The Night Writer http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/ Illuminating fun, faith, family and foolishness. en-us 2008-08-19T14:08+00:00 Filings: Man on the Street http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1219119235.shtml (About "Filings":)... The Night Writer 2008-08-19T04:08+00:00 (About "Filings":)

One morning last week I was walking the five blocks from the train to my office, pretty much just thinking about the day ahead. As I waited at the first corner with a crowd of pedestrians for the light to change, an older black man standing in front of me turned around and looked at me, then said, "God bless you."

"And God bless you, too," I said, a little surprised but not really uncomfortable even though I could smell the strong scent of alcohol coming from him as he turned back around. I know from the times I've spent with the guys in the Teen Challenge program how much they hated, when they were on the street, how people wouldn't look at them because of their color, or their raggedyness, or both. Since then I've tried to make it a habit to acknowledge people with my eyes when they cross my path.

The man was standing with two other rather scruffy looking guys. He turned to me again as the light changed and the crowd moved across the street, the two scruffy guys and my fellow pedestrians subtly leaving a bubble around me and my new friend as we got the inevitable request for money out of the way (which I declined). He then started a rambling description of his birthday being January 1, and how nobody believes that, and how Jesus walks with him, and nobody believes that either. "Do you you believe Jesus walks with me?" he asked.

"I believe Jesus lives inside us," I replied.

"Does he live inside you?"

"Yes, he does."

He went on talking about Jesus following him everywhere. By now Jesus was the only one who could have been in spitting distance of us. I was feeling very much at peace, though, interjecting a comment every so often to let him know I was listening. We got to the corner where my office is and my friend was asking me if Jesus walked beside me. I told him that I believe Jesus said he would never leave us or forsake us, that he would be with us everywhere we go. Then I got bold, though I still felt peaceful.

"I believe Jesus is walking beside you," I said. "The problem is, you've been taking him into a lot of places he doesn't want to go. I wonder," I said, "what would happen if you started to follow him for a little while instead of having him follow you?" For the first time in our conversation he was still and quiet. I put out my hand. He took it.

"I believe you when you say you were born on January 1. I believe that is a symbol from God that you can make a new beginning, but you don't have to wait for your birthday."

There at the corner of Washington and Marquette I put my other hand on his shoulder and began to pray out loud, thanking God for the man's life and for bringing us together and for the plans that God had for him. I prayed that God would open doors for him that no man could close and that he would close doors that no man could open. I said "Amen" and dropped my left hand. He stood there with a surprised look on his face.

"Thank you," he said, softly. Then louder, "Thank you very much! God bless you!" Then he turned and walked away.

Now I harbor no illusions that that interlude will turn that man's life around, but I know God has done greater things. Neither do I have any doubt that I was supposed to meet that man that day. As for myself, I got quite a lift from the unexpected meeting, and I wondered at the peace and confidence I had felt. I hadn't been self-conscious at all about anyone else around us, or put off by the man's appearance or condition. Believe me, that is not my usual demeanor! I felt at first as if I had just done something the way my pastor would've done it, and then I realized that perhaps I had done it the way Jesus would have — without a thought or care but for the man he had just met.

That may all be very nice but I also realized that, while I likely won't know the impact I made on the other guy, that God wanted to show me something. I, too, am guilty — in both thought and actions — of taking Jesus into places sometimes that perhaps he doesn't want to go. In fact, I can go hours without even being aware of him beside me. As the morning went on I was simultaneously buoyed by the experience and humbled that I was able to experience it. I didn't really grasp the biggest lesson, however, until yesterday when it finally dawned on me.

The experience felt great and was stimulating because it was different, out of the ordinary. It finally hit me, yesterday, that in fact it shouldn't be that out of the ordinary at all. Jesus didn't spend a lot of time in church, but was usually out walking, going from one place to another, meeting the people he was supposed to meet, touching their lives with his presence. The same Jesus walks with me, wanting to do the same thing if I will let him; not by preaching sermons or trying to get people to say a prayer so they can be "saved", but simply touching their lives with a word or a touch that communicates his love for them, showing — as Romans 2:4 says — "the goodness of God that leads people to repentance."

I want to feel that lift that I felt that day much more often.


]]> Life Shepherds http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1215467682.shtml ... The Night Writer 2008-07-09T22:07+00:00 "Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd."
- Samuel L. Jackson as "Jules" in Pulp Fiction
I didn’t start seeing the words “life coach” until I began following the Manival. Many of the blog contributors to that weekly carnival describe themselves as a life coach. I have nothing against the title as a profession or a hobby, but seeing those words made me think, “Why don’t people just get a pastor?”

The word pastor means shepherd, and I've had the same pastor for more than 20 years now. He, along with who and what he represents, have played an important role in my thinking and actions today. His teaching and his example have greatly contributed to the success of my marriage, my relationships with my kids and my employers and co-workers, my finances and has provided me with the peace and confidence to channel the abilities that were given to me into new and positive areas. Of course I realize that not everyone has this same advantage, though I consider it to be a necessity rather than a luxury. It makes me even more appreciative of the "coaching" that I've received.

Isn't this what you'd want in a coach — a teacher, exhorter, advisor, someone to comfort you in the trials and discomfort you when you're getting complacent? I have been led into green pastures and to still waters and in the paths of righteousness. My soul has been comforted, even when it looked as if I was surrounded by things that wanted to kill my spirit, and I have sat comfortably at the table with my enemes, willing and able to share goodness and mercy.

Of course what some might call coaching, and others might call mentoring, the church calls discipleship. And one of the things that I've been taught is that even as I am continually discipled I need to be always reaching out and discipling others. As I continue to learn and grow I need to be willing to help others do the same. It’s become so engrained in me that I hardly notice that I’m doing it, but I can see it in the interactions I have with our multiple-church men’s group, the “Fundamentals in Film” class I’ve been doing for more than two years with a group of teen-age boys, and the upcoming “How to be Marriageable” group, and in some of the surprising relationships that have developed in my life. Futhermore, while my blog is mainly for my own amusement, it also plays a role in this.

Even so, like Jules in the quote above, I sometimes have to try real hard to get out of my comfort zones, habits and selfishness to be a shepherd, and that's where having an older, more experienced shepherd comes in handy. That, too, however requires letting go of some selfishness, or at least, self-interest. I've not been one who lays down his pride easily or who likes to admit that I don't have all the answers — at least not audibly. Oh sure, I can curse myself and my perceived failings to no end internally or under my breath, but admitting it out loud is a lot harder. I think that's not an uncommon attitude and probably the biggest reason so many people have not allowed themselves to be discipled/mentored/coached. It's all too easy and common to merely want everyone else to change while we stay the same.

And we're deceived, of course. The fact is we will all be discipled by someone or something, even if we don't realize that it's happening. The only choice we have is deciding who/what it is we will follow.

I figure that I've probably got enough experience (good and bad), accumulated wisdom and random revelation to hang out a shingle as a Life Coach, but I don't know if that's something I want to be, professionally, as opposed to something I just do day-in and day-out with whoever happens to be coming along. I do have a well-paying corporate drone job that I’ve thought of ditching from time to time. It more than covers our bills, however, which allows me the time and freedom to pursue these other activities that are more satisfying, if apparently unremunerative. I suppose I could try to do these things professionally but most of the people I’ve become connected with aren’t in a position to “pay” me in ways that the mortgage company and Visa recognize.

I don't know that I'll ever "go pro" — especially when it's been so much fun to be an enthusiastic amateur!


]]> A question of, or about, faith (or Faith) http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1209010849.shtml ... The Night Writer 2008-04-24T04:04+00:00 A commenter on my last post, Uncle Raven — someone who has known my wife and I for some time — asked a great question in relation to my review of "Expelled".

In the context of Evolution vs. ID or Big Science vs. Faith, do you believe the conception and birth of your girls was an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God? Or do you allow for the possibility of Bad Science, i.e., that the RM's physician misdiagnosed her condition? And, if that's possible, how would it effect your beliefs?

Here's my response (actually it should be my wife's response because a great deal of it his her story, which I'm relating second hand because she'd gone to bed):

First, just to focus on our conception for the moment, my wife had had endometriosis several years before the two of us met. Her ob-gyn diagnosed it, treated it and performed surgery. Because of the place where she was in her life then and the things in her past that she was dealing with, she was sure she never wanted to have children anyway and told her doctor to tie her tubes as long as he was in there working on things. Which he did. Several years went by and the surgery was, well, shown to be effective at everything it was meant to do. During that time, however, she also found herself turning to God (since nothing else was working). Her heartfelt prayer eventually became, "God I want your will more than my own," and "God, change me."

She didn't know what she was asking. We were married in October of 1987 (Uncle Raven was there) and pregnant in November. Did my wife fall to her knees, praising God for this miracle? No, she did not. She was not pleased, to say the least, because she was still of a mind that she didn't want children. I won't side-track into the things she (and I to some extent) went through over the next several months, but suffice it to say that she remembered what she had been praying — and we named our first daughter Faith. Five years later we deliberately set out to have a second child. We were very pleased with the way things had worked out with the first one and so we made a list of the sex (girl) and character traits and disposition we wanted in #2 and prayed together to become pregnant and for these traits to appear in her. At the very end of our prayer, and almost as a lark, my wife said, "Oh, and God, red hair and blue eyes would be really cute, Amen!" During the ensuing pregnancy we were often asked if we knew if "it" was a boy or a girl. We'd say, "Well, we asked God for a little girl." The reaction was generally such that we didn't feel encouraged to add, "and one with red hair and blue eyes." Well, many of you know how that turned out, though I must confess my knees buckled when our second daughter was born with a full head of carrot-red hair. Not only that, but the other things we asked for, as well as a boatload of things we hadn't even thought of, were deposited in her as well.

Now, I'm not saying that this should become anyone's doctrine or that I think this "extraordinary and direct" intervention in any way means God loves my wife and I more than anyone else or has a special purpose for my daughters more special than the plans he has for everyone else. We take it simply as a sign God gave us to bolster our faith and to encourage us to look to him. If there's more to it than that, we're happy to wait and see.

Could the RM's doctor have mis-diagnosed her extreme symptoms, or failed to perform the tubal ligation completely? Conceivably (pardon the pun). Perhaps we were just lucky, except there are dozens of other testimonies, maybe even hundreds if we could write them all down, in our lives where we know we have heard from and been directed by God and seen the result — and even some where we know we didn't pay attention and missed out to our detriment and the detriment of others (sometimes I really wish we could have a burning bush or bolt of lightning something to tip us off but it hasn't worked that way for us). Similarly, we have heard and even seen similar miraculous things happen in the lives of others we know. Quite often these results line up directly with how scripture describes the ways of God. Perhaps one day I'll write a book about how all that works, but for now it's time to get back to the question about Evolution and ID.

Because I've seen scripture come true in my life, it's easier for me to believe that other scriptures about creation could also be true. Similarly, I'm not ignorant of science (the depth of my faith is a relatively recent development). I'm widely read in a number of genres, and I've swum in the waters of evolutionary theory throughout my schooling. I've done the fruit fly experiments in Science class, and I know that species can change and certain traits can be developed (as any animal breeder can tell you), but I don't think I could ever so alter a fruit fly to where it could become say, a housefly or a dragonfly, let alone a chihuahua. Oh yeah, if you had biiilllliiioonnns of years well then anything could happen, right? Kind of like the old "an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters will eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare" theory (to which a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist might say, "What makes you think Shakespeare wasn't a monkey?")

The thing is, the more "we" learn through science, the more complex the subject matter becomes. Scientists mapping the human genome have found that cells — thought to be the simplest of organisms — are really fantastically complex and the interactions within the cells and between cells are remarkably ordered. The odds that one cell could accidentally get the right combination of materials and events to come into existence, along with the ability to reproduce itself, is literally astronomical. That the cell could divide and multiply itself into an organism that could then meet up with some other organism and that these two would discover a lot more interesting way of reproducing than just cell division is, well, incredible. (Oh yeah, I still remember the stages of cell mitosis from lab class: interphase, prophase, metaphase, anaphase and telephase.)

Anyway, somehow or another — either by an incredibly fortuitous and accidental events or by someone or something lining the dominos up first — we're here in all our wisdom and glory. The evolutionary model holds that order came out of chaos, but in everything else we see that something put in "order" (at least by man) quickly returns to disorder. Does Nature "know" something we don't and if so, how? And does that "knowing" imply an intelligence at work? As scientists continue to delve deeper and deeper and learn more and more about how much it is they don't know, couldn't it be possible that many (who's job after all is to hypothesize, test, record and try to replicate) might, even without a "Christian" or religious background, start to say, "Hmmmm?" Isn't it reasonable that countless "reasonable" people might consider that life from random crystals, or space aliens "seeding" the earth or infinite monkeys typing out, not the works of Shakespeare, but infinite lines of DNA code sound just as mythic as Adam and Eve?

]]> Review: Expelled (updated) http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1208807512.shtml We went to see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as planned Friday night. We went to the 6:30 p.m. show and it looked like there were two dozen people in the... The Night Writer 2008-04-22T04:04+00:00 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as planned Friday night. We went to the 6:30 p.m. show and it looked like there were two dozen people in the theater. I hope the numbers increase because it was an interesting movie presented in a mostly respectful way, dealing with a subject that — while it may not occupy a lot of your thoughts or life — can certainly add meaning to these.

Frankly, however, I can see why people will stay away, regardless of their position on the topic of Evolution/Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design (or Creationism as some describe it). Most of us don't regularly seek out controversy, especially in our recreation times. We don't go out looking for a fight, yet the buzz around this film from both sides would lead you to think a fight is what you're in for. If any thing was provoked in me, however, it was thought. So much so, in fact, that I'd like to see the film again because I'd often find myself pondering an interview I'd just watched and being distracted as the film moved to another scene or conversation. In this post I'll give you my brief take on the movie based on one viewing, plus some thoughts I've had in the past couple of days about the nature of the controversy.

First, the movie. All in all it was very well done and, as I said before, respectfully handled. Ben Stein and his crew told the stories of several people on both sides of the Darwin/ID debate and did a great job of letting each side speak without interrupting or insulting the speakers. Stein, a phlegmatic but droll speaker and thinker, didn't ambush anyone or resort to gimmicks to throw the people he disagrees with off balance, and even gave them opportunities to restate and clarify their beliefs and positions; whether this was a good thing for those people or not you can decide if you see the movie. All in all it was a very pleasant and stimulating experience, though the section dealing with the Nazi atrocities was (as always) difficult to watch and I know some of who have seen and liked the movie have complained that it was still a reach to draw a direct line from Darwin's theories through the Eugenics movement to the Nazis.

They may have a point, in that the brutality that man has visited on his brothers throughout history is not limited to a particular doctrine or worldview. Atrocities in the name of faith can be documented as well. Hitler and the Nazis, however, could have been pure hatred and evil, but the scientific footing provided by Darwin and Eugenics supported the idea of inferior races and "useless eaters" and stripped the humanity — in the eyes of the Nazis — from their victims. A more effective analogy in the film was the comparison of the squelching of ID in science and academia to the Communist regimes that built walls, stifled dissent, assassinated (careers in this case) and ruthlessly intimidated those who didn't go along.

Again, this is not a trait exclusive to Darwinists, though it is a mockery of the noblest principles of scientific exploration and curiosity. Faith, too, has squelched and scorned when it found itself threatened; the fact that the "new" faith does the same is sad and but not surprising, and is even ironic in how its disciples refer to ID proponents as "flat earthers". Back in Galileo's time, most people knew the world couldn't be flat; practical experience with sight-lines over distances showed that and those who watched the stars (there wasn't television then) could get an idea that maybe everything didn't really revolve around us. Still, talking about this (in the Church's eyes) threatened the status quo and social order. Today, if people stop to really think about it, they can sense at a gut-level that the complexity of life (not just the statistical improbability, but impossibility of even a single cell coming into existence randomly or spontaneously and then being able to replicate, mutate and evolve before being destroyed doesn't make sense, even to those sworn to believe it, as the movie points out). The stakes for protecting the status quo today, however, are much the same, or even higher, as Brent Bozell noted in his review of the movie:
It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay "rights." Abortion "rights." On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism's power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension. (HT Are We Lumberjacks?)

If one area can be questioned then what might happen to the other pillars of what passes for "intelligent" thought in our world today.

In either camp, it ultimately comes down to faith. Personally, I don't dwell a lot on Genesis or Revelation in my faith. I know, beyond a doubt, that God is real and what he has done in my life through my faith in his son, Jesus. Exactly how it began and exactly how it will end don't interest me as much as what God has done and is doing in my life today, and what I can do for others. I need go no further than the miraculous lives of my two daughters who, while they may be unusual, are certainly not mutants even though it was nigh on impossible for them to be conceived.

I would have liked to have seen more discussion of the tenets of ID in the movie in addition to the stories of the remarkable and consistent persecution of those who dared to try to follow the evidence where it leads. Certainly the part about the complexity of cells both boggles and fires the imagination, while the rhetorical contortions of the Darwinist scientists as they try every explanation but God (crystals, space aliens, lightning striking a mud puddle) to explain how life came to be inspire giggles, not boggles.

Make no mistake, Stein didn't stack the deck when he lined up people to speak on camera for the movie. He had some of the best known names and noted intellects sit down in front of the camera and talk, even though their dismissals of ID theories or research were typically ad hominen attacks on their counterparts or insulting speculation of their opponents' agendas, with little offered in terms of refuting the ID argument on anything other than its premise.

Toward the end of the movie Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, reads an excerpt from his book describing God — if he exists — as a petty, violently jealous, homicidal tyrant (among other things). If Dawkins is correct in his description, perhaps there is no God because if there were Dawkins would surely have been struck down. Or, perhaps it means that God is real and is as loving and merciful as others say. If so, why wouldn't Science want us to even consider the idea?

UPDATE:
Here's a thoughtful take on the movie from Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost:
The film doesn't attempt to present the scientific case for ID (though Stein promises this will be included on the DVD version) nor does it attempt to undermine the credibility of neo-Darwinism (though the Darwinists in the film do a masterful job of that, albeit unintenionally). Stein's primary focus is on the freedom of academics to merely consider an idea that is deemed verboten in the Ivory Towers. He uses a series of interviews, interspersed with Cold War imagery, in a way that that is both entertaining and enlightening. It is only when it veers off into the historical connection between Darwinism and Nazism that the film stumbles. The conjunction between the two is indisputable, though ultimately as irrelevant as the connection between religion and ID. Scientific theories must be judged on their merit, not on unfortunate outcomes that may result.

Another caution is that Expelled isn't a fair movie. When Stein interviews advocates of ID he selects scientists and philosophers that are thoughtful and sober while the Darwinists tend to be either a bit nutty (Bill Provine) or unable to keep from damaging their own cause (PZ Myers). Likewise, he stacks the decks in ID's favor by interviewing intellectual heavyweights like David Berlinski while allowing neo-Darwinism to be defended by Richard Dawkins, a man who is highly educated but of only modest intellect. The result is a film that isn't balanced and isn't fair. But it is both funny and infuriating. At least it is, as Stein would no doubt say, if you value freedom. Rating: B+


]]> Picture this: getting out of the way http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1207021238.shtml ... The Night Writer 2008-04-01T03:04+00:00 Great testimony from King David over at The Far Wright today. It reminded me of a song we sang in church yesterday that goes, in part, "God will make a way, where there seems to be no way."

What I saw in that song is that when there seems to be no way it really means that there seems to be no way to me. God always knows and sees the way — and usually I'm bogged down right smack in the middle of it (the way, that is).

We all have had the experience of trying to do things "our way" (thanks, Frank), the "worldly" way. If we're blessed, or not too stubborn, we get hooked up with a good church and start to see God move and do things in our lives (He was doing them all along but we usually didn't recognize them for what they were). We get a new idea of God's power and mercy and we believe it and experience ... yet we get comfortable or when a new challenge comes we still put ourselves in the position of saying or deciding what God can, or cannot, do. Even though we've seen that there were things we didn't know before that have since changed our lives, we may yet assume that now we know it all ...

"Oh yeah, God will do that, but He wouldn't do this" or ...

"If I do this, then God will do that, ...

or the reverse, "God can't do this because I didn't do that..."

"God no longer speaks to us...or heals...or delivers...or opens doors that no man can close..."

Maybe it's because our fear trumps our faith; we fear our faith is not even as big as a mustard seed, or we're afraid that God won't come through, or we're afraid we somehow haven't "earned" His grace — even if we've had hours, years, even decades of sound teaching that tells us His grace is a gift that no one can earn...

We cling to our doctrines and our own understanding, lovingly polished over the years, and fail to see or remember the underlying Word that they were based on. We're afraid to just let go and put it in His hands, as if His plan isn't sufficient for our needs, as if our senses are the sole arbiter of what makes sense.

God still speaks. He still heals. He still provides. If you don't believe me, go talk to King David. ]]> Picture this: getting out of the way http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1207021238.shtml ... The Night Writer 2008-04-01T03:04+00:00 Great testimony from King David over at The Far Wright today. It reminded me of a song we sang in church yesterday that goes, in part, "God will make a way, where there seems to be no way."

What I saw in that song is that when there seems to be no way it really means that there seems to be no way to me. God always knows and sees the way — and usually I'm bogged down right smack in the middle of it (the way, that is).

We all have had the experience of trying to do things "our way" (thanks, Frank), the "worldly" way. If we're blessed, or not too stubborn, we get hooked up with a good church and start to see God move and do things in our lives (He was doing them all along but we usually didn't recognize them for what they were). We get a new idea of God's power and mercy and we believe it and experience ... yet we get comfortable or when a new challenge comes we still put ourselves in the position of saying or deciding what God can, or cannot, do. Even though we've seen that there were things we didn't know before that have since changed our lives, we may yet assume that now we know it all ...

"Oh yeah, God will do that, but He wouldn't do this" or ...

"If I do this, then God will do that, ...

or the reverse, "God can't do this because I didn't do that..."

"God no longer speaks to us...or heals...or delivers...or opens doors that no man can close..."

Maybe it's because our fear trumps our faith; we fear our faith is not even as big as a mustard seed, or we're afraid that God won't come through, or we're afraid we somehow haven't "earned" His grace — even if we've had hours, years, even decades of sound teaching that tells us His grace is a gift that no one can earn...

We cling to our doctrines and our own understanding, lovingly polished over the years, and fail to see or remember the underlying Word that they were based on. We're afraid to just let go and put it in His hands, as if His plan isn't sufficient for our needs, as if our senses are the sole arbiter of what makes sense.

God still speaks. He still heals. He still provides. If you don't believe me, go talk to King David. ]]> Left. Right. Left, Right, Left. Marching toward what? http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1205778952.shtml ... The Night Writer 2008-03-20T21:03+00:00 Rich Karlgaard is among those pondering a return of the religious left:

Yet while secular politics are unwelcome in our church, I have noticed subtle shifts of late. The mood of the ministry and congregation is moving left. The music is moving toward a folk-rock sound of the 1960s and 1970s. Youth ministers wear berets and soul patches. The younger ministers don’t identify themselves as “Christians” but as “Jesus followers.” I would guess that most of them are Obama supporters, but I don’t ask.

To my thinking, "Christian" is ideally something that other people should call you because of what they see in you, rather than something you'd necessarily call yourself. "Follower of Christ" doesn't do much for me, since Jesus had a lot of people following him around during his ministry, perhaps just for the food. Personally, I like "Imitator of Christ" myself (more on that later).

America’s religious left seems to be mounting a comeback. I’m happy for this development, even though my own tilt is to the right.

The religious left has a distinguished past in American history. It led the abolition fight in the 19th century. It led the civil rights movement in the 20th century. Organizations like the Red Cross grew out of progressive Christianity.

Yes, and I think the basis of America's welfare program appealed to our country's Christian heritage and the well-meaning desire to do good and to help the poor. That welfare has had the un-Christian effect of destroying families and perpetuating multi-generational poverty also has to be acknowledged — something the religious left is loathe to do. It has also been, at best, ambivalent about abortion, and its infatuation and even outright embrace of communist and socialist totalitarianism from the Soviets to Castro, Ortega on through Chavez, and it's apparent commitment to replacing God with Government throughout U.S. policy is also disturbing. (That's not to say the Religious Right hasn't supported it's share of dictators and made its own alliances of convenience).

The strange disappearance of America’s religious left during the 1970s has been noted but not examined much. My own guess is that drugs, music, sex, New Age religions, body worship, tree worship, earth worship and so forth, siphoned off an entire generation of seekers who had previously found their mystic/activist fulfillment in the left hemisphere of Christianity.

Now one detects that many old hippies, and sons and daughters of hippies, are returning to progressive Christianity.

We’ll see how this plays out politically. If there must be a left, then let's cheer for a religious and not an atheistic left. However, I do think the trend benefits Democrats and is one reason why Democratic primary voter turnout has far excelled Republican voter turnout this year. The mainstream secular media, as usual, has utterly missed this story.

I think I agree with Karlgaard that if there's going to be a left let it be a religious left rather than an atheistic one. My caveat, and especially my prayer (for both the left and the right) is that the focus is on seeking and doing God's will, ideally by trying to be like Christ.

Earlier I mentioned being an "imitator" of Christ. Because we're all human (left and right), it is an easy step to try and move from "imitator" to "impersonator", wherein we try to rule by proclamation as if we, ourselves, were God. That's certainly long been a fear and a warning from the left side of the church aisle regarding the motivations of the right, while the left's own similar tendencies are ignored or attributed to "doing good" or "meaning well."

My belief is that any "theocracy", whether left or right, is fatally flawed by our own human imperfections and tendency to turn moves into movements; movements into monuments; and, ultimately, monuments into mausoleums. By all means, we should pursue faith in our lives and we should hope that our personal beliefs will be reflected in our public behavior individually and through policy. Our responsibilities to the poor (and the poor's responsibilities to God and others); to be stewards of the earth; to deal ethically and compassionately with others are all things that must be done and honored by individuals, not discharged to a collective or government to be taken care of while we blithely go our own selfish way. As I've written here before, if God asks me if I helped the poor (as if He doesn't already know) I don't think He's going to be impressed if I say, "Well, I paid my taxes." Being religiously left or right, highly taxed or not, doesn't lessen our responsibilities to do something on an individual basis, no matter how many marches, protests or church services we go to.

We often hear the phrase, "What would Jesus do?" as a guide to behavior. I suppose that's all right as far as it goes. A better statement might be, "What is Jesus doing?" and then trying to line up with that. If we believe Jesus is still at work around us, and not that He's gone off and left us to our own freedom-eroding devices, we can purpose to look for those things and and align ourselves accordingly. I urge those of the religious left, and my friends on the religious, to put our focus on glorifying God, not our own group or idealogy. If we can do that — though we may disagree from time to time — I think we'll be all right.
]]> Picture this: Yes http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1203289389.shtml ... The Night Writer 2008-02-17T23:02+00:00 Saturday morning we had our Inside Outfitters men's meeting with men from a couple of other churches and a large contingent from Minnesota Teen Challenge. During the worship part of the meeting we sang with an abridged version of the song "Yes" by Shekinah Glory.
Will your heart and soul say "yes"?
Will your spirit say yes?
If I told you what I really mean,
would your heart and soul say "yes"?
It's a song that moves slowly and deeply, giving one a chance to either sing along or meditate on the words as they minister.
There is more that I require of of you,
Will your spirit still say, "yes"?
For such a long time in my life my answer was always "No."

Later I came around to where I said, "I don't know."

Eventually, in many areas of my life I said, "Yes" — to great effect.

Why then, in too many other areas, do I say, "Yes......but"?
]]> Picture this: Yes http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1203289389.shtml ... The Night Writer 2008-02-17T23:02+00:00 Saturday morning we had our Inside Outfitters men's meeting with men from a couple of other churches and a large contingent from Minnesota Teen Challenge. During the worship part of the meeting we sang with an abridged version of the song "Yes" by Shekinah Glory.
Will your heart and soul say "yes"?
Will your spirit say yes?
If I told you what I really mean,
would your heart and soul say "yes"?
It's a song that moves slowly and deeply, giving one a chance to either sing along or meditate on the words as they minister.
There is more that I require of of you,
Will your spirit still say, "yes"?
For such a long time in my life my answer was always "No."

Later I came around to where I said, "I don't know."

Eventually, in many areas of my life I said, "Yes" — to great effect.

Why then, in too many other areas, do I say, "Yes......but"?
]]> Filings: Red Hot Secrets of Romance http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1202945977.shtml Where is it written in the Bible that guys have to be romantic? I mean, really, give me a scripture. I checked, and my concordance must be the Strong’s Silent Type,... The Night Writer 2008-02-14T19:02+00:00
In so many romantic movie by the time the credits are rolling over the last rays of poignant lighting, the guy is dead. As they might say in the Romance languages: Finito. Morte. Cold as a mackerel (like the guy in Titanic).

Why does it have to be like that? Well, I put down my Strong’s and picked up my Funk & Wagnall. It lists the definition of romance as “the character or nature of that which appears strange and fascinating, heroic, chivalrous…” and “a form of idealistic prose fiction distinguished from the novel or tale because it does not bind itself to reality…”

Well, there you have it: Romance is a fiction. The guy has to die at the end or otherwise ride off into the sunset or else reality will set in and the whole thing ultimately falls apart. You think women will pay to see a movie 17 times if turns out the knight leaves his shining armor laying around on the floor, or likes to spend his afternoons watching the jousts and scratching himself? ‘Tis a far, far better thing that he die nobly than live on and spoil the fantasy. That’s why most of what is considered "romantic" in our culture is really just a bunch of manipulative fluff that’s meant to sell something (or some philosophy).

There is an essential truth in all that, however: you really do have to die.

Earlier I challenged you to give me a scripture that mentions romance. I don’t think you’ll find one, but you will find an example of someone laying down his life for his bride. Ephesians 5:25 commands us to "love our wives as Christ loves the church." He gave himself up, and we are to do the same.

Now I’d guess most of us, if it came right down to it, would be willing to take a bullet for our wives. The real question is, “But will you let her have the last doughnut?” It’s one thing to lay down your life in a blaze of glory like in the movies, but it’s a lot more difficult (and even more romantic) to do it day in, day out by putting someone else’s needs ahead of our own. Perhaps at some time or another you’ve heard the phrase, “C’mon, would it kill you to show a little consideration?” And the answer to that, honestly, is “yes.” It does kill us in so much as we lay aside our will, our pride, our way of doing things in order to reach out to her in a way that is meaningful to her.

We die a little when we put down the newspaper to ask her about her day; when we go out of our way to do something to make her day or her life easier; when we take her concerns and input into consideration in making a joint decision. Is it one-sided? Well, it can be, but it’s been my experience and observation that these activities are very much included in the laws of sowing and reaping, and the harvest usually comes pretty fast. Furthermore, if we are to take Christ as our model, we see that he laid down his life for us first without concern for what he would get back (in fact, even knowing that there would be many who would not accept his sacrifice).

He did it, the scripture says, to make us (the church) holy. One of the definitions of “holy” is “to be set apart.” We demonstrate that our wives are holy to us by treating them in a way that shows we value them more than any relationship in our lives other than God. Instead of taking them for granted because we’re around them so much, we put extra effort into their well-being precisely because we are around them so much. Yes, it will cost us everything – and it will pay back more than we can ever imagine. ]]>