Ten Commandments for Cowboys

1. Just one God
2. Honor yer Ma & Pa
3. No telling tales or gossipin’
4. Git yourself to Sunday meeting
5. Put nothin’ before God
6. No foolin’ around with another fellow’s gal
7. No killin’
8. Watch yer mout
9. Don’t take what ain’t yers
10. Don’t be hankerin’ for yer buddy’s stuff.

Yep, that's purty much it!

H.T. Monday Morning Insight

Minute Meditation: Rejection

“It took courage to risk descent to a planet known for its clumsy violence, among a race known for rejecting its prophets. What more foolhardy thing could God have done?” (Philip Yancey, The Jesus I Never I Knew, Harper Collins, 1995)

“He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” John 1:11-13 (NIV)

Rejection; it is probably one of the saddest words in the English vocabulary. It is experienced by many children in the schoolyard when teams are chosen. It is experienced in the workplace when a group decides to go out for lunch and you’re not invited. It can even be felt in the church when long established groups are found to be exclusive. Rejection is a feeling that stings long after the event and intensifies with each new experience.

Does anyone subject himself to rejection purposely? Jesus did. He came to his own people as Messiah. He was prepared to deliver the very thing they had put so much hope in. He punctuated his message with signs, extraordinary signs, following. His teaching left scholars speechless. He was everything they wanted, everything they needed, yet he was rejected. But he was more than just ignored, or left out. He was scorned, insulted, spat upon, beaten and ultimately put to death. Not only was he not received, he was cast aside.
Yet our rejection of Jesus was not the final word. In a delightful twist, he accepted us, the ones who should have been rejected. Because he has experienced the ultimate rejection, he knows how we feel. In order for us not to feel what he felt, he offers us acceptance. That is why the love of God is so marvelous. Even when we are not faithful, He is.

Global Warming

I'm not too sure about global warming. It seems to me that the actual data for the cycles of temperature changes in the earth is rather new (approximately 100 years of recorded data). I know there are cores that have been drilled and data extracted from it, but my uneducated and uninformed hunch is that the earth goes through cycles and it usually pans out.

This article muddies the waters of the global warming alarmists. It reminds us that, despite Al Gore's principled stance, the data is still coming in. Gore may be right, but then again he may be wrong. To create legislation and life-style changes of the kind he is suggesting is premature at this point.

Christians should be good stewards of the earth regardless of the latest ecological headlines. We should be at the forefront of recycling, getting the most use of the things we purchase, and conserving energy wherever possible. But this message is falling on deaf ears in the developing world because in that part of the world, Judeo-Christian values are non-existent or not followed. I contend that you will be hard pressed to get someone to give up their motor scooter, or worry about recycling, when most of their energy is being invested in sheer survival.

Before we expend the time, resources and energy to change everything we do, shouldn't we at least wait until the evidence is more conclusive. By the way, just because a large number of people say something is true, doesn't mean it is. Remember, for a long time the vast majority of people believed the earth was flat. Then the evidence came in.

Until they develop a solar powered motorcycle, I'm still going to try to get me a Harley:)

Light Blogging

There hasn't been much in the news lately to blog about. There are the usual hollywood scandals, political battles, and regular news events, but nothing that has been of much interest to me.

One of the dangers of being a blogger is that you get your views out on the information highway and allow others to comment and/or take aim on your ideas and viewpoints. It is not a medium that is easily monitored and the rules are still being written because blogging is so new.

When a blogger makes a post or a commenter leaves a comment there are lot of things that must be taken into consideration. Let's talk about the blogger first and then we'll talk about commenters.

Blogging at its best is simply an attempt to throw an idea into the ring to see how people will engage in a discussion. A blog post can, but does not always represent the opinion of the poster. The key is to read the post to look for the questions that are triggered by the post. Usually these appear at the end, but often by that time readers have already found something in the post to trigger an emotion or thought. Bloggers hope that readers will read to the end so as to address the reason for the post.

Bloggers often find something in the news and direct to other websites or blogs through links. The news item may be serious, quirky or downright weird. These links are meant to be a springboard for discussion and do not often represent the convictions of the blogger. They are simply supplied for the purposes ot a discussion.

When a blogger states a personal conviction, the replies can be quite interesting. Because the post has to be short (otherwise most people won't read it) the blogger has to be as thorough and concise as possible. But that doesn't mean that he will succeed in covering the issue completely. This must be taken into consideration before comments are posted. Because bloggers take the risk of putting their thoughts into words, they should be given the benefit of the doubt when a controversial subject is raised. The best way to do is, is to ask questions.

Let's briefly discuss commenters. There are generally two kinds of commenters. Reactors and Responders. Reactors usually comment viscerally, or from the gut. They address the issue subjectively as they see it and usually come across as opinionated. Their language often has a lot of emotion tied into it and reactors often use words as statements of fact as if everybody should know that their opinion is common sense or conventional wisdom.

Reactors often miss the point of the post or introduce new information that does not relate to the post or may draw parallels that are irrelevant to the issue. They often take a word, or a phrase out of context. Reactors rarely address the gist of a post and may inadvertantly hijack a post. Other reactors join in and before you know it, the subject of the original post is relegated to the background and may never be readdressed. Reactors often feel as if they have to say the last word. Winning an argument is often more important than getting a broader understanding of an issue.

Responders on the other hand are usually very thoughtful. They look for the "theme" of the post and address the main point. They often ask questions, and usually qualify their comments by referring to the post, the links, or a question that my have been prompted by the post.

Responders come across as more reasonable and are often willing to clarify their comments when another commenter asks a question or when a reactor misinterprets their response. They acknowledge the validity of other commenters contributions and are often willing to let others own their opinions.

Allow me to post the number one rule of blogging, and commenting. "Seek to understand, before seeking to be understood." Ask questions before providing commentary. The more civil the discussion, the more likely others will join in. The more reactionary the comments, the more likely that a thread (the discussion happening between commentors) will be hijacked.

If you have a topic you'd like to see something posted about, or if you have a link, please email your ideas to me and I'll try to find something that addresses the point and post it on the blog.

When Technology Forces a Redefinition of Family

“Driven by the increasing use of reproductive technologies, the debate over same-sex parenting, and the acceptance of single and even "group" parenting, a growing panoply of new "family constellations"—as one psychologist has termed them—is raising questions: Where does society draw the line between adults' perceived right to parent and what is best for children? What role should the state have in defining parenthood? And with little data to measure outcomes, is the world steaming away too rapidly from the two-parent, mother-father model?”

This well written article asks many of the important questions in the brave new world we have embraced. Children are growing up in non-traditional families and many are confused as to their identity and what and how family is defined. There is an old saying, “you can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your family.” Children can be chosen through invitro-fertilization, adoption and a host of other methods. But the article goes on to say,

"The issue is adults making life-altering decisions for their children that are in the adults' best interests as opposed to what's in the best interests of the child." And while various child-welfare experts define "best interests of the child" variously, Clark argues that the real experts, the children themselves, are not being heard.”

As adults continue to make these decisions, they can rationalize their choices in myriad ways. But as one of the interviewed children, now an adult, states:

"The reality is that the children are not being heard," Stefanowicz said. "You're a dependent; you can't speak up. You can't say, 'I'm 6 years old and this is the third partner my daddy has had.' The children are completely silenced and have to pretend it's fine and OK."

The issue of redefining the family is not just a point to discuss in an ivory tower, or at a local pub. It will affect a whole generation of people who have put in a situation who were not given a choice.

The Falling Dominoes of Darwinism

It's a David and Goliath battle, but we know who won that battle. More and more prominent scientists are adding their names to a list questioning the blanket acceptance of Darwinism.

While scientific evidence is very complicated, especially when it comes to the origin of species, there is a mounting supply of new findings which has raised questions that are not easily answered by Darwinists. Some of the scientists questioning Darwinism are top experts in their fields.

I'm not versed in neurology, genetics, biology or other sciences. As a theologian, I watch on the fringes as the evidence is compiled showing that the biblical record is reliable. It's just a matter of time before a breakthrough is discovered that will jettison biblical truth to the forefront of the debate. In the meantime, I thank God for those who are bright enough to do the scientific, investigative work as they champion truth and fact.

Why the Next Presidential Election Matters

I know it's early, but is it ever too early to talk about saving the lives of unborn children? The upcoming election, less than two years away, will definitely decide the future of Roe v. Wade. Will it continue to be the law of the land for the foreseeable future, or will it begin its eventual overturn and demise? 2008 will be as much about picking Supreme Court judges as it will be about picking a president.

The candidate's view of the Constitution will determine if conservative judges are nominated to Federal courts and the Supreme Court. Most of the candidates who have declared so far, Republican and Democrat, are center left on the political spectrum. As Christians we should be very concerned about how they view moral and family values.

At least one judge will retire shortly. John Paul Stevens is 86 years old and facing some difficult physical issues. He is one of the 5 Supreme Court judges who consistently upholds abortion rights. His retirement will create a flurry of activity in naming a replacement.

Our efforts should be engaged now in notifying our congressional appointees as to what our desires are. You will not want to stay on the sidelines on this one. Prayer, parades and petitions are all in order to insure that this scourge on our nation is repudiated and rejected.

Third Congregational Meeting Constitution Proposal

I was asked to write a post about the meeting we had on Sunday night. As in the previous meetings, some members voiced concerns, some confusion, some displeasure and some support. Our Elders took the opportunity to individually state why they supported the proposal.

The objective of this meeting was to get past the questions regarding the changes in voting privileges. Our Elders have heard loudly and clearly the questions, objections and concerns and are seriously looking for ways to address this part of the proposed changes.

Some other questions were raised, that although not part of the agenda for the evening, caught our attention. The issues are important and we will try to assure the congregation that those questions will be addressed in the very near future.

This kind of process can be a tenuous proposition. Having a different perspective on an issue does not necessarily have to mean dissension or division. Our constitution, and more importantly our Bible, tells us how to disagree with each other, how to address those disagreements and how to remain true to the spirit of the law in finding a compromise so as to continue walking in harmony.

Now comes the really hard part. Our Elders must discuss, integrate and formulate a proposal that will challenge our congregation to take the next step forward. When dealing with a large group of people it is certain that not everyone will be completely satisfied. It is our prayer that God will give us insight, illumination and wisdom in the coming days.

Please remember to salt your words with love. Remember you don't have to agree, just disagree in a humble and civil manner.