evil as he is, he is still human. The scene that brought out Lil'Ze's humanity also brought out his inhumanity as well. I could feel his awkwardness in figuring out how to ask a girl to dance. What guy hasn't had butterflies and insecurities when communicating with a girl? But then he's rejected - she's there with another guy. Now, any rational human being feels hurt by this rejection and moves on, but the hatred in Lil'Ze's heart spills out into irrational, inhumane, evil, detestable actions. Like I said, in one scene, Lil'Ze shows his humanity and inhumanity.
Benny on the otherhand, after living a life of crime, attempts to free himself from the grasp of evil. As he finds value in his relationship and love for Angelica, he begins to value all of human life more. Perhaps this is what he means when he tells Lil'Ze to get a girlfriend. He has grown tired of a life that devalues life. Through love, he has found joy. If you haven't seen the movie, I won't tell you how this ends up for Benny.
Love is absent in this city. It seems that in the City of God, faith, hope, and love have not remained. And yet, each character is in desperate need of all three. Benny's love for his girlfriend seems to be his chance for salvation from his society. But so much to overcome. I cannot imagine living in a society even close to that of City of God, and yet, millions of people live like this everyday simply based on their place of birth. How can God's love penatrate these places? How can we as the church make a difference in the lives of Rocket, Benny, and even Lil'Ze? How do we effectively spread the gospel in places like this? It seems completely insurmountable, and yet, we worship a God who does the impossible. And more than that, we have His spirit in us. That sounds much like a cliche, but it is true. For me, I need to allow God to break my heart for places like the City of God. I need to be more open to allowing God to use me to make a difference in my society as well. There are people here in Arlington trapped without hope, faith, and love. Perhaps prayer is the best place to start. But this simply can't be a thing to pray about, unless I pray for God to provide opportunity for me to act as well.
Am I glad I saw the movie - yes and no. The scenes are haunting, especially violence to children. But the movie is powerful. It is an eye-opener as to how some in our world live. The acting is superb, the way the story is told is brilliant.
(If you haven't seen the City of God, I only recommend it with the disclaimer that it is rated a very strong R for graphic violence, sexuality, and pervasive language. So if you see it, please know that it is one of the fiercest R-rated movies I have seen, but it is extremely powerful.)

What to Do About All These Immigrants?

So we seem to be for the moment embroiled in a debate over what our immigration laws should look like and what we should do about 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. First of all, I would like to address some poor arguments I see being discussed currently.

Poor Argument #1: "It's a national security issue." I hear this one a lot, but I do not believe this is the reason for immigration reform. Politicians use this as a fear tactic to rally support. But, I remember that the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were here legally. They had proper identification to get into the country, so securing our borders would not have stopped 9/11.

Poor Argument #2: "Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes." In fact, many of them do. And if they are like me, they over pay their taxes (that's why I usually get a refund in April.) The immigrants working in the country do have social security, medicare, and other taxes withheld. Additionally, they pay sales taxes and gas taxes when shopping or refueling their vehicles. So enough of this "they don't pay taxes" argument. They do.

Poor Argument #3: "If all illegal immigrants left tomorrow, our economy would shut down." While this may not be a myth, I do think it is a poor argument in the debate. What is this argument implying? That employers are underpaying illegal immigrants for the jobs they do? Is that just? Shouldn't we be demanding a fair wage for all people, whether illegal or not? By using this argument, we are basically supporting the exploitation of illegal immigrants, saying it is ok for employers to under pay. That is not a good argument or moral stand to take.

Poor Argument #4: "We should not reward people who cut in front of the line." We created this problem, not the person who came here because we made it so easy for them to. Are we going to tear apart families and send them to the back of the line? Is this compassionate? Is it right to deny the rights of children born in this country by sending their parents back?

So what should we do? Let's be realistic, there is no way that our country is going to be able to round up 12 million people and throw them out of the country. Could you even imagine this happening? But there is this loud contingency that is totally opposed to any kind of amnesty - I think they are living in a fairyland, or they are only seeking political opportunity and not real answers. We need to secure our borders. We need to make sure that people come here legally yes, but we have allowed 12 million people to come here, establish homes, jobs, relationships. Our lack of enforcing the border should not be now improperly corrected by blaming our mistake on people who came here for a better life. We need to help the 12 million illegal immigrants become legal. Let's help them get on the right side of the law. Allow them, those who have been law abiding and working, to become citizens, to not be exploited by their employers anymore, to not have to live in the shadows of American life, but to come to embrace publically the country they have already embraced privately. To maintain America's acceptance of those who are seeking a better life, healthier families, and stronger educations. And then we can address our current laws, which make illegal immigration easy and legal immigration so hard. We, Americans, must correct the problem we created by being compassionate and taking responsibility for our neglect. Sending illegals back to their countries is not the answer. Embracing them as our fellow Americans is.

Opryland meets Dickerson

I was in Nashville yesterday for a pre-trip visit leading up to a mission trip I am taking a group on this summer to the Music City. What a fascinating city! For one, Tennessee is very beautiful - with the hills and thick trees - very different from Arlington, TX (although I happen to believe Arlington is a beautiful place as well - maybe because I have lived here for 28 of my 30 years of life.)
As we were driving around downtown, I saw an enormous bulding for LifeWay, with a pronounced cross decorating the entire height of the building, majestically overlooking the city. Down the street, I saw the headquarters for the United Methodists as well as for the Lutherans. Add skyscrapers to these well built buildings, and Nashville has an attractive skyline. However, as we drove past these buildings, our guide turned down an alley way, where homeless men and women were sitting, waiting to receive service from a local charity. Later, we drove through a housing project and other poverty striken neighborhoods. A few minutes later, we were driving by a beautiful park and the Opryland Hotel - quite a difference in atmosphere just a few minutes apart. Finally, we drove down what our guide called "the forgotten street" - Dickerson. Apparently crime is so bad along this street that not only do no businesses invest in the area, but there are no ministries along this street either. It is the infamous forgotten street - the area that everyone knows about but nobody talks about. What are lives like on this street? Do the people realize that they have been forgotten? Do people who live on Dickerson on a daily basis wish to be somewhere else? Our guide said that some think the name of the street should be changed to encourage new business, as if changing Dickerson to Happy Street or something is going to magically erase the problems.
How is it that Nashville - the country and Christian music capital of the world, where famous, wealthy people live- where multi-millions dollar records are cut, where three large denominations have headquarters - how is it that this city has so much poverty? I guess this is the question that many are asking. How is it that America, the richest, most powerful country in the world, has so much poverty and economic inequality? Why do 1 in 5 chuldren go to bed hungry in the land of the free and home of the brave? Why are conservative Christians (which is how I would label myself if it didn't seem like such a bad word and hadn't been so twisted by the Religious Right) so blind to the issue of poverty as a moral delimma facing our nation and world? Christians, both conservative and liberal, must find common ground to live out a full theology in order for us to remain relevant in the world and a body to influence our society and culture, bringing all people dignity, love, and grace and most importantly, the hope of Jesus Christ. This is my prayer.

My Worldview Unveiled

I hope to use this blog as a way to discuss the current issues of our time - from an evangelical perspective. I find that when I discuss my views with conservatives, they think I'm liberal, and when I discuss my views with liberals, they think I'm conservative. Why? Perhaps because I am conservative on family issues - abortion, marriage, responsibility - but progressive when it comes to education, health care, and poverty. But I'll have plenty of time to discuss my positions on this blog. So may my blogging begin.