Think Rightly

The Myth of Moral Neutrality

2011-07-13T20:04:00.005-04:00

It is intellectually dishonest to maintain the idea that religious beliefs are precluded as bases for thought, logic, and debate.

Christianity does involve a set of presuppositions and adherence to belief in ideas, principles, and truth claims that are not quantitatively provable. However, any viewpoint that a person brings to a discussion on social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage is ultimately based upon a world view that rests upon ideas, principles, and truth claims that cannot be proven. The idea that you can participate in debate about issues like this from a morally neutral standpoint is false.

For example, if you were to ask a Christian and an atheist "Where do human rights come from?", you are probably going to get two very different answers and each person's answer will not satisfy the other. However, if you start to ask a series of "Well why do you believe that?" questions upon each person's successive answers, you are going to finally arrive at a set of beliefs that neither the Christian nor the atheist can prove or explain.

The way that this "myth of neutrality" finds footing is that during a debate on an issue, a person claiming to be "morally neutral" will critique the speaker by saying that the speaker is offering a a truth claim that cannot be proven. Too often, the speaker will then say "Well I guess I can't ultimately prove this, so it can't be legimate grounds for debate." What happens then is not that the conversation proceeds on grounds of moral neutrality (if the conversation proceeds at all). Instead, what happens is that the conversation proceeds on grounds that both parties, the critic and the speaker, agree on. Since there is no disagreement about the truths being used in the conversation, the conversation appears neutral when it is in fact not.

An honest appraisal of that critique, however, reveals that the critic is actually asserting claims to truth himself. The very standards upon which the critic assesses the other's truth claims are themselves moral stances. The truth here is that all individuals approach these issues with presuppositions that cannot be proven. The fact that mine may be based on a belief in God and yours may be based on an atheistic belief in human reason doesn't change the fact that I cannot prove God anymore than you can prove the dependability of human reasoning in a world without God. Both stances claim to have a greater truth than the other.

The critics true goal here, is not to approach an issue from a truly neutral standpoint, but rather to set the parameters for the debate. By saying that you can't use your unprovable truth claims in this discussion, but I can, the critic is really just building an advantage for himself into the conversation.

So at this point, we have two options:

1. "All ideas, philosophies, theologies, ideologies, etc. are fair grounds for debate."

2. "Since nobody can ultimately prove their presuppositions, discussion is meaningless."

Option 1 gives us the opportunity to debate, discuss and progress. Option 2 paralyzes us.

Now am I advocating for allowing anyone to define truth however fits their fancy at a certain time? No. Just because people should be allowed to use religious arguments in a discussion about political policy does not mean that those arguments are given a free pass. If people put an argument into a debate, they should rightly have to defend their reasons for believing that argument.

What I'm concerned about here is:

A) The belief that anyone can approach an issue from a truly morally neutral standpoint.

B) That academic intellectuals, theological atheists and agnostics, and legal positivists often hide behind the false concept of "moral neutrality" to throw religious ideas out of the debate without any discussion.

It's not fair and it's not intellectually honest.

Love Isn't Always Practical - Thoughts on Christian Criticism of the Royal Wedding

2011-04-29T12:49:00.008-04:00

This past fall, a good friend and classmate of mine stated quite succinctly a profound truth that has been one of the primary meditations of my heart for the past year or so. It is something that I have learned through experience in my marriage and as I have been increasingly reflecting upon how we as the church are to engage with one of the primary movements of my generation - social justice. On a sunny fall afternoon while eating lunch, my buddy, in wisdom that far exceeds his years or what many men earn over a lifetime, simply stated, "Love isn't always practical."

It's a pretty simple phrase and its truth is profound, but it struck me hard because it seems to directly confront a foundational and arguably universally held value in our society - that of effective efficiency. This value does have an immense amount of worth and I think it the fact that it has found a primary place in the church's reassessing its mission and methods is ultimately good. However, the way that I have seen many Christians reacting to today's Royal Wedding in London has reaffirmed what God has been teaching me - that Love isn't always practical and that efficiency isn't an absolute good.

Before I go further, I do want to throw out 2 qualifiers:

Qualification 1. I did watch some of the NFL draft last night. I love eating meat. I'm planning to complete a ToughMudder event. I have a beard. I enjoy working with my hands and building stuff. I also like to jump of high places into bodies of water of uncertain depth (okay - I'm usually certain of the depth). All these things to say, I am confident in my masculinity and do not feel as though my forthcoming defense of the hype over the Royal Wedding should draw that masculinity into question. (For my law school friends: I also realize that the first 6 sentences in this paragraph would constitute unconstitutional stereotypes for purposes of gender discrimination under the Equal Protection clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments - and I'm okay with that.)

Qualification 2: I just finished reading Radical by David Platt and I'm currently reading When Helping Hurts by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert. Both awesome books which should be required reading for Christians, and perhaps Americans in general. I note this to say that I am totally on board with helping the poor. I am on board with replacing the question "How much should I give away?" with the question "How much do I need to live on?" I am totally on board with some serious rethinking and retooling of how we do in fact structure charity so that it alleviates poverty rather than perpetuates it.

That said I want to come out and admit that this red-blooded American male is pretty interested in the Royal Wedding. I would have gotten up at 4am to watch it live had my wife not given me a funny look and my sister-in-law (whom I love and was not inconvenienced by) were not sleeping on the couch in front of our television. While I think my buddy Brent Woodcox is correct when he acknowledges that romanticism has its place, I think the significance of this wedding is deeper.

One of my all-time favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis: "[When] I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." There something about the wedding that has captured the imaginations of over 2 billion people around the world in an age where pomp, circumstance, formality, elitism, and riches by birth are viewed at best as useless and outdated, or at worst as immoral remnants of socio-economic injustice and evil concentrations of wealth. While some are interested because it's a cool Cinderella story, or others because they love the British monarchy, or even others as perhaps an even in history that may be the last of its kind, I may be so bold as to suggest another reason. Perhaps, it's because such an extravagant wedding resonates with some deep, unexplainable desire within our hearts.

I remember several years ago, I was surfing around the website of my favorite band the David Crowder*Band. On section of the website, David was reflecting on his rec

ent visit to some of the famous cathedrals of Europe. He was talking about the fact that when one walks into one of these huge cathedrals, one can't help but feel the overwhelming weight of their own insignificance. I recently experienced this when I went to the Maundy Thursday services at Duke Chapel in Durham, NC. I've attended church in modern church buildings, warehouses and even old hotels for most of my life. I've even advocated for such buildings because they are much more functional and because they are cheaper to build and maintain, thus leaving more money for more "important" matters. But when you enter a building that is easily more ancient than anyone you know, become enveloped by seemingly immovable walls of stone and mortar, and gaze upward at the towering spires and vaulted ceilings - you can't help but think that it's not about you and that you are but a small part of something much larger. There is a reverence about it. There is a sense that anyone who would say "Imagine all the money that went into this building and all of the people that it could feed" are simply ignorant of the fact that those who painstakingly gave and labored to construct such a spectacle were doing so in pursuit of a far more than self-glorification.

I think it's the same sentiment that is reflected in John 12 where Mary breaks the very costly jar of ointment over Jesus' feet. Could that ointment have been sold and the money used to feet lots of people? Absolutely. But it was not - and Jesus affirmed that decision. It was used to honor the King of all Kings.

Which brings me back to the wedding. It is the epitome of pomp & circumstances and my initial google search suggests it may have cost upwards of $70 million. That's quite a sum and could build a lot of wells in sub-Saharan Africa. Based on my feeds on Facebook and Twitter, it may amount to blasphemy to suggest that the Royal Wedding was worth it in the face of the almighty goals of social justice that have enthralled both the religious and secular of my generation. Others seem indifferent to the cost of the Wedding but suggest total indifference or apathy toward and a lack of understanding as to why anyone cares in the first place.

I think both views are misplaced. It is a wedding after all and I can't help but reflect upon the weddings in Scripture. There is of course the wedding where Jesus performs his first miracle - by transforming water into not just wine, but the best wine that had been served. There is also the wedding mentioned in Matthew 22 where the king who hosted the feast had slaughtered the oxen and the fatten calves (high dollar fare in the first-century). One must remember greater purpose of these described weddings. The context for the former is a miracle - an act done to redeem something tarnished by sin to demonstrate the goodness of the kingdom of God. The context for the latter is a parable - a story told to shed light on the character of God and his Kingdom. Weddings and feasts are mentioned throughout scripture. And whenever they are mentioned in a positive light, one trait that is always present is that no expense is spared by an ultimately generous host.

Weddings are joyous occasions that are about far more than simply two people coming together as one. Based on the little I know about William & Kate, it sounds to me as though their choice wedding would not have been as it went down today. However, the pomp and circumstance wasn't displayed solely for the purpose of extravagance or to make much of Will & Kate. It was part of a much larger purpose. It was done to signify the stability and the value and the power of the institution of the monarchy in England. No expense was spared and no detail overlooked. What is more, a member of the royal family has gone out from his castle and sought a bride from amongst commoners. Yes, it sounds like a fairytale from Disney, but does it not also sound like another familiar story? Christians! Why this disgust and apathy at an event which holds in highest regard the institution of marriage in a world rife with the divorce and sexual perversion that we all fight so vigorously (or maybe we don't fight so vigorously)? Should not our response be one of joy and eager anticipation characterized by a heart that flutters at the promise of our invitation to the grand promised wedding to (literally) end all weddings?

The prevalence of wedding stories in the Bible is no accident. The pinnacle of creation and redemptive history takes place at a wedding - the wedding of the Lamb where the Son of God finally becomes united to His bride, the church. If there is one thing of which we can be certain, it is that no expense will be spared for that day. There will be pomp and circumstance beyond our wildest imaginations. Colors for which we don't know names and extravagance beyond measure. And it will be done to honor the monarch and the Prince who left His throne to pursue the rebellious commoner. There is a reason that Revelations describes all of those who are able to be in attendance as blessed. Perhaps there is no truer use of that word.

Today, I was listening to NPR on the way into school and they were reporting on the Royal Wedding (duh). They had a story where they interviewed 3 orphans in southwestern China who upon hearing about the Royal Wedding wrote letters to William and Kate requesting invitations. While they didn't get to go to London, their letters found their way into the hands of the British Ambassador to China who invited them to the celebrations at the British Embassy in Beijing. The story ended with one of the girls saying that one day she hoped to be swept away by a Royal Prince who would marry her in an elaborate wedding. I wonder if she knows that her desire can be fulfilled far beyond today's events in London. I also wonder if such a desire would have ever arisen in the heart of a young orphaned girl living in a country that encourages aborting unborn girls had it not been for the Royal Wedding.

Perhaps it was worth it, and perhaps we should be thankful that love isn't always practical.

BlogShot VII

2009-08-28T17:13:00.003-04:00

Today's blogshot comes courtesy of my buddy Mike Passaro. If you don't know him, you should check out his band. It's a little longer than the typical blogshot, but still very good.

"…Thus, I would like to make just one observation: the psalms, the Bible’s own hymnbook, have almost entirely dropped from view in the contemporary Western evangelical scene. I am not certain about why this should be, but I have an instinctive feel that it has more than a little to do with the fact that a high proportion of the psalter is taken up with lamentation, with feeling sad, unhappy, tormented, and broken. In modern Western culture, these are simply not emotions which have much credibility: sure, people still feel these things, but to admit that they are a normal part of one’s everyday life is tantamount to admitting that one has failed in today’s health, wealth, and happiness society. And, of course, if one does admit to them, one must neither accept them nor take any personal responsibility for them: one must blame one’s parents, sue one’s employer, pop a pill, or check into a clinic in order to have such dysfunctional emotions soothed and one’s self image restored.

Now, one would not expect the world to have much time for the weakness of the psalmist’s cries. It is very disturbing, however, when the cries of lamentation disappear from the language and worship of the church. Perhaps the Western church feels no need to lament – but then it is sadly deluded about how healthy it really is in terms of numbers, influence and spirtual maturity. Perhaps – and this is more than likely – it has drunk so deeply at the well of modern Western materialism that it simply does not know what to do with such cries and regards them as little short of embarrassing. Yet the human condition is a poor one – and Christians who are aware of the deceitfulness of the human heart and are looking for a better country should know this. A diet of unremittingly jolly choruses and hymns inevitably creates an unrealistic horizon of expectations which sees the normative Christian life as one long triumphalist street party – a theologically incorrect and a pastorally disastrous scenario in a world of broken individuals. Has an unconscious belief that Christianity is – or at least should be – all about health, wealth, and happiness silently corrupted the content of our worship?"

Carl Trueman: "What Can Miserable Christians Sing” from The Wages of Spin

Blogshot VI

2009-08-06T10:19:00.001-04:00

"Unerring wisdom ordained your lot, and selected for you the safest and best condition. Remember this, had any other condition been better for you than the one in which you are, divine love would have put you there. You are placed by God in the most suitable circumstances. Be content with such things as you have, since the Lord has ordered all things for your good."

-Charles Spurgeon

Blogshot V

2009-07-30T13:37:00.001-04:00

"No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German Army by fighting it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of the wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is the only man who knows to the full what temptation means -- the only complete realist."

C.S. Lewis
Not sure where he stated this, I found it on a facebook profile.

By the way, I'm am currently very busy preparing for the LSAT and applying to law school and thus will not giving the blog much attention over the next little while. It will be back and my promised post on why abortion constitutes murder will happen.

Blogshot IV

2009-07-10T18:48:00.002-04:00

"...for if people wll be governed by the occurrence of a single text of Scripture, without regarding the context, or duly comparing it with the general tenor of the word of God, and with their own circumstances, they may commit the greatest extravagances, expect the greatest impossibilities, and contradict the plainest dictates of common sense, while they think they have the word of God on their side."

~John Newton, 1725-1807.

I read this in "Just Do Something" by Kevin DeYoung ((Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2009), page 83.) DeYoung cites this from: "John Newton on Divine Guidance" in Guard Us, Guide Us: Diving Leading in Life's Decisions by J.I. Packer and Carolyn Nystrom ((Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), page 244.)

"Common Ground" Post Follow-Up

2009-07-07T16:50:00.001-04:00

I would like thank Walth for his comment on the last post. I wrote that post with the full intention of writing a follow-up explaining why I believe that life begins at conception. That premise is the linchpin for the entire pro-life argument, after all. That post is in the works. In the meantime, Walth brought up some other aspects of the abortion debate that I think are important to consider as well.

Point 1:

Walth's first objection is that labeling abortion as murder is simply a tactic used unfairly to "demonize one set of beliefs." This threatens to undermine the integrity of the pro-life stance because it suggests that pro-lifers use dishonest tactics and faulty facts in order to create an emotional, subjective response favorable to their position. The objection, however, does not work because a) it criticizes facts as if they were tactics and b) it fails to correctly designate each (facts and tactics) to its appropriate place within the debate. Though some may perceive it as a tactic, stating that "abortion constitutes murder" is a fact claim. Therefore, any criticism of it must first be concerned with the validity of the fact. Unless that can be discredited, the claim has a legitimate place within a debate. How the facts are used is a different question, and one I think more at the heart of Walth's objection.

It is certainly possible to misuse established facts in a debate (we don't have to look any further than modern political campaigns to see that). Statements can be true in a technical sense yet still be used to create highly distorted pictures of reality. People can create any implication they want by refusing to contextualize the facts they use within the bigger picture or even with other facts pertinent to the discussion. This can undermine a debate just as much as can using faulty facts. To present an intellectually honest and legitimate argument, tactics must both contextualize facts and given genuine consideration to opposing view points. By approaching a debate in this manner, the debate is fair and those observing the discussion can trust that their reactions and opinions in reference to the issue at hand are based on an accurate, balanced, and objective argumentation.

This is the approach that I take toward abortion and that I took in my last post. I look at the facts, develop my opinions in response to those facts, and then develop the methods by which I express those opinions. I don't purposefully try to "demonize" the other side, I simply lay out the facts and openly explain how I developed my opinions of those facts to those that are interested. Any demonization that occurs is not something I inject into the debate, but rather a reaction of the observer. When demonization occurs like this, it is due to the nature of what is being described, not the manner in which the facts were presented.

It can see how someone would object to facts that are counterproductive to his position in a debate. However, when the facts are credible and responsibly presented, the reactions to those facts are not a credible grounds for criticism or omission.

Point 2:

Walth also claims that my "exaggerated metaphor" regarding the 40 year old man is problematic. I should have been more clear in this analogy because by one reading, he is correct. In one sense, the metaphor could suggest that the action of abortion is comparable to the action of killing a 40 year old man on the street. This analogy fails because each action cannot be separated from its respective circumstances. The analogy that I intended to create was one that compares the morality of each action. Since the two actions are highly comparable in both moral clarity and moral reprehensibility, I maintain that the analogy works well.

Though I think Walth's suggested metaphor was simply intended to demonstrate the art of exaggeration, it accurately reflects the underlying philosophy of the pro-choice argument and I wanted to be sure to recognize it as such. The analogy Walth describes suggests comparing having an abortion with swatting a fly. The analogy in my post compares killing a 40 year old human to killing an unborn human. While people who object to killing a fly certainly exist, I think most people would agree that the moral concern over killing a human is significantly different than killing a fly. However, if an unborn baby is not a human, does abortion carry any more moral weight than fly swatting?

Point 3

Walth's third stated objection pertains to the use of faith-based beliefs in the abortion debate. Though my post made no mention of religion or faith, the video at the end of the post certainly tinged the post with religious sentiment. The video was included as a means of emphasizing the contradiction between claiming to protect women when you are in fact endorsing the destruction of so many. Take out the video and there are no religious elements to be found. I will take the same approach in my next post on why abortion constitutes murder.

Even though I choose not to include religion in this discussion, I disagree with the notion that religious ideas do not have a place in debating public square issues. Science can only tell us so much before our opinions, beliefs and life experiences must come in and tell us how to interpret and apply what we perceive. Everyone has faith in something and that faith most certainly informs the stances that people take when debating issues of all sorts. I realize that statement opens up a whole new can of worms, but that discussion will take place in a future post about the book The Reason for God by Tim Keller.

While some may see the prolife stance on the beginning of life as a means to and end, this prolifer doesn't. From my perspective, my belief that abortion constitutes murder comes as a result of the fact that life begins at conception - not the other way around. This may sound like nuance, but as Walth's comment as demonstrated it is very important indeed.

The Deception of "Common Ground" on Abortion

2009-06-21T17:28:00.003-04:00

As arguably the most divisive social issue in the the American public square, the topic of abortion is never really quite out of the news. However, it seems to have been grabbing increased attention lately due to several prominent news items including the slain late-term abortionist in Kansas, President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, and the nomination of Sonia Sotomayer for the U.S. Supreme Court. I have posted short videos about abortion before, here and here, but haven't really expounded on my personal stance on this blog. My friend Nick commented on one of the videos, triggering an email dialogue about what I termed the "Obama talking-point on abortion." Nick objected to that term, hence a post to explain the term and then discuss my objection to its premise.

Nick's comment clearly reflects this sentiment when he states: "as one who is personally opposed to [abortion], I am constantly looking for ways in which we can work to reduce the number of abortions taking place each year." The argument, embodied most prominently by President Barack Obama, is based on the same premise that holds that pro-choice does not necessitate pro-abortion. The thought process is essentially this: 1) Though I am pro-choice, 2) I don't personally like abortion, so 3) I think we should do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions, while 4) keeping abortion in legal in all circumstances.

This stances exists (and flourishes) because it allows people to have their cake and eat it too. However, it is morally inconsistent because it refuses to address the central issue in the abortion debate - whether abortion constitutes the killing of a human being. If it is, then whether someone is personally for or against abortion doesn't matter. It is analogous to saying: "I am personally opposed to shooting a 40 year old man on the street but everyone should have the choice as to whether they actually commit the act or not." In that instance, the killing of a 40 year old man on the street isn't something that society seeks to reduce, it is something that society seeks to stop. We combat it directly by making laws against it, prosecuting those who perpetrate it, and punishing those who are found guilty of it because street violence is clearly a bad thing. Likewise, if abortion is the killing of a human being, simply reducing it is not a worthwhile goal - it should be illegal and it should be stopped. (Some will try to argue that abortion doesn't constitute murder - a topic for another post.)

The truth about the "Obama talking-point" is that claiming the right of a woman to obtain an abortion inherently grants moral acceptance and approval of the act. Therefore, claiming to be pro-choice and anti-abortion can only logically work two ways: 1) abortion is killing a child, but other considerations supersede the child's right to life, or 2) abortion is not killing a child, and thus abortion is undesirable for other reasons.

President Obama appears to be among the latter because his rhetoric demands the fullest legality of abortion while still calling for a reduction of it. In his own words, Obama seeks to find "common ground" between pro-lifers and pro-choicers by calling for a reduction in abortion. To appear sympathetic to the pro-life side, Obama emphasizes parts 2 & 3 (of parts 1-4 in the second paragraph) and downplays parts 1 & 4. In doing this, Obama subtly draws the substance of the debate away from the legality of abortion and toward the causes of it. The targeted problem becomes the social ills so-often blamed for abortion (i.e.: poverty, socio-economic injustice, single-parent homes, teenage pregnancy, etc.) and the solution becomes new and/or increased government-funded social programs. These types of policies may indeed succeed in helping to reduce the abortion rate, but they seek no change to the legality of abortion and thus promise no end to it.

This may seem like insignificant nuance, but the implications have a profound effect the future of abortion. On the surface, a reduction in abortion would appear to make everyone happy. However, the way that Obama seeks to reduce abortion will not eliminate the killing of unborn children. In fact, considering Obama's past comments, the only thing guaranteed to be reduced or eliminated are restrictions on abortion - that's not common ground if you ask me.

Musical Interlude V

2009-06-14T21:42:00.006-04:00

First of all, let me say that I promise a longer, substantive post is in the works and should be up by mid-week. The posts have been short as of late, which is not necessarily a bad thing, just not exactly what I intend for this blog to be, or at least not entirely. Now to the music.

Daniel Renstrom is a singer-songwriter who is also the Director for the College Ministry at Providence where my wife and I go to church (lots of hyperlinks in that sentence). We have had the privilege to become friends with Daniel and his wonderful family over the past several years through our involvement with the college music team which he leads. Last year, Daniel put out his first EP, Adore and Tremble, which is a great collection of some original songs and reworked hymns.

Daniel is currently back in the studio with Mike Passaro, James Childs, and Patrick Downing recording a new Christmas CD called On the Incarnation. He shared some bits and pieces of some of the songs with us last week and I'm very excited about seeing the finished product.

He's posting some videos of their progress in the studio, enjoy:

BlogShot III

2009-06-07T19:16:00.005-04:00

"The things of sense are the best things with carnal hearts, and the most powerful attractives, in pursuit of which they care not what they follow after."

- Matthew Henry (1662-1714), Reflection on verse 5 in his commentary on the second chapter of Hosea - found here.

Hosea 2:5
"For their mother has played the whore,
she who conceived them has acted shamefully,
For she said, 'I will go after my lovers,
who give me my bread and my water,
my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink."

Guest Blog

2009-04-19T23:56:00.002-04:00

This week I am a guest columnist on my friends blog called "Discourse and Jargon." The blog allows people to post theories they have on different areas of human behavior and social interaction. It often gets comical, but at the sametime can reveal some interesting insights.

My posts argues against the concept of common sense. Check it out here.

BlogShot II

2009-04-17T22:38:00.001-04:00

"Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and to let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion to my confessing my own sins and misery to God."

- Jonathan Edwards

A Poem

2009-04-08T14:09:00.005-04:00

Communion
by DeLana Dameron

WINE n. Fermented grape-juice known to the Women's Christian Union as "liquor," sometimes as "rum." Wine, madam, is God's next best gift to man. - The Devil's Dictionary

Because we are all sinners
and, in our sinning, continue
to sin, and in our cleansing

we are sinners still--being forgiven
over and over ad infinitum

while drinking the blood
of the Son of man.

Because we can get drunk
off our Savior,

we march, stumble
the aisles to purify
wash away--

because we can begin again.

~ This poem was written by a friend from undergraduate. She just published her first book, How God Ends Us. I've just started reading it and came across this poem which I thought wonderfully profound in how it relates our drunkenness from wine to our drunkenness from forgiveness.

DeLana is a great friend and wonderful poet. I would highly recommend buying her book.

Quick Shout Out

2009-04-07T23:02:00.005-04:00

BlogShot I

2009-03-29T22:19:00.003-04:00

Shot: (n.) [shot]
1. a projectile for discharge from a firearm or cannon.
2. a hypodermic injection, as of a serum, vaccine, narcotic, or anesthetic.
3. an aimed stroke, throw, or the like, as in certain games, esp. in an attempt to score.
4. a small quantity, esp. an ounce, of undiluted liquor.

All of the above meanings of the word "shot" refer to things that are 1) very limited size or quantity, 2) highly concentrated, 3) highly potent, and 4) purposed with a very specific aim. Due to the combination of these characteristics, shots tend to have very profound consequences upon the subject against which they are applied.

With that in mind, I want to introduce a new ThinkRightly segment called "BlogShots." Regular visitors to ThinkRightly know that the general purpose of this blog is to deal comprehensively, fairly, and meaningfully with a broad range of political, cultural, theological, philosophical and societal issues that have real consequences (whether obvious or subtle) on the way we think and act. Thus, ThinkRightly posts are often rather lengthy in order to ensure a well-reasoned and thorough approach to the issue at hand.

BlogShots will still aim to present pointed reflections regarding how our beliefs affect our lives. However, it will do so with a brief "shot" - a quotation and at most 1 or 2 sentences of context or explanation. Quotes will be selected because I think they present a profound perspective on a widely-held belief or characteristic of our society with broad, yet subtle, impacts on our culture and faith. Thus, these quotes aren't meant to be read and forgotten. Rather, they are meant to 1) elicit sincere, self-reflective thought, 2) induce corrective or affirmative action upon our own beliefs and 3) encourage us to live with boldness in respect to our then bolstered beliefs.

BlogShot #1:

"What do you think heaven will be like? Stop, paint a picture in your head and really think about it. Was God there and role did he have? What if He was absent? Could you still be happy in heaven if God was not there?"

- C. Bug.; Providence Baptist Church, Sunday, March 22, 2009

Another Video on Abortion

2009-03-26T14:06:00.005-04:00

So here's the deal. You may have seen this post about abortion on my blog a little while ago. Well, this post features another video on the topic. Someday, I will probably get around to actually writing about abortion, but with videos like these, I don't know if there's too much for me to add. Especially this video. So allow me to present the future of the pro-life movement:

One thing that maybe should be expounded upon is the argument regarding when life begins. There's also a good series that could be written about the philosophy/theology of contraception. Of course, marriage counseling taught me that that conversation is a lot more about education than it is philosophy, but still good stuff for a blog about thinking rightly.

Musical Interlude IV

2009-03-23T21:34:00.006-04:00

DC*B in the Studio!

I decided to check in on one of my favorite bands recently, the David Crowder*Band. It had been a while since I had so I wanted to see what the boys were up to, if there were any new blog posts/youtube videos, or nearby tour dates. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that they are back in the studio preparing their new album - Church Music.

In order to appreciate the excitement of this news, I need to explain a bit of history of the band. One of the reasons I like this band so much is that they are so fan oriented. DCB started as a church plant worship band in Waco, TX. I was first introduced to them at a high school CCYC when they were known as the "UBC Worship Band." In fact, I specifically remember the Emcee having to announce "The CD's are not free, so if you took one, please either give it back or pay them for it. They aren't mad, they just need to be able to eat and afford gas for the way home." Anyway, they are now one of the biggest Christian bands in the country and it is certainly due to their fanbase rather than the promotion of a record label. Being thoughtful chaps, they strive to involved their fans in many aspects of their band happenings. They do things like hide links (or this) in their album artwork and invite everyone to Crowder's house to record background vocals for a song.

The other thing to understand about this band is that they are oozing at the seams with musical talent of all types including instrumentation, invention, composition, and production. For example, their first record label album was called "Can You Hear Us?" Supposedly, while they were waiting to go to the studio and record , they started recording certain parts on their own. Before they knew it, had completely finished the entire album. So the studio calls and says "we are ready," and they reply, "well, we sort of already finished." The record was awesome and blew up big time. Since then, the label simply sends them equipment and a technician and they record everything in Crowder's barn.

When they started work on "A Collision, or 3+4=7" (easily in my top 5 favorite albums of all time), they started daily blogging sessions to update everyone on the progress of the CD. Then, while recording Remedy, the upped the ante and installed live-feed webcams around the barn so that their fans could be a part of the process. They also started posting daily YouTube videos with Clips of the Day. I know this sounds like it feeds right into the ultimate stalker fan mentality. However, these guys are actually really hilarious, uncommonly quirky and ridiculously smart so it is very enjoyable for fans of all levels. Plus it is really cool to actually watch how much actually goes into producing an album.

They are currently recording their new album "Church Music" and once again have Webcams and Clips of the Day in addition to their multiple blogs. So check 'em out. I think its a lot of fun:

For anyone unfamiliar with DC*B, I think this is a good introduction:

Well, that's all on these guys for now. I'm sure they will be the subject of some posts in the future, but for now, go check their progress in the studio.

My Least Favorite Song...Ever...Period

2009-03-22T18:08:00.001-04:00

Along with many of my fellow Tarheels, fellow UNC '08 grad Anoop Desai's success on season 8 of American Idol has led me to finally start watching the show. Billy, a friend from undergrad and long-time fan of the show, started a blog about it where he and many of our mutual AI first-timer friends can discuss the show's weekly happenings. Recently, he posted a poll to gauge "the best AI performance of all time", one of the options being David Archuleta's rendition of "Imagine." After casting my vote, I proceeded to comment about how much I hate the song "Imagine" (not necessarily David A's performance of it, but the song itself). Not only did my position receive not one supporter, but I garnered a lot of passionate defenses of the song. Thus, I felt the need to support my position with this post.

The first time I heard John Lennon's "Imagine" was during 2006 Winter Olympics opening ceremony. My gut reaction was to puke. A bit harsh, maybe, for a song which sounds so hopeful and optimistic. Yet, I think the reasoning behind the reaction is sound, so I stick by it. To begin, I think it's important to consider the song's actual lyrics:

Lyrics to "Imagine" by John Lennon:
Verse 1
Imagine there's no Heaven, It's easy if you try
No hell below us, Above us only sky
Imagine all the people, Living for today

Verse 2
Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too
Imagine all the people, Living life in peace

Chorus
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Verse 3
Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world

Now to my reasons for hating this song. Each point will start with what I think is a major implication of the song (in bold), followed by my response to that implication.

1. Moral relativism will fix the world's problems (Verse 2): Calling for "no religion" is extremely problematic. In one sense, if "no religion" means there is no supernatural world (God, heaven, hell, etc.), then Lennon is arguing for a secular religion in which humanity is the ultimate good (god) and human rights, peace, and communalism, are the means to that good (religion). In the other sense, if "no religion" means there is no morally authoritative set of beliefs and right/wrong, whether supernatural or man-made, then Lennon's utopia is but a personal one and thus non-applicable, non-transferable, and non-obligatory upon anyone else. Either way, the song's diagnosis and prescription for the world's ills have no authoritative basis. If there is no religion (read: no moral authority) or if religion is secular, there is no basis for an objective statement about what is good or bad (i.e. without religion, Lennon can't argue that countries are bad and sharing is good). Any judgment regarding such is based upon the contextualized and limited scope of human observation. Morality becomes simply an ever-evolving product of society with no possible claim of absolutivity now or in the future (this is moral relativism).

This becomes even more problematic because "no religion" undermines any argument for humanity's inherent value or purpose. If human life was not created (by God) but rather came to be (evolution), there is no concrete reason why it should be valued or protected.

**Point 1 is important to understand because its implications are fundamental to the following points.**

2. There are no ultimate consequences for our actions (Verse 1). If there is no heaven, there is no incentive for living the "right" way, regardless of how you define "heaven" or "right." If there is no hell, there is no punishment for living the "wrong" way, regardless of how you define "hell" or "wrong." In essence, "living for today" thinks not of today's consequences for tomorrow. This philosophy undermines two of humanity's most basic emotions and motivators: hope and fear. Whether there is heaven or hell (given that we can't empirically prove it) or under what philosophy/theology/worldview humanity chooses to live, death remains an ultimate inevitability for all humanity. If there is nothing after death, then this life is the only chance to pursue enjoyment and hedonism becomes the only sensible philosophy. Would secular hedonism lead to world peace?

Of course, if there is no right or wrong (Point 1), there is no basis on which to send people to heaven or hell anyway.

3. Religion and authority are to blame for the problems of the world. To me, this seems one of the the song's most straight forward concepts. Elements of the song are broken into two categories. The first category pertains to things to get rid of: heaven, hell, religion, countries, reason to kill, reason to die. The second category is the things that result from getting rid of category 1: living for today, peace, no greed or hunger, sharing, brotherhood of man.

One of the greatest arguments of moral relativists and atheists against theistic religion (belief in God) are the crimes that have been committed in name of God. I'm not one to pretend that theistic religion has a blameless past and has no fault in some of history's greatest injustices such as this, this, and this. However, intellectual honesty demands, that we also must consider instances such as this, this, this, or this. Not only were many of the latter instances instituted by atheistic forces, but the purpose for doing so was often the elimination of theist religion.

Further, what about all of the good that is done in the name of God? If you get rid of organized religion, you get rid of this, this, this, this, this, and this - just to name a few. To eliminate God is to eliminate the greatest motivator for good and compassion the world has/will ever know(n).

4. There is no truth and therefore nothing worth dying for. Verse 2 specifically mentions "nothing to...die for." Well naturally (back to point 1), if truth is relative, there is no fact, idea, logic, theology, reason, philosophy, belief, or conviction worthy to be consequential to the way we live, try to improve ourselves or treat others. See the problem? The entire concept of justice is dependent on a moral code that is true regardless of societal, cultural or chronological context. If there is no reason to die, what happens to the importance of justice. Would a world without justice lead to peace, nonviolence, brotherhood, elimination of scarcity, etc.?

Conclusion
This song is symbolic of the ideals of the era in which it was written. The generation and ideology that bred this song rebelled not against a poor moral code, but against morality; not against a corrupt authority, but against the concept of authority; not against disorder, but against order. These ideals were not new or unique to their time, they were just as characteristic of Israel in pre-Davidian times and they thrive today on college campuses. It is inherent to our sinful nature.

When I ask friends why they like this song, they often respond with something to the effect of: "Well I appreciate Lennon's passion for peace and harmony, even though I disagree with the 'no religion' stuff." The problem with this song, is that you can't divorce these two elements. The song is lyrically composed to argue that if we want peace on earth, we must get rid of religion and anything else (read: truth) that may cause division among people. The song is musically composed for minimal instrumentation in order to place emphasis on the lyrics. The message is clear and coincides with the rising and widespread influence that amoral, secular humanism has in modern, American society. A society in which New Atheism (long but informative article) is taking root and arguing not for the toleration of religion and faith, but for the aggressive extermination of it.

I appreciate Lennon's passion for peace. I think his instinctive yearning for the "brotherhood of man" is simply evidence of the fact that humanity was not created for violence or discord. We were created for peace and harmonious fellowship with Christ and each other. The problem of the world is not religion or truth or governments, rather it is sin. Christ is not the Prohibitor of hope and peace, but rather the Creator, Bearer, and Giver of it. To suggest otherwise, as "Imagine" does, is to lead seekers astray and promote their own destruction.

To preempt some complaints:
- I'm not saying that music has to be about Jesus to be good.
- I'm definitely not hating on the Beatles or the profound influence they have on the music I love.

Part 3: Don't drink CNBC-Aid.

2009-03-19T01:01:00.015-04:00

I'm ready to be done with this series. I think I realized that last post was a bit unnecessary, but maybe it served to clear some stuff up from Part 1. Oh well, let's get this started because it's time to get on to some other subjects I've been thinking about. By the way, how about this sweet and appropriate Google Image find?

Stewart's Argument (More detailed version in part 2):
- CNBC claims expertise, thus the public instilled trust in the network.
- Through ignorance or negligence, CNBC's experts failed to warn their viewers of the current financial crisis - costing their viewers lots-o-coin.
- CNBC has betrayed viewer's trust and should be considered responsible for failing to expose things earlier.

This argument is flawed and here's why:

The first thing to understand is that CNBC is a business with a product to sell, financial advice, and a profit to make, from advertising revenue. CNBC sells their product by convincing the public that their financial advice is the best. The more people who are convinced of this, the higher CNBC's ratings. This translates into profit because higher ratings means CNBC can charge more for advertising (commercials). Thus, CNBC will do as much as it can to boost its image the leader in Financial Media.

In this light, it doesn't take rocket science to apply the "don't drink the Flavor-Aid yet" principle. One shouldn't believe CNBC's claim to be financial experts simply because they advertised themselves as such. Cynical? Yes, but seriously, how do GM and Chrysler, advertise themselves (still)?" If, as Jon Stewart claims, people genuinely feel deceived by CNBC because its experts cost them their investment portfolio, I would say that they can't just blame CNBC.

One thing that really frustrated me in this interview was Jon Stewart's reaction when Jim Cramer argued that it is difficult for CNBC to report accurate information on companies because CEOs and their companies lie. Stewart replied: "I am under the assumption...that you don't just take their word at face value, that you actually then go around and try to figure it out (Pt. 3, 5:40-6:02)." So does this argument apply only to the financial corporations? Why not employ it regarding the media sources (read: media businesses) reporting on those corporations?

Stewart begs this question himself when he asks: "But isn't that part of the problem...anytime you [CNBC] sell people the idea that you don't have to do anything but sit back and you will get 10-20% back on your money, don't you always know that that's going to be a lie (Part 3, 3:37-3:52)?" The answer is yes, but Stewart fails to hold all culprits accountable. It's a problem to sell that idea, but isn't it also a problem to buy it? After all, "you always know that that's going to be a lie." Today's marketplace for financial analysis is very competitive and offers too many good products to claim victimization by one source.

I ardently believe in journalistic integrity and think the media should be held to a high standard of honesty. There is something to say about the quality of CNBC's reporting, but that's not the point of this post. If CNBC reports something that doesn't sound right, there are many (and arguably much better) options for a second, third, fourth, opinion. If upon further inspection, CNBC's advice doesn't work, then stop using it. They will either be forced to improve or be put out of business. If one fails to cross reference financial advice from CNBC (especially if that advice is counter-intuitive) with other sources, that person has forfeited their right to complain.

In conclusion, Stewart's argument has greater significance because it plays to two tragically symptomatic elements of our society - (this is also what I believe gives his argument a populist vibe). Primarily, it projects blame away from the individual and onto someone else, usually a vague entity for which no single person can be held accountable. This holds true here as "financial media" was the offender, even though Jim Cramer came to personify it. Secondly, the problem is confounded by the gospel of convenience. People want money as fast and easy as possible. Watching CNBC's "Fast Money"for financial advice sure is a lot easier than reading a newspaper or researching on the internets, especially if CNBC promises that they are the true experts. Stewart is concerned about the betrayal of trust. I'm more concerned with how easily one gives that trust away.

I guess now all we have to do is wait and see if Stewart will have the same effect on CNBC that he did on Crossfire (or here for the video).

Part 2: Stewart's Argument

2009-03-16T23:08:00.002-04:00

I decided to make this a three part series. In composing my thoughts, I realized it would be helpful to post the actual interview along with my interpretation of it as to clarify exactly what my reaction is regarding. So first, here's the interview (PS, there is a bit of language):

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Here's how I interpret that:
CNBC advertises themselves as experts. Theoretically, true financial experts should have been able to foresee problems regarding the meltdown and issue appropriate warnings to its audience. If their experts did not or could not foresee it, they probably shouldn't advertise themselves as experts. To do so is false advertising and betrays the trust of CNBC's viewers.

However, back to the theoretical, what if CNBC did foresee potential problems and didn't report them? Even if it may have difficult to back-up speculation as to who, where, when, and how the crisis would go down, the network had a responsibility to bring to light the basis for its concerns. Considering CNBC's clout and access to financial leaders, the network had the access necessary to initiate some serious investigative journalism of those concerns. They are still the media after all. To fail on any one of these levels is another betrayal of trust - what Jon Stewart refers to when he says "not just an error of omission, but an error of commission."

Thus, due to trust people had in CNBC based on its claims of expertise, the network certainly has a large amount of responsibility in regard the losses of individuals who made financial decisions based on CNBC's advise. Obviously, the had no influence over the macro-financial mess, though arguably they could have intiated something to affect it before it got to this level. What is pertinent to Stewart's argument is the fact that they failed to warn their viewership of signs that all was not well. Whether through ignorance or negligence, Stewart would say that CNBC has broken an unspoken contract with its viewers to report the truth. Thus, Stewart's implication is that CNBC has violated individual rights of its viewers to truth as CNBC knew it.

Remember, this is not my opinion but rather what I think Stewart's beef is with CNBC. Does this seem accurate?

I think Stewart's logic is faulty and ironically plays to some populist idea that the people have been wronged, but I'll save that for the final part of this discussion (which should be posted faster than part two).

Part 1: Press Responsibility

2009-03-14T01:36:00.010-04:00

Like many others, I watched the highly anticipated confrontation between Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart. For anyone unfamiliar with what I'm talking about here's the basis:

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, as of late, has been chastising business news network CNBC for what Stewart argues is their significant role in the financial losses that individuals have suffered in their stock portfolios, retirement accounts, etc. However, Stewart's rhetoric goes beyond simply blaming CNBC for poor reporting. He accuses CNBC of negligence and deception for disseminating financial advise which ultimately led to: 1) leading individual investors to make poor decisions in regard to their financial portfolios and 2) the further financial inflation of companies whose public image (and thus ability to attract investment) was strong while their actual books were on very ill footing. Stewart's bases his issues on:

A) The level of financial experience and expertise of CNBC's reporters should have enabled them to foresee major problems in the market.
B) Since many of CNBC's experts came from places that created these problems and are thus well acquainted with those in charge of the places creating these problems, they likely knew about specific issues yet neglected to discuss them publicly or warn against these issues.
C) Since CNBC and its experts had such high level access to many of the primary culprits in the major financial meltdown (top executives of companies like AIG, Leman Bros., Bearn Sterns, etc.), CNBC had the ability to investigate "A" and "B" at the highest levels and either failed to seriously investigate or failed to report the findings of those investigations.
D) Since CNBC advertises itself, its experts, and its financial expertise in a way that warrants widespread public trust, the lapses of A, B, and C are deception and not just "errors of omission, but errors of commission".

Thus, Stewart seems to suggest that by failing to investigate and/or inform the public of the looming financial problems, CNBC has as much responsibility for individual's losses as many of the major players in the finance and mortgage industries. The following video is what started the whole thing, but also may help clarify the above:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

I think Stewart makes some great points in his argument, however, I also think that I disagree with one of Stewart's fundamental premises, which may undermine a significant amount of his criticism. I'm interested in the concept of the "responsibility of the press". In a society like ours where free press not only exists, but flourishes, are there not marketplace characteristics that should be applied to the way that we, as consumers of news media, receive, digest and apply what we hear in on CNN or read in the newspaper? Part 2 will offer my thoughts on the matter and discuss some of the following things:

- Responsibility of the media to report accurately and truthfully.
- Discernment of the media in what it reports.
- The business aspect of the modern media.
- Right of the individual to receive accurate information from the media.
- The profound amount of information available to the public through media and through other sources.

Food for Thought

2009-02-24T10:55:00.003-05:00

Hopefully I will actually write something soon. I've got some ideas.

Luxurious Worship

2009-01-26T11:49:00.001-05:00

Some Food for Thought:

"Worship is increasingly becoming a spectator event of visual and sensory power, rather than a verbal event in which we engage in a deep soul dialogue with the Triune God.

Contemporary evangelicalism tends to focus on what 'happens' in a spectacle rather than on what is heard in worship. Aesthetics, be they artistic or musical, are given priority over bowing underneath the authority of what God says. More and more is seen; less and less is heard. There is a sensory feast but a hearing famine. This is purely medieval, not evangelical.

Preaching did not cut any ice in the Middle Ages. So the people were given circuses– the medieval mystery plays. It is likewise today. Professionalism in presentation replaces power in the pulpit. Worship leadership is in danger of becoming a cheap substitute for genuine access to heaven, however faltering.

Drama, not preaching, technological visuals, not an understanding of the Word, have become the didache o choice. The tragedy is that, whatever good intentions are present in this medievalism, its proponents do not seem to realize that the medieval plays were a confession of the impoverishment of the pulpit.

This is a spectrum, of course, not a single point. But most worship is to be found somewhere on that spectrum. There was a time when four simple words were enough to bring out goose bumps on the neck of our ancestors: 'Let us worship God.' Not so for twentieth- and twenty-first-century evangelicals. Now there must be color, movement, and audiovisual effects. God cannot be known, loved, praised, and trusted for his own sake.

We have lost sight of great things–the fact that Christ himself is the true sanctuary of the new-covenant people, that true beauty is holiness, that when the Lord is in his temple all are transfixed with a heart of silence before him. These are the glories of worship.

We have lost more subtly lost sight of the transportability of new-covenant worship. By comparison with old-covenant worship, which depended on the temple, the new was simple and therefore universalizable. That was part of the vision that drove our evangelical forefathers. Much of our worship has become dependent on place, size, and, alas, even technology.

No church can afford smugly to point the finger of scorn and derision at evangelicals who have sold their heritage for a mess of modern pottage. In how many of our services is there such a sense of God's overwhelming presence that outsiders fall on their faces and cry out, 'God is really among you!' (1 Cor. 14:25)?

We must offer our very best to God in corporate worship. But we do that only when we realize that true worship is not a spectator event, where we luxuriate in what others do. It is a congregational event, in which Christ mediates our prayers, conducts and leads our praise, and preaches his word to us.

He alone is the God-ordained worship leader, the true minister in the sanctuary (Heb. 8:2). We dare not obscure this Christ-centered and congregational character, nor make worship dependent on anything other than approaching God in the Spirit through Christ with clean hands and a pure heart. The Father seeks such to worship him!"

–Sinclair Ferguson, The Grace of Repentance (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2000), 34-6.

Go Eagles

2008-12-28T22:03:00.002-05:00

Didn't play the Giants today, but you get the idea. Brian Dawkins was still the culprit.

Hopefully I'll get back to blogging once I finish job searching and holidaying.

Musical Interlude III

2008-11-28T01:01:00.008-05:00

So - I promise that a post about the election results is coming. I just haven't felt like writing it yet. In the mean time, in between time, feel free to check out this post on a sweet book I just finished reading. I'd love to get some reactions from people if you have read the book, though that is not a requirement for commenting.

Today is Thanksgiving and I don't feel the need to get sappy and sentimental for you guys. However, I am certainly thankful for good music. So I thought I would give my wonderful readers another installment of "musical interlude".

This time, musical interlude comes from one of my favorite bands, MuteMath, who's link should be on the right side of the page somewhere down there (or maybe right there, or maybe up there, or maybe back there - depending on when you read this blog). Supposedly, they are currently producing a new album and keeping a vlog ("video" + "blog" = vlog) of their progress. They are a fun, crazy, and creative group of guys with or without instruments in their hands. In the past, I have described their concerts to my friends as such: "Their stage presence and style of music make it appear as though they are completely out of control on stage, however, the intricacy of their music necessitates that they are extremely tight."

As referenced by the above, I think it would be quite a ride to see what goes on in their heads, but I love their music. Here are a few of my favorite of their YouTube vids:

Happy thanksgiving!

Advice from a Demon.

2008-11-28T00:52:00.002-05:00

I added a new "gadget" to the right side of the blog that denotes my currently reading. I just finished one of them, "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis. I have thought myself a big Lewis fan since having read Mere Christianity in college. Considering the number of books he has written, however, I can't help feeling like a bit of a poser for doing so. Prior to having finished Screwtape, I had only read 2 of his others, Mere Christianity (awesome) and the Chronicles of Narnia (technically 7 books, but I lump them together). I started "The Great Divorce" last night and have "A Grief Observed" waiting in the wings. My growing admiration for C.S. Lewis is due largely to the fact that the more of his work I read, the more impressed I am with his profound insight into the human condition. Though there are many not-so-subtle examples of this in Mere Christianity and the Chronicles, Screwtape demonstrates this element to an entirely different level - and a very convicting one at that.

For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of the book, it is a series of 31 letters from Screwtape, a senior demon and undersecretary to Satan himself, to his nephew Wormwood, a new recruit into the demon ranks of temptors. Over the course of the book, Screwtape actively advises Wormwood on his first assignment - the prying from faith of a young European convert to Christianity during World War II. If you think this sounds intense, you would be correct.

This is one of those books in which it seems like there is profound material on each page. But for the sake of space, I will just share a few excerpts with you, remember these are written by a demon:

On time:
"The humans live in time, but our Enemy [God] destines them to eternity. He therefore, I believe, wants them to attend chiefly to two things, to eternity itself and to that point in time which they call the Present. For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity. Of the present moment, and of it only, humans have an experience analogous to the experience which our Enemy has of reality as a whole; in it alone freedom and actuality are offered them." - Ch. XV

On comfort:
"Prosperity knits a man to the World. He feels that he is 'finding his place in it,' while really it is finding its place in him....The truth is that the Enemy [God] , having oddly destined these mere animals to life in His own eternal world, has guarded them pretty effectively from the danger of feeling at home anywhere else. That is why we must often wish long life to our patients; seventy years is not a day too much for the difficult task of unraveling their souls from Heaven and building up a firm attachment to the Earth." - Ch. XXVIII

On humility:
"The Enemy [yes, once again God] want to bring the man to a state of mind in which he could design the best cathedral in the world, and know it to be the best, and rejoice in the fact, without being any more (or less) or otherwise glad at having done it than he would be if it had been done by another... The Enemy will also try to render real in the patient's mind a doctrine which they all profess but find it difficult to bring home to their feelings - the doctrine that they did not create themselves, that their talents were given them, and that they might as well be proud of the colour of their hair." - Ch. XIV

I highly recommend you read this book - but on the condition that you do it slowly. One chapter a day. There is way too much nuanced phrasing and diction packaged into each page for you to skim and fully appreciate it. The insight that "Screwtape" gives into the very real world of spiritual warfare between legions of angels and demons under the command of their respective generals provides great fodder for meditation as to how we, as the battlefield, must commit ourselves completely and fully to the cause for which we live and die, being perpetually alert to subversive, subtle, and ruthless advances of the enemy.

In the prologue, Lewis writes:
"Though I had never written anything more easily, I never wrote with less enjoyment . . . though it was easy to twist one’s mind into the diabolical attitude, it was not fun, or not for long. The work into which I had to project myself while I spoke through Screwtape was all dust, grit, thirst, and itch. Every trace of beauty, freshness, and geniality had to be excluded."

This reflection sheds light into how Lewis was able to write with such accuracy to his subject and with such conviction to his reader. He, like us, was subject to depravity and sin and thus temptation. If we take time to truly think about our thoughts, motivations, behaviors, etc., we will find that we too have a certain familiarity, or even expertise (if we are honest with ourselves), in the means with which demon tempt us to sin and disobedience.

My version has a preface by Clyde S. Kilby which states: "What Hell wants is a man finally having to say: 'I know see that I spend most of my life in doing neither what I ought nor what I liked.'" This books demonstrates how Hell's agents aim to see this done. Check this book out - and let me know what you think.

Musical Interlude II

2008-11-09T17:09:00.008-05:00

If you have been following my blog, you may be wondering about my reaction to Tuesday night's results. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm still processing. Briefly, while I am nervous about a few things, I am fascinated and hopeful (no pun intended). We'll leave it at that for the time being. In the meanwhile, I'd like to share some more music.

I was simultaneously kleaning the kitchen and rocking out the other night when, thanks to 'shuffle', I came across this gem from within the bowels of my iPod. In its form here (and on my iPod), there is a sick-nasty solo which immediately compelled me to halt cleaning and don the air guitar (much to the distraction of my diligent and studious wife). The solo in the version below is still fun, but does not compare. (As usual, my ability to share musical euphoria is somewhat limited by the Tube.) That's okay though, the song is still awesome because it helps convey the new challenge ahead of me: returning to a normal, non-campaign diet.

Enjoy.

And hey, you gotta love these guys:

My Endorsements

2008-10-29T15:45:00.006-04:00

Over the past week, I have posted endorsements in the Presidential and many of the North Carolina Statewide races. However, they are spread out over a variety of posts, so I figured I would put together one blog post with links to my posts and a full list.

Relevant Posts:
Presidential Race
- Part 1: What I like about Barack Obama
- Part 2: My Concerns about Barack Obama
- Part 3: The Palin Referendum
- Part 4: A Presidential Endorsement
Statewide Race
- North Carolina Statewide Endorsements
NC Supreme Court Race
- Bob Edmunds for North Carolina Supreme Court

Endorsements:
President of the United States - John McCain
Vice President of the United States - Sarah Palin
United States Senate (NC) - Elizabeth Dole (i)
NC Governor - Pat McCrory
NC Lt. Governor - Robert Pittenger
NC Attorney General - Bob Crumley
NC State Auditor - Les Merritt (i)
NC Secretary of Agriculture - Steve Troxler (i)
NC Insurance Commissioner - Wayne Goodwin
NC Supreme Court (Edmunds seat) - Robert H. "Bob" Edmunds, Jr. (i)
NC Court of Appeals (Martin seat) - John Martin (i)
NC Court of Appeals (Wynn Seat) - James "Jim" Wynn (i)
NC Court of Appeals (McCullough Seat) - Doug McCullough (i)
NC Court of Appeals (Tyson Seat) - Kristin Ruth
NC Court of Appeals (Arrowood Seat) - Robert N. Hunter

Races in which I am not endorsing, but you should research:
Secretary of State: Elaine Marshall (i) vs. Jack Sawyer
Secretary of Labor: Cherie Berry (i) vs. Mary Fant Donnan
State Treasurer: Bill Daughtridge vs. Janet Cowell
Superintendent of Public Instruction: June Atkinson (i) vs. Richard Morgan
Court of Appeals: Linda Stephens (i) vs. Dan Barrett

**(i) means incumbent candidate

If you have any strong opinions on the races that I didn't endorse, please let me know. Thank you for putting up with all of these posts!

Bob Edmunds for North Carolina Supreme Court

2008-10-29T09:41:00.013-04:00

This endorsement is quite near and dear to me. Why? Well if you don't know, I have spent probably about 10k to 15k miles in the car with him as we have been traveling the far reaches of North Carolina in pursuit of his reelection to the North Carolina Supreme Court. I have seen, heard, and witnessed Bob Edmunds far beyond the scope of the campaign trail and I can personally attest to his honesty, integrity and humility. Despite this, the following endorsement will be as objective as I can make it.

The Candidates
Robert H. "Bob" Edmunds, Jr. currently serves as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of North Carolina. A quick glance at his resume demonstrates that he has been in almost every position you can hold in a courtroom - State & federal prosecution, state & federal defense, private practice from traffic court to death penalty cases. He is has (maximum) 2 Board Certifications in criminal law. He was appointed special committees by former U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts and the President of the American Bar Association. In his non-partisan race, he has an impressive list of bi-partisan endorsements including every major newspaper in North Carolina that has endorsed in this race, 4 former Chief Justices of the NC Supreme Court (2 Dems & 2 Repubs), 5 current and former US Senators from North Carolina, and 89 of North Carolina's 100 Sheriffs. I have met a lot of lawyers, judges, District Attorneys, sheriffs, and law enforcement officers over the past few months and none of them had a bad thing to say about Justice Edmunds - and they are the ones who have to deal directly with the implications of his work. Those who know his work laud Justice Edmunds for his well-reasoned, well-written opinions and his moderate judicial temperment.

His opponent, Suzanne Reynolds, is a well-respected and very personable Law Professor at Wake Forest University School of Law. She has served in this capacity for the past 27 years. Before entering academia, she practiced law for 4 years at Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell and Hunter in Greensboro, NC. She is considered the state's authority on family law and authored the 3-volume treatise on it, Lee's North Carolina Family Law. She has done significant work in the area of domestic violence and has been recognized with awards from the American Bar Association and former NC Governor Jim Hunt. While she has run a fairly non-partisan campaign (as has Edmunds), her endorsements seem much more along party-lines than Edmunds. She has been endorsed by two former Associate Justices of the Court, Harry Martin and G.K. Butterfield who are known to be very political (though not necessarily on the court). Her organizational endorsements reflect left-leaning interest groups: the Association of Trial Lawyers (who endorsed before candidate filing had even closed), Equality NC (gay-rights), the Muslim American Society, and the NC Association of Educators.

Why Edmunds is the better choice.
1. Experience matters in this race. Of the 7 member Court, five of the current Justices are in their first term. Of those, 2 have never been judges in any capacity before. In the institution that is the final authority on NC jurisprudence, death penalty cases, and interpretation of the North Carolina Constitution, we need to rebuild a court with experience at the Supreme Court level. Removing Edmunds would cost the court 10 years of judicial experience for a candidate with no judicial experience. The Supreme Court essential acts to judge the judges to ensure that trials in District, Superior, and Court of Appeals cases are decided fairly and Constitutionally. Justice Edmunds has spent 30 years inside the courtroom and knows first hand what the lawyers and judges are thinking when he reviews cases from the Supreme Court. Professor Reynolds has not been in a court room for 27 years.

2. Speciality matters in this race. Though he has dealt with a wide variety of cases on the Court and during his time in private practice, Justice Edmunds has spent his career specializing in criminal law. He has prosecuted a broad range of criminal cases from traffic court to international heroin smuggling. He is a board certified specialist in 2 areas (maximum) of criminal law. Suzanne Reynolds expertise in law (though she is not a board-certified specialist) is in family law. What is important is know how each candidate's specialty would be used on the court. Criminal law comprises the largest single area of law dealt with on the court. Family law comprises 1 or 2 cases a year. There is certainly more of a need for Edmunds speciality than there is for Reynolds.

3. The severity of the death penalty. This is something that Justice Edmunds generally avoids talking about on the campaign trail, but I find it very important. Whenever someone receives the death penalty in North Carolina, it is automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court who is the gives the final approval as to whether or not the death pentaly is the appropriate sentence for the crime committed. I think everyone can appreciate the severity of these cases. However, while in private practice Justice Edmunds did capital appeals work and has had to make the trip to Central Prison to say goodbye to a client who would not wake the next morning. I appreciate knowing that one of our Justices can bring this personal experience to the bench when these cases are being handled.

Justice Edmunds has the experience and temperment necessary for a Justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court. His experience and his specialty are what the Court needs at this time. Justice Robert H. "Bob" Edmunds, Jr. for North Carolina Supreme Court.

North Carolina Statewide Endorsements

2008-10-28T22:24:00.016-04:00

It took me longer than I thought to get my Presidential endorsement out of the way. I have subsequently left myself little time to devote to some of the other races I wanted to discuss. So for the sake of time, I am going to post a quick list of the candidates I am endorsing for statewide races. Though I won't be able to go nearly as in depth as I did for McPalin v Obiden, hopefully you now understand my general thought process and rational (agree or disagree) for making the endorsement that I did. Be informed that the same thought process went through the endorsements below except I have personally met most of the people included below and heard them on the trail, which I think adds a little something. Without further adieu, my humble endorsements:

North Carolina Senate Endorsement
United States Senate
Elizbeth Dole. I do not think it is far from the truth to refer to Senator Dole as an absentee Senator - though I find it suprising that she allowed this to happen. However, she has done some significant things for our state, including a $4 billion tobacco buyout and developing the nation's leading plan to deal with illegal immigration, and our nation, being 1 of 3 senators to call for financial reform in 2003 - 5 years before the meltdown. Despite this, the most important reason I support Senator Dole in this election cycle is to combat the pending Liberal Supermajority (here - Issue 2 and here - Issue 5). Should Kay Hagan make it to Washington, she will deep in political debt to Senator Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Reid (D-NV).

North Carolina Council of State Endorsements
Governor
Pat McCrory. In his time as mayor of Charlotte, he has demonstrated the ability to get results through bipartisan efforts, a trait necessary for working with what will likely be a majority Democrat Council of State and Democratic control legislature. He has progressive plans relating to business growth, environmental conservation, transportation and infrastructure development, education reform, and reform of the criminal justice system. He has received almost every major newspaper endorsement in the state - unprecedented for a Republican gubernatorial candidate in North Carolina. McCrory has been the Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina's largest city, for 7 terms, yet has never been invited for a meeting with the Governor. He is correct in saying that it is time to end the culture of corruption and arrogance in Raleigh.

Lt. Governor
Robert Pittenger. I have heard story after story from Republican State Senators who cannot even obtain recognition to speak on the floor of the State Senate when legislation is being debated. Even with a Democratic controlled Senate, a Republican Lt. Governor will be able to ensure that all legislation that comes before the Senate will receive a fair debate before it goes to vote.

Attorney General
Bob Crumley. I have seen both candidates on the campaign trail, though I run into Bob Crumley a lot more than Roy Cooper. Cooper has done some good things while at this post including successful programs to fight meth labs and child pornography. However, I think there are too many quickly growing problems being ignored such as repeat offenders and gangs. The level to which these issues have grown reflect a lack of leadership at the high levels of law enforcement. It is time for a change.

Secretary of State:
Elaine Marshall (i) or Jack Sawyer. I do not have a strong preference in this race but wanted to comment on what I know about it. Marshall is seeking her 4th term in the office and from what I have heard from colleagues, she is doing a good job in her position. However, I have seen Jack Sawyer a lot on the campaign trail and believe he (a) has legitimate criticisms of Marshall's performance and (b) is qualified to do the job himself (plus he's a nice, unselfish guy). I am not endorsing in this race, but wanted to share what I know.

State Auditor
Les Merritt. From what I hear, Les Merritt has done a good job heading up the office that keeps the rest of state government financially accountable. There is simply not a good reason to replace him.

Secretary of Agriculture:
Steve Troxler. Everybody I meet really likes Steve Troxler. He has done a good job in the post and has "earned the trust of the legislature"according to the Charlotte Observer. Troxler's opponent, Ronnie Ansley hand has run for a wide variety of political offices over the past few years from Lt. Governor to U.S. Congress to the North Carolina Supreme Court. While he does have some background in agriculture, he comes across as having more political ambition than experience for the job - especially since there is no reason to replace Troxler.

Insurance Commissioner
Wayne Goodwin. On multiple occasions, I have heard John Odom directly state that he has no background or expertise in insurance.

Statewide Judicial Endorsements
Supreme Court (Edmunds Seat)
Robert H. "Bob" Edmunds, Jr. So I may be a little biased on this one, but I feel more strongly about this endorsement than any other in this election season. This race will get its own endorsement...stay tuned.

Court of Appeals (Martin Seat)
John Martin. He is running unopposed, this is a fairly easy decision. Plus I understand he is doing a very good job.

Court of Appeals (Wynn Seat)
James A. (Jim) Wynn. He is highly qualified and experienced. Lawyers and judges (and in my current position, I deal with a lot of them) have a high amount of respect for Judge McCullough. There is no reason to unseat an elected, qualified Judge with the experience of having served a full term on the court.

Court of Appeals (McCullough Seat)
Doug McCullough. He is highly qualified and experienced. Lawyers and judges (and in my current position, I deal with a lot of them) have a high amount of respect for Judge McCullough. There is no reason to unseat an elected, qualified Judge with the experience of having served a full term on the court.

Court of Appeals (Tyson Seat)
Kristin Ruth. This race is for Judge Tyson's seat who lost in the primary election. It pits two candidates who from my understanding are both qualified and respected legal professionals. My nod goes to Kristin Ruth because she is currently serving in her 3rd term on the bench of the Wake County District Court. Judicial experience matters.

Court of Appeals (Arrowood Seat)
Robert N. (Bob) Hunter. Both candidates are qualified and experienced. However, in this case the incumbent candidate, John Arrowood was appointed to the bench and has only 1 year of experience there. Having met and heard from both candidates on multiple occasions, my nod goes to Hunter because of his more varied background.

Races in which I am not endorsing:
Secretary of Labor: Cherie Berry (i) vs. Mary Fant Donnan
State Treasurer: Bill Daughtridge vs. Janet Cowell
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: June Atkinson (i) vs. Richard Morgan
Court of Appeals: Linda Stephens (i) vs. Dan Barrett

**(i) means incumbent candidate

Disclaimer: These endorsements do not reflect the views or opinions of the Reelect Justice Edmunds Campaign.

A Recent Development

2008-10-28T22:04:00.004-04:00

PLEASE NOTE UPDATES TO THE POST BELOW.

A newly discovered video confirms several of my concerns, specifically issues 1 and 3 from this post and issues 1 & 3 from this post. I don't like to foster what may be perceived as propaganda and some may think this is propaganda, however, this clip is Barack Obama in his own words:

This certainly reassures my endorsement.

UPDATE - 10-29-08
Please read this article from the Wall Street Journal.

UPDATE - 10-28-08
A comment made on this post brought up some good issues that I wanted to address. I originally did so in a comment. However, I thought I would just put it on the actual post itself.

1: The comments graphically displayed throughout the video are not the basis of analysis. I would post another version of the interview if I knew where one was.

2: The comment suggests that Obama was "not advocating for the redistributive change to be brought about by the courts." I agree, however, I think the context of his comments suggest his reason for arguing this was not based on his judicial philosophy. Rather, he suggests redistributive change is not best pursued through the courst because (a) the courts do not have the means to enforce their rulings and (b) enforcement would be difficult due to the complexities of managing the implications of such a ruling(s).

When Obama laments the way in which the civil rights movement became court focused, it is not a rejection of judicial activism, but rather an appeal to more effective means of pursuing change. Thus if the courts did present a credible means of influence redistributive change, or (and this is the importnat part) reinforcing an executive and/or legilsative push towards redistributive change, Obama's comments suggest to me that he would be in favor of an activist judiciary.

Part 4: A Presidential Endorsement

2008-10-26T20:07:00.014-04:00

Back to the election posts. To put this next post into perspective, it is best to have read my prior 3 posts on the subject: (Obama: The Good; Obama: The Bad; The Veeps). As always, discussion is encouraged.

Regardless of the year, the politicians, the issues, or the talking points, one thing you can count on hearing during every election cycle is something to the tune of: "This is the most important election of our lifetime." Well folks, I believe that this phrase may actually be closer to the truth this year than in any other election of my lifetime. There are some grave issues facing the country and thus some watershed decisions to be made by the victors of the federal level elections. What follows is my analysis of the most important issues facing our United States of America and my suggestion for who should be selected to battle them for the next 4 years.

Issue 1: The Supreme Court
I have previously commented that this is the most important issue to me in this election. The next President will likely have two nominations for life-long appointments to the United States Supreme Court. One need look no further than the current composition of the Court to see how important these appointments are. The three senior members of the current court have served a combine 75 years on the Court and were appointed by Presidents who are now dead. In the third debate, candidates were questioned about their appointments to the court. McCain's states that "we should have nominees to the United State Supreme Court based on their qualifications...the best people in the United States who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution" (here from 0:35-0:45 and 1:44-1:52). Correct. The job of a judge is to decipher what the law is and how it should be applied according to its intent. Thus McCain's answer is sound. Obama states that "the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people" (here from 2:25-2:32). Wrong. The most important thing for any judge is to provide fairness and justice according to the Constitutional laws established by the legislature who is directly selected by the people. The judge doesn't decide what is just. The people, through their elected representatives to the legislature, decide what is just by establishing the laws by which they govern themselves. That is the basis of democracy.

Issue 2: The Impending Liberal Supermajority
This issue is starting to gain more and more press lately due to commercials like this and articles like this. Civics 101: Our system of government relies on a system of checks and balances in order that one branch of government not obtain too much power. However, due to the two-party system in US politics, the theory behind checks and balances can be somewhat undermined when one political party controls the two policy-oriented branches of government: the White House and Congress. What seems a distinct probability at this moment goes beyond this possibility. The minority party has at its defense a legislative tool called the filibuster, often used to prevent extreme legislation from being passed. However, a filibuster can be overruled with cloture, requiring the vote of 60 Senators. Therefore, if the majority party comprises 60 Senators and the majority of the House of Representatives, there is nothing that the minority party can effectively do in Congress to prevent the majority party from legislating anything it wants. At this point, the only protection against complete, one-party rule is the veto of the executive branch.

As it currently stands, it looks as though November 4th very well may grant the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate and further gains in the House of Representatives. For your consideration, here is the potential situation come November 4th (according to the National Review):

Rank in Liberalness:
President: Barack Obama - 1st (out of 100)
Vice President: Joe Biden - 3rd
Senate Majority Leader: Harry Reid - 9th
House Majority Leader: Nancy Pelosi - not ranked because she usually didn't vote. However, to get an idea of her politics, maybe we can look at the district she represents: San Fransisco. This, this, this, and this are not exactly what I would call mainstream America.

John McCain may be the best possibility for preventing this from happening.

Issue 3: Fiscal Policy
I also talked about this in a previous post. Point 1: With out economy currently in crisis and companies making job cuts left and right, it does not make sense to raise tax costs on those who could otherwise use that money to hire additional people or to improve their global competitiveness. Why are jobs being outsourced? Because the tax rates in other countries make it so much cheaper to do business there. Economics 101. Point 2: Wealth redistribution is wrong. It will destroy incentive, discourage competitiveness, and encourage entitlement. These are the elements that made our country the economic powerhouse of the world in the first place. Point 3: Obama claims that his policy will reduce taxes on 95% of Americans. However, over 40% of Americans don't pay federal income tax. This means that those 43% of Americans will receive a refundable tax credit from the government - no strings attached. Refer to Point 2. Point 4: Both campaigns promise to reduce the deficit. With Obama's increases in taxes, this is somewhat conceivable despite all of the promised new spending. McCain has promised to eliminating a lot of government spending, but he has also proposed additional tax cuts. $5.9 trillion is a very large number and I'm not sure how you can cut enough programs to affect this number while decreasing taxes.

Issue 4: Foreign Policy
- Iraq and Afghanistan: McCain has a wealth of experience - much of it very direct - in foreign policy and military. McCain spent more time as a Vietnam POW than Barack Obama has been in the United States Senate and McCain pushed for the Iraq troop Surge at time when it may have cost him the Republican nomination for President. Though the Obama campaign continually tries to link him with the Bush policies, I think a McCain administration would present a strong, coherent, progressive international agenda that accounts for the mistakes of the past 8 years, restores and repairs relationships, exits Iraq and finishes the job in Afghanistan. Obama, from an international perspective, would bring a more distinct and very welcome break with the internationally hated policies of the Bush administration. He would bring Biden's commendable experience and would likely land a notable Secretary of State. However, I simply don't trust Obama would have the wisdom, knowledge, and experience necessary to make a decision if there were to be a fundamental disagreement within his staff or if/when a crisis would arise and require immediate action. This video also concerns me.

However, I am not as apprehensive as I once was about direct dialogue with Iran due to this interview with Robert Baer, a former CIA agent who was/is probably one of our country's foremost experts on the Middle East. Our current policy is not working, military invasion is a horrible option, and it just may be a time for something different.

Issue 5: Energy Policy
Were it not for the timing of Issue 1 above, I would say that this is the most important issue of our time. Energy policy is integral to our national security, our economy, and our foreign policy. Both candidates promise the proactive movement towards alternative energy including wind, solar, tide and geothermal technology. This is good. What is better is to also include nuclear power in that group - McCain is the only one who outright supports this, Obama just says he will "consider" it. I am also not a big fan of drill baby drill. I simply think it would be more productive to dedicate the resources to finding clean, renewable sources of energy instead of continuing our dependance on fossil fuels.

Issue 6: The Veeps
Both candidates for Vice President are experienced and would compliment their potential bosses well. Joe Biden brings to the table know-how on getting things done in Washington and broad foreign policy experience. While Obama would be a fresh face to international politics, Palin would similarly be a welcome change to Washington. She isn't integrated into the beltway social network and would have no problem hurting the feelings in order to open up and clean-up government. She is also great with energy policy, which, if it were not for the inconvenient timing of having to replace Supreme Court Justices, would be my most important, long-term issue facing this country.

The Bottomline:
There are a number of other issues at hand in this election which I don't really have time to get into. However, the above represent what I believe to be the most important issues at hand in this election cycle. I have a lot of respect for the leadership style of Senator Obama. However, you cannot separate that from his policies. In that light, I formally support Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin for President and Vice President of the United States of America.

A few more endorsements should be coming soon. They will not be nearly as elaborate as the this one has been, but I will give some support in some of them. Thanks for reading!

Another Interlude

2008-10-23T21:54:00.009-04:00

If you haven't yet, please check out the first 3 of my 4 part series on the 2008 Presidential Election, please take some time to check them out and offer your suggestions:
Obama: The Good
Obama: The Bad
The Veeps

My spirit was lifted yesterday. I was working a poll in downtown Winston-Salem and a man probably in his fifties came out with a huge smile on his face and said: "I just voted for the first time, I voted for Barack Obama." I shook his hand and said congratulations. That is one thing I really like about Obama, he has brought a lot of new people into the political realm.

I am glad for moments like that because they encourage me. The things below do not. I don't know if any discussion on the first item below would really be productive. However, I'd be interested to read what you have to say about he latter two:

I confess I think this last one is actually quite funny, because I highly doubt they are serious.

Part 3: The Palin Referendum

2008-10-23T00:07:00.010-04:00

Alright, enough messing around with guitar solos and such. Back to the race. Tonight's post will discuss the winners (or are they?) of the Veepstakes. Sarah Palin in some aspects has become a huge asset to the McCain ticket and in other aspects a huge liability. Interestingly enough, Joe Biden has had much the same effect on the Obama ticket. Here's what I like and dislike about each. And being the gentlemen I am, ladies first.

Sarah Palin
What I like:

- She's (very) smart on energy. I guess this comes with the territory of being the governor of Alaksa. However, she can talk energy until you're blue in the face and that is among the most important issues facing our country. Ending our dependance on foreign oil and oil period is a key component to long term national security, economic security, and environmental security. The governor is very well versed in these areas and has been - dare I say it - a maverick in Alaska by challenging the oil companies, as a Republican, and winning big time. Frankly, I'm very surprised the McCain camp has allowed the media to focus on her lack of knowledge in areas like foreign policy instead of reiterating her expertise on energy. Sarah, please talk about energy so people know you are smart here, than try to convince people you know something about foreign policy, because you don't (not necessarily a bad thing) - you are not convincing the media that you do. Besides, McCain knows what he's talking about here, why have two foreign policy wonks at 1600?

- She is a quick learner. This is something that my mom pointed out to me and I thought it was very astute of her. Besides Pat McCrory, who knew who Sarah Palin was before August 29th? Pat knew who she was because she was going to come campaign for him - my how quickly things change in the world of politics. Before August 29th, Sarah Palin did not need to be well versed on national-level issues or foreign policy because her responsibility was the state of Alaska - where by the way, she had an 80% approval rating which suggests to me that she was well-versed on the issues important to Alaska. However, I think her poise during the VP debate shows that she has learned a lot and learned a lot quickly. If McCain-Palin win, Palin will be in national security meetings on a daily basis and will be surrounded with advisors who have spent their lives learning national security issues (including her boss). She won't be president and I trust her intuition.

- She understands Main Street America. My high school senior English teacher taught me the difference between sympathy and empathy. John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden can be sympathetic towards Main Street. They can talk to average Joes, hear their stories, and pontificate about ways to fix their problems. They have, to some extent, each been there themselves - however, it has been a long time since they were there themselves and none of them have managed a household as a "normal American." Sarah Palin has. She has managed a house with five kids and balanced a family budget. She is not far removed from Main Street herself and thus is much better able to empathize with Main Street than all three other aforementioned men combined. Having seen a lot of high-profile politicians in person, including Sarah twice, she doesn't give off the arrogant vibe.

- She has executive experience. Straight-up. She has governed a state and governed a city. There is a big difference between Prez/VP and Governor and Governor and Mayor. The difference is that each level brings you closer to the people you represent. If 6 years as Mayor of Wasilla (combine with 4 years on the City Council before that) teaches you one thing, that one thing is accountability to the people you represent. McCain, Obama, and Biden have all learned the art of politics in marble halls - far from those they represent. Palin learned politics in her own backyard, with her neighbors and friends looking over her shoulder (did I mentioned her approval rating?) When Palin says she will bring transparency, I believe her because the record shows it.

- Palin is unapologetically pro-life. I like that alot (see previous post). She demonstrates a comprehensive pro-life stance by her commitment to citizens with disabilities. It is important to note that this was her stance even before she gave birth a child with Down Syndrome (here about half-way down).

My Concerns:

- Her lack of foreign policy experience. Let me flesh this out. If McCain-Palin win, and he (God forbid) dies January 30th, we will have a President with very little foreign policy experience. This does concern me because the President, as we all know, is the decider and should have a fairly comprehensive - though not necessarily specific - idea, plan, and set of priorities for our national security. This does not concern me because when I look at McCain's mom and the Secret Service, I don't think McCain will die quickly after taking the oath and thus Sarah will have a great mentor in John McCain, daily breifings from the CIA, FBI, State Dept., etc., and lots of experience within daily national security meetings. My concern in this area is dependant on McCain not being able to fulfill a full term as President. You decide how likely that is. Of course, you can also consider how well the world leaders whom she has met have warmed up to her already.

- Her misunderstandings about the role of the Vice President. This wouldn't concern me except for her comment this late in the campaign which still suggests a very vague understanding of the position - too much reading scripts, not enough research. However, she was phrasing her answer to a 2nd grader to whom "in charge of" and "President of" probably have a similar connotation. As far as mixing it up with Senators, the Constitution does not comment either way on that, and I think any good Vice President would be wise to develop good relationships with Senators if he or she was interesting in collaborating between branches to actually get stuff done.

Joe Biden

My Thoughts

Honestly, I haven't had a lot of time to research Joe Biden. He's not a remarkable or ground-breaking pick for a running mate and has not generated near the buzz as the governator. I know my Pennsylvanian, Irish-Catholic grandmother and her sisters are probably crazy about him. My general impression is that he would probably make a typical Democratic Vice President. He's smart and well versed in issues, yet still controllable under someone else's leadership should he get out of line (which he tends to do). So here are some general reflections to try and steer through some spin.

- The man is experienced. There is no getting around that. He has been in Washington for a long time and is probably right, though arrogant, when he says "I have probably forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleages know." However, it does lead me to ask what he has forgotten, because even with all of this experience, his intuition has not always been very good.

- Battle tested off the military field. In my opinion, this has been one of the most genuine moments of this campaign. Politics aside, I have a lot of respect for Joe Biden because of having gone through this. Notable experience need not necessarily come from the battlefield or from within the halls of government. I value family and thus deeply admire the sentiment shown here.

- He is gaffe prone. If you have paid attention to this campaign at all, I should not have to convince you of this. This has been one of the GOP's primary attacks on Biden. Is it legitimate criticism? Well, does it really matter how good a speaker the Vice President is as long as his action is acceptable? I know of one other politician that is a bit gaffe prone.

The Bottomline:
So to conclude, I think this specific race (Palin v. Biden) is much more a referendum on Sarah Palin than it is a race between the two. You may not agree with Biden's politics, but he is certainly qualified to be a Vice President. As for Sarah, I really like her a lot and I think she the conviction and intuition to make a great President. However, I also think she was plucked for this position a bit prematurely and could have used a bit more time as a Governor before entering the national scene. I don't think the criticisms of her are necessarily her fault and I think she would have been better prepared to handle the nation scene had she any advance notice or serious notion that she was actually being considered for the job. Regardless, I think every time she has need to step up to the plate (GOP Convetion speech, VP Debate, etc.) she has performed exceedingly well. I also think, win or loose, Sarah Palin has a long, successful political career ahead of her, and I'm pretty excited about it.

Quick note to ponder: How long ago was it that the GOP was criticizing Obama's celebrity effect? Well I guess "change" has been the theme of this campaign season.

Musical Interlude

2008-10-21T11:10:00.007-04:00

I feel as though my blog has been a bit intense/heavy/whatever lately, so I thought I would take a quick musical interlude. However, if you haven't - please check out my two posts on Obama and let me know your thoughts - it took a lot of time and energy to put them together and I want to see what people think.

Currently one of my favorite guitar solos occurs in a song called "Readymade" off of the Red Hot Chili Peppers album "Stadium Arcadium" - Mars cd (it's a two cd set). Why do I like it? Let me count the ways:

1 - It is has the capacity to melt faces off.
2 - It is by a band that didn't like formerly, but have gradually grown to truely admire. I used to be annoyed by their sloppy style. However, I have developed a lot of respect for their musicianship, both individually and together, and their ability to stay true to their style despite the music industry.
3 - It is preceded by the line: "Clean it up Johnny" - a directive from Anthony Kiedis, lead singer, to lead guitarist, John Frusciante, to ignite a wildfire of musical euphoria on the fretboard of his guitar. Awesome.
4 - It is so awesome that it requires a breakdown directly after the solo to regroup. It has the tone - "Wow, what just happened - well, let's just start with a breakdown and try to find our way back to the song."
5 - Previously stated breakdown features the drums (bias coming out here).
6 - It is the type of solo to set a live audience hogwild - yes, I said hogwild.
7 - It sounds really good on my air guitar, especially when played back-to-back with my wife.
8 - I couldn't play it on Guitar Hero (although that isn't saying too much).

Any thoughts?

Full Song:

Just the Solo (only the first 35 seconds need be watched here):

While searching on Youtube for a good version to put above, I also found this. See what kind of musical magic can happen if producers and sound techs would let drummers do as they wish?

Just for kicks (and hats, snares, toms, and various other drum kit components):

Part 2: My concerns about Barack Obama

2008-10-19T22:54:00.014-04:00

Current listening: Stevie Ray Vaughan - this guy is awesome.

If you read my last post, you know that I have a lot of admiration for Barack Obama, for his leadership skills and style, and for the campaign he has run. However, as I indicated before, there are some significant concerns I have about his policies. Some go against my more general political philosophy and intuition. I don't necessary feel the intention to be wrong, just the method. Thus, I would be willing to give them a try and see how things turn out. Other concerns I have are based on strict sense of moral conviction and historical observation. So without further delay, a few reasons for my hesitation to support Barack Obama.

Issue 1: Tax Policy
- Barack Obama suggests that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut. However, about 43% of Americans do not pay federal income tax because of how little they make. How can you cut $0? You give a refundable tax credit - essentially giving people a check from the government, no strings attached. Obama's tax policy will give money to people for doing nothing. It is the practical implication of "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." (found here 4:46). I don't know if this is full blow socialism as some are calling it, but is it really "good for everybody"? It is "Robin Hoodism" - forcefully taking from the rich to give to the poor. One will argue for social justice but that one will likely not be the one who's money is being taken simply because someone else doesn't have as much. At my age, it will probably benefit me financially for as long as Obama is president - but I think it is philosophically wrong. This policy destroys incentive and discourages competition - the very aspects of the American spirit that made us the preeminent power in the world. To undermine these is to sacrifice the future of our nation.

Issue 2: Supreme Court
- In this election, this is the most important issue for me. I don't know how much change either of the candidates will be able to make on other major issues facing us. However, this election will likely decide the names of 2 replacements to the United States Supreme Court. To emphasize the gravity of this point, I will note that of the 9 Justices currently on the Supreme Court, 1 was appointed by President Ford and 2 by President Reagan. That means 1/3 of the current Supreme Court was appointed by Presidents that are dead - that's how far reaching these decisions are. I have a strong belief in Judicial Conservatism as opposed to Judicial Activism. Probably a subject for another post, but in a nutshell, judicial activism undermines one of the most foundational elements of our democracy - separation of powers - in pursuit of political objectives. The sentiments made by Barack Obama here (at 0:25-0:34) demonstrate that he views the Court and appointments to it as a means to influence policy - not as a means to interpret the Constitution which is its Constitutional duty. That is a problem.

Judicial Activism
Of course, this issue also incorporates abortion. I am staunchly pro-life, for reasons probably left better to another post(s). Barack Obama, in his own words, is the single most anti-"pro-life" candidate I have ever seen. The fact that he emphatically supports the Freedom of Choice Act, demonstrates that he aligns himself with 1 of the 2 most extreme sides of the argument. In public, bi-partisan arenas he commonly appeals as a moderate by utilizing the phrase "Regardless of how you feel on the subject, we can all agree that we need to decrease the number of abortions happening." However, make no mistake about it, read the second paragraph of this and consider the statement made here between 0:05-0:11. I don't consider a baby a "punishment" regardless of the reason for its birth. Of course, if a judge can influence legislation on abortion, he/she can also influence legislation on anything. Having worked on a judicial campaign for the past 6 months, I can tell you that the variety of issues dealt with by the Supreme Court covers a far-reaching spectrum of issues and penetrates to the individual level. I will credit Obama will noting that "That is what is at stake in this election." (0:35-0:38). I couldn't agree more.

Issue 3: Freedom of Speech
You may have heard of the Fairness Doctrine. I feel fairly confident in assuming that if either you or one of your friends listen to conservative talk radio, you probably do. Why my confidence? Because their jobs are at stake should Obama win. Essentially, the issue at hand is a network of very conservative radio talk show hosts who have widespread influence over a broad audience in America (think lots of local Rush Limbaughs). They are very good (and borderline forceful at times) at proving their side of the story (often truthfully and legitimately) and rousing up reactionary constituent action as a result. They are the primary catalyst behind the break-down of Congressional phone lines, email accounts, and fax machines during times when controversial legislation is being considered on Capital Hill - recent notables include immigration and the bail out bill. Liberals and Democrats hate (notice the use of bold and italics) conservative talk radio because they show no mercy to liberal politics or those represent them. The stations on which many of these shows air only produce conservative talk radio because their liberal counterparts have proven much less successful. So what is a Democrat to do? The Fairness Doctrine requires that stations must grant equal time to both political viewpoints. Practically, if liberal radio doesn't bring in advertising revenue, this means that stations will comply with the FD by replacing conservative political talk shows with non-political programming. The FD has been declared constitutional, but discretionary - with the "decider in chief" choosing whether or not to allow it. Bush didn't enforce it, Obama will. While I don't always agree with conservative talk radio, and can easily understand how politicians are frustrated by it - I think it is a limitation of Free Speech to stop it. Besides - if the stuff they are spewing is so wrong, immortal and untrue, then why can't the opposing viewpoint gain any traction among sympathetic listeners? I disagree with Obama (and Reid & Pelosi's) desire for the FD.

Issue 4: Labor/Unions:
Why were unions created? To keep employers from bullying the employee. So what happens when the union organizer becomes as powerful as the employer? How do we stop union bosses from bullying the employees? Well let's look at a similar process - how do we prevent the politicians from bullying voters? Two words - secret ballot. So why get rid of the secret ballot? On his webpage (half-way down under "labor"), Barack Obama puts forth his support for the Employee Free Choice Act. This bill seems to have the interests of the union organizers in mind rather than the employees those unions are meant to represent. Maybe I am just an idealist, but maybe sometimes votes and endorsements are just that important.

Issue 5: Democratic Supermajority
I don't think a Supermajority in Washington is institutionally healthy. Way too much power in the hands of too few. With a supermajority in Washington, there will be no means of effectively blocking anything that the Obama administration wishes to do. Though I obviously don't agree with everything he wants to do, I can play by the rules and allow the Democrats to have their time in power. The pendulum will eventually swing back and Republicans can undue everything Democrats did. However, the current state of our nation suggests that legislation imposed by the next set of leaders will likely produce a watershed moment in American history. In a time of such importance, to depend on the "good will" of the majority party to respect or at least consider the desires of the minority party is dangerous. Supermajority power can allow for fringe elements of one side's philosophy to slip into the mix and for common sense to take a back seat to special interests. This fear may be eased by the individuals comprising the leadership in congress. However, I have no trust Harry Reid and I have no trust for Nancy Pelosi. In the two short years they have run Capital Hill, they have managed an approval rating half that of President Bush - and even that took him eight years. History shows that our federal government has been the most productive when there is a credible opposition party that is able to systematically check the majority party. Bottom line: an impending Liberal Supermajority scares me.

Please note that in all of my arguements, I uesd Obama in his own words. This is not negative or smearing, just an attempt to see through the spin and think about the issues as Obama himself has put them forward. Does this mean McCain for president?

Sorry to be so long - thanks for hanging with me. I'll be posting again soon...

Part 1: What I like about Barack Obama

2008-10-18T19:17:00.009-04:00

This post will begin a series of posts in which I will offer some thoughts on the 2008 American election cycle. Some posts will be endorsements. Some posts will be more analytical. Please feel free to use the comment feature to create some discussion on any issues I bring up.

I suppose that anyone who knows me may be slightly interested to see a post on my blog with this title. I also believe that it would surprise just about everyone I know to learn that until recently, I honestly considered myself an "undecided" voter in the Presidential election. My friends know me to be a conservative, border-line liberatarian. However, I do not have to convince you that this is an extraordinary election cycle. What follows is why I have been undecided so long.

I like Barack Obama because of his story. Were it not for his running against a man with what is quite possibly one of the most incredible background stories in the history of US politics, I think there would be a bit more emphasis on this. Barack Obama came from a low-income, single-parent home, graduated with distinction from the best schools in the world, and has rapidly risen through the ranks to become to a world-renown leader on the verge of becoming the most powerful man in the world. Considering where he was 48 years ago, the fact that he is the subject of this post is a testament to the reason why our country is the greatest country in the history of the world. I want to see individuals who work hard be successful as a result.

I like Barack Obama because he is a devoted family man. I think that this specific kind of role model is needed more than any other in America. Committed marriages and dedicated parenting are the cornerstones for society, and in a society where these vital institutions are collapsing at an alarming rate, role models like "Senator Barack Obama the husband" and "Senator Barack Obama the father" are of the utmost importance. I want to see individuals who have placed such high values on their family lives succeed in America.

I like Barack Obama because of what he has done to get people engaged in the presidential election. Many conservative pundits will complain about this because most of the recruits of are the liberal-leaning type. There are also significant and legitimate concerns about voter fraud. However, registration numbers are up, his fundraising is out of control (requiring people to get involved enough to feel that it is worth their money), and general interest in this election seems to be much higher. Though it favors the left, I like more people being involved - hopefully down the road they will see the light and this will turn out good.

However, since this election is for President of the United States, the CEO of the most influential economy and largest military in the world, I like Barack Obama's leadership style. He is cool under fire. He is articulate. He is intelligent. He stands behind his convictions. When presented with a problem, he takes the time to thoughtfully and legitimately consider varying viewpoints, and arrive at a well-reasoned response. I would imagine him to be a good moderator between disputing parties. While he may often put forth arrogant overtones, he appears to have genuine respect for the offices he currently holds and is seeking. I have a lot of admiration for the way in which he has conducted his campaign. The gravity, enormity, and volume of problems that our country is currently facing, requires the type of leadership skills that Barack Obama possesses. All else equal, I trust the leadership skills of Barack Obama to be the best for managing these problems currently facing the United States of America.

However, while I have a lot of admiration for Barack Obama leadership skills and his approach to the issues, I strongly disagree with virtually every practical solution that he has presented in response to America's current status. Hence, the basis for my "undecidedness."

Because of conundrum, this is only the first of several posts on the Presidential election. And since early voting in the state of North Carolina is currently in Day #3, they should be coming in fairly short succession...Stay tuned.

Within the past 168 hours

2008-10-13T23:04:00.009-04:00

My job is a lot of fun. I try to maintain a decorum of professionalism, but sometimes the "kid-in-a-candy-shop" comes out a bit. Bear with the pictures - they were taken on my 2 megapixel Blackberry.

Greenville, NC - Tuesday, October 7, 2008

(Click on the picture to make out the labels)

Wilmington, NC - Monday, October 13, 2008

It's funny that even with a VIP ticket, I got closer to McCain outside the event where a ticket was not needed. By the way, VIP ticket does NOT mean VIP parking and does NOT mean that you can get out of a parking garage in downtown Wilmington in less than 1 hour.

My Favorite Local Rockstar

2008-10-10T14:15:00.012-04:00

I have a close friend who is aspiring to be a rockstar. Though he was once my local rockstar, he may now only be referred to as such by the residents of the great city of LA. If they don't already, they will soon, because he's gonna make it. Why my vote of confidence? Well that's a rather complicated question.

No, its not this - though I do have a certain appreciate for those who can skillfully tickle the neck of cheap Chinese plastic.

There are a number of different ingredients that go into the bowl to produce a bonafide rock legend. Of course, true rockstars must possess a seamless, comprehensive understanding of complex music theory. On demand, they must be able to exhibit a bottomless well of musical talent; nuanced technical instrumental ability, creamy vocals, and intricate rhythmic patterns. Rockstars are trendsetters, chic fashion icons who not only adorne their hot bods with the latest threads but also have a nack for breaking the mold with unseen hairstyles and bold body art. They have the ability to inspire mass gatherings of people to scream at the tops of their lungs. Rather than mold themselves to that which others wish them to be, they craft their art to express the innermost expressions of their soul - and people cannot look away.

Though they are often showered with loads cash, sweet cars, and other flashy, yet unnecessary material possessions, their relentless pursuit of musical euphoria emerges from a desire to provide an ever greater level of pure "face meltage" to their adoring fans. There are many who have followed the above to a certain level success. However, the legends who adorn the halls in Cleveland or the sidewalks on Hollywood Boulevard have understood another crucial element. Behold:

Remember, you heard it here first.

Waiting...

2008-10-04T12:37:00.005-04:00

I'm about to become an uncle...and I'm pretty excited about it.

Verbosity

2008-10-01T17:08:00.007-04:00

I feel as though I am becoming increasingly wordy. Language is something that is important to me. Words are powerful and can cause extreme good and bad (James 3). I am very sensitive to the nuanced connotations that language can produce regardless of intention. Therefore, when I speak (or write for that matter), I want to express exactly what I mean. The way I think is very nuanced and conditional and consequentially the way I talk and write are as well.

That's partially why I stopped blogging for a while - it just took me too long to word everything exactly as I wanted it, or at least close to it.

My current boss is a Justice on the Supreme Court of North Carolina. His job is to write opinions that explain the law and as such he must be extremely precise with his language. I am continually amazed at the extent of his vocabulary and the ease with which he employs it. I think it is rubbing off a bit - not the vocabulary necessary, moreso the need to be precise with one's language.

All this to say (ironically), let me know if I get unnecessarily verbose.

By the way - shameless plug for Justice Edmunds. He's running for reelection to the Supreme Court of North Carolina and I am managing his campaign. If you are in North Carolina, we sure would appreciate your vote and if you would join our Facebook group.

The Theology of Improvement

2008-09-30T21:54:00.010-04:00

This past Sunday in H2O, we sang Yesterday, Today, and Forever. First of all - it is a great song (tried to find a good version on Youtube and failed - find it on iTunes). It doesn't take long to grasp the mesmerizing Biblical truth that the song waves. It declares God's unchanging nature. God currently exists as He was before the world began, as He will be after earth has passed. The implications of this truth are so foundational that any god that exists apart from it is not worthy of the title. I love this truth and cling to it dearly, but it has provoked some thought.

If God doesn't change, then where did the concepts of change and improvement come from? It is self-evident that we and the world around us are subject to change - a clear distinction between our realm and His. Historically, the primary pursuit of human activity has been (regardless of motivation) to manipulate and control change in a way that improves the human experience. Whether on a communal or individual level, most things that we occupy ourselves with doing are founded in the pursuit of improvement - pursuing material security, attaining true peace of mind, increasing comfort, accumulating and applying knowledge, etc. But if God is unchanging, the concept of improvement must also be foreign to the nature of God.

Humanity (Genesis 1:27). Fallen (Genesis 3:6). Dead to sin (Colossians 2:13). [Side note - this verse has shed great light on the tenant of predestination for me - perhaps a subject for another post.] When we are granted salvation through belief, confession, and repentance, we become alive in Christ. Is there an improvement? Most certainly; what was once dead is now alive. As one who has experience this change, I would argue that my prospects for eternity have improved drastically. What was black is now white and at no point (despite my doubt) was there any shade of gray in between. But this is an instantaneous improvement that seems to have no intermediary process. The Christian walk requires this other sort of improvement.

The Word commands that we grow in the spirit, grow in faith, grow in the likeness of Christ. Growth in these phrases implies positive change, or improvement. This sense of improvement connotes a process with steps and gradual change. But salvation and the promise of eternal fellowship with true Glory has been secured. How can one improve on that? I don't have to convince anyone that the Christians we all know (myself included) are far from perfect and, despite their salvation, do not daily and even momentarily act in accordance with the righteousness that has been imparted to them - a.k.a. there is need for improvement. Is there an interesting paradox here between God's eternality and the saved believers need for improvement?

It's getting late and my beautiful wife is ready for bed. I think there will be a need for a part deux because I have not successfully dictated all of my thoughts on this issue.

However in the mean time do you have any thoughts (I know this is probably more a rhetorical question since my readers - if I had any in the first place - have followed suite by abandoning reading my blog as I abandoned contributing to it)?

Final thought:

Kickin things off again

2008-09-28T21:32:00.005-04:00

I think I'm going to try to start using this a bit more. I realized the other day that I left things on a bit of a sour note. In case you were still curious - things got better. Not all better, but much better than they were at the time.

Anyways. A lot of big things have happened since I have posted. I may reflect on them here but you will probably be able to read more about it at the blog that my beautiful new bride and I have set up - andrewandjenn.blogspot.com.

I have also graduated from college - weird. I have a real job, though it does not feel like I thought it would. I am managing a statewide political campaign and it is keeping me very busy. However, I am having a lot of fun doing it so it does not really feel a whole lot like work. There will be more of that to come - but for now, welcome back to my blog.

Discord in the Family of Faith

2008-03-02T23:49:00.005-05:00

As of late, I have been challenged and emotionally beaten down by strife within one of my bodies of fellowship. Relationships have been destroyed and feelings of many brothers and sisters in Christ have been hurt - deep. Having close friends on multiple sides of the situation, I have felt a profound sense of loss as to my reaction. I've known something was wrong at the core but was unable to put my finger on it. Those involved have genuine passions for the spread of Christ's renown on our campus and I have seen it lived out in their lives. So how in all of this could such deep, hostile divisions arise?

Enter Milton Vincent. I've been reading a book/pamphlet that he is currently working on called "A Gospel Primer". It's one of the two books that Jenn and I are reading as part of our marriage counseling with Chip. The first sentence of the book (post-introduction) reads as follows: "The New Testament teaches that Christians ought to hear the gospel as much as non-Christians do. [Vincent, The Gospel Primer, 13]"

What? Why? Christians have already been saved by the gospel; why do they need to hear it as much as non-Christians? Maybe Milton is just referring to hearing one's own voice while witnessing to non-believers. Or maybe not, he goes on:

"In fact, in the first chapter of Romans the Apostle Paul tells the believers in the church that he was anxious 'to preach the gospel to you who are at Rome [Romans 1:15].' Of course he was anxious to preach the gospel to the non-Christians at Rome, yet he specifically states that he was eager to preach it to the believers as well. [Vincent, 13]" When you look at many books in the New Testament, the first half of these books are preaching the gospel: Ephesians 1-2, Colossians 1-2, Romans 1-11, etc.

Within all of this conflict, the term "gospel" has come up so many times. Who is trying to live by it? Who is concerned to take it to campus? Who vision more accurately encompasses the gospel and how it should be used on campus? And the questions go on.

But I want to add one that I feel has not yet been asked. Who has been constantly and intentionally preaching the gospel to each other within our ministry? This is not about who's better at taking the gospel to campus. It's not about who is discussing the gospel at Bible study or preaching the gospel at group meetings. It's about who is specifically bestowing 1st Corinthians 13 love upon a brother or sister in Christ because He, in His infinite grace and mercy, paid the ransom for our rebellion through His life, death, and life.

God is using the gospel to reconcile the campus for His good. He is using the gospel to reconcile ourselves to His righteousness. But until we allow Him to use His gospel to transform relationships between believers, we are going to experience problems. Before we are ever to be successful with the gospel anywhere outside the fellowship of believers, we must first make sure that it is evident within (Acts 2:42-47).

Merry Christmas and Candy Canes

2007-12-25T14:39:00.001-05:00

First of all Merry Christmas! I have been highly encouraged by the Christ-centeredness which I have found in my Christmas experience this year. My church's Christmas Eve service focused not on the birth of Christ, but on His birth with the ultimate purpose of death with the ultimate purpose of atonement, redemption and salvation for us all. Good stuff.

Do you ever wonder why we do certain things on Christmas? Christmas trees, wreaths, candy canes, etc.? Well on Sunday, the pastor at Concord Christian shared about this history of the candy cane. You may have heard this before, but if not I hope you find it encouraging like I did.

The Candy Cane is shaped the way it is for several reasons. Right side up, it is a reminder of shepherds' staffs in the nativity scene. Upside down, the shape looks like the letter J for...you guessed it, Jesus Christ, Himself. The colors of the candy cane have become synonymous with peppermint itself, however, the colors too have a deeper symbolism. The white is representative of the purity of Christ and the red is symbolic of the redemptive blood that Christ shed on the cross. Also, a lesser known part of the candy cane that isn't often included anymore is the three faint red stripes that you can see in the picture. These stripes are representative of the Holy Trinity. Very cool.

Further, the flavor of the candy cane, as we all know, is peppermint. In the time that Christ walked the earth, this flavor was derived from the hyssop plant. When Christ was on the cross, He was offered a drink from a sponge extended to Him on a hyssop stick. Pretty cool considering this flavor has come to be symbolic of purity and cleansing.

I was encouraged by this not by the candy cane itself but by the way that its creator chose to attribute glory to Christ and His resurrection through his simple art of candy making. It is a simple testament to the way in which Christ should be the sustainer of all we think and do.

Merry Christmas!

What's in a Name?

2007-12-23T00:20:00.003-05:00

I'm currently reading "The Knowledge of the Holy" by A.W. Tozer. Now I make no claim to be what I would call a well-read theologian, though I am trying to work on that. However, I think that because of this, I have found this book to be rather profound. Tozer (rather profoundly) does not seem to view his book in the same light. In the preface to the book he writes: "Were Christians today reading such works as those of Augustine or Anselm a book like this would have no reason for being."

The first chapter of this work is entitled "Why We Must Think Rightly About God." The first sentence of this first chapter of his book sets the tone for what is to follow: "What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." The essence of that statement reveals a very basic truth about human nature, as was intended. It also provides a good basis for what I wanted in a blog.

As I stated in my previous post, I desire for this blog to be a place that I can flesh out the various ideas and opinions running around in my head. Thus, I do not want everything I put on here to be seen as authoritative. However, God has made Himself, certain things about Himself, and certain things about our human experience known through the Word. Therefore, I also want to use this place to relate my journey as I grow in knowledge and wisdom of His Truth.

The title of my blog is a challenge to myself to Think Rightly. It is also a message to my reader to let you guys know that what I write on here is my attempt at Thinking Rightly. I must not only pursue Thinking Rightly in regards to my study of God and His Word. I must also do this in regards to everything upon which I choose to expound, pop culture, philosophy, college, marriage, politics, etc. Of course, in order to Think Rightly about any of those things, I must first Think Rightly about Christ and His Gospel. Doing this will inevitably lead to Thinking Rightly about all else, and thinking about all else is an inevitable part of daily life. In my opinion, it would be a waste of my time and my life to not Think Rightly and encourage everyone else to Think Rightly about their lives and experiences. Therefore, the title of my blog is also a challenge to you, my readers and my friends to Think Rightly. There does exist truth in the nature of Jesus Christ and through Him all else can become clear. So welcome and enjoy.

PS: Of course, "Think Rightly" is also a play on words considering my general political leanings and the fact that I will likely often opine on such matters.

Introduction: Take Two

2007-12-22T23:00:00.002-05:00

So I started another blog a few weeks ago. It was my first time doing so. I titled that one "Don't Quote Me But..." It was an attempt at humility by demonstrating the fact that I wanted to voice opinions and talk through ideas without saying anything authoritatively. After all, I am young and pretty inexperienced in this life and wisdom thing. There are a lot of things I don't know. I know that truth does not change, but my perception of it has, especially over the past four years. Therefore, in the title of my blog, I wanted to infer that what I had to say was important but not perfect or always completely thought though.

Well a very important person in my life challenged that. As soon as I told her the name of my blog, she stated: "What, Andrew that's not you at all." She's right. I am pretty opinionated and there are certain things that I do know to be truth. Therefore, where I may have specific blogs in which I simply throw incomplete ideas out there, I don't want my blog, in its entirety, to be characterized by a morally relativistic tone.

That said, welcome to my new blog. Just about everyone reading this never got the "welcome to my first blog" because I only told two people about it.