Tradition!

There is, in current Protestantism as well as our society, a tendency to discard the traditional. We question the need for tradition. We think that "the traditional" is simply a reference to "the old and worn out", stuff that only those nice but somewhat frumpy older folks prefer, but of little real use to the contemporary.

Part of this is part of Protestantism. The Roman Catholic Church (of which the Protestants protest) hold tradition as one of the basic components of orthodoxy. Scripture, the Church, and tradition are the three parts they contend that provide insight and instruction in how we should think and live. The Reformers protested, calling on sola scriptura instead. Only Scripture had the position as the source for matters of faith and practice. So there was a built in objection, at least to some extent, to tradition. But neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Reformers actually rejected tradition outright. The question at the time was the authority of tradition, not the value. Protestants, however, have questioned the value to the point that there is in many cases an automatic rejection of anything that bears the tag "tradition".

The other part, of course, is sin. It is in the sin nature. We want to be independent. We want to be without authority at all. It's part of our nature. We are rebels from the start. Factor in the modern culture of youth that says that young is good and old is bad and we're ready to toss tradition at the face of it. Never mind that tradition has value. Don't think about the fact that we all have traditions and, if we don't, we're making our own. Don't even consider the possibility that these traditions actually have roots in truth and value in content. We're young and we're free and we don't want no stinkin' traditions. Those are for old folks.

I have learned a respect for tradition. Some people look aghast at me when I use the term or the concept, as if I'm trying to become a Roman Catholic or something. So, before you question my integrity, let me tell you my thinking. I'm speaking here of Christian tradition. I'm speaking of "orthodoxy", the long-standing views of Scripture that have been held through the centuries. These are particularly in the crosshairs of modern Christianity. We need to take them apart and likely discard them. But I wonder, and here's why. Jesus told His disciples, "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). It seems to me that one of the primary functions of the Holy Spirit throughout the ages has been to "guide you into all truth". If this is accurate, then it would seem to me that one would be able to trace orthodoxy from the first century to today. It might be obscure at times. It might not be in the forefront. There might be gaps, at least in the documentation. But it seems that, assuming the Holy Spirit has been doing His job all this time, the truth must always have been in the hands of Christ's true disciples.

If this is true, then it would seem that tradition has value. We find so many "givens" from orthodoxy being questioned today. Look at some examples, and I'm sure you'll think of your own. The Church has always held that women cannot be in positions of leadership in the Church. That is not the sole perception today. Homosexual behavior has always been viewed as sin. Many today are arguing that the idea is archaic. The Bible has been considered inspired by God for nearly 2000 years. Many loud voices are scoffing at the idea today. Then there is the myriads of doctrines that are being questioned or discussed today that were settled in the Church so long ago. Old heresies are back, claiming that their perception is just as biblical as anyone else's.

What to do? One position would say, "Discard tradition. We need to re-evaluate all positions all the time." Well, they might not use the second sentence, but that's the requirement of the first. All Scripture is open to all interpretation all the time. You are not allowed to call on historic interpretation because tradition is out. I would suggest that if the Holy Spirit has been doing His job over the centuries, then we should be able to trace a long line of coherent truth on the concept in question that 1) agrees with Scripture (most important) and 2) has a history of agreement among the people of God. The alternative is a bit too difficult for me to tolerate -- that the Holy Spirit tried His best, but only recently has been able to get up enough momentum to get people to the truth.

I won't go over the arguments that traditional Christianity would settle today. You can do that for yourself. I would just like to offer a recommendation. If you are offered two positions on a particular biblical topic, both of which might seem to be well supported by the Word, perhaps you can try asking what saints through the ages held on that question. I think you'll often find that the question was asked and answered over and over in Church history, and we would do well to trust the Spirit to have been at work all that time. Tradition may have its problems, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The Water Gate

Remember Watergate? Maybe not. Lots of people are too young for that. Did you know that the Water Gate is mentioned in the Bible?

You'll find it in Nehemiah. After they had rebuilt Jerusalem's defenses, they gathered before the Water Gate (Neh. 8:1) so Ezra could read the Law of Moses to them. Ezra, of course, didn't benefit from the "seeker sensitive" training of today. He kept them standing from early morning until midday reading and explaining (Neh. 8:8) the Law to everyone who could understand (Neh. 8:3). The response was interesting.

All the people wept as they heard the words of the Law (Neh. 8:9).

What a concept! They didn't nod in agreement. They didn't shout their approval. They didn't glaze over like so many of us tend to do (even with those short sermons that are so popular today). Faced with the Law of God, clearly explained, they wept.

The leaders sent the crowd home. "Go eat. Don't weep." The outcome was an impromptu 7-day seminar of in-depth study of the Law (Neh. 8:13-18). But there, at the beginning, when all was explained, the response was weeping.

It is here that the Nehemiah uses the famous phrase, "The joy of the Lord is your strength" (Neh. 8:10). Think about that in context. The natural response for the people of God when faced with the stark realization of their obvious sin is sorrow. How could we have so transgressed the will of the God we love? Given the depth of sin and the holiness of God, the question becomes "How can we recover from this sorrow?" Nehemiah's answer is, "The joy of the Lord is your strength." Rejoicing in God and His greatness isn't merely pleasant -- it provides strength. It fortifies you. Rejoicing in the Lord fits us for God's work.

"The joy of the Lord is your strength." Rejoice in His presence. Rejoice in His love and mercy and grace. Rejoice in His forgiveness. Rejoice in His holiness. That joy will provide you inner strength that will sustain you when you are faced with difficulties in life. Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, rejoice.

The Guest of Honor

"Dear Mr. Petersen," the letter began, "we would like to extend to you an invitation to join us as our guest at a dinner being given in your honor. Because of your outstanding personal integrity, your impressive list of accomplishments, and your constant reliability, we wish to have an evening with you in which we can celebrate you and all that you stand for ..."

There were, of course, the rest of the required blah-blah. When, where, what to wear, all that stuff. And my wife assured me that they were serious and I should go. So we RSVP'd and, on the appointed evening, showed up for the affair.

I was amused at first at the appearance of the place. I'm a farmer by trade, accustomed to barns and wood buildings and rustic places and all, and they had this place all made up in modern architecture, fancy lighting schemes, and other displays of modern technology. Obviously the place wasn't chosen with me in mind. "But, hey," I thought, "a place is a place." So we went inside.

The music was a bit harsh for my taste. I guess "harsh" isn't the right term. I'm a good ol' boy, and one might have thought that they would have played "good ol' boy" music because, after all, I was the guest of honor. Instead, this was some pretty heavy rock music with, I guess, some hip-hop stuff mixed in for good measure. It would not have been my choice of music.

We were greeted by the guy in charge who thanked us for coming and showed us to the table where we would eat. Funny thing. It wasn't in front. There was a table in front, and all the big wigs who were throwing this thing were there shaking hands and smiling, but we weren't shown there. We had a nice table, though, so I wasn't complaining.

I was complaining when they brought out the food. It was a vegan meal. A vegan meal! In my honor? I'm a rancher. I raise and sell cattle ... you know ... so people can eat them. I am a carnivore! "No," my wife assured me calmly, "you're an omnivore." So I kept my mouth shut and chewed on the rabbit food.

The evening wore on in the same way. They mentioned my name a lot. People applauded from time to time. Very few actually noticed that we were there. They took up a collection to support more of these dinners and more of my work. Of course, what exactly was my work wasn't really discussed, but I suppose that's not my concern. I was able to slip out unnoticed and we went on home. I wasn't exactly sure, when it was all said and done, why I was invited or what it had to do with me except to mention me and my work. Oh well, on to what I'm doing ...

Do you ever wonder if God feels that way when He comes into our houses of worship? We tailor our music to suit the people who come. We tailor our gatherings to appeal to visitors. How much attention do we pay, in our planning or our operation, to the One about whom the whole thing is supposed to be? Just wondering ...

Home Schooling in Germany

Home schooling in Germany is illegal. I didn't realize that before, but why would I? I don't live in Germany. Yet, the HSLDA, the Home Schooling Legal Defense Association wants that changed. They want to go to court to force the government to allow home schooling. It's deemed "government oppression" to disallow home schooling. WorldNetDaily decries their "Nazi-era law" and pictures the mean ol' government dragging "crying children" to class. People in Germany have gone to prison for defying the laws. Blogs are written supporting the poor oppressed folk of Germany who don't have the freedom to home school their kids.

Now, if you detected a bias in that last paragraph, I would be lying if I said you were mistaken. Don't get me wrong. I have a great deal of respect for people who home school their kids. For the large part, home schooled kids get the best education under the best conditions with the best outcome. No doubt. What could be better than having a loving teacher who is also your parent personally teach you all you need to know in life? It's a great concept. I'm in favor of it.

The part that I don't get is the demand for it. I'm speaking here of Christians. When secular people demand whatever they demand, that's their prerogative. But on what basis do Christians make such a demand? Notice that I'm speaking here of demand, which is different than request. A demand says, "You are keeping us from that which is rightly ours" while a request says, "We would appreciate it if you would give us what we ask." Fundamentally different.

In America, we have "God-given" rights which are Constitutionally ours. We have the right to freedom of speech, religion, and so on. Based on the Constitution, if a government entity attempts to remove those rights, we (Americans) have the right, nay, the obligation to demand that those rights be returned. On the other hand, as Christians, we have certain obligations. We must, for instance, preach the Gospel. We are not given the option of not preaching the Gospel. If the government forbids it, we don't have the option to stop. As in previous days in Church history, we might face penalties for obeying God rather than men, but we have to do it.

I'm having trouble, however, figuring out where "home schooling" falls under any of this. I don't see it as a Constitutional or God-given right. I don't see it as a command of Scripture. So on what basis do we make it an issue of such magnitude? On what basis do we as Christians feel the need to "go to war with Germany", so to speak, over this issue?

Someone suggested that it was due to God-given parental responsibility. I had to think that one through. If it is due to God-given parental responsibility, then what can we determine from this? Well, apparently it would require that public schools (and private schools) violate the God-given responsibility to parents. That would require that such a position hold that any Christian parent who sends their kids to public or private school does so in violation of God's command to be good parents. It is biblical child abuse of sorts. I'm not sure that anyone actually wants to go there, but perhaps. But if we take it to its logical conclusion, then there is another parallel that is affected. Say that I am a parent and live in a country where providing for my family is difficult or impossible. If the rule of law prevents me from doing what I'm required to do, then it is required that I violate the law. So I take my family to a nearby country illegally for the sole purpose of meeting the demands of being a good parent. I violate that country's laws about such entry so that I can provide for my family, and that's okay because the God-given law of being a good parent supersedes human laws that prevent it.

That, of course, won't work either. So while I admire home schoolers and I feel badly for those who are not allowed to do so, I can't figure out what makes it so evil or "oppressive" of the German government that they must be forced to change their laws to allow it. What makes home schooling that important?

The Advantage of Differences

Okay, I plan this to be an uplifting entry, so before you get your knickers in a twist, read to the end, okay?

A short time ago I was signing up my family for a new phone plan. I commented to the lady who was assisting me that the holder for the phone I was getting was very well designed. She responded, "A woman likely designed it." And, of course, she made me think. (If my sons are reading this, they'll say, "Yeah, so what's new?)

Stereotypically, it seems as if women tend toward the pretty and men toward the practical. ("Stereotypically" means "in many cases", so please don't offer the exceptions and please go back to the first sentence.) Buy a guy a power tool (practical) and he's happy. Buy a woman a vacuum cleaner (practical) and she's miffed. Buy a woman a ring (pretty) and she's happy. Buy a guy a sweater (pretty) and he's miffed. I see it over and over. Men tend toward the practical, and women tend toward the decorative.

It seems, in fact, that there are many such differences between men and women. One of the most obvious is in how they relate to children. Women are the ones who nurture; men are the ones who discipline. (Now, before you jump on that, realize that my own mother is an exception. Go back to the first sentence.) Generally speaking, women are the comforters, and men are the disciplinarians.

We could go on and on about these differences. You, of course, could likely throw up a barrage of exceptions. I suspect, however, that you know as well as I do that God made men and women different. Here's my suggestion: Maybe that was a good thing.

Think about it. Let's say a man and a woman got together to do something simple like design a purse. A man would design it practical, and a woman would design it pretty. If they worked together on it, you would have a purse that was both practical and pretty. Is that a bad thing? Too often, you see, we think it's "either/or", when more often than we care to realize, it's "both". Do children need nurture or discipline? The answer is, "Yes!" Thus this odd design by "nature" (known to us theists as "God") of a two-parent (male and female) family. Children need both nurture and admonition. Hey, wait, maybe that's not an original concept on my part:

Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4).

Interesting. So children need both nurture and admonition.

Too much time, in my opinion, is spent trying to dispel the differences between men and women. I say, "Why not embrace the differences?" I would venture to guess that the Designer knew what He was doing when He made Man and Woman. I would further venture to guess that if we worked with our differences, the products of that work would be far superior to anything we try to turn out in conflict.

Saying What It Says

I have to say I've never actually seen this argument before. Frankly, when I first saw it I was baffled that anyone was actually trying to make this argument. Still, the hits keep coming, so, being the person I am, I had to examine the line of reasoning to see if it made sense. I mean, where would I be if I only allowed that which I agreed with and never considered the arguments with which I disagree? Oh, yeah ... I'd be a non-believer.

So, here's the argument. When Paul argues in 1 Timothy 2 that women should not teach or exercise authority over men, he is not speaking merely about church authority; he is speaking of all authority, including the church. The argument holds that women must not teach men. The argument holds that women must not exercise authority over men. The argument holds that this is the case whether you are discussing senior pastor roles or the President of the United States (which, by the way, is the reason this argument first popped up -- Hillary running for President). Women cannot have authority over men in government, at work, or anywhere else you might care to imagine. They cannot be university professors because they would be teaching men. They cannot be safety coordinators because they would be teaching men. "The passage is clearly speaking of all women in all cases because it is based on the creation order. This passage is speaking to God's perspective of women in authority for all cases, not merely for the Church. Why would you think otherwise?"

Now, I believe the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. I believe that we need to submit to the Bible regardless of how it might feel. If we are commanded to love our enemies, we must love our enemies. If we are commanded to forgive, we must forgive. On the other hand, I think it is a serious mistake to take Scripture out of context and use it to make "matters of faith and practice" where the Bible never intended them to be. This, I believe, is one of those instances.

Consider the context of the epistle. First Timothy is a letter written by Paul to a young pastor. Timothy isn't a young politician or farmer or teacher or any other profession you might come up with. He's a pastor. And Paul is writing to Timothy about pastoring, not about farming, teaching, or politics. Is there any reason that I might consider this to be true? Sure. In 1 Tim. 3, Paul writes, "I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God" (1 Tim. 3:15). Paul is pretty clear in that passage. "I'm on my way to see you personally, Timothy, but I'm writing to tell you what to do in the meantime." Would it be reasonable that "Make sure that women aren't in government" would be on that list? Indeed, if you look at the variety of instructions in the letter, it seems unavoidable that they are to believers, not to "the world". He starts with warnings about "strange doctrines", which are irrelevant outside the Church. He instructs that people pray (1 Tim. 2), something done by believers, not unbelievers. He says that women should dress modestly, "as befits women making a claim to godliness" (1 Tim 2:9-10). Now, what woman outside the Church would be interested in making a claim to godliness? He gives instructions on qualifications of overseers and deacons (1 Tim. 3), specifically Church roles, not world roles. I could go on, but it seems abundantly clear that Paul is writing to Timothy about how church is done, not how everything is supposed to be.

In the passage itself there is a problem of specificity. "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man ..." Does that mean any man? Does that mean that all women are required to be under submission to all men? Is Paul's call back to the Created Order an indication that all men rule over all women? Or are there specific men in view? For instance, the Bible says, "Wives, submit to your husbands." There is a special relationship there that requires submission just as there is a special relationship with husbands to wives that requires a special kind of love. What about familial relationships? The Bible commands that we are to obey their parents. Does a son no longer need to obey his mother when he is "a man"? Is she, then, under his dominion? And what defines that change from "child" to "man"? It's all too vague.

Then there's the problem of Created Order. Paul uses the order of creation as his reason for saying that women can't teach or exercise authority over men. But if we use the Created Order as our standard, then it would also require that, since animals were created first, they would be over people. Now, of course we know that's not the case. Paul uses a specific reference to Adam over Eve for a reason, and he uses it in a specific application. I believe it would be wrong to try to drag "Created Order" out beyond its indicated usage just as it would be wrong to use "Created Order" to prove that animals are people, too.

Indeed, we don't find much in Scripture about how the world's government ought to operate. We don't find an endorsement by God of democracy or any other form of government. He doesn't warn against Communism or Socialism. He doesn't seem to bother with the dangers of fascism or totalitarianism. God appears singularly disinterested in how the world does government. He is concerned about how His chosen people operate. In the Old Testament, that was Israel. God never comments on the governmental operations of other countries. In the New Testament, it is all believers. You don't see Jesus or Paul suggesting how governments should operate. Apart from blanket commands to individuals like "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not steal," precious little is written about how government should be. It's as if God assumes that they're sinners (as demonstrated by their failure to obey those blanket commands) and doesn't expect them to do education or government or economics His way, so He doesn't bother with commands along those lines for the world.

There are some who are arguing for Christians to take control of the government. They have a variety of names. Some are called Theonomists. Some are called Christian Reconstructionists. Some are called Dominionists. And they've been around for a long time. They're not new. The truth is, however, that the Bible doesn't seem to support this idea. Instead we read, "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's." Jesus never takes on Rome. Paul never complains about slavery. Christian morality, while certainly preferable to alternative moral perspectives, are never put forth in Scripture as something we ought to enforce by civil means. This is just inconsistent with Scripture. God isn't in the business of making good people out of bad people. He's not concerned about making a moral country run by moral leaders. He's in the business of changing hearts that produce "fruit", good works suitable to repentance. The Bible doesn't seem to speak to the question of whether or not women should be in secular roles as CEO's or working in Congress. I fear that making that argument belies a works-based view that doesn't take into account the need for changed hearts rather than "being good". Nor does it take into account the certainty that the world will hate us.

I Hate iPods

I hate iPods. Even my spell checker hates iPods. It screams at me, "No, you idiot! You can't have the first letter of the name be lower case and the second upper case! Where did you learn English??!!" Or something to that effect. But it's not the spelling that I hate. It's the effect. And, to be completely fair, it's not merely iPods that I hate. It's all those things in technology that are like it.

I was reading a news item the other day talking about Second Life, a popular game world where people go to live in virtual reality. The article was about how people do everything in that world, including spending real money and getting married ... even if they are already married in real life. They asked an expert, "Is that cheating on your spouse?" You know, you never actually physically meet this person. You never have sex with them. It's not real; it's virtual. "Virtual" ... now there's a term. It is defined by the dictionary as something to the effect of "existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact or form." It is, then, true in essence, just not in fact. So "virtual reality" is essentially true, just not factually true. To which the expert responded, "Any time you take away from your spouse what you would have given him or her and give it to someone else of the same gender, it's cheating." Wow! How often do we do that? And how does that relate to iPods?

I work at a university and at lunch time I often take a walk. You can only imagine how many students are walking around campus with iPods stuck in their ears. They don't see you. They don't hear you. They don't acknowledge your presence or existence. They are somewhere in a special, virtual world inside that machine that grabs all their attention and shuts out everyone else. And it's cheating. Instead of offering the simple nod and smile to passers by, they are oblivious. "You don't exist," they say, in essence, "and I can't be bothered."

As I said, it's not merely iPods. It's other things like television and amusement and ... yes, computers. None of these things are bad on their own. It's when they steal from others what belongs to them that they become bad. If air conditioning, for instance, keeps you indoors when you could and should be out meeting your neighbors, it's stealing. If you are so engrossed in a football game on TV that you can't spend time with your wife and children, it's stealing. When you plug in and tune out with an iPod rather than interact with your family on the drive to church or anywhere else, it's stealing.

And then you have to ask yourself the broader question. From whom am I stealing when I use my technology when I'm alone? We don't like "quiet" too often in our daily lives. When you're driving, you'll likely have a radio or CD or iPod going. When you're at home, you'll likely have the TV or some other "noise" on. It is times like these when we are available to be with family or, better yet, the Lord. Still, we cut them off by drowning them out with technology. And then we wonder why our relationship with the Lord isn't more vibrant, why our spoused say we don't ever talk anymore, and when did those kids get so big? It's stealing.

Technology, for the large part, is morally neutral. It's amazing to me, however, how capable human beings are in making it morally bad. Ask yourself. What am I doing that is stealing from my wife, my husband, my kids, my neighbors? Better yet, ask your wife or husband, kids, and neighbors. And don't be shy if you find out you are cheating on friends, family, or neighbors. If thine iPod offend thee, cut it off.

Representation

Bill Clinton made himself look like a fool when he questioned what the meaning of "is" is. I don't want to go there. Still, the meaning of terminology can and does vary often, and this causes no end of problems. One I've been pondering lately is the term "representation". You know ... the classic "No taxation without representation!" cry from the days of the American Revolution.

What does "representation" mean? According to dictionaries, it basically means for one thing to stand for something else, as in a symbol. Yes, I guess that's the idea. In government, it is when someone with your interests at heart stands for you in the government. The Colonials didn't have anyone standing for them when Great Britain was taxing them. No one argued their case. No one upheld their point of view. No one expressed their concerns. So they were taxed without ever having been heard.

Out on the Internet there are many places you can go to take political tests. They'll tell you where you lie on the political spectrum. I've taken several of these tests over the last year and was actually quite surprised to find that I'm classified as a centrist. One of these sites actually commented, "There is no political party that represents your views."

It begs the question. As we look at the candidates for president this year, do any of them actually represent my views? Now, of course, that's just one man, so it's not particularly surprising that there isn't a candidate that represents my views. So how about the halls of Congress? Between the Senate and the House of Representatives, there are 535 people who are attempting to represent Americans. Surely someone in that 535 people shares my views and concerns. Well, perhaps there is, but if there is, I don't know who it is. I've never voted for someone who did because I've never been offered someone who did (and, most often, the people I vote who in some ways vaguely resemble my views rarely get elected). So it begs the question ... am I being taxed without representation?

I know. It's likely not an entirely fair question. Some will say, "There is a representative for you in government," and they would be technically correct. Still, you have to think, "Does our government really represent our people, or is it only an extremely limited representation?" Living in a Republic makes sense, but when we settle for that form of government, it is a given that segments of society will not be represented. It is odd, however, that one of the "extremes" that doesn't get represented is the "center".

Psalm 32

Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD," and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah (Psa. 32:1-5).

I like that psalm. It goes on to say a lot more good stuff, in fact, about the joy of being forgiven. It starts, however, where being forgiven starts.

"When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long." David ends that thought with "Selah", which likely means, "Stop and think about it." Stop and think about it. Keeping sin to yourself eats you up. Not admitting it to God eats you up. It is a cancer that slowly eats you from the inside and can, in the end, kill you if you don't treat it.

"I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, 'I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,' and you forgave the iniquity of my sin." Again ... Selah. Think about it. Confession, they say, is good for the soul. It's good for my relationship with God; that's for sure.

Too often we go before the Lord, especially on a Sunday, and expect to find blessing. Instead we find dryness. May I suggest that it is often because too often we go before the Lord without confessing first our shortcomings? It produces weak, dry Christians. Confession, on the other hand, produces joyous followers of Christ. Try it. You'll like it.

Settling our Differences

In a bizarre blog (I'm not giving links to this stuff because we don't need to go there) about how Hillary shouldn't be president because women shouldn't be in any form of authority, there was some odd comments exchanged. Someone challenged the author, stating, "There is absolutely nothing in God's Word that can be fashioned into a prohibition against women holding civil authority." The author's response was interesting. After "carefully" refuting the statement ("carefully" means he offered two unclear verses), he said, "The Holy Spirit causes those who belong to Jesus Christ to rejoice in the Word of God and all its truths."

Good job! As a reader, here's what I saw: "I believe the Bible teaches that women cannot be in any role of authority over men whatsoever. If you belonged to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit would cause you to rejoice in that truth. Since you don't, it is apparent that you don't belong to Jesus Christ."

See? That's the way to hold a discussion. "I'm right; you're wrong ... so wrong that you're likely going to Hell. Have a nice day." Puts everyone at ease. Makes it clear that you are not infallible. Takes into account that other people might not appreciate being treated that way. In fact, in every way, it meets the demands of the Golden Rule.

Why do we do that? Why do we speak to each other that way? I am appalled that a fellow who professes to be a Christian would speak that way to another person who also professes to be a Christian. The profession is equal. The difference is in an interpretation. People, this is not love. Or, in James's more biblical terminology, "My brothers, these things ought not to be so."

Love between brethren is not necessarily always expressed in warmth and affection. I understand that. Paul uttered his share of harsh rebukes to the church at Corinth. He rebuked Peter in Galatia. Jesus rebuked Peter. Rebukes are sometimes necessary to restore a brother. "You don't even belong to Christ" is not a helpful rebuke when the subject matter is so obtuse. Winding up and punching someone in the nose at the first "howdy" is not a likely way to get them to listen ... which is what love intends. And meeting "I think you are mistaken about your interpretation of Scripture" with "Well, if you knew Jesus, you'd agree with me" isn't love.

I know ... I've said it before. It certainly bears repeating. Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Is it any wonder that the world wonders about the value of Christianity when Christians are not reflecting the love that the Savior said would be the hallmark of our relationship with Him?

The Face of America

I have a friend who is originally from China. We had the privilege of providing him a place to live for a few months. He was working at the same company I was, so we enjoyed lengthy discussions to and from work as well as interesting discussions with other coworkers. So one day this guy from another country gave me an epiphany about our own country.

My friend had been a college student in Shanghai during the Tienanmen Square protests of 1989. While not part of the famous protests in Beijing, students were protesting for freedom in Shanghai as well. When it was all over, my friend had to spend time in "re-education", learning to be a good communist again. A fellow worker asked him, "So, not everyone in China is communist?" My friend was puzzled. "No. Our government is communist, not the people."

And it struck me. The government in China didn't ask the people if they could be in charge. They took control. The government wasn't a representative government. It held its position by force. Not so in America. The government in our country is selected by the people. It represents the people. If you want to know what the Chinese people are about, don't look at their government. It doesn't represent them. If you want to know what the Americans are about, look at their government. It is a reflection of the people who elected them.

You can see this in recent years. A patriotic people elected General Eisenhower as their president. A more liberal America put Kennedy in office. After awhile, America swung back toward the right and Reagan became our president. A conflicted America put Clinton and then Bush Jr. in office. It was a nation in crisis that put President Bush back in office in 2004. In many ways, our government has been a picture of our people.

It begs the question. What will the face of America be in 2008? Will we be ready to finish the job in Iraq or not? Will we be anxious to pay more taxes to allow our government to be more compassionate? Will our face be a Hillary or a Giuliani? Will we look more like Obama or Thompson? Whoever we elect to be the president of our country will be an image of who we are as a country. Who will we be? Will we be focused on abortion or health care, Iraq or immigration? Will we be a country of high moral values or will we be a pragmatic country?

I understand that our elected representatives are the face of the majority. I understand that it is a generalization. There are variations and exceptions. Fine. Agreed. But who, in general, will we be in 2008? The question is worth asking.

Stand for Change

"Stand for Change." That's what the sign says at Obama's rally. Hillary is pounding the same pavement. "Change." Almost all the Democrats running for President are calling for the same thing: "Change!"

You see, sometimes I think I'm just too easily confused. "Change" is the buzz word. So here we have a raft of candidates stumping for "change". The candidates include Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, former Senator John Edwards, former Senator Chris Dodd, former Senator Mike Gravel, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich. All of the candidates on the Democrat side are or were part of the established government.

Now, unless something has changed and no one told me, George Bush is not running for a third term. No one on either side of the fence is running against the incumbent president. Further, as far as I can tell, no Republican (or any other type) candidate is claiming to be George Bush or a George Bush type. That means that whoever gets the office of President will constitute "change".

So I'm confused. What are all these candidates who are calling for change actually saying? It appears that Congress in the last couple of years has been under Democrat rule and hasn't accomplished anything worth noting. We aren't impressed with them. There aren't many impressed with the office of President either. So the "change" that is being called for, it seems to me, would exclude any candidate who is currently holding or previously held a role in the Congress. If not, then the concept of "change" would mean "business as usual", wouldn't it? And that, of course, is a contradiction in terms.

See? It is just too easy to confuse me sometimes. My wife says I listen too closely and think too much. Maybe that's my problem. I don't know ...

Hey, I know ... maybe they're offering us some "change" back on the money we spend in taxes? No, that can't be it. They all want more of our money, not to return it. Nope ... I'm not getting it.

Good luck, Iowa. You get to try to make sense of all this today.

Black Hats

We all know about the old "black hat" concept in westerns. The good guy always had a white hat; the bad guy always wore a black hat. It's easy to tell who the good guy and the bad guy is. Come on! It's just the way it is.

Well, we've always liked that concept. Today we're not quite so obvious, but it's still easy to tell who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. The good guy is the one who agrees with you, and the bad guy is the one who doesn't. Simple!

Take the "Calvinist vs Arminian" debate. If you are a Calvinist, "Arminian" is an epithet you throw out to describe those evil semi-Pelagian (and you use "semi" in that term because you are trying to be nice, even though you really think they are fully Pelagian) folks who deny the sovereignty of God, the problem of sin, and, ultimately, just about every significant issue surrounding the Gospel. Those evil Arminians. That's okay, because if you are an Arminian (even though most Arminians won't use the term to describe themselves), it's those Calvinists who are evil. They're not just wrong; they're evil. They deny free will, negate preaching the Gospel, and vilify God Himself! Those evil Calvinists. On neither side do you often find the idea that the other side is merely "mistaken" or "wrong". They're bad.

And it's not merely in Calvinist versus Arminian debates that you'll find this. The Democrats are left wing liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist nation ... if you're a Republican. The Republicans, on the other hand, are self-centered Capitalists who only care about making money for themselves ... if you're a Democrat. Not merely different or mistaken -- they're evil.

Christians are the root of all problems in society to atheists, and atheists have no morality at all to Christians. Liberals are "bleeding hearts" and conservatives are "right wing nut jobs". Those who are concerned about illegal immigration are racists, and those who are illegal aliens are dangerous criminals. On and on and on. The "other side", whatever side of which you speak, is "evil" and "my side" is "good".

Here's the problem, of course. As long as we are talking about a difference of opinion, two possible viewpoints to examine, varying ideas to discuss, well, there's room for conversation. We can look at the concepts together and see what we can see. But when my view becomes evil, it becomes a lot more difficult to discuss. The natural response is defense. It's not discuss. Unfortunately, even if you overcome your natural response to defend and attempt to discuss, it's mostly pointless. You're not offering a point of view. You're offering evil. Why would someone consider evil?

It's human nature, I suppose, to vilify those who disagree with you. It's not helpful. It's not productive. It's not logical. It's no way to win an argument. It is a perfectly useful method to shut down further dialog, and I fear that is too often the intent. If I can't make headway with evidence, reason, and logic, I'll just shut off the discussion flow with disparaging comments about how your opponent dresses or denigrating remarks about their intelligence or simply pointing out that they are evil ... and who wants to be evil? If you can't win the argument, crucify your opponent. That strategy has been tried ... and it didn't work. It still doesn't.

In 2008

What would I like for 2008?

I would like to see my son graduate from college in May and get married in June with all that entails. That means that he completes his course of studies. That means that he gets a job that will support his family. That means that he begins the lifelong process of being a husband, which means that it's always less of him and always more of her and always, always, always with Christ at the center, at the top, and at the bottom of all that they do.

I would like to see spiritual growth in my family. I would like to see my daughter and her family in a church in their new city that would challenge them all to change their focus from their everyday existence to the thing that matters more -- Christ. I would like to see those two very young boys learn the foundational truths about Jesus that will form their adult lives in the years to come. I would like to see my youngest son finally find a church not that he can attend, but of which he can be part. Attending church is nice, but we are called not to attendance, but fellowship -- a participation in the lives of fellow believers. I would like to see spiritual growth in every member of my family, including my wife, my children, and, perhaps most importantly, me.

I would like to see the day this year that my son moves out of the house and stands on his own. It has only been a few months that he has been with us, and I'm not in the least begrudging him the time it takes to recover, but every parent's ultimate wish ought to be that their children grow up and become responsible adults on their own. That's my hope for this struggling 27-year-old (who will soon be 28).

I would like to see a continuing decrease in crime in 2008. In 2007, many large cities have reported a decrease in crime. I'd be very happy to see that continue. I'd like to see an increase in dialog between differing opinions. I'd like to see a decrease in animosity between opposing views. I'd like to see an overall elevation in the morals of this country. Of course, to accomplish this, the only real way is for the people who belong to God to start letting their light shine before the world. It means standing for what is right. It means showing love as our Savior said we should. It means sharing the Gospel in a world that is already inundated with "religiosity" and is already quite sure they know what "the Gospel" is ... as mistaken as they might be. It means taking hits when necessary and suffering for His sake and rejoicing in that. In short, to make my country a better place, it is in the hands of believers to do what God said we should do.

Oh, I suppose there are many more things I'd like to see in 2008. The presidential election is this year. I'd like to see a good outcome of that. I'd like to see people with more joy. I'd like to see peace. I'd like to see more love shared amongst folks. But, hey, I suppose that the primary source of that is the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). So, while these three remain, I'd settle for faith, hope, and love in 2008.

The Best of 2007

So, it seems appropriate, this being New Year's Eve, to have a quick review of what has made 2007 memorable. Let's see ...

My college son flew out this last January for part of his training, and I benefited from a free flight around the valley. It was good to spend time with the boy.

My wife and I enjoyed a wonderful trip with my parents in their motorhome in March. We traveled from California to Louisiana, visiting friends and family in Dallas and Alexandria. We spent time with cousins, old friends from California, my daughter and her family, lifelong family friends, and then off for several days with my grandfather and his wife. The chance to visit various folks is a privilege and a pleasure, but the chance to spend a couple of weeks with my parents is just a treat.

We managed to gather a houseful in May. My daughter was arriving with her husband and two boys. My son decided to take that particular weekend to come for a visit from Las Vegas. My brother and his wife happened to be traveling through the area that weekend and dropped in for dinner. It was a wonderful time to visit and catch up. It seems like there is never enough time to catch up with family.

The trip in March that included visiting with my grandfather was timely. It meant I had the chance to spend a little time with him just before he died in May. For the first time that I could recall, I made a second trip to Louisiana in the same year ... to bury him. He was 90 years old.

My son from Las Vegas moved to Washington, and then to our house in September. Working in the construction industry, he was running out of places to find employment and running up too many bills. Our house is the place of second chances. He's back on his feet, working at a job he enjoys making good money and paying off bills that had piled up.

Thanksgiving time was particularly pleasant. We got to visit with dear friends from when we lived in California. I got to have dinner with my two best friends in high school that I hadn't seen for more than 20 years. Thanksgiving Day was all about gathering with the dear folks in my wife's family, and the subsequent weekend was a gathering of my family. It was a wonderful week-long revelry in friendships and family.

During the year I've enjoyed reading several blogs that I wish to acknowledge for prodding me to think more about a wide variety of topics. Pastor Jon provides an ongoing Bible study right there at your finger tips. Jim Jordan's Moral Science Club has interesting, thoughtful topics and entries that are almost always of interest to me. Sure, there are the "greats" like Pyromaniacs, Desiring God Blog, and Dr. Mohler's Blog, but they won't be particularly grateful if I mention how much I have enjoyed them. It's the "smaller" ones who have so blessed me that deserve mention, like A Recovering Presbyterian or Backwoods Presbyterian. Then there are my friends who I don't really know, but appreciate anyway. Their blogs include Carry Your Candle, Family Blueprint, Refreshment in Refuge, and On the Wittenburg Trail.

I know ... I've missed a lot of you out there. I read a lot more, but these stand out in my memory. Thanks to all of you -- friends, family, and readers -- who have made this a memorable year.

Why Forgiveness?

Most of us have never asked ourselves this question: "Why would/should God forgive us?" I know I haven't. I suppose we haven't asked because we already know the answer -- He loves us. I guess the answer is accurate, but I'm afraid that it's quite incomplete and, in fact, largely misleading. The sense of that answer is, "Why wouldn't He forgive us? He loves us!" The natural conclusion in that sense is "We are lovable." And that would be the wrong conclusion.

The Bible offers a radically different reason for God offering salvation to anyone. In fact, the answer is repeated in multiple places. In Psalm 25, David pleads for pardon for his iniquity:

For Your name's sake, O LORD, pardon my iniquity, for it is great (Psa. 25:11).

The "it" in that sentence refers to "my iniquity". David says, "My iniquity is great!" His claim is that he is guilty of massive sin and in desperate need of pardon, without which he has no hope. On what basis does David pray for that pardon? Because God loves him? No. Because he's so lovable? No, indeed. His iniquity is against God, making him closer to God's enemy than His friend. On what basis, then, does David hope for pardon? "For Your name's sake," is the only answer. David's hope for pardon is not based on anything at all about David or anything at all about God's affection for David. It is based solely on the glory that doing so will bring to God.

We see the same concept offered in Exodus when God threatened to destroy Israel for worshiping the golden calf. In Exodus 32, the people got tired of waiting for Moses to return from Mt. Sinai, so they erected an idol. God told Moses, "Let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation" (Exo. 32:10). Moses didn't appeal to God's mercy. He didn't appeal to Israel's standing as the people of God. He didn't appeal to God's love. He appealed to God's good name.

"Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people" (Exo. 32:12).

Moses's plea was for God's good name not to be damaged. It was the right response and God chose not to destroy Israel.

The same concept is found in Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9. Daniel's prayer is a repeated claim that Israel -- including himself -- had sinned and was worthy of all the punishment God had given them. His only claim for himself and his people was for "open shame" (Dan. 9:8). No mention of how God should forgive His people because they are His people. No call for mercy based on their worth. Daniel's prayer is full of "we're only getting what we deserve" (e.g., Dan. 9:13). Instead, Daniel begs for God's forgiveness based on God's good name.

"O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and take action! For Your own sake, O my God, do not delay, because Your city and Your people are called by Your name" (Dan. 9:19).

There it is again. The prayer is that God would show mercy and forgive not on the basis of those who are being forgiven, but on the basis of His own name's sake. For His own glory, God can forgive.

In Eph. 1:3-14, Paul gives a partial list of "every spiritual blessing" that we have received in Christ. These blessings include being chosen (Eph. 1:4), being redeemed (Eph. 1:7), being given knowledge of His will (Eph. 1:9), an inheritance (Eph. 1:11), and the seal of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13). Paul repeatedly explains the reason for all of these blessings: "to the praise of His glory" (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14).

This Sunday, as you are worshiping God and enjoying the salvation that is ours, remember ... it's not about you. It's not because God loves you; it's because of God's glory. The fact that He loves you is to His glory alone. Our forgiveness is for His glory. The grace and mercy He gives us is for His name's sake. If He wasn't interested in magnifying His own glory, we would be without hope because our position as "God's people" or the fact that God loves us would be insufficient to provide any reason for our redemption. It is all "to the praise of His glory."

Unnecessary Stereotyping

Pick an example, any example. Find any sort of value statement in the media today about Christians versus the homosexual community, and I suspect you will always find it to be the same message. People who are opposed to "gay rights" are lunatics. Sane people, heterosexual and homosexual alike, favor "gay rights" and are just nicer people than anyone who is opposed to "gay rights".

One big problem, you see, is that there is a lunatic fringe out there that feeds the stereotype. They are truly the homophobic, narrow-minded, hateful people that are depicted in the examples. They are mean-spirited, illogical folks who often rally under the banner of "Christianity" while they ignore the teachings of Christ about how to treat people that they perceive to be their enemies and that the hallmark of Christians is love, not some angry morality movement. They are the "Fred Phelps" types that are just as embarrassing and offensive to true Christians as they are offensive to everyone else.

The other problem is that too many Christians don't really think through the problem. They see that the Bible clearly holds out homosexual behavior as sin (along with a whole lot of other stuff, don't forget), but they don't think about what the proper response to that sin would be nor even why they would respond at all. The only responses they are offered is the wrong one of the lunatic fringe or the wrong one of the "just accept gay behavior as normal" side.

The problem is actually echoed in just about every corner of Christian morality. We have a fairly decent grasp on "good" and "bad", a fairly common idea about what is moral and what isn't, but we don't think much about why this or that is immoral or how we should react.

There are reasons for Christian morality beyond simply "God said it." That's sufficient for us, I suppose, but it's not the only answer. God is the Creator. He knows what makes the human being work well and what makes the human being work poorly. He knows that sexual sin, for instance, causes all sorts of problems that aren't exactly related to morality at all (see, for instance, 1 Cor. 6:16 -- "Do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her?" That is a problem.) All of the moral law has ramifications to the human being that are not merely because "it's wrong." It's wrong ... sure ... but it's also bad for us. A loving God is attempting to help us operate better by telling us, "Don't do that; it will hurt you." All of that is apart from the damage it does to the glory of God, which we fall short of when we sin and, when we do, bear unspeakable debt to God. That's bad.

If, then, homosexual behavior isn't merely immoral but bad for them, wouldn't it change our reaction? Wouldn't it change how we respond to people in sin, regardless of what the sin is? It should. Revulsion is not the proper response. Outrage is not the proper response. The proper response is loving concern.

Of course, if the person in question is not a believer, then their immorality, whatever form it takes, isn't the big problem, and trying to make them more moral is irrelevant. They don't need to be better people. God isn't in the business of making bad people into good people. They need new life. They need a relationship with Christ. Trying to make them "good" isn't it. They need the gospel.

If the person in question is a believer, we have specific instructions on how we should react.

Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:1-2).

If you can figure out how "demonstrate and shout angry epithets at them" fits in with "restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness", you're a better person than I am. If that qualifies as "bear one another's burdens", please don't offer to bear my burdens with me.

We live in a world that hates Christ. So be it. We will be misrepresented by those people. So be it. But somewhere some of us need to stand up and demonstrate love instead of hatred for the homosexual. We need to be concerned about the damage, cautious about their direction, distressed about the anguish they face if they continue, and troubled for their well-being. "Outraged about their immorality" isn't going to assist in any of this. We can't make the world represent us properly, but surely we can work at speaking the truth in love ourselves, can't we?

How Do We Know?

Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs has done it again ... another outstanding perspective. The question he tackles is that of epistemology. Epistemology is that area of philosophy that asks the question, "How do we know what we know?" Coming to any conclusions, of course, seems circular, but let's leave that alone.

The two most recent answers to "How do we know what we know?" are Modernism and Post-Modernism. Modernism is held primarily as "Classical Foundationalism". It was seen clearly in Descartes's "I think, therefore I am." The argument of Modernism is that we can know certain self-evident things from which we can then argue rationally to other things. Descartes argued from "if I think, I must be" to "God exists" and "Christianity is true." Nice ... but "Classical Foundationalism". In other words, in the simplest of terms, you can know things by figuring them out. Post-modernism's answer to "How do we know what we know?" is ... "You can't." Post-modernism is first and foremost an enemy of certainty. It views uncertainty as humility and wisdom, a fundamental virtue. Anyone who is certain is foolish and arrogant. What's the matter with you guys? What makes you think you're so smart?

When a reader asked Phil Johnson, "Are you a Classical Foundationalist?", Phil answered, "No!" "Oh," one might be tempted to think, "then you're a post-modernist!" To which Phil would not merely answer, but shout, "No!!" Coming from Phil, it sounds odd, but Phil answers the basic epistemological question, "How can man know what he knows?" first with a denial. "I reject every worldview and/or epistemology that begins with man as a starting point."

Read the post. It's quite good. Phil's position is that man's knowledge comes not from rational thinking or even uncertainty, but from God. He quotes the Bible, of all things, where the wisest man in history writes, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov. 1:7). Funny ... I would guess that most of us were quite aware that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Psa. 111:10; Prov. 9:10), but many of us didn't quite catch that it was also the beginning of knowledge. Paul writes that God makes certain truths are innate to human beings (Rom. 1:19-20). More importantly, since God created this universe and God created it for His own purposes to His own glory, it only makes sense that knowledge -- epistemology -- must start with Him.

Phil's post is quite good. It serves also as a reminder that we need to constantly check ourselves for false thinking. Are we going to buy into the lie that uncertainty is humility when the Bible says that God provides both knowledge and wisdom? Are we going to buy into the lie that anything of any value originates with Man? We are so often caught up by this oh so prevalent line of thinking that starts with "I" and it is most often wrong. You almost can't go wrong if you start your thinking with "God" and work from there.

Lost Art

Okay, I'm going to throw out a phrase here and let's see if anyone knows what it means. The phrase is "customer service". Yeah, I know, most of you are scratching your head. "What in the world could that possibly mean?" Some of the older folks might know. They remember when there was a thing called "service stations" where someone actually came out, pumped your gas, checked your oil and tire pressure, and took care of the customer. I know, I know, to the younger generation that sounds a bit like a pink unicorn -- pure fantasy -- but it did exist.

Customer service would be where a business would attempt to provide service to their customers. Now, I'm sure you've seen a sign like that at a variety of stores. "Customer Service" in these cases generally means "Come here and wait for an indeterminate amount of time while we jerk you around and deny any culpability for the problem you claim you are having with our product." In other places it is "Our promise to answer your questions or provide what you need ... that we don't actually intend to keep." Somehow it is rarely, "We really want to make our customers as happy as they can be."

I've had too many interactions with "customer service" in the last month. I've asked for information from companies so I can buy their product, and they've been only too glad to ... ignore me. I've emailed folks asking for help and despite the certain reply that "We will respond in the next 24 to 48 hours" I haven't heard back from them. It doesn't matter who it is. Banks, businesses, purveyors of electronics or software or any product you care to mention ... they're all seemingly lost on the meaning of the term, "customer service".

I have a theory. I theorize that if a company actually produced a good product and, if needed, actually serviced their customers, that company would be pretty rich pretty quick, being such a novelty and all. But I have a lot of theories, and some of them don't hold water. My other theory that counters my first theory is that people are so used to the term "customer service" meaning "Go away" that they might not even notice if it meant "Can we really be of help?" People can be funny that way.

Where's Duncan Hunter?

Why does it seem that Duncan Hunter is going nowhere?

Clearly the Democrats' offerings won't work for the conservatives and the Evangelicals in particular. Mitt Romney is not going to fly because he's a Mormon and Evangelicals don't like Mormons. Unfair? Perhaps. Irrational? Likely. But that doesn't change things. Mike Huckabee would seem like a natural for the Christians. He was, after all, a pastor at one time. He's likeable. He's rising in the polls. And yet ... you'll find a lot of Christians that, how shall I put it, dislike him intensely. I suppose it's a product of rising in the polls like he has, but he's the current target of anyone who isn't a Huckabee fan, including Thompson's folks, Romney's folks, and anyone else who is not a fan.(I gotta tell you, I thoroughly dislike this kind of politics. And when Christians engage in this kind of negativity and call it "politics", well, it's just embarrassing.) McCain is too moderate. Thompson is the choice of a very loud group, but he may have gotten into it too late to pull it off, and, frankly, where he stands on essential issues is unclear. Giuliani is viewed by some as the only possible Republican to beat Hillary, but to the conservatives he is beset by a string of broken marriages and takes that stand that it's perfectly okay for women to choose to kill their babies before they're born. Brownback favors Social Security numbers for illegal aliens in a conservative world where immigration is a major issue and holds unpopular views in things like CAFTA. Oh, and let's not forget Ron Paul. His following borders on the fanatical, but anyone who says, "I don't care if Iran has nukes" is a dangerous person to put in the White House.

So what is the gripe with Duncan Hunter? He favors an amendment to the Constitution that would protect the unborn. He wants to put judges in the courts that strictly interpret the law rather than legislating from the bench. He co-sponsored legislation that would prevent minors from crossing state lines to get an abortion in a sate that doesn't require parental notification. He opposes human cloning and federal support for stem cell research. He co-sponsored the Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. He favors parents' rights in their children's education. On the First Amendment, he wants the government to step back rather than working hard to remove religion from every corner. On the Second Amendment, he recognizes that the right to bear arms isn't about hunting, but about our right to be safe. He is a typical supporter of Reaganomics, believing that giving us tax cuts will improve the economy. He supports a balanced budget and holds that our rights to private property are more important than the latest rulings on eminent domain. On the subject of illegal immigration, he is perhaps the most outspoken. He was partly responsible for getting the fences placed on California's border and extended into Arizona. Citizenship for illegal alien babies, the problems that Border Patrol agents face, and issues of employer verification are some of his concerns in the whole question.

In every test I've taken about who is closest to my views, Duncan Hunter seems to always come out on top. On the other hand, none of the polls seem to offer him any traction. What I can't figure out is why? What is it that is stopping Evangelicals and conservatives from jumping on his bandwagon? It seems like he's what we need. Where's the problem?