AllTheseThings

The Bigger Threat

Recently, I attended a speech given by Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College.  It is a remarkable school in a number of ways.  One of which is its refusal to accept federal dollars.  This is so because with that money comes hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of regulations as to how Hillsdale must operate.  It prides itself as an independent institution and will not accept such direction.

In discussing the history of federal dollars and colleges (research grants were the start, now they also include student aid), Dr. Arnn noted current federal spending trends.  He pointed out that since 9/11, the Department of Education's budget has grown more than the Department of Defense's!  Dollars tend to reveal the government's--and hence the nation's--priorities.  I found it shocking that in the midst of a war, spending for defense grew slower than education.  What is the bigger threat we as a people are facing?  Terrorism or national education standards?

Keep in mind I am speaking about federal dollars.  Most education dollars are spent by the states--as education is not in the Constitution as a federal topic.  Defense, however, is not provided for by the states, and is one of--if not THE--federal government's primary responsibilities.  Thus, when we are talking about federal spending on education, we can't think of is at total national spending on education.  The lion's shares is supposed to come from the states--by constitutional design.  The opposite is true for defense.

Is our children learning?  Are the terrorists?  Are we?

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Waiting

I have a friend who's waiting for her boyfriend to call.  I have a friend who's waiting to adopt a baby.  I have a friend who's waiting for biopsy results.  I have friends who are waiting to see if their offer on a house was accepted.  I have a friend who is waiting to find a soulmate... before she turns 40. 

Have you ever noticed how much waiting is a part of our existence as believers?  It was certainly a theme in the Bible.  Noah had to build his boat and then wait (while his friends jeered) until the rains came. Abraham waited till he was 100 to hold Isaac in his arms.  God's people had to wait centuries for their Messiah (who paid the price for their sins on Good Friday).  And we now await His second coming.

Hebrews reminds us of a whole host of heroes who waited and waited and waited, and never got what they were waiting for... until they died.  It sounds depressing until you realize THEY weren't depressed.  "All these people were still living by faith when they died.  They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance." (Heb. 11:13)  Amazing.  They welcomed them from afar; they didn't curse the fact that they didn't get them yet.

I'm not really good at waiting.  I'm not good at welcoming from a distance the blessings I will inherit in Heaven.  How funny that I'd almost prefer the pathetic imitations here on Earth for the real thing. 

As C.S. Lewis says in the oft-quoted Weight of Glory, "We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."

When the waiting gets long and we are tempted to settle for less than God's plan for our lives, let us be like those heroes and heroines who were "longing for a better country -- a heavenly one.  Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them."  (Heb. 11:16) Then and there, the waiting will be over.

In Him,

Lucy Pevensie

Political Musings

Presidential politics have already begun for 2008.  California has moved its primary up to February and Florida is poised to move its up to January.  Maybe next cycle we can just drop the act and synch up the 2008 general election with the 2012 primary.  Too much, too soon, I say.

In any event, they are off.  On the GOP side, the Big Three are:

• Sen. John McCain (author of such hits as "McCain-Feingold" and "McCain-Kennedy"--in case you are not a Republican, those other names aren't exactly names you want to be associated with in a GOP primary, and those bills are terrible, too.)
• Gov. Mitt Romney (Mormon, past Governor of Massachusetts, and head of the 2002 Winter Olympics.)
• Mayor Rudy Giuliani (led NYC during 9/11.)

I won't do a major analysis of each here.  But, in general, each has their strengths and drawbacks in a GOP primary.  While their policies and history are important, at this point, you can look at their fund raising and staff to figure who has a good shot.  Don't worry about primary polling, as the general public is not paying attention yet, and doesn't know everyone.  Staff wise, I'd say it is about a push.  Fund raising wise, Giuliani and Romney are fine.  McCain is in trouble.  Early fund raising brings in the 'smart money'--donors who follow, evaluate, and are passionate about politics.  Later fund raising is from average citizens voting with their wallets.  Viability is critical early on, or there is not a 'later on.'

As for Romney and Giuliani, they each face their own hurdles.  I'd say Romney is less well known than his competitors.  Also, his being Mormon may negatively influence GOP primary voters, who often come from an Evangelical background.  The jury is still out on whether Evangelical Republicans will green light a Mormon to carry the party's banner.    Giuliani, on the other hand, does not have social views that dovetail with Evangelicals either.  Examples--on a personal front--are circulating on YouTube amongst political insiders.  On a policy level, he is pro-abortion, anti-gun, and pro-gay marriage.  Not the stuff of the Christian Coalition.

In short, there is not a clear-cut conservative, but Romney fits the bill closest on policy and personal issues.  It raises the interesting question:  will Christians vote for a non-Christian who would govern to their interests, or would they vote for a nominal (or non?) Christian that will govern against their interests?  For me, I'm sticking with Martin Luther on this one.  It is reported that he said, essentially, that he would rather be governed by a wise heathen than a stupid Christian.  In short, in the politics of this world, someone of another religion might be best at governing us.  In the 'politics' of the church, however, it ought to be a Christian.

Newt Gingrich and former Sen. Fred Thompson might yet jump into the race, which would change everything.  But, as of now, the three above are the front runners.

On the Democratic side, the Big Two are Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton.  This article and polling is consistent with the conversations I've been having with folks.  There is a huge segment of society that really dislikes (hates?) Sen. Clinton.  They simply won't vote for her, no matter what.  In politics, this is called having "high negatives."  When your negatives are high (using polling questions showing what percentage of people dislike you) AND when your name ID is high (polling showing how many people know you) you are in trouble.  If your name ID is low, you run ads, campaign and people respond to your "introduction."  If you control the introduction--instead of your opponent defining you--your negatives don't go up, your "positives" do.  But, if you are universally known and simultaneously disliked, you are in trouble.  That's what makes this article so important: 

Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday...More than one in five Democrats that participated in the survey said they would not vote for Clinton.

So to win, she would have to run the table on the remaining half!  That's not possible.  And, as noted above, it is very difficult to drive your negatives down when everyone already knows you--first impressions count.  Now, these generic questions are not 100% accurate, as people aren't given a choice--"would you vote for Clinton or Romney..."  Basically, they are answering in a vacuum.  But, given a choice, the numbers sometimes change.  If you put Clinton up against Attila the Hun, Clinton's 50% number drops into the high 30's, I think.  But, against the non-Attila's of Romney (very likable), Giuliani (universally known and well liked), and McCain (not likable, but well known and respected), Clinton faces a much tougher challenge. 

This analysis is certainly being done by Democratic operatives and engaged primary voters.  As a result, Obama is rising, quickly.  Usually candidates want to increase their name ID, as Obama does.  But for Clinton, it'd be better if it was lower, and she could then have a chance to "introduce" herself as she wants.  But that ship has sailed.

In the meantime, the country is just meeting Sen. Obama.  He seems photogenic, friendly, and smart.  He is inexperienced--this is his first term as Senator--but that, many say, is better than Clinton's experience!  Basically, they will be willing to take a shot on a seemingly likable unknown, as opposed to an unlikeable known.  As for staff and money:  I'm not as sure about the Democratic operations, but from what I've read, I'd guess it is in Clinton's favor--she can tap into her husband's machinery and donor base.

So, people worrying about a Clinton presidency, should note:  it is highly unlikely that a candidate with at least 50% against them from the start will win.  That's not to say she won't get nominated, but it'll be tough to win the general election.  On the GOP side, if Evangelicals decide a Mormon is acceptable, I'd give Romney the advantage at this stage, with Giuliani a close second.

History might should play an important role too.  Only 2 sitting Senators have been elected President in the last 100+ years.  Senators just don't get elected President.  They've got too many legislative votes to defend and they haven't been executives for a while, if ever.  This always hurts them.  Senators McCain, Obama, and Clinton will each have to defy history to win.  Historically, executives (governors or mayors) are better positioned to become President.

Man, by nature, is a political animal,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Sunday Singin'

Here's a song for your Sunday.

"All Creatures of Our God and King"

All creatures of our God and King
Lift up your voice and with us sing,
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Thou burning sun with golden beam,
Thou silver moon with softer gleam!

O praise Him! O praise Him!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

Thou rushing wind that art so strong
Ye clouds that sail in Heaven along,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Thou rising moon, in praise rejoice,
Ye lights of evening, find a voice!

Thou flowing water, pure and clear,
Make music for thy Lord to hear,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Thou fire so masterful and bright,
That givest man both warmth and light.

Dear mother earth, who day by day
Unfoldest blessings on our way,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
The flowers and fruits that in thee grow,
Let them His glory also show.

And all ye men of tender heart,
Forgiving others, take your part,
O sing ye! Alleluia!
Ye who long pain and sorrow bear,
Praise God and on Him cast your care!

And thou most kind and gentle Death,
Waiting to hush our latest breath,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Thou leadest home the child of God,
And Christ our Lord the way hath trod.

Let all things their Creator bless,
And worship Him in humbleness,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Praise, praise the Father, praise the Son,
And praise the Spirit, Three in One!

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Deadly

As I was driving home from work last night I listened to an ad on the local radio station advertising some upcoming events: a series of parties to “celebrate the seven deadly sins”. First up is “envy”. The party theme will be jealously in all its forms and will be “sinfully fun”. Oh goodie. Just what we all need. I rolled my eyes and wished there was a Christian radio station worth re-tuning to.

I didn’t think anything more about it, until I read a great article this morning by one of my favorite British journalists and Members of Parliament, Boris Johnson. Boris was complaining about a particular UK tabloid that likes to peddle salacious material on one page and then harp on about declining family values on the very next page. He’s right, total hypocrisy. But the truth is that both depravity and sermons sell newspapers. In fact, as Boris points out, you need both to get the full effect. Forbidden fruit is attractive and entertaining because it is forbidden.

What an odd state of affairs. On the face of it, what society wants is freedom, freedom, freedom to do anything we want, anytime anywhere, anything goes. But, if that was the case, there would be no scandal to be scandalised (and secretly excited) by. So actually it’s the presence of some kind of moral boundaries (Christian morality?) that keeps sin sinful.   

Too philosophical for a Friday morning?

Probably.

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Mortis Momentum Est Ultimum Vitae Momentum

My high school offered Latin and I did not take it.  Regarding my education, that decision is one of my biggest regrets.  One of the arguments against taking the class my dad made was "Latin is a dead language, what would you use it for?"

Latin is dead.  Or is it?  As Justin Bailey points out in this very interesting post, Latin is more "alive" now than it has ever been.  Bailey is a Latin teacher at Pacifica Christian High School.  He offers some compelling statistics with a dose of humor, in explaining the liveliness of Latin:

the population of Latin speakers today is larger than that of the entire ancient Roman Empire.  This alone should settle the matter of whether Latin is dead according to the popular, non-linguistic definition, but there is more.  The number of people today who speak a language directly descended from or extensively influenced by Latin is well over ten times the number of people in the entire world in the first century.  That’s right: if every such speaker had to travel back in time and find a prom date from among all the people on the face of the first-century earth, nine tenths would end up going solo.  We won’t get into the fact that much of the triumphant tenth would be dancing with infants or seniors, nor will we treat the dynamics of cross-temporal dating, which I imagine to be quite delicate.  Suffice it to say that Latin is alive and well both in its progeny and as itself.

He also makes the good point that studying something is not simply merited by its current use.  If it was, history would not exist as subject.  Abraham Lincoln, Caesar, Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King are all dead.  Despite their 'deadness,' we still want to have our children know about them.  In fact, the more they know about these dead folks, the better equipped they will be to understand their modern lives.  In that way, studying that which is 'dead' is still 'useful.'

Bailey notes numerous dead people we still, rightly, study.  He concludes:  "Brief reflection will show that the study of Latin has value—and delights—for our present beyond its use by clergy, scientists, and esoteric unions.  Future articles will attempt to characterize more vividly the nature and means of these delights.  For now, I would argue that the effect of Latin on our world, especially its western part, has been more pervasive than that of anyone on the above list except Eve."

"Value and delights" is one of my favorite combinations.  I'm looking forward to the rest of Bailey's series on this topic.  You should read the opening post here.

Res Ipsa Loquitur,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

40

One of my favorite U2 songs is "40":  "I waited patiently for the Lord, He inclined and heard my cry..."  It is from Psalm 40, and its numbering relative to this post is entirely coincidental.  But the song, especially the live versions end with the refrain "how long to sing this song? ... How long, how long, how long...?"  There is a questioning when in the miry clay as to how long are we going to have to wait.

That we often fail in our waiting is demonstrated in some Biblical "40's".  Think about the children of Israel waiting for Moses on the mountain.  In chapter 25 of Exodus, the repeated refrain was:  "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!", verses 3 and 7.  Some of those spoken words had been:  "You shall have no other gods before Me" (20:3) and "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth" (20:4).  So Israel's response to Moses leaving for 40 days?  "Come, make us a god who will go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." (32:1) That resulted in: "He took [the gold] from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, 'This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.'" (32:4)  From doing everything God says to idolatry, in 40 days (or less).

How about the 40 years in the wilderness?  Towards the end of the time, Moses strikes the rock twice, rather than one time, as God had instructed.  The result was God denied Moses entry into the promised land.  He had gone so far with his grumbling, complaining congregation.  Almost to the end, he departs from God's command.  He fails in his '40' trial.

Jesus has his own 40 trial.  Immediately after His baptism, He was lead by the Spirit to the wilderness.  There, the devil tempted Him.  He is given three tests that we know of.  Food, throwing himself from the temple, and receiving "all these things" (yikes!) to worship Satan.  Jesus' response to each is instructive.  Specifically, He counters the devil's "schemes" with the Word of God.  The devil makes an offer with a promise--sometimes even using a twist on Scripture to do so--and Jesus fires back with the Word.

Israel said they would obey all the words of God--until they had to wait too long.  Moses got frustrated with his situation and disobeyed God's word.  Jesus, however, prevailed by using God's Word to counter attack temptation.  A lie was met with the truth.  And it won.

In our lives, we will either feel we are waiting too long and try a new god, will get frustrated with our circumstances and lash out on our own power, or "stand firm" and use the Word of God as a weapon against lies.  You'll notice that the Word is the "sword"--the only armor piece that is used on offense in a battle.  All the others are defensive, designed to protect us from the blows of the enemy.  Maybe that's why Didymus felt playing good defense was so biblical.

As for me, I am going to try be more offensive.

Attack,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Finally some Defense

Finally!  At last - some defense is being played in Westwood!  I can recall a time, not long ago - the 90s to be exact - when UCLA was loaded with talent and couldn't hold the Venice High School Gondoliers under 75 points.  As a transplanted midwesterner (read Big Ten fan) living in L.A. at the time I tried to convince Mr. More and our mutual friend "The Rabbit" that under Jim Harrick/Steven Lavin the Bruins had ZERO heart (translation, no emphasis on defense).  And that this "no touchy", foo-foo, pretty boy brand basketball was the reason we constantly underachieved (the '91 first round loss to 13th seed Penn St., the '94 first round loss to 12th seed Tulsa, the '96 opening round loss to 13th seed Princeton, and the '99 first round loss to 12th seeded Detroit) relative to the amount of talent we had (as evidenced by the number of Pros coming out of UCLA - see Mr. More or The Rabbit for the complete list).

Now that under new coach Ben Howland UCLA is playing defense - and I mean DEFENSE (what an absolute JOY to watch this team dig down and stop teams - WOW!) I trust that Mr. More and The Rabbit see "what could have been" for all of those years we were mired in mediocrity under Harrick/Lavin. To quote Howland, "Winning championships is all about defense.  If you look at the Final Four teams every year, the best teams in the country always play the best defense."  Actually I think Howland is quoting Jesus here. AMEN!

Off shooting nights are going to happen - see Arron Afflalo vs. Indiana.  But a team can still win big games if they play defense.  There is NO way a Harrick/Lavin team advances past Indiana to the Sweet 16 after that kind of offensive performance.  That game was won in the first half on the defensive end.

And finally, IF there is a team that can beat the best team in the land, Kansas, it is only UCLA.  Why?  Defense.

Stay in your stance,
Didymus

H---sdale Moment #3

Our car was ready to be picked up at the repair shop, but my children were all fast asleep.  What to do?  I asked the men at 'Glory to God' if they might drive my car home and then pick up the rental and return it for me as well.  "Yes," was their answer.  So I sent Ed home with a jar of homemade peach jam. 

And then I received a hand-written thank you letter from the men at Glory to God.  "The guys loved the jam.  They went out and bought bread and peanut butter and made sandwiches. The flower your daughter gave me is on the boss's desk.  Another day in the life of a small Midwest town. H---sdale, it's the people.

Beth

allthesebeth@yahoo.com

Sick and Tired

My church pushes the James 5:14 exhortation:  "Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord..."  As an elder, I'm often in the prayer room after the service.  People come in if they feel they have a need.  In reality, if more people took James's direction seriously, we'd probably be in their all day.  As it is, we sometimes have our hands full with the need.

The amount of sickness, pain, suffering, and weariness in our congregation is what strikes me most about being an elder.  (Another elder once told me "85% of the job is simply praying".)  You learn just how much is going on that is tough in life.  We think our personal struggles are immense, but really there's a lot more--and collectively it is enormous.  I did not appreciate the amount mankind's brokenness seeps into our physical and emotional lives until I started hearing an entire congregation's prayer requests on a regular basis.  It is sad, humbling, and sometimes overwhelming; yet it is also filled with hope.  They do, after all, keep coming--hope is alive.  This fallen world is not the end of the story.

Last week made me glad that the story does not end here.  To give you a sense the last week,  I was, of course, wrestling--at a distance--with Didymus's child's condition and the burden of his and Mrs. Didymus's time in the hospital.  Then Lucy shared about the loss of her 'miracle baby.'  And I've long felt for Beth with her child's condition--which she reminded us of yesterday.  In addition to those stories, I also was in the prayer room at church.  The stories of sickness were rampant.  They affected the young and the old.  There were not only physical health problems, but also family-health issues.  I knew each person coming in had it rougher than I did.  Hearing it all in one sitting, however, was tough.  And we are in a relatively young, healthy, and well-off church.  I saw a friend with an essay he was reading titled "Why Does God Allow Dying?" and thought "Why Doesn't God Allow Us To Come Home Sooner?" might be a more interesting topic.  The lyrics "no more dyin' there, we are going to see the King..." kept going through my head.  Wanting to avoid this pain and suffering is normal, I think.  The beauty of heaven, part of its attractiveness at least, is that the pain is gone.  No more sick children, no more heart problems, no more cancer.  So what about this early-exit desire, is it right?

I doubt it.  To live is Christ.  He came down into this.  He says follow me.  I was struck reading about some of his time 'in the prayer room,' from Luke 4:

In the synagogue there was a man possessed by the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, "Let us alone! What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are--the Holy One of God!" But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be quiet and come out of him!" And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst of the people, he came out of him without doing him any harm.

And amazement came upon them all, and they began talking with one another saying, "What is this message? For with authority and power He commands the unclean spirits and they come out."  And the report about Him was spreading into every locality in the surrounding district.

Then He got up and left the synagogue, and entered Simon's home Now Simon's mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Him to help her. And standing over her, He rebuked the fever, and it left her; and she immediately got up and waited on them.

While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He was healing them.  Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.

When day came, Jesus left and went to a secluded place...

His encounter with the sick was far longer than mine.  It looks like it lasted all night.  Yet he kept at it.  I gather He was tired, as he moved to a secluded place the next morning.  It's too easy to say "well He was God" and therefore it was easier for Him than me to deal with sickness.  He was human too, this was not an easy night.  This is man dealing with sick people; facing illness and dealing with it.  It takes its toll.  It wears you down.  A time of seclusion is a good counter balance to prolonged exposure to it.  Because, while we must heal the sick--as He did--healing the sick is not forever, and thus is not 'natural' to our design as humans.  Being in communion with Him, however, is forever.  So, we must not allow the day's work to overwhelm the purpose of the day's work.  If we are tired--even of sickness, I guess--we must take the time to be in seclusion.  Jesus did the same thing.  We must stare at Him to remind ourselves why we must keep at it.

Keep staring,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com