Simple but Difficult

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid,
which is Jesus Christ" 1Corinthians 3:11

Why do we continually try to figure a way around the obvious, difficult task of life? The recipe for a successful life is laid out in the Bible very clearly and very simply. A Christian does not have to remember much, does not have to ponder much as far as the basic course of his life. The strategy is simple. But it is difficult.

Men are asked to lay down their desires, their aggression, their vengeful hearts, their walls of protection surrounding their hearts. They are asked to trust in a God that cannot be seen or heard by normal means, and believe in events from two thousand years ago that sound today like fairy tales. They are asked to love and be loved, which may be the most difficult of all.

But to those brave enough to try, they find peace. They find solace in a busy world and a rest for the spirit and the mind not to be found anywhere else.

I have a very active mind, one that will keep me awake at night, and drive me to distraction by day. I am constantly caught up in what the world is doing, curiosity may have killed the cat, and it may kill me yet.

I accepted Christ only a few years back. I had been researching religion and faith in a self-study fashion for some years and my mind was tickled with a fascination with the Passion of Christ. Not the movie, per se, but the event (as this prediliction pre-dated Mel Gibson's movie). I was struck by the extraordinary detail and color of the accounts written in a piece of fiction called "Master and Margarita" by Mikail Bulgakov. I was haunted by the description. I had read some pseudo-scholarly works questioning whether Jesus really ever existed, whether He was ever supposed to be God, claiming that He never claimed to be God, etc., etc. One fairly intellectual-seeming work even laid out a case that His body was never found because it was probably thrown down the hill with the rest and the wild dogs carried away His bones.

But here was this vibrant story of the Passion. I thought to myself "how could anyone write this if some scholarly people don't even think He existed for real?" As I read more and more, the philosophical angle came into play. Logic kicked in and there was no answer for the question, "who was Jesus?"

Who was Jesus? Was He God, or man? Was he a wise dude, and nice philanthropist, a motivational speaker? The only answer that fits all of the facts that we know is that He is and was who He said He was, "I AM".

Not long after I accepted Christ intellectually, I did so vocally to the pastor of my current church. Once I accepted Christ, He didn't take long to test me. All that was good was threatened and pieces of my life started crumbling around me. Inexplicably, just when I thought that it would all end and I would break, there would be a respite. A calm in the storm around me. It was here that I met Jesus personally. This happened over and over again, giving me rest just long enough. I could feel Him working on me in the depths of my heart, digging out some very painful stuff and replacing it with love. It never could have happened if I didn't go through all of that stuff and be so overwhelmed that I came to the end of myself. I had nothing left. At that moment, I would say a prayer, and He would be there.

You see He is rest.

As a man, my inner desire is that of Conan; "To crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentations of the women" We are all easily stirred to anger and fear, and we guard our hearts and harden them to love. We are tasked by this world to do the dirty work of the world and there is no place for soft hearts and weak minds. We want to dominate those around us and have others do our bidding. We find attractive displays and promises of power. It is the short cut to solving problems. More power.

Psalm 46 speaks directly to this;

"Come behold the works of the Lord, who has wrought desolations in the
earth. He makes wars to cease to the end of the earth; He breaks the bow
and cuts the spear in two; He burns the chariots with fire. Cease striving
and know that I am God."

And it tells us to settle those thoughts. Cease striving. Be still. Rest. The God that can create the universe can do everything. You do not need to agitate your mind. You do not need to worry. Be at peace.

Isn't that what we all desire down deep? When was the last time you could truly relax, without a care in the world? Have you ever truly experienced that? I think that promise is one of the most alluring promises of God. Adam cursed us to toil in the earth and so toil me must, and in that toil we find a yearning for the ease and comfort of the rest in the Lord that we were created to enjoy.

Why can't we trust in Him more? Why can't we lay aside our troubles? Why do we get distracted so easily that we lose sight of the important things and succumb to sin and fear? May you burn the chariots, Lord and set our minds at rest.

Jesus calls to us,

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you
rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble
in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is
easy, and my burden is light." Matt 11:29

Jesus, my mind is astir tonight. Give me rest. Let me be still.

Wisdom of Men and the Holy Spirit

"that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of
God." - 1Corinthians 2:5

I have been struggling with the role of Christians in modern society and my role in my own country that, at least in principle, exercises self-rule. I think that the passages in Romans 13 about subservience and submission to the governmental authority over you is valid, we must also consider that we ARE the government in this country, or at least, that is what our Constitution says.

I find much solace and wisdom in Hugh Hewitt's "In, But Not Of",

"History has known periods of greater and lesser human energy, and those
periods of greater energy have been periods when ambition was a passion in good
standing. In "The Century of Louis XIV", Voltaire remarks on the four most
admired historical epochs: Periclean Athens, Augustan Rome, Italy under the
Medicis, and France under Louis XIV. Since Voltaire's day, one might wish to add
to the list the United States from presidents Washington through Jefferson and
England under Queen Victoria. But what all these periods have in common is their
lack of equivocal feeling about ambition. Not that ambition in any of these
periods failed to produce its usual perversities, from the Athenian Alcabiades
to the American Aaron Burr. But whatever its excesses, ambition has at all times
been the passion that best releases the energies that make civilization
possible...
In the Christian view, the pendulum has swung back and forth,
from the doctrine that the meek shall inherit the earth to Max Weber's
perception (set forth in "The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism)
that, among the Calvinists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a sign of
being among God's elect is success on earth. As a general statement it seems
unexceptional to say that Christianity has not necessarily despised ambition,
although it has tended to view excessive preoccupation with ambition for worldly
things as misguided" Joseph Epstein "Ambition"

Hewitt goes on to quote Deitrich Bonhoeffer;

"If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders",
Deitrich Bonhoeffer explained to his sister, "then I can't, as a Christian,
simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead.
I must try and wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver."

I also go back to the Gospel of Matthew and the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). We have been given so much in this country, that I believe that we can be like the servant that was given the five talents. God forbid that we end up to be the servant that was handed only one talent and buried it, afraid to lose what we had! As Christians, we have an obligation to engage the culture and seek political power, and be the salt and the light in this world. Ronald Reagan spoke of the U.S. being "a city set upon a hill...", a line he took from the same Biblical passage. We in America are that city that Jesus spoke of in Matthew;

"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how
will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown
out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A
city set upon a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp, and put
it under the peck measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who
are in the house. Let you light shine in such a way that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." Matthew 5:13-16

We have this balancing act to do as Christians. While seeking political influence, we must not lose our love of each other and compassion for our fellow images of God in this world. This does not mean we need to vote for socialist policies, but it does mean that when we choose our words, they must be loving. When we choose our political stances, it must be done in love, communicated with love. When we choose our political leaders, they must be held accountable to a higher standard, or they tarnish not just themselves, or us, but our entire efforts and our ability to glorify God in the broader culture.

If we engage the culture, we need not be afraid because we have been given a powerful tool that no worldly man has in the Holy Spirit. Secular types may scoff at this and many Christians wonder if they really have it. I can tell you that it is real. It only requires communion and communication with God on a regular basis and keeping one's nose in the good book.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who
is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which
things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught
by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words."
1Corinthians 2:12-13

If we allow Jesus to work in us and through us, there is no end to what we can accomplish. I disagree with any that suggest that politics is a worldly affair and we should focus our attention of prayer and submission. This is surrender to the "meek" philosophy when there is no need for such a thing in modern America. I am not ashamed of the Gospel and it shall set us all free.

The number one thing Christians should think about is that freedom to exercise their religious beliefs is only as secure as we are willing to defend it. Our current direction in worldly, secular culture is to cut Christians out of our society. We simply must engage and participate in our current culture and politics or we will become the meek very quickly.

Jesus commanded us to "make disciples of all nations", it is the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Is this easier to do as the meek, subservient and powerless, and perhaps persecuted minority of a domineering secular and wicked culture? Or as a robust and free, and vibrant middle or ruling class of the greatest nation God has ever set upon the earth? America has been the greatest boon to worldwide evangelism in history. Let us not give up that boon so easily. Let us not let freedom go without a fight.

1Corinthians is a letter of instruction of how to operate in a wicked and sinful culture and grow the Church. We may not win the battle, but we will have no good excuse when we stand before the Lord and have to explain why we did nothing at all, while we had the power to do so.

I mentioneed in another post that I wanted to leave it all in the ring. I do. I want to have the ten talents when my Lord comes calling, not the one I buried in fear of losing it.

Happy Father's Day

Life rolls along and your self image stays static for long periods of time. It takes certain events, whether sudden and jarring, or small and continuous to move you along to realize, after long consideration, that you're getting old.

Father's Day was one of those moments. My sister put together a display of the flag that was draped over my father's casket at Arlington National Cemetery, along with several of the medals that he was awarded during his service in the U.S. Army. Along with it she gave me two photos.

I've seen the pictures before. They are great. But I've always looked at them as if this man was immensely older than I and bigger than life. I realized while looking at them on Sunday that he was younger than I am now when the photos were taken. The one from Viet Nam was taken when he was a mere 29! Then I looked over at my four small children, and realized, that I am that guy now. I am the old guy.

My children will look upon pictures of me some day in the same way. It is a strange feeling. I am not sad, but for the moment feel "connected" to my past and future. A strange sensation. I try and glimpse what my children may think when they are older and hope that photos of me will inspire feelings of love and security and all of the good things that father's are supposed to provide for their children. But I just can't know for sure. Perhaps as I write these thoughts down, they can find my writings some day and know that I love them all, each individually, each differently, each completely in a way that is complete and consuming.

I have to trust in the Lord that His plan for them is right and just, and do my best to remind them every day that I love them. But I also know that I will fail in some way or another or even completely in some regard and that only God can provide that complete fatherly love that each and every one of us needs and yearns for.

I thought it was scary getting married. Jumping into a river, the destination of which I did not know, the hazards I did not know, I could not plan for everything. I had to take a leap of faith that we would grow together. And we have. Thank you Lynn.

That leap is much broader, and the chasm much deeper, and the river much rougher, with each and every child that I have. The weight of fatherhood has settled upon my mind this week and it is an awesome thing.

I pray that when I go down to the final river, my own father will be waiting on the other side to greet me and my Father in Heaven will explain to me the mysteries that bind my thoughts and that He will fill me with the love of God.

Happy Father's Day Dad. I miss you.

The Great Divide, Part III - "...seven biblical reasons..."

In this final installment of my critique of James Carroll's article in the Boston Globe, I hope to further illuminate the inherent bias and misunderstanding of the general press. I single out this article, not because Carroll is singularly anti-Christian, but rather because he is not unique in his outlook and take and editorials like this are standard fare in almost every major newpaper and every major mainstream media outlet in the country and even around the world.

I've spoken about Carroll's base dishonesty of purpose, sacrificed for style points. I've spoken about what I believe to be a defensible understanding of scripture and the passages that he had trouble with. I've tried to take issue with his over-simplification of the passages leading to a jump to conclusions that aren't necessarily alarming and troubling to many of his readers, and certainly not to Christians in general.

Now I wish to speak to the end of his article where he describes the sinister nature of the crime committed by these devout Christian generals in their audacity to put Scripture references on photographs of troops and use them as cover sheets for top secret intel briefings to a devout Christian President.

To get started, let me reference part of his article;

Those downplaying the significance of Draper's revelations suggest the
wily Rumsfeld was just indulging the born-again commander-in-chief. Others
merely blame the Bible-thumping Air Force general who prepared the briefing
documents for the secretary of defense. (Once, that general would have been my
father, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. A convinced Catholic,
yet he would be appalled and alarmed by this business.)
No matter what the
down-players say, Draper's revelation is only the latest of many that show a US
military unduly influenced by an extreme kind of Christian
evangelicalism.
Why should that appall and alarm? Let me suggest a biblical
seven reasons:

First of all, I am guilty of the first two instances. I am downplaying the significance of these briefings because of the indulging of a Christian President and blaming the "Bible-thumping Air Force general". I think both cases are fine.

We live in a country where freedom to express your religious views are protected by the 1st Amendment to our Constitution. This was a briefing read by only a very few people at the highest levels of government. It really is no one's business if these men use their faiths to inform their decision making process. We can criticize their results and their performance but not their right to come to their own conclusions by their own means and methods.

Which leads me to my second problem with this passage of Carroll's work; Carroll's attitude about this is knocking on the door of infringing upon Article VI of the Constitution which forbids a religious test for office. James Carroll, you have no right to preclude Christian men from performing their duties within the paradigm that they have and looking through the prism that colors the world they view. How dare you, sir.

Carroll worries about and undue influence of our military from an "...extreme kind of Christian Evangelism". What is extreme about it? That they believe the Bible is true? That they take Scripture seriously? That they seek solace and wisdom in the Good Book when tough decisions need be made? Actually, what he is alluding to is that he believes these guys are radicals that are justifying the war based upon religious grounds. Carroll's fear is that we have hateful Christian zealots trying to lead a charge against the infidel. He is equating these pictures with Bible passages on them, with the sort of holy war that our enemy has thrust upon us. He is equating Christians with terrorists.

There. I said it. At his base root, Carroll believes that Christian Evangelicals are no different from Muslim terrorists. They are ignorant, stupid, zealots, trying to force their sick version of salvation and religion upon the remaining world. And he thinks they are evil.

Let's tackle his seven reasons to prove my point:

REASON #1:

Single-minded religious zealotry bedevils critical thinking, and not
just about religion. Military and political thinking suffers when the
righteousness of born-again faith leads to self-righteousness. Critical thinking
includes a self-criticism of which the "saved" know little.

On the surface, I agree with his initial assertion here, I just don't think the evidence that he produced suggests a "single-minded religious zealotry". Most Christians I know pass around Scripture passages as inspiration or to comment on a current event or issue. Remember, Carroll only used three examples. One would assume that he used the most aggregious examples to make his point.

The first passage, "Here I am, Lord. Send me", suggests a humble obedience to an unpleasant task. Carroll suggests that the general thinks God was talking to him. The second "Commit to the Lord, whatever you do, and your plans will succeed", from Proverbs 16:3, suggests to a Christian to remember and act in a righteous way so that you will find success and act according to God's will. The third, "Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter", is from Isaiah 26:2 and is a prayer of success as much as it is a prayer of hope that we are, in fact, on the side of God in our endeavor. Carroll summarizes his interpretation of these passages as

"Sent by God. Protected by God. Sure to succeed. The righteous nation.
A war defined not merely as just, but as holy."

I hope that I can convey the difference in mindset, but I probably cannot. A Christian, believing in Christ and Hopeful for salvation, is obedient to God. Every task put before them from authority is considered as ordered by God unless directly in opposition to God (Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God, and those which exist are established by God."). Our troops were not sent by God. They were sent by a government that derives its authority from God, and unless acts in direct opposition to God, must be obeyed by good Christians. The same is true now that a different set of political stripes are in office. "Here I am, Lord. Send me!" Indicates a willingness to serve and be obedient, especially in the light of an unpleasant and/or difficult task.

Committing all that you do to the Lord, is standard fare for Christians and this does ensure protection from God...in a spiritual sense. This does not mean that you will survive. It does not mean that your temporal task will succeed. It means that committing to the Lord in submission to His will ensures that you will succeed in whatever role you are to play in God's master plan and it ensures your salvation in the next life. A soldier that does what is pleasing in God's sight, and is killed in action or by a roadside bomb, has "succeeded" in the most important task of his life -obedience to God unto death. This is not the triumphal horns blasting that Carroll thinks it is.

The last one is the closest to what Carroll wants. It is an implicit request for the walls in the city of the unrighteous to come down or the gates to be opened for the righteous nation to enter and take control. As an American, with our troops committed to war in a foreign land, far away, what exactly is wrong with a prayer that we are successful? I am dumbfounded at what the beef is on this one. Why wouldn't you pray for success? Does Carroll think that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was righteous? I for one feel on pretty solid ground when I say that between the two nations competing on that day, the US was the righteous nation and Hussein's Iraq was not. Secondly, I view the use in this context as a supplication, not a chest-thumping declaration in any case.

I just don't see the self-righteousness that Carroll decries here. I just don't. Someone help me out and let me know how I am wrong.

Carroll's last line "Critical thinking includes a self-criticism of which the "saved" know little". is a throw away line to his secular base. This is a line taken as Gospel by the seculars, but a slap in the face to the "saved". It also happens to be one of the most ignorant comments one could possibly make about the "saved". If anyone on this planet is self-critical, humble, and introspective, it is the "saved". I thought for a moment that perhaps Carroll was suggesting by his quotation marks around the word "saved", that maybe these Bush people and generals were false Christians and that they were betraying their principles. But what Carroll really means here is that ALL Christians are hypocrites and incapable of critical thinking. They are ALL self-righteous and extremists.

According to Carroll, if you believe in the Word of God as the Truth, you have no place in government, no place in our military, and no place anywhere near the "war room".

REASON#2:

"Military proselytizers use Jesus to build up "unit cohesion" by
eradicating doubt about the mission, the command, and the self. But doubt - the
capacity for second thought - is a military leader's best friend. Commanders,
especially, need the skill of skepticism - the opposite of true
belief."

Here Carroll creates a hobgoblin of the "military proselytizer" with no reference and no evidence. This is simply a hypothetical bogeyman, but he speaks as if this were an actual position or established phenomena.

Secondly, the notion that any unit commander uses Jesus to build up "unit cohesion" by eradicating doubt about the mission is moon-bat fantasy, derived from a fevered brain. Soldiers build unit cohesion by training together, fighting together, and sometimes, bleeding together. Doubt about a mission is not eradicated. Soldiers are trained to be obedient. Also, what is funny about this, is that our current military has more decision-making power in the hands of the every day soldier than ever before. Our military is more "democratic" than any other in modern history certainly.

Thirdly, what an insane point! Why on earth would you want soldiers doubting the mission, the command, or themselves, just before they go into combat? He goes on to suggest that this quality is a military leader's best friend! They used to call it incompetence or cowardice. But in post-modern thought, being afraid to do your duty and follow orders is considered a virtue! Unbelievable. This is so insane as to defy further comment...but I must.

Fourthly, the last statement that somehow Commanders, especially, need the "skill" of skepticism? I am sure this passes for wisdom in the newsroom, but this sounds like the extrusion forthcoming from the south end of a northbound steer to me. The "skill" of skepticism? Really? Our military will thrive on all of our battlefield commanders exercising their "skill" of skepticism? They have a name for this too. INSUBORDINATION.

Look there is a time for commanders to register their complaints and comments with their superiors. This is during the planning stages. At any point "unit cohesion" becomes an issue, the situation has probably gone kinetic and the only thing Carroll's 'doubt' and 'skepticism' will do is guarantee additional income for the guys that make body bags. This is further reason why people like Carroll and anyone that thinks like him should be kept as far as possible from the military. If only for his own safety. I cannot believe...I mean I really cannot comprehend how this man can write an article where he critiques the men in charge of the military and actually commit this sophmoric, juvenile dribble to print. People like this will only get good men and women killed.

REASON #3:

Otherworldly religion defining the afterlife as ultimate can undervalue
the present life. Religion that looks forward to apocalypse, God's kingdom
established by cosmic violence, can help ignite such violence. Armageddon, no
mere metaphor now, is the nuclear arsenal.

I thought the last point got me riled up, but this one is so tragically ignorant of what the Gospel says and means that I have been stewing in it for weeks and cannot come up with a proper response. The response that comes to mind is to start from the beginning and first principles, like a child with this guy and walk him through the meaning of Jesus and the Gospel. No one, even remotely familiar with the Salvation and Grace of Jesus Christ could put such a thought to paper.

So my thoughts drift back to the title of this post; The Great Divide. The gap in understanding is so vast as to be a complete barrier in communication. That someone could come up with this statement is evidence of a great failing of the Christian community and the holy catholic church (note, I refer, to the whole of Christendom here, not the Roman Catholic Church - the Bride of Christ, as it were).

Life here on earth is precious because of the possibility of an afterlife, not lessened by it. Every child, every person is hand-knit by a loving, and almighty God. If life on earth were so precious to secular types, why don't they protect babies from abortion? Why do Christians so adamantly defend the unborn if life is cheapened by their belief in an afterlife.

Secondly, God's kingdom of heaven was established in the heart of every believing Christian. "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" Matthew 4:17. There is no evidence, certainly not from the examples that Carroll cites that the generals in question were trying to ignite Armageddon. Yet, when there is someone in the world that actually says that they want to do this, i.e. Ahmedenijad, people like Carroll, brush it off as mere rhetoric.

It makes me wonder what is so threatening about Christianity that people like Carroll must manufacture hobgoblins and find a devil in every detail and every reference to it? It is because it is true. Christ died for our sins and wants to be reconciled with every one of us. Our independence is on the line if we believe. Our pride. Our ego. You see, the self-righteous, are not the Christians, by and large, it is the secularists.

REASON #4

Religious fundamentalism affirms ideas apart from the context that produced
them, reading the Bible literally or dogma ahistorically. Such a mindset can
sponsor military fundamentalism, denying the context from which threats arise -
refusing to ask, for example, what prompts so many insurgents to become willing
suicides? Missing this, we keep producing more.

Huh? This is "college bull session" material as Colin Powell said once about Bill Clinton's NSC meetings. Fundamentalism affirms ideas apart from the context that produced those ideas? You mean like Grace and Redemption? Love, Hope, Charity, Peace?

Wisdom is timeless Mr. Carroll. You seem to be mistaking our Bible for the Koran. If you read our Bible carefully and believe what it says literally, you get a nation that goes into other nations and builds schools and hospitals for the native population after removing dictators that have brutalized the population for decades. If you read the Koran carefully and study it and believe what it says literally, you get 19 middle class, well-educated men with bright futures hijacking four planes full of fuel and people and driving them into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

These people want our country destroyed and it doesn't matter who is in the White House or what our foreign policy is. They are going to keep attacking us until we are destroyed or we destroy them. Our only real option, from a strictly secular point of view, is to kill them as they come, and keep killing them until they reconsider their options. Evil must be confronted and defeated, Mr. Carroll. Every time. There really is no other way. This is not religious zealotry. This is basic self-preservation 101. To miss this belies a deep-seated hatred for your own country and birthplace, and engenders disrespect and disgust from me. As a Christian I am commanded to love you and forgive you and pray for you. So I shall.

What is it about your belief system that when evil people to evil things, there is always something or someone to blame, anyone to blame, except for the evil person doing the evil thing? We don't create terrorists.

Our generals submitted to God in obedience, carried out an ugly, deadly, and very difficult task, prayed for submission to God in everything they did in the hopes of pleasing God even thought they go to their death, and they prayed for success and victory. We are the good guys. Bad guys will always hate us. Perhaps you are a little too "skilled" in your skepticism and doubt and forgot which side you are on?

REASON #5

A military that sees itself as divinely commissioned can all too readily act
like God in battle - using mortal force from afar, without personal involvement.
An Olympian aloofness makes America's new drone weapon the perfect slayer of
civilians.

Again, wrong on every front. The military doesn't see itself as divinely commissioned. I defy Carroll to establish this. It is certainly not the case in the examples he gave. Even if the case he made suggested such a thing of these generals, it is not true of the commanders downstream from them. This is a preposterous stance and he must provide a much better arguement. This sound like paranoid blubbering to me.

Secondly, the left constantly whines about soldiers dying on the battlefield. When the miltary finds a way to reduce the number of casualties by used drones. They complain and criticize that it is too impersonal. The truth is, that these people, Carroll included want American casualties. They cannot stand the fact that our means and methods of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan have been so successful that we have fewer casualties in theater than people living in most major cities in the United States. Statistically speaking you are more likely to get shot in Detroit than Baghdad. This pisses the left off and they decry technological advantages as somehow immoral.

The last sentence is pure propaganda for our enemies. These drones, and our military in general kills fewer civilians than any military in the history of the world. There has not been a more precise and accurate military to ever operate in the world prior to us and no one currently operating a military comes close to our record, with the possible exception of Israel. Shame on you Mr. Carroll. Look up your facts.

REASON #6

"A bifurcated religious imagination, dividing the world between good and
evil, can misread the real character of an "enemy" population, many of whom want
no part of war with us."

Observe the actions of our people in theater and make this suggestion again. Idiotic. Here Carroll states that religious belief is now simply "imagination". Thinking people, don't believe in God, is what he means. In addition, he is suggesting that the generals and the President that participated in this note passing misread the real character of Iraqi citizens, calling them evil and warring against them. I guess that is why we supposedly purposely targeted civilians with the drones, or at least he insinuated that in REASON #5.

Even if he is only suggesting that the potential exists in the indeterminate future if we allow this dastardly practice of passing Bible passages around continues, his comment here implicitly argues that people of faith cannot use there brains for any higher brain function and critical thinking skills.

REASON #7

"The Middle East is the worst place in which to set loose a military
force even partly informed by Christian Zionism, seeing the state of Israel as
God's instrument for ushering in the Messianic Age - damning Muslims, while
defending Jews for the sake of their eventual destruction."

Christian Zionism? Is it possible that Christians simply recognize the current situation in real world terms outside the prophetic implications? Passing Bible verses around does not equate to messsianic, or end of times fanaticism and even if it did, would not come with a shadow of the hateful dangerous stuff coming out of Iran and North Korea. Not in Carrolls' mind. Defending Jews for the sake of their eventual destruction is a contemptable and ignorant statement. Carroll is not just a regular guy. He is an anti-Christian zealot, himself guilty of many of these qualities that he tries to cast upon Christians.

CONCLUSION

The Pentagon is the wrong place for unbound Christian zealotry, not just
because it violates the separation of church and state (and the rights of
non-believers in the chain of command), but even more because it is inimical to
the prudent use of force. When the history of America's failures in Iraq, and
now Afghanistan, is written, expect to find that US military decision-making was
made blind by faith.

The only unbound zealotry is Carroll's anti-Christian fervor. Secondly, there is no law of "separation of church and state" to violate. Thirdly, no one in the chain of command saw these top secret papers. Only the President and his closest advisors. Christian faith, on the contrary to this guy's rant, is not inimical, if fact it is recommended as a guarrantor of the prudent use of force.

Thirdly, Carroll actually states that we have already failed in Iraq and are about to in Afghanistan, the first of which is patently untrue.

Lastly, this asinine parting shot doesn't even make sense. He has never even tried to make the case in this article that decisions these guys made were made on blind faith. This entire article dances around innuendo and scare-tactics to score points for his secular adherents and fans, but fails to establish anything based upon facts of any kind. He shows not only a complete disdain for religion and faith, but the military as well. He is so biased and so blinded by it all that he probably thinks he is being fair-minded about it all too.

A final observation that further demonstrates this guy's lack of rhetorical discipline is that these seven reasons were purported to be "biblical" reasons. There is no Scripture quoted or referenced or even discussed. I am not sure what "bible" he is referring to or what he meant by it. I think it was just a rhetorical gimmik and throw away line. Snarky. Sarcastic. Disrespectful. Disingenuous. Juvenile.

My deepest prayer is that our country finds the wisdom to send creeps like this to the back bench or even another career and get back to a truth base within which true communication can take place.

I pray for the soul of James Carroll and wish him the best of success. I forgive him. Lord, please forgive me for my anger towards him and help me understand people like this and learn to love them, actually.

In Christ's name, Amen.

Freedom Watch...

Great post by my buddy over at Bill of Grace. I am anxious and frustrated with our current government and know not what to do. But I am sure that more people need to learn some history in a hurry, or we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

The Shack

I just read this book and wept frequently during the book. Redemption and Grace get me every time. The story is very compelling and caught me off guard with the tangible qualities of the characters. I felt very much in tune with "Mack" and have had enough similarities with my childhood that the redemption and healing process really struck a nerve. I highly recommend the read and will be getting more copies to some people that I know that could benefit from the read.

UAW cuts to the front of the line

Newt Gingrich has written an article for Human Events here, that really puts things into perspective. He likens the current corrupt and unfair bailouts with Chrysler and GM with the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920's. He is right.

Anyone reading this should send the link to all that they know. I don't think fair-minded Democrats that voted for Obama would be happy with this. The UAW is largely responsible for the decline and lack of market flexibility of the US auto makers and now cuts to the front of the line and gets a huge political payback when the companies go down. This smells to high heaven and should not stand in the America that I know and love.