Two (?) Wrongs Don't Make a Right

Okay, I have about three different topics which I would like to blog about but before I can begin to go down the list, I feel I must make some comments on a discussion which took place at a badchristian blog which kind of came to a head in Brandon's entry under the title of in pursuit of righteousness. I gave Brandon kudos for writing this entry and I approve and applaud it, as I always do honesty, however, it brings up some troubling issues for me and I did not want to bring them up in the comment section of Brandon's blog, primarily because I was interested in seeing the reactions of others who frequent there, without further interference, before I made further comment. Here are the quotes which I would like to address:

"Buried in our little tiff the other day, Jacke and I had what I found to be a revealing and profitable–I think for both of us–exchange. This was the question Jacke asked that got me to thinking:

Are “Progressive” Christians trying to redefine the historic and traditional meaning of “Reformed” Christianity to suit their progressive agenda?

My answer is an unequivocal “yes”. And, I think it sucks. Of course, this is less often the problem with “progressive” Christians in reformed Christianity as it is with “conservative” Christians. Regardless, though, of who’s doing the redefinition of Christianity to suit their agenda it ain’t cool.This was my response to Jacke’s question:

Some probably are.

Others, like me, pursue orthodoxy radically (or at least we try to) and we find that that radical orthodoxy expresses itself as an adherence to a progressive politic.

In fact, Jacke, it’s probably a whole hell of a lot like “Conservative” Christians who try to redefine the historic and traditional meaning of Christianity to suit their conservative agenda.

Some do that.

Others are in pursuit of radical orthodoxy."

and

"If we’re going to believe in the God that allows different people as they grow nearer and nearer to her diverge in their political opinions, perhaps it’s time that we all learn a lesson. I doubt that the lesson is that politics are unimportant. Rather, if one of the main vehicles for the Church is community, and Christ followers (who are called to fellowship and commune) are turning out to be both liberal and conservative, perhaps the lesson is that we need to listen to eachother and learn from eachother."

Okay, my problem is this. If Conservative Christians are redefining Christianity, I would like to know how? By believing that God's Word is true? By believing that we can draw conclusions from God's Word based on implications regarding other subjects which can be reasonably applied to modern day issues which are not mentioned, specifically, in the Bible? How is that redefining Christianity? How is believing in widely accepted interpretations of the Bible which have a long history in our faith somehow redefining Christianity? I would like more specificity on how, exactly, Conservative Christians have redefined Christianity by continuing to believe in time tested interpretations of theologians and Biblical scholars for ages. I would like to know how remaining committed to trying to live one's life according to our understanding of scripture we are somehow redefining Christianity. In my own opinion, standing up for what has historically always been the accepted interpretation of particular scripture in the Bible plays a large role in pursuing that radical orthodoxy of which Brandon speaks. If we cannot stand up in the face of those things of which God clearly did not approve, and in fact condemned in His Word, before they get a foothold and change our entire American society and value system how can we then claim that we are pursuing radical orthodoxy? It makes no sense to me.

Orthodoxy (Page: 1014)
Or"tho*dox`y (?), n. [Gr. : cf. F. orthodoxie. See Orthodox.]
1. Soundness of faith; a belief in the doctrines taught in the Scriptures, or in some established standard of faith; -- opposed to heterodoxy or to heresy.
Basil himself bears full and clear testimony to Gregory's orthodoxy. Waterland.
2. Consonance to genuine Scriptural doctrines; -- said of moral doctrines and beliefs; as, the orthodoxy of a creed.
3. By extension, said of any correct doctrine or belief. (emphasis mine)

In my own view, a Conservative Christian would be one who fits the definition of a follower of othodoxy. In my view that would define a Conservative Christian. One who makes an effort to understand the Bible as a whole, in context and connected throughout, inerrant and the authority over our lives. Oh, and I know that Progressive Christians like to use Pat Robertson as our poster boy, but the fact is that most Conservative Christians do not agree with Pat Robertson and Pat Robertson does not speak for them. Let's keep in mind that we are all individuals as we look at this issue, just as all Conservatives do not agree with Pat Robertson, there may well be Progressive Christians who do not agree with Brandon's admission that Progressive Christians are making an effort to redefine Reformed Christianity. Brandon, however, believes this to be the case, and remember, in his own words, he is a liberal among liberals. This begs for us to take a look at what is the historic meaning of Reformed Christianity. I have found a good reference for studying that very issue here: What is Reformed Christianity? and according to this source, here are:

The Fundamental Beliefs of Reformed Christianity

"In our day there are "many" Churches that call themselves Reformed, which in reality are Reformed Churches in name only. For any Church can slap the title "reformed" over its entrance. But the basic teachings of God-centered historical and Reformed Christianity, remains constant. They do not change with the shifting winds of time, or with the social, political or moral climate of a culture. They forever stand as strong as the solid rock of scripture upon which they are built. The following are the general guidelines of the doctrines of true Historical Reformed (Biblical) Christianity (emphasis mine):

1). We accept without question that the 66 books of the Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments, are the divinely inspired Words of God to man (Psalm 119:160).

2). We believe that the Bible in it's original manuscript, is infallible, and thus the ultimate authority for the Christian Church today (2nd Timothy 3:16).

3). We believe in one God, revealed in the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This God is Sovereign Creator and ruler of the universe (1st john 5:7; Isaiah 48:16) who upholds all by His power.

4). We believe in the personage of the spirit of Satan, and his present control over unregenerate man (Luke 22:3; Gal. 4:3).

5). We believe in the fall and lost estate of man, which places him under the curse of sin. He is a slave (in bondage) so that he cannot please God with his good works, unless he is regenerated unto righteousness by the Spirit of God (Jeremiah 17:9-10; Romans 3:10-18).

6). We believe in the necessity of regeneration, or being born from above a new creation in Christ. Every person who is justified before God, must be born from above (John 3:7).

7). We believe in God's irresistible Grace, that all whom God has chosen unto Salvation, and all for whom Jesus Christ died, will be drawn of God, by absolutely no merit of their own, and be saved through faith (John 6:44; Ephesians. 2:8).

8). We believe that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour (Acts 4:12), the God/Man who was crucified in our stead, that our sins might be forgiven. It is in our wearing His robe of Righteousness, that we are accounted to stand righteous (1st Peter 2:24) before God.

9). We believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, His miraculous virgin birth, and His fulfilling the prophesy of the coming Messiah (Isaiah 9:6; Luke 1:34-35; John 1:14; Isaiah 53;), Saviour of man.

10). We believe in the Sovereign right of God, in which:
"..He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, 'what have You done?' " -Dan. 4:35 We believe that God, before the worlds were made, has Chosen those in Christ that they should be Holy and without blame. As scripture makes clear, "He will have mercy on whosoever He will have mercy, and whomever He will, He hardeneth." (Romans 9:18).

11). We believe in His realized redemptive death, and we understand the faithful truth that Christ did not die in vain for any man, thus He couldn't have died for every man or indiscriminately for all mankind. The wages of sin is death! He died for the sins of His People, those known only to God from before the world. They are those who were predetermined to be saved for His own purposes. His death was sufficient for His people, that every sin that went to the cross with Him, was atoned for, providing a "real" redemption of man from those sins (Matthew 20:28; John 10:15, 26; 17:9).

12). We believe that in Christ's Resurrection from the dead, we were raised with Him, and as He was raised without sin, so we are risen without spot or blemish, an eternal redemption. It is Finished! God succeeded in saving those for whom He died (Matt. 1:21). He Saved all His people from their sins.

13). We believe in Christ's Resurrection from the dead, His present exaltation at the right hand of the father, and that in due time He will come again and bring all of His saints with him, and so they will reign in Life and Glory evermore (Luke 24:1-8).

14). We all believe in the spiritual, indivisible (not invisible) Church, the Body of Christ that is bound together by the Holy Spirit. We believe that the "true" body consists only of those who are born from above, for whom Christ now makes intercession in Heaven. We believe in the visible return of Christ to this world for final judgment (Acts 17:31).

15). We believe in eternal security, where all for whom Christ died, washing away 'every' sin, cannot have that sin return wherein they could be lost again. We understand the belief in man's ability to "lose his salvation," is not only an unbiblical doctrine, but also an illogical and indefensible one. For it is self-evident that "if" all sins were washed away in Christ's blood, we cannot come into condemnation for any bad works, or lack of works (sins). Else all sins were not atoned for in the first place. In this God is revealed not as an idle bystander, but as an active Spirit in all of nature and the affairs of man, that He keeps His elect secure, and will not slumber (Psalms 121:3). Those who "truly" receive salvation from God are sealed (secured) by the holy Spirit and preserved in strength of His faith, that they will endure to the end (John 10:27-29; Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 2nd Cor. 1:22). Not by their own merit, but by the meritorious work of Christ."

This is a perfect description of what I believe, so am I a Reformed Christian or is a Reformed Christian something else entirely? Something whispy and non-committal, something abstract which cannot be pinned down, as Brandon described in these blog entries: reformed christianity and truth, reformed christianity and community, reformed christianity and minority voices, reformed christianity and service?

I am pleased that Brandon showed the honesty to reply in the way he did regarding the fact that Progressive Christians are trying to redefine Reformed Christianity to suit their own political agenda, I have always found him to be honest in the past and he has my respect for that, I have no reason to begin questioning him now, based on his own past honesty, and that must have been a difficult admission for him to make. I do have questions regarding how he thinks "Conservative" Christians have strayed from the historic meaning of Reformed Christianity, because I believe that most Conservative Christian's belief system would adhere to the guidelines in the above referenced source.

This brings me back to an issue which has troubled me concerning Progressive Christians since the moment I have tried to open a dialog with them. If one believes in the old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right," how can one justify doing the very thing which they have accused Conservative Christians of doing and for which Progressive Christians have condemned them? My most recent entry on this subject asked some hard questions of the Progressive Christian, find it here: On Jim Wallis, Progressive Christians and Hypocrisy at the Other End of the Political Spectrum. I did not receive any replies to the questions I asked. I did, however, shortly after writing it, get a comment from a Progressive Christian on another blog that he had read my blog and that it was "brutal." I have conceded that it is, indeed, brutally honest.

I am thankful that Brandon would like to listen to Conservative Christians and I am thankful to God for giving me a passion to listen to Progressive Christians. I do believe that when we begin and continue in this dialog we can all learn and we can all grow in the Lord.

I have tried to be as fair as I can in replying to Brandon's entry. I wish to repeat his quote and add one:

Brandon wrote:

"Regardless, though, of who’s doing the redefinition of Christianity to suit their agenda it ain’t cool."

and further, he wrote this:

"Yes, I’m a liberal. In fact, I’m so liberal that I’m known as a liberal amongst my classmates at an institution of higher education. (I know, I know, if I ever get my Ph.D. your children won’t be safe.) The thing is, I really don’t think that I’m trying to redefine Christianity to be a liberal. In fact, in my pursuit of Christ, I’ve found that I’ve become more and more liberal all the time. Perhaps one thing hasn’t anything to do with the other, but I don’t think so. Absolutely, part of my liberalism springs from my devotion to Christ. But, here’s the really wierd thing: I know a lot of really great people for whom the exact opposite was true! Shocking, no? I could swear that their conservatism was born directly out of their own radical orthodoxy."

Perhaps there is hope for future dialog between "Progressive" and "Conservative" Christians, I do hope there is and I find it a great learning experience. It is not my intention to misrepresent Brandon's views in any manner, and he, of course, is always just as welcome to comment here as he has made me welcome to comment at a badchristian blog.

Hi World, it's me.....PJ

For the zillionth time I've sat myself down to plunk out some words that will hopefully reflect semi-intelligent thought. After all, what do I have to contribute to the blogosphere, that isn't already being contributed by millions of others. Surely not sanity. I've very little of that. Wit? A tad. At least, I'd like to think so. Maybe just some good old fashioned common sense? We'll see. Probably not though, but if you've got some to spare, please send it my way.


I guess I could simply start by telling a little about myself. I mean.........who doesn't like talking about themselves? Well....maybe some Jesuit priest whose taken an oath of silence would beg to differ...........that is, if he could talk.


I'm a stay at home mom. Exciting I know. Actually, it IS exciting. Children do the darndest things and luckily, I am able to share in most of the darn things they tend to do. My kids probably do more than most. That's where the real excitement comes in. Nothing like trying to figure out how to get a crayon out of child's nose. Especially considering the fact the crayon has made said nose slightly snotty and the tweezers won't reach it. I'm pleased to tell you that some doctors have a sense of humor and ours actually waived the doctor fee for that particular visit. The crayon was blue, by the way.


I'm also the resident financial advisor, taxi-cab driver, chef, nurse, rule enforcer and comedic relief. As if that doesn't keep me busy enough, I do laundry too.


On to how I ended up here, at Jacke's blog. We meet in a political chat email group. Right off, despite the fact she a republican, I liked her. All joking aside, I could tell she was a good and kind person. She also shared an interest in something that I think of often. How does one live their life as a Christian, yet dabble in politics and stay connected with their Christian brothers and sisters on the other side of the political fence. For the very political, it can be a real problem. Which is sad and not how it should be at all.


Honestly, I don't take politics as seriously as some, but I enjoy keeping up with them. I have issues that are important to me, but politics has never defined me as a person. I see them kinda like a hobby. I approach it the same way I do my hobby of collecting antique Haviland Limoges. I enjoy it, but sometimes I get tired of searching for the treasure among the junk. It seems lately, when it comes to politics, finding the treasure gets harder and harder.


When we think of how seedy politics has gotten, instinctively, we think the system needs changed. Which, on many levels, it does. Though lately, I've been thinking, we needed to change how we participate in the system. We see what is going on, but out of fear that the other party might get one up on us, we keep supporting our guys. Collectively, as citizens of this country, we really need to show them we are watching. Bombard them with our opinions. Force a reaction from them and an acknowledgement of our existence. We are more than statistics and polls. We are the we in "we the people," and we deserve better than what we are getting. Despite our political differences, we all want our representatives honest and working for the people. That's what we pay them for.


Anyway, I've gone on enough and I will end, lest you begin to wonder what in the world Jacke thinking when she asked me to be a contributor.

Some Things I Learned in 2005

I think 2005 was a year of learning for me, and I am very thankful for that.

I met a lot of people on-line that I had not known before. I value each and every one of them, whether I always agree with them or not.

Maybe this entry is for me (aren't they all?) more than for any potential readers of JackeHammer. I wish I could list everything I've learned this year but that would be a book rather than a blog entry and I'd run off every reader, the few, who check in here. :0

Momma Twoop and I decided to start this blog back in February of 2005, so it has been nearly a year. We knew that no one would read it at first and we didn't know if our thoughts would warrant any attention at all. As you can see, I use the standard format of blogspot, I don't know html well and so what you see here is just a basic anyone can do it format. I know it isn't a particularly nice to look at blog but it's where we can write. I keep thinking I'll do some study and change that a bit, but it just isn't really where my interest lies. I also find myself hoping that someone will come along and offer me some insight...you know like "Running a Blog for Dummies," or something like that. I also know that we don't have a large number of readers, but I'm very thankful for the readers we do have, it's always like receiving a gift from someone when we get a reply, regardless of the content of that reply. It is a small thrill, but that small readership we have drives me somewhat, causes me to want to continue...if after nearly a year no one was reading it at all, I'd probably just chuck the whole thing. It is an honor to think that anyone would be interested in anything any of us have to say, it humbles me, to say the least.

If anyone is reading this, particularly "Progressive" Christians, I did not start this blog with the intention of starting a Christian blog. Twoop and I started it to be a political blog but not strictly. It wasn't until I attended church one day and my Pastor discussed briefly, really he just cited it as much as anything, an article which had run in my local paper in Missouri. The article was discussing the plight of Progressive Christians who feel that the "Conservative" Christian had stolen their voice, had defined their Christianity, in short, they seemed to feel that "Conservatives" had stolen their religion. It seemed quite the oxymoron to me, at the time, to claim to be politically progressive and a "good" Christian. At any rate, I disagree that one's faith can be stolen, that's one of the things I learned this year, that no one can "steal" anyone's religion, no one has the power to steal my faith, my beliefs, others may challenge that religion and those beliefs but no one can steal it.

I would like Progressives to know that at first I viewed you as an enemy, as a hypocrite, as one who for the sake of your progressive politics was willing to sell out your "God." I still belief there is a basis for believing that to be true about some Progressive Christians, but now I know that not all Progressive Christians are in it for the politics, some are in it for something deeper and I have learned this year, more than any other, to respect the individual. I thank God for your existence, for your challenge to my own faith and for helping me to grow in my own faith and beliefs. Each of you is a special person worthy of love. I could count on one hand the Progressive Christians I have come across who I feel are disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, that, my friends, is a compliment and evidence that the majority of you are Christians first who are merely interested in politics, in other words, you're just like me, eeeeeek! I have always believed that each person in this world, whether a Christian or not, has something special inside, something loveable inside. If one takes the time to get to know people, one can always find something to love in every person on this earth. Progressive Christians have further strengthened that belief.

In 2006 my goal will be to continue being a listener as well as a communicator. My goal will be to continue to be open minded, teachable, but to also retain the values and beliefs which make me who I am. I don't know the direction this blog will take, I have no way of even knowing if it will continue to be primarily on the subject of Christianity or not, I want to let it lead us wherever it will, or wherever God would have each of us go. I appreciate any and all who go on the "ride" with us. It's been fun, it's been a blessing.

One request I have for Progressive Christians. I have been willing to accept your primary agendas as valuable while not embracing the methods by which you seek to meet success in that agenda. Would it be too much to expect that same respect from you toward the Conservative Christian who seeks to follow his convictions? It should not be.

I am getting really anxious for PJ to share with us here, and I would like to see Twoop's name on more posts in the future. These are both brilliant, articulate women who have much to share. I'm trying to put the pressure on PJ, not too much though, and TWOOPSIE! It's time. Maybe you could share with us some information about that new project you are working on? I'm honored to know you both!

God bless all who read our blog.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Please welcome a new contributor to JackeHammer. PJ, affectionately known as "Peege," accepted an invitation this morning.

I will only say about her that she is a moderate Democrat who is full of common sense.

I look forward to her representing a new perspective at JackeHammer.

Welcome, Peege! Glad to have you aboard!

NBC's The Book of Daniel

Even though a Christian, I fancy myself as a somewhat open-minded individual who doesn't just take other's words for controversial issues that come up in the Christian community. So, when the Pastor of my church gave a brief synopsis of the characters in the new and upcoming television series, "The Book of Daniel," to be broadcast on NBC, without telling us what to say but encouraging us to contact NBC with comments, I didn't jump the gun.

To quote Beliefnet.com:

"In Kenny's "The Book of Daniel," which NBC just picked up for midseason, Aidan Quinn plays Connecticut-bred Daniel Webster. Daniel is a good minister and a good man, but that's not always enough to deal with his life. He's addicted to Vicodin. His wife, Judith, has frozen inside since one of their sons died of leukemia. His son, Peter, is gay. His daughter, Grace, is dealing marijuana to raise extra cash...."

In an article found at Christianpost.com, Vince Manze, president and creative director of The NBC Agency is quoted:

""Due to the popularity of such books as 'The Da Vinci Code' and the box office success of such movies as 'The Passion of the Christ,' there's no denying the general public's interest in the supernatural and the spiritual realms.""

From the same article NBC Entertainment President, Kevin Reilly "says (the Book of Daniel) is exemplary of his new watchword in program development – “fresh.”":

"I like that it's slightly provocative," Reilly told Reuters. "We did realize that we're in uncharted waters. ... It certainly stirs people's passions and stirs opinions, and if we do it right, with quality, I think there's millions and millions of people who would say, 'Hey, that's what I've been looking for on television."'

Now, while this statement, made by Ed Vitagliano, director of research for the American Family Association, found at AgapePress news , is true:

""... we certainly recognize that Christians do have problems, and they have problems in their families...""

a statement with which I totally agree, does the Christian community really want a man who Beliefnet.com describes as one ""in Catholic recovery," (who) is interested in Buddhist teachings about reincarnation, and isn't sure exactly how he defines God and/or Jesus....," himself, to be the voice of Christianity for us?

Yes, NBC, "The Passion of Christ" was a box office smash. Yes, NBC, the Christian community would welcome more broadcasting on a religious theme which explores Christianity and the Christian's daily walk with Christ, but please, would it be too much to ask that the writer of such programs have more in common with the average Christian in America???

Further, Beliefnet.com quotes Kenny, a homosexual, as saying:

""I pull from my own life, but I don't have a gay agenda. Peter is not me, to use an example. He's a conservative, middle-of-the-road Republican gay man, and that's not me."

Mr. Kenny may not be a "conservative, middle-of-the-road Republican gay man," but I cannot accept that any writer, not just Mr. Kenny, can write a fictional screen play without, however unintentionally, expressing his own views and opinions of Christianity and the gay lifestyle, including its agenda. I believe this program is rightfully viewed by Christians as an attack on their faith, why? Because, here we have an Episcopal Priest who is addicted to prescription pain killers, an Episcopal Priest's wife who drinks daily martinis to medicate her emotional pain, an Episcopal Priest's son who is gay, and Republican, mind you, (not that Republican gays don't exist, they certainly do but why this particular choice for the show, if not politically motivated?) an Episcopal Priest's daughter who sells drugs for extra money...we are to believe that this is a common family among the Episcopal faith? Even if it were a common family description of Episcopal Priest's families it still would not set well with the Christian community in America because such a portrayal will be viewed by citizens who have little exposure to church or Christian beliefs as what it is like to be a Christian. Yes, we do have problems in our lives, but the average Christian looks to Jesus to help them with the sin in their lives, they do not look to prescription pain killers and martinis nor are the majority of Christians gay Republicans or selling marijuana as a source of extra income. How can this program be taken as anything less than an attack on Christianity, an effort to portray them not as the unusual people who God calls on them to be, people in the world but not of the world?

Mr. Kenny will be giving an imaginary, fictional view of Christ in his program, of the Christian God in this program. I do not wish the Christian Godhead to be defined by someone who "isn't sure exactly how he defines God and/or Jesus," in the first place. Is that portraying the Christian lifestyle " right, with quality," Mr. Reilly? I don't think so.

Yes, Virginia! There are Worthwhile "Progressive" Christian Blogs!

Okay, I have mentioned several times that I frequent "Progressive" Christian blogsites. I do so to find common ground, question what I believe and help me to understand why I believe what I believe. I learned long ago that an excellent tool of learning is debate. It forces me to examine my heart, question my beliefs, challenges my faith and challenges me to read other viewpoints which I would probably not read or hear about if I did not read and comment on "Progressive" Christian blogsites.

I have learned that, just as in any endeavor which includes the human element, that there are honest people and intellectually dishonest people. I would like to believe that all Christian bloggers are truth seekers, that all Christian bloggers are out to learn and discover the truth of all matters, whether in the spiritual or political realm. What I have found is that not every blogger of the Christian faith is as interested in spiritual matters as they are in promoting their own progressive politics. These are people who will twist the scripture to either say or not say what they would have it say or not say to support their agendas, and I am sure that happens both among "Progressive" and "Conservative" Christians. For those bloggers I have little respect.

Now, I am not going to identify bloggers which I have little respect for, even at those bloggers sites there are commentators who are quite worthwhile. What I would prefer to do is recommend some favorites, and hopefully in the future I will be able to recommend more. For the time being:

Brandon, at a badchristian blog, is a lot of fun and while some "Conservative" Christians may not like some of the language used there, I had the advantage of taking my time and not jumping to any conclusions about the people there. Sure, the nature of the beast is that I was called a smug jackass at one point, but that's all water under the bridge, and hopefully I'll be called a smug jackass again someday, it's those little things that spice up one's life, don't cha think? Anyway, for the most part, the people there are highly intelligent and it is very worthwhile to consider their viewpoints. If we expect to understand and communicate with people, our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, sometimes we are expected to listen, and sometime we might find ourselves actually losing an "argument," but isn't that what truth is about, accepting it, sometimes being able to embrace the fact that we were wrong and allowing ourselves to learn? As Christians I believe that we should have teachable hearts. The only requirement for me is that I must feel someone is worthy of my respect. I believe Brandon is worthy of my respect. I may not always agree with him but he is certainly intelligent and honest, at least that has been my experience so far. So, kudos to Brandon for challenging Christians and making us think...ooooh, that gives me a headache, but I do so enjoy it for a while, till the pain gets too bad. :)

The other blog I would recommend is From the Salmon, the blog owner there is Zalm, he is a friend of Brandon's. Zalm seems to be very docile and calm, of course that's not to say he will not stand up for what he believes. I like him very much because he has displayed a willingness to admit human error when necessary. Zalm seems to be a very humble and gentle spirit. Both Brandon and Zalm are funny, whimsical and their topics, in my opinion, are very unconventional and interesting.

Check them out if you have not. Chances are if you are visiting my blog you found it through one of their comment sections and you know all about them, you are blessed.

On Jim Wallis, Progressive Christians and Hypocrisy at the Other End of the Political Spectrum

December 14, 2005, 115 religious activists were arrested in Washington for their protest of budget cuts to social programs in the U.S. The arrest was necessary because they refused to clear an entrance to a Congressional office building. The ring leader of these protests was none other than the darling leader of the religious left: Jim Wallis. In an effort to ride the tide of Wallis' movement to appeal for Christian votes for Democratic Representatives in the future, Representative Barbara Lee, D-California, is quoted as saying ""When you look at all denominations, you see a real commitment to address the needs of the poor, and here we have a budget that does just the opposite," in an article posted by the Detroit Free Press: 115 arrested in budget plan protest.

The problem with this gathering to protest "cuts" in social programs is that it is disingenuous and over-stated. The so called cuts will not cut anyone's social benefits, what it will do is slow the rate of funding increases for social programs. So, what aim does this protest really hope to gain? It hopes to usher in a media blitz to sell to America that Democrats are the party which cares about the poor and wishes to give them aid and comfort while Conservatives want to take food out of the mouths of the poor. Get it? Progressive Democrat Christians = good, Conservative Republican Christians = bad.

It is certainly not news that there is a concerted effort among Progressive Christians to promote the Democratic Party as the true compassionate Christian party, the party which cares about the poor, the diseased, the, to coin a phrase of a recent blog commentator I was debating recently, "last, the lost and the least." This past October 13-15 Values, vision and the via media conference promoted a Path to Action National Conference, I quote them here:

"Who speaks for "Christian Values" in America today? Does the Religious Right speak for all Christians or is there a progressive perspective on Christian Values that has been sadly lacking in the public discourse?

Since November 2004, progressive Christians across the country have been mobilizing to respond to those questions—organizing to claim their tradition, to work as a united front for social justice, and to publicly disavow the fringe radicals who have attempted to co-opt the name of the church in America.

Responding to that need "Values, Vision and the Via Media" was born. On October 13-15 at the National Cathedral in Washington DC this groundbreaking conference will reclaim the values debate from the Religious Right, exploring how Anglicans have historically made ethical decisions and take action in our Christian tradition."

Isn't it special that it took the re-election of George W. Bush in November 2004 to unite Progressive Christians to "take action?" Isn't it interesting that the Democratic Party suspects that Christians in America were the deciding factor in Bush's re-election, a suspicion which is debatable, and all of a sudden they are motivated to reach out to the Christian community to display how much they care about the values of Christians in America?

The Republican party certainly is a political animal as much as the Democratic party, and to be honest, I have even been considering changing my registration to one of an Independent rather than a Republican because I have difficulty in identifying with the politicized status quo of either party in the two party system in power in the federal government, but, I will have to give them this, though certainly by no means perfect, as none of us are, it is the Republican party which has championed moral values, ethical purity and responsibility in our Nation. Did Karl Rove covet the Christian vote in 2004? Certainly, he did! Karl Rove was able to work toward profiting from the Christian vote in 2004 because the Republican party was already the party identified as having moral values, ethical purity and responsibility, all that was needed of Rove was to promote the fact that that is, and has been the case. Democrats, on the other hand, have not been considered to be the moral, ethical and responsible party which best identifies with the Christian mission in recent years for a reason. Now, because they perceive the Christian vote is costing them elections, we are to believe that they care about Christian values? That they are moral, that they have family values, that they are not involved in as many ethical disputes as Republicans, that the party of Bill Clinton is the party of responsibility!?

Oh please!

So, what can we learn about the leader of this new Progressive Christian movement, Jim Wallis?

• He is the editor of Sojourners magazine
• An anti-war activist who berated American soldiers in Vietnam while never uttering a word of condemnation over the exterminations of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge.
• Supporter of Nicaragua to the point of calling Americans who supported the Contras "terrorist sympathizers"
• Founder of Call to Renewal in 1995 whose mission statement claims ""We do not promote any particular ideological method or partisan agenda," but which clearly espouses the political views of the left
• A registered Democrat

According to David Horowitz's discoverthenetwork website, in a profile of Jim Wallis, found here: http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1833

"Just a month before the 2004 Presidential election, Wallis embraced a rabid partisanship that in form and content was indistinguishable from the venomous harangues delivered daily by the more animated Democratic Party loyalists. In an October 2004 anti-Bush diatribe for Sojourners called "The Religious Right Era is Over," Wallis (after making his obligatory point that "God is not a Republican, nor a Democrat") proceeded to make the case that religious believers should be deeply uncomfortable about voting for President Bush....Wallis further held that if Christian voters considered the war from a theological perspective, they would find it—and, by extension, the President who chose to wage it—unjust....

...This eagerness to enlist religion in the cause of bashing the Bush administration made Wallis a much sought-after interviewee in the days preceding the election....

...Democratic strategists and politicians turned to him as the man who could sell the Democratic Party to the coveted religious demographic. In January 2005, at the beginning of the Congressional session, Senate Democrats invited Wallis to address them in a private discussion. Meanwhile, some fifteen Democratic members of the House made Wallis the guest of honor at a breakfast confab whose subject, according to The New York Times, was devising ways to instill support for the Democratic Party into the hearts of the religious faithful. James Manley, a spokesman for the Senate Minority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, acknowledged that Wallis was actively working with the Democratic political leadership to lure religious voters into the party's fold. "He can help us communicate with the rising number of evangelicals in the country, which is right now a Republican constituency, but which Wallis argues could easily become part of the Democratic constituency as well," Manley told the Times." (emphasis mine)

So, since I have spent a good amount of my time in the last recent months having discussions with Progressive bloggers and the commentators at their blogs, some of whom I hold in deep respect, I spent some time this morning searching those blogs to examine the thoughts of Progressive Christians regarding Jim Wallis. None of them seem to view him as a political hack or a partisan tool of the Democratic party. They seem to believe that this past Communist sympathizer and anti-war activist is simply promoting God's true work, failing to see the political activism that lies behind his words. What they hate about the Republican party, their perception that the party has sold itself to the Christian community and has gained more confidence among the Christian community in America because of some political activism selling it as such, when actually it was more of an natural occurrence which the Republican party utilized, is what they champion in the personage and mission of Jim Wallis. Will they wake up to the fact they are being duped by a man who has been a political activist, anti-war, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, American troop demonizer, partisan hack since the 60's who has recently repackaged himself, or tried to, as a loving, non-partisan Christian who merely seeks to do what Jesus would do, or will they continue to buy his rhetoric?

What is interesting is that I will admit that the Republican party used every possible means to reach out to a Christian community which already supported them to get the vote out in 2004, but they did not recreate themselves in an effort to sell their party to the Christian community, that is strictly a Democratic trait. Will Progressive Christians condemn the selling of the Democratic party as the "Party of Faith" in the same way they have condemned, what they have perceived as, the Republican party selling itself as the "Party of Faith" in an effort to gather the Christian vote, or do they reserve that ire only for the Republican party? I hear much gnashing of teeth from the Christian left, and from the Christian right concerning statements made by Rev. Jerry Falwell, Rev. Pat Robertson and Dr. James Dobson. Perhaps in this new Progressive Christian movement it will take some time before they recognize they have sold out to Jim Wallis in the way early Christian righters sold out to Falwell, Robertson and Dobson. Maybe a few years from now they'll realize that everything they despised about the Christian right they have become at the other end of the political spectrum.

An Open Letter to Mr. Fran Quigley of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union

Okay, I guess I'm going to have to blog about the subject of whether someone stole Christmas or not. For the record, I don't think anyone has stolen Christmas, even the Grinch was unsuccessful at doing that, for heaven's sake! But, in the discussion which took place at I am a Christian Too (IAACT), under the topic of War Against Christmas, Or Just Good Manners?, the subject of the ACLU came up. It seems that because liberals largely support the ACLU they were fairly in the dark about many actions which the ACLU has taken regarding law suits against small towns and cities across the Nation over Christian symbols.

This year many Christians from "the right" decided to make a "preemptive strike" against the ACLU rather than allow them their usual leisurely time to attack small towns and communities for individual displays of Christmas symbols, symbols which, in some people's opinions, actually have the insensitive signature of promoting the fact that Christmas is, after all, a Christian holiday and the actual meaning of it is that it is the time when Christians across the Nation, and world, celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, our Lord.

I visited the ACLU site, in an effort to find some of their old cases concerning law suits on these small towns and cities, but what I found was no documentation of this sort of thing. I believe the reason could be as simple as the fact that many of these small towns and cities did not fight the ACLU due to costly litigation fees and so, with the mere threat of an ACLU lawsuit, they caved in and removed any vestige of faith from their Christmas displays. I did find mention of the case in Alabama involving Judge Roy Moore but I believe only because it was such a high profile case. I did find an article, written by Fran Quigley and entitled American Civil Liberties Union : How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas. In this article, obviously intended to defend the ACLU and paint all those who claim they have "stolen Christmas," as what, I guess insensitive liars? Mr. Quigley makes this claim:

"Of course, there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit,....But the facts are not important to these groups, because their real message is this: By protecting the freedom of Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians through preventing government entanglement with religion, the ACLU is somehow infringing on the rights of those with majority religious beliefs."

Yes, of course there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit, Mr. Quigley, what there has been, however, is a systematic suppression of the Christian faith and/or it's symbols while your organization has largely ignored symbols of other religions, such as the Muslim and Jewish faith's symbols, over a span of a great many years. In many cases the ACLU has not cared that other religions are represented but will single out Christian articles of faith for their lawsuits or threats of lawsuits. No one, I am aware of, has charged the ACLU with filing suit against anyone with the specific intent of keeping someone from wishing others a "Merry Christmas," what your organization has done, instead, is promote that climate and set the stage for all of America to question whether it is any longer politically correct to say anything about Christmas, while all other religions' free speech rights have largely been kept intact.

In my searching, I came across an interesting article written back in December of 2004, authored by John Leo, the editor for U.S. News and World Report, and a columnist, it was published on Townhall.com. and can still be found by clicking on this link: Townhall.com :: Columns :: Christmas censors by John Leo, I used it as part of an argument I had made at IAACT, and also to a liberal in a private AOL group of which I am a member. I felt this article was particularly pertinent because it was written last year, before the "preemptive strike" of Christian Conservatives, this year, regarding whether it is politically correct to say Merry Christmas. In the article it points out that:

"The annual assault on Christmas comes in many forms. First, there is the barrage of litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is reliably offended by almost any representation of Christianity in the public square. Small towns, facing the prospect of expensive litigation over religious displays on public property, often cave in simply out of fear. Part of the intimidation is that if the towns lose, they must pay the legal fees of the ACLU. But now religious-liberties legal groups provide attorneys to stand up to the ACLU. The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund won in federal court last month in a suit filed by the ACLU against the city of Cranston, R.I. Cranston allows religious and secular displays of all kinds on the front lawn of City Hall.The ACLU argued that this was a church-state violation, but U.S. District Judge William Smith ruled that nothing in the evidence "reveals or even remotely supports an inference that a religious purpose was behind the creation of the limited public forum."" (emphasis mine)

and Mr. Leo's column adds:

"Some principals and teachers around the country even ban the word Christmas. In Rochester, Minn., two girls were reprimanded for saying "Merry Christmas" in a school skit. And though Christmas trees are considered secular when they are useful in warding off Nativity scenes, the word Christmas is often removed by panicky officials, thus producing multicultural trees, holiday trees, community trees, care trees, and giving trees. The White House still has a Christmas tree, but Congress has a Capitol Holiday Tree. Accommodating all traditions is a worthy goal. But a broad movement to erase the word Christmas is an extraordinary development in a culture that is more than 80 percent Christian. How much more of this is the public willing to tolerate? "

and Mr. Leo ends with this prophetic prediction:

" The South Orange/Maplewood, N.J., school district banned religious Christmas songs, even in instrumental versions. In Florida, an elementary school concert included songs about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa but offered not a single note of Christmas music. A recent winter parade in Denver looked very much like a Christmas event, except for one small thing: Every reference to Christmas was banned. Unless believers and religious-liberties groups begin to push back, the anti-Christmas trend will prevail in the public square." (emphasis mine).

You see, Mr. Quigley, while the ACLU may not be suing anyone over the use of the word Christmas, it has laid the ground-work for people across this Nation to be reluctant to use the word, so influential has been the ACLU's past work at purging our Nation from any vestige of Christianity in the public square that the American people often do not even understand that they have the right to be openly Christian and to speak about the birth of Christ on the days leading up to the one day of the year when Christians celebrate the birth of their Savior.

Whether that has been your organization's goal or not really doesn't matter, your organization's influence brought us to this day, this point, in which store owners and merchants across the country feel they must be more "sensitive" to that small minority portion of the population who do not profess Christianity. For you to chastise anyone in our Nation for exposing your contribution to the state of the country, in this regard, merely shows that you wait to attack anyone who would question the activities of the ACLU as though they are extremists because they question the effect your organization has had on society. You state:

"In truth, it is these website Christians who are taking the Christ out of the season. Nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus Christ ask that we celebrate His birth with narrow-mindedness and intolerance, especially for those who are already marginalized and persecuted. Instead, the New Testament like the Torah and the Koran and countless other sacred texts commands us to love our neighbor, and to comfort the sick and the imprisoned. That's what the ACLU does. We live in a country filled with people who are sick and disabled, people who are imprisoned, and people who hunger and thirst for justice. "

Christians are not asking that we celebrate Christ's birth with narrow-mindedness and intolerance. All of the Christians I know and have spoken with about this issue, whether "Progressive" or "Conservative," "website" Christians or internet dummies, have no problem with the phrases "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays" being used in conjunction with "Merry Christmas," nor do they have a problem with a Menorah display, Happy Hanukkahah wishes, or any other religious celebratory salutation or symbol, they simply do not understand why the climate of the United States of America has come to the point wherein store owners and merchants and public schools feel they must omit the fact that this is "Christmas," that "Christmas" is a federal holiday and make it so doggoned politically correct that every other minority religion is allowed their symbols and salutations EXCEPT Christians on what is, and has always been, a Christian holiday. Further, I must wonder how making certain that small cities, such as Republic, Missouri, remove a small Christian fish symbol from their city's seal has aided the sick, disabled and imprisoned? Whether you care to admit it or not, Mr. Quigley, the ACLU has had a huge influence on the climate of our Nation this Christmas season. Thankfully, Christians across the country have heeded the advice of Mr. Leo this year and are ready, now, to "push back."

You further state toward the end of your column:

" We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community's courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse. "

If "children who grow up in non-Christian homes feel like outsiders" at Christmas time it is simply because they are not Christians. They are outsiders when it comes to Christianity, Mr. Quigley. There is only one way I know of to remedy that. These "children," if they do not accept Christ will also feel like an outsider on the day of judgment, when Christ pronounces, "depart from me, I never knew you." That is Christ's judgment, not mine, not "website" Christians, not "Progressive" or "Conservative" Christians. You may argue with the reality of a coming judgment, Mr. Quigley, and I cannot prove that this judgment is coming but I don't think an ACLU suit against the Son of God will have much effect on his choice of words on that day.

Seasons Greetings, Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas, to you, Mr. Quigley.

Christmas Recommendation # 2

Yeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw!

A Redneck Christmas Carol :: Funplex > Misc

Christmas recommendation # 1

Okay, okay, I sorta balked the first time I heard "Yeeee Haaaaw" come out of the baby Jesus' mouth myself, but overall this is just a superb piece of Christmas redneck humor. Those who know me well know that I jest luv me sum good ole redneck humer so this here's fer all mah hillbilly frens own tha innernet!

WhiteTrashXmas

If'n yew git oh-fended? Jest git ovur yersef! Litin up! Snap outta et!

Progressive Christians are Right

Wouldn't it be wonderful if life was all about peace, love and feeding and caring for the poor of the world?

I'd like nothing more than to just retreat into my own surroundings, make life as perfect as I can for those I love in my life and to spend all my political energy in making the world a better place through purely humanitarian efforts. Wouldn't that be nice?

That seems to be the agenda of Progressive Christians. Feed the world's hungry, provide life saving medicines to the world's diseased-poor, making sure every American has free (tax payer sponsored) health care, however, many seem to be of the mistaken view that if a Christian spends any of their time fighting for moral issues which could effect the future of all Americans and have potentially great impact on our every day lives in America, that they are somehow less "holy" than those who want to focus on love, peace, nutrition, the environment and health. They make that position clear each and every time they sneer at a Conservative or evangelical Christian who opposes certain legislation based on moral reasons as though they are judging others and refusing them God's grace.

If those of us who believe in the Republic of the United States of America, look away from the political ramifications of some of the policies which activists in this country would like to implement then we will be at risk of losing the very Republic, the very United States of America that we love.

Progressive Christians hearts may be in the right place. That is why I can be sympathetic to them. That is why I can agree with them on some levels. Progressive Christians are, in many cases, promoting a beneficial Christian service to the greater community, though their position is somewhat naive if they believe they can do that solely on the issues of their choice, while being totally disinterested in other pressing moral issues. Helping the poor is a moral issue, feeding the hungry is a moral issue, showing God's grace and love is a moral issue, but isn't safeguarding our heritage a moral issue, too, when that very heritage is based and founded on Christian principles?

This week the United States Supreme Court has before it a case which will determine whether parents have the right to know when their minor daughter is going to undergo the invasive medical procedure known as abortion. They will be reviewing a lower court ruling which had struck down New Hampshire's Parental Notification Laws. The previous law had required that parents must be notified of an under 18 year old child's abortion plans, either in person or by certified mail, a full 48 hours before the abortion procedure could proceed. The excuse for disallowing parental notification has to do with "health exceptions" for the health of the minor. My question would be, if a minor child has health reasons to get an abortion the parents should have a right to notification of those health issues, as well. This is about who your children belong to...do they belong to you or do they belong to the State or Federal Government? The idea that the State or Federal government should have the authority to bar you from knowing whether your minor daughter is going to have an abortion, or has a health risk which requires an abortion, is reprehensible and should be reprehensible to every parent.

Next, gay marriage. Progressive Christians would like to reduce the argument to being one of love, tolerance and acceptance, grace, if you will, of individual gay persons. Certainly, I agree that we should show love, and grace to ALL people, not only homosexuals, and I have no problem with doing so. What I cannot tolerate is the undermining of the institution of marriage, which was established by God, Himself, by granting gays the special right to marry based upon their sexual orientation. I've said enough about this issue in the past, no need to re-hash it again, but I cannot discuss issues in the political arena which are opposed by Conservative Christians and seem to be supported by Progressive Christians without mentioning it here.

The broader issue of abortion. Conservative Christians generally oppose abortion on demand. Progressive Christians appear to be quite torn by this issue. They seem to feel that if they deny a woman the right to murder a child in their womb, for the reason of convenience, that they might be seen as being less than loving, tolerant and accepting of that person. They leave the voiceless child out of the argument, all together, because science cannot conclude exactly when life begins.

I am a CSI fan. A few weeks ago there was an episode on CSI wherein "Gil Grissam" tells "Katherine" that a spiritual argument can be made that blood represents life and that until life-blood is present in a fetus there is no life. I found that intriguing. In WHEN DOES LIFE BECOME HUMAN LIFE?, found at religioustolerance.org they make this statement:

"We assume that blood first appears at the time that the human embryo's heart begins to beat. (We are confident that we will receive a flood of Emails correcting us if this is not true.) This occurs at about 18 to 21 days after conception -- before the embryo develops limbs, a head, a brain, etc. It is about 1/12" long, the size of a pencil point. It most closely resembles a worm - long and thin and with a segmented end."

This would be a good argument for Progressive Christians to take up, in defending their position, if they would like to see abortion limited to the first 18 to 21 days after conception, but they do not seem to want to limit abortion to that stage only. They use this argument for their supportive position on embryonic stem cell research. As far as I can tell they have no good argument for a pro-choice position other than they don't want to appear to be condemning of the mother who has had an abortion because they think it will make them appear to be less than loving, tolerant and accepting of that mother.

And that's another issue, embryonic stem cell research, Conservatives oppose it while many Progressives generally support it and look for arguments to back up that support. I don't know, to me, valuing an unborn baby's life less than an adult or an already born child just isn't right. Which baby would Jesus kill? (I only throw that in because Progressives like to ask us "who would Jesus kill" when it suits their purpose, and it suited mine).

I really don't mean to generalize about Progressives or about Conservatives, it's just that that is a very difficult thing not to do. I am fully aware that there are Progressives who are pro-life, just as I am sure there are Conservatives who are pro-choice, but for the sake of argument we have to start somewhere, don't we?

My overall point, and I have made it before, is that Progressives have a purpose just as Conservatives have a purpose. Each of us can make a contribution to the calling of Christ.

There is room for humanitarianism and there is room for the rebuking of those who would subvert normal and healthy lifestyles, kill babies in the womb on demand, in most cases simply because they are an inconvenience to the mother, those who would manufacture life only to destroy is to save other life, and those who would remove parent's authority over their children and give the ultimate authority to the State or Federal Government.

So, yeah, this is sort of on the theme of the body of Christ again, and another small effort on my part to bridge a gap of, what I consider, to be misunderstanding of goals of Conservative and Progressive Christians. Christians should have the same goals, not opposing goals. God is not double-minded, He doesn't change. He will not tell one Christian that abortion, for instance, is wrong and another Christian that it is acceptable, and before you ask, no, I certainly don't claim to know the mind of God. Do you?

Thanksgiving with Mom

It is the day after Thanksgiving and dubbed the biggest shopping day of the year. I must confess that I think people who get out the day after Thanksgiving and fight over special sales at stores which open their doors at 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning are insane. I know that it is a tradition among many people to do just that, and I don't doubt that there are many bargains for those who wish to spend their day that way.

For me, the day after Thanksgiving is a day I breathe a sigh of relief. Don't get me wrong, Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday of the year. I love Thanksgiving even more than Christmas because it is the day that we get to focus on thanking God for all of the blessings he has given us. It is a day that is filled with food and family without the intrusion of commercialism, without the stress of fighting traffic, buying gifts on a small budget, which I actually gave up years ago, opting to bake and prepare homemade Christmas trays of goodies instead, but even all the ingredients that go into those goodies come with a price tag.

This year I have something special to thank God for...

My Mother.

My Mother is one of the most giving people I know. She's never had much money because she isn't wise with money. She gets it, spends it, waits till she gets more, spends it and waits. That's just the way my Mother handles money, she always has handled it that way and I gave up trying to change it long ago. What makes me appreciate my Mother, though, is what she spends her money on when she does have it. Certainly, she has needs, like this year, my brother and sister-in-law gave her $100.00 to do something for herself. I advised her to hang on to it to buy herself some new contact lenses she needs, but as always, she found other uses for it. What? Making sure she had enough food to feed an army even though we were only feeding five people this year. In the past I tried to encourage her to cut back, but I gave up on trying to change that long ago, too. You see, that's what gives her joy. It isn't enough to have food "enough" to feed us, she has to spend an hour after the meal filling little tubs with giblet gravy, mashed potatoes, yams, green beans, her famous noodles, cranberry sauce, dressing and ziplock bags of turkey, light and dark, mind you, and ham to send home with everyone in attendance. This year she made six pumpkin pies for five people. She sent a whole pie home with each family and still had enough for another uncle and aunt to pick up a pie, each, along with their own containers filled with goodies. She worried about another uncle and wanted to send him a plate of food. That's my Mom. She's the same Mom who, when having $15.00 will end up spending $10.00 of it on other people, always finding some little something that "so and so" needs or would like.

Anyway, this year...this year, my Mom is 70 years old. This year my Mom is using a walker and we think her Wegener's Granulomatosis is coming out of remission, my brother and sister-in-law couldn't be with us and I had the blessing of doing all the cooking, except for her mouthwatering pumpkin pies. You know, I'm tired, but more than tired, this year, I'm blessed that I got to be her hands in the kitchen. I was blessed when I stood at the table, leaning over, allowing her to examine the amount of brown sugar I had measured for the candied yams, blessed to stir the flour and milk thickening mixture, which she had prepared for me, into her gravy and put just the right amount of yellow food coloring into her noodles and gravy for her while she sat on a chair in the kitchen. This day, the day after Thanksgiving, I am thankful for my Mom, the giver, thankful for the opportunity to spend a special day with her, making everything just so, and just loving her.

I think that's why I've been teary-eyed all morning. Things are changing...next year my brother and sister-in-law will be back for Thanksgiving and I'll be glad because I missed them, but today? Today, I am thankful for a day that I got to serve my Mother by being her hands in the kitchen, and you know, even though I did all the cooking, at the end of the day, that gravy, those noodles, those yams...everything we had, were my Mother's dishes, they tasted just like they have tasted every year, for as long as I can remember, but this year there was just a little "bitter-sweetness" to go along with every bite. While my heart is in my throat, while my eyes are full of tears I know, in my heart of hearts that I will look back on this Thanksgiving, 2005, as one of the precious memories that will never fade.

So, thank you, God, for my Mother.

Sun in Rain

In the close

In the damp

I feel you

The rain framing your hooded head
like a halo

It is night
the moon lights your face
your breath just visible

just

so close.

I saw you first in a doorway

I saw you fleetingly
as you were looking for someone else
on that day

years ago

Now, nearly ten years later
you are still like the sun
on a night

close

in damp rain

A Part of the Body

I have been involved in two different ongoing debates on Progressive Christian blogsites. One on homosexuality at I am a Christian Too under the title Response to Mohler re: Homosexuality, Pt 2 and one at From the Salmon under the title Jesus Is So First Century . I enjoy these debates but they are tiring for all involved.

I believe the reason they are so tiring is because of all the preconceived notions Progressive Christians have about Conservative Christians and vice versa.

From I am a Christian Too:

Mohler Anti-Gay Rant
Filed under:
Gays in the Church— Bob @ 9:27 am

"Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has a rant against gays that spans three of his columns on the SBC Baptist Press here, here and here. This is hate-filled stuff, and not hate-the-sin-but-love-the-sinner type hate, but good old-fashioned bigotry type hate."

Upon reading the three articles which Bob at IAACT linked to, I found his judgement of Al Mohler to be harsh and self-serving. There appears to be a desire on the part of many Progressive Christians to believe that all Conservative Christians have no reason to oppose gay marriage other than a hatred of gays or a fear of them. I believe I have proven this is not the case in my recent post titled "It's About Our Children, Stupid!" However, the case I made in that post is certainly not the only valid reason people may oppose gay marriage, it just happens to be the primary reason that I, personally, oppose it. To suggest that Mohler, who merely points out that he believes that all scripture is God-breathed and inerrant and that it identifies homosexuality as a sin, somehow reduces him to a hate-filled bigot is simply ridiculous. For those of us, who do believe in the inerrancy of scripture, to have Progressive Christians who do not believe in the sin of homosexuality to pretend that we have "poor theology" because we believe what, historically, has been believed about homosexuality is true is an insult to our intelligence. It is not disagreement with which I have a problem, it is the total lack of respect which I and other Conservative Christians face wherein we are painted as haters because we believe the inerrancy of scripture. Likewise, Progressives are treated as harbingers of apostasy for suggesting otherwise.

I have had a better experience at From the Salmon. Generally the commenters and blog owner of From the Salmon have been more receptive to a thoughtful, respectful, legitimate exchange of ideas. They have, or seem to have been, willing to accept that Conservatives are not merely opposed to aiding the poor but have differing views on how best to do so. That has been refreshing. While I do believe zalm, the owner of From the Salmon, was a bit heavy-handed in his initial critique of Pastor Ted Haggard when he said:

"The dark side of capitalism is that there will always be economic losers. The dark side of being pro-business is that a certain level of poverty is good for the profit margins. Let’s not pretend otherwise. And let’s certainly not sanctify it and sell it as Christian duty.

Look, the market is such a dynamic economic engine because it runs on the idea that people are most interested in maximizing their own pleasures and gains. We’re selfish creatures, and harnessing that selfishness holds tremendous power."

...because I, while not looking extensively into Haggard's work, don't think he is suggesting that "Free Market Christianity" is the only remedy for aiding the poor, I think he does have a point that it can be helpful in aiding the poor. I also admitted to zalm that I don't know that I agree on him espousing capitalism from the pulpit, but shouldn't we, as Christians, do all we can to aid the poor, and if capitalistic tools can help in this goal shouldn't we utilize them also?

It is easy for us to take on an either/or mentality. It would be easy to say that capitalism or a free market approach is the only way to ease economic need or to say that the only way to aid the poor is through supplying their needs without helping them to create a way to meet their own needs but the point is that, and zalm admits this, it isn't that simple. I believe that Progressives can bring something to this discussion and that Conservatives can bring something to this discussion, as well. Working together and not being so quick to discount the other's reasons for their beliefs of how best to address this issue is an important quest. zalm admits that the government isn't a perfect deliverer of effective aid for the poor then chastises the church for not being the perfect deliverer of effective aid either, in my opinion both are not entirely effective but the church will come closer to delivering aid in the compassionate, loving and caring way which Jesus examples than the government can ever dream or hope of delivering it.

Progressive Christians exist and have some legitimate complaints, Conservative Christians exist and have some legitimate complaints. We could all use a lesson in respect for our fellow Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. If we can only put aside our partisan political opinions and work together toward a solution that is fair and equitable to all, that shows mutual respect, I believe we might go far toward finding solutions to some of these problems. As far as helping the poor? Government has some responsibility but, conservatively speaking, I believe that the body of Christ has more responsibility than the government to help those in need. But, my goodness, there is certainly room for debate. I would recommend anyone to read the blog From the Salmon and weigh in on the discussion, weigh in at I am a Christian Too , also. Let's have a constructive dialog, after all, Jesus calls the Body of Christ together, why shouldn't we? We are all a part of the Body.

First Impressions

I don't consider myself to be a rash person, but sometimes I have my moments. :)

Like when I first visted a particular blog and generalized all the commenters there as though they all thought the same thing. It's a common human mistake. I honesty think all of us are guilty of generalizing groups of people. People label themselves into these little groups and identify with one another and then they are surprised that they are not each viewed as an individual. It happens to me all the time. So, I'm guilty of it too. I have always made an effort not to generalize people and to come to my own conclusions about a person individually, taking things others say about them with a "grain of salt" until I get to know a person. It's always interesting to find myself doing something I hate to do and hate to have done to me.

It humbles me.

Forgiveness, many preach it. Tolerance, many talk about it, but when we come eye to eye with a person and their eyes are flashing red how forgiving are we, how tolerant are we of those whose viewpoints vary from ours? If we disagree with a person, are we still able to love that person? I have found I can usually rise to that ocassion and that's interesting in itself. I believe that in every single person on this earth there is some glint of something in their personality which is worthy of love, I seem to have less trouble at spotting that glint than some people do.

That's okay, though. It takes all kinds.

God bless all who read my blog.

:)

Will the "Real" Christian Please Stand Up?

There was a game show that aired while I was a young teenager. I can't recall the name of it, but there were three people who would all claim to be a certain person and try to convince the panelists that they were that person. In the process of the show, and after the three people had answered questions asked of them by the panelists, the panelists would all guess which of the three people was the real person he claimed to be. At the very end of the show the host would say "will the real (person) please stand up?" It would end with the three people doing a small but dramatic show, as though each was going to stand, but the real person would finally stand, leaving the other two sitting to reveal which was really the person whom he claimed to be.

The Bible tells us about people who will profess to be Christians but are not. The moniker they are given is apostate. What is apostasy?

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/books/concise/WORDS-A.html:

"APOSTASY: the abandonment or renunciation of a RELIGION, such as CHRISTIANITY or ISLAM, either voluntarily or by compulsion. There are frequent Biblical allusions to the EVILS and the dangers of apostasy. It is described as departure from the FAITH 1 Timothy 4:1-3; being carried away by the error of lawless men Hebrews 3:12. The great apostasy, "The Rebellion" 2 Thessalonians 2:3, is associated with the return of CHRIST and the end of the world or JUDGMENT DAY."

The Bible has much to say on the subject of apostasy:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

2 Peter 2:1-19

1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons[b] to be held for judgment;
5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—
9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.[c]
10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature[d] and despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.[e]
14With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!
15They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness.
16But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.
17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.
18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.
19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

Jude

4For certain men whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.

11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead.
13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

(All scripture taken from BibleGateway.com)

There are, of course, those who seem to take the Bible with a "grain of salt," choosing which scripture holds meaning for them and which scripture does not. This is not to say that certain specifics of the Old Testament were not rendered unneccessary by the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ, by his resurrection and sacrifice, once for all, for our sins. What it means is that there is an overall message which the Bible brings us, it forms a whole which is mandatory for the Christian who wishes to understand certain passages. There must be cross referencing done and the Holy Spirit, most importantly, must guide each Christian into truth. But for those people who denounce the Bible as inerrant, what can one say to such? They will not read the Bible and heed it unless it somehow fits into their own relative right or wrong. Once a person has denied the inerrancy of scripture there is little one who believes in the Bible's inerrancy can do to speak to that person. In essence, they have made a choice which can no longer be appealed to on the basis of scripture, instead they will find their truth where they will find it, whether that be among selective passages of the Bible, among the passages of other religions or in the words of men who cannot know the mind of God.

Because we cannot know man's heart we cannot be man's judge. While there may be indicators of Christianity, there is no real way to discern if a man is a Christian or not, however, the Bible gives us clear evidence on how we may recognize false teachers. We can know what a minister of Christ should be doing. We can know what man is called to do, how he should be serving God. For further study on that topic and because it is too lengthy for me to quote, I provide this link: BibleGateway.com Topical Index: Index of M » MINISTER, CHRISTIAN

I don't believe it should be important to Christians to prove their Christianity to one another. It is an impossible task, for one thing. No one but God can judge your heart or mine. It should be enough for us to know that we are to take great care in protecting our doctrine, and great care in which men we allow to affect that doctrine. The Holy Spirit has been given to the Believer, I pray that all Believers take advantage of His want to guide us into truth.

So, the real Christian? Even if he stands up you may or may not be convinced, and you should not care whether you are convincing others of your Christianity. Believers, if focused on answering the call of Christ on their lives, will bear fruit. That fruit will be plain for all to see. Words do not convince, action does.

God bless all who read my blog.

In Reply to an Anonymous Commenter

Anonymous said...

posted by you on another blog"While I'm touched by your sentiment, I do think, considering the fact that I no longer wish to intertwine my Christianity with my politics or respond to other's intertwining of their politics to Christianity, and since that is basically what you do here, that it would be best for me to move along."

you just really cant help yourself, can you?

11:16 AM

Posted by me on MY blog:

Jacke M. said...

You misunderstood what I was saying, Larry p. I am not advocating that our Christian convictions should not play a part in how we vote, I am advocating that in the arena of debate, I feel that politics should be argued from a political standpoint and Christianity DISCUSSED from a Christian standpoint. Of course, when I cast my vote I cast it for the person who agrees the most closely with my stance on social and political issues of our time. And, to be honest, while I would like to leave Christianity and politics separate, I'm not even sure if that is possible. While I am silent about what role my Christianity plays in my political convictions other Christians are busy gathering themselves together in an effort to paint Conservatives as evil, misunderstanding and misrepresenting our reasons for standing against abortion and gay marriage. So, yeah, you are probably right. Perhaps, it would have been better if I had opted to take a break. I think in a perfect world Christians should be able to unite on issues such as these rather than fight about them. I am but one voice, when others are uniting against us we each have to make a decision of whether we will be silent or not. A sin of omission is still a sin. Thanks for the comment. As you can see, I'm still thinking, still learning and still growing, because that is true and because *I am a woman,* :) I always retain the right to change my mind. I think I was right, but I think you are right too. :)

4:54 PM

wildwest said...

"In a perfect world" do you think we would even *have* these issues? ;-)

5:29 PM

Jacke M. said...

No, and in the imperfect world in which we live politics are argued vehemently. Now, the thing is, I'd love to separate Christianity from the political debate but because others won't join me in doing so I don't feel I should necessarily limit myself by firmly separating the two.I'm sure at some point I'll rejoin the battle. You see, one has to be careful about allowing others to shut one up because they dislike your politics.

"I will not go silently into that good night" Who wrote that? Which poet?

Look out Progressive Christians, it appears I let you confuse me for a moment, like I'm supposed to live and let live while you continue to attack Conservative Christians in the political arena! Misrepresenting us and re-defining what and who we are to paint us as haters? Fergit abowt et! ;)

5:35 AM

So, anonyomous, as respectfully as I can muster I would tell you to

bite me.

This is my blog, and Momma Twoop's, and we'll write about any darned thing we please. Thanks for your concern though. :)

It's About Our Children, Stupid!

Progressive Christians and Gay activists are promoting the misconception that Conservative Christians oppose gay marriage because Conservative Christians are judging them harshly, judging them as sinners and throwing stones from their glass houses. By Progressives doing so they are painting Conservative Christians as bigoted haters. I could not begin to tell you the number of times that a "Progressive" has accused me of hating gays because I am opposed to gay marriage. It matters not that I have told them I have gay friends whom I love. As I have often found with the modern day liberal (interchangable with "Progressive") when they are not hearing what they want to hear they find it much easier to ignore the facts and live in their ignorant little world. I mean, as long as they ignore or refuse to accept the real reason Conservative Christians are opposed to gay marriage they can continue to claim that Conservative Christians are afraid they'll get "gay cooties" or something, right? I'm here to set the record straight (pun unintended) on why THIS Christian is opposed to gay marriage.

For me, it is a health issue. I am greatly concerned that gay groups are visiting our grade school children in our public schools. I am greatly concerned that our children are being taught by their teachers that there is no difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual relationship. I am greatly concerned that the homosexual lifestyle is being promoted and therefore encouraged to young impressionable children as an equal and healthy "alternative lifestyle" to that of heterosexual relationships.

It is easier for a liberal or Progressive to pass me off as an intolerant fundamentalist Christian than to research the higher health risks among the homosexual lifestyle for themselves, so I decided to make it easy for them and bring it all together for them right here on this blog.

In this study:

Study Surveys Mental Health Of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexuals And Their Siblings
October 20, 2005 - The August, 2005 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published a research survey of the mental health of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and their siblings.
"Mental Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Heterosexual Siblings: Effects of Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Family," by Kimberly F. Balsam, Theodore P. Beauchaine, Ruth M. Mickey, and Esther D. Rothblum, was funded in part by a grant from the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

We find:

• 
  "The researchers conducted the research to discover if there were differences in suicidal ideation, depression, and the use of mental health services between gay, bisexual, and lesbian siblings.
  The study was conducted by questionnaire. The project eventually included responses from 805 women and 449 men. Of these, 533 identified as heterosexual; 163 as bisexual; and 558 as lesbian or gay.
  According to the researchers, "LGB's [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexuals] ... use mental health services more and are at higher risk for suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and self-injurious behavior than are heterosexual siblings.""

And here we find:

Research Studies Show High Rates Of Gay Emotional/Relational Instability
Lifetime prevalence of DSM- III- R Psychiatric Disorders

Homosexual (SSA) vs Heterosexual lifetime prevalence percentages for:

Mood disorders: Homosexual 39.0% Heterosexuals 13.3%
Major depression: Homosexual 39.3% Heterosexual 10.9%
Anxiety disorders: Homosexual 31.7% Heterosexual 13.2%
One or more diagnoses: Homosexual 56.1% Heterosexual 41.4%
Two or more diagnoses: Homosexual 37.8% Heterosexual 14.4%

Stanford et al. (2001) Arch Gen Psychiatry, Vol. 58.
Study from the Netherlands of 5, 898 adults of which 2.1% self-identified as homosexual.

Why do these studies matter?

In this research paper: "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" by Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., MD: http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf Dr. Diggs, Jr. makes it clear that:

• "Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant GLB couples benefits or status that make GLB relationships appear more socially acceptable."

Dr. Diggs, Jr. makes his point in the corporate world to point out the health risks as pertains to health benefits given by corporations or governmental entities and how it encourages social acceptance of the gay lifestyle, but we might make the same claim regarding public school curriculum and teachers who promote and encourage the gay lifestyle by making GLB relationships seem more socially acceptable.

Then, go here:

The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science to read from the words of Gay activists, themselves, that they have come to the acceptance that scientists have been unable to determine that gays are "born that way."

It is questionable, highly questionable, whether gays are born that way or they have chosen the lifestyle, so why promote an unhealthy lifestyle in order to be tolerant of those who, supposedly, have no choice because it is the way God made them? They cannot prove that to be the case and there is evidence to suggest the contrary.

Now, if you live in a little Progressive bubble and you do not believe that gay activists are targeting our children in public school click on this link: Gay Activism in the Schools.

Why does it matter? I don't want gays targeted for violence any more than anyone else wants them targeted for violence, but allowing the promotion and encouragement of the gay lifestyle to our children, by making it seem like a "cool" alternative to the norm we are exposing them to a lifestyle that could take 20 years off their lifespan and leave them open for mental and physical health problems.

Gay marriage further normalizes and asks for the acceptance of this lifestyle as a perfectly healthy alternative lifestyle for our children. This is wrong. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with hate and nothing to do with a fear of getting some "gay cooties" on us.

Before Progressive Christians throw those stones from their glass houses claiming that Conservative Christians do not support gay marriage simply because they are bigoted haters they might remember their own tone is no less condemning of Conservative Christians than what they perceive as condemnation of gays in America coming from their, evidently, arch enemy, the evil Conservative Christian. I do not condemn gays in America because I think they are "sinners" rather I condemn their lifestyle because it is an unhealthy one and it is being promoted as normal and natural to unsuspecting children who are not being told of the higher health risks associated with it. It's about protecting our children, stupid!