Book Facts

So there you have it, a new version of an old meme—except for one writerly alteration which makes it altogether different: the “random facts” have to be book related. Well, I’m game. This version, by the way, comes via Kim over at Window to My World.

1. My parents read to me as far back as I can remember, and so did my sister and eventually my teachers.

2. One of my favorite books as a wee little tyke was Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride. That and The Little Engine Who Could.

3. One of the earliest book series I fell in love with was The Black Stallion series by Walter Farley. I even read the Island Stallion series though I never connected as completely with them, though I loved the idea of a secret part of an island. A similar concept may have cropped up in The Lore of Efrathah. 😉

4. When I was in junior high, I arrived at school an hour early (carpool issues), and hung out in the school library where I encountered a whole new world of books.

5. My sixth grade teacher read us Kon-tiki (Thor Heyerdahl), White Fang (Jack London), and The Trumpeter of Krakow (a Newbery Medal winner by Eric P. Kelly). Quite an eclectic collection, but I loved them all.

6. I became a Nancy Drew fan.

7. My brother challenged me to read more meaty books on my own, prompting me to read Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austin), still one of my favorite books.

So now I get the fun of tagging seven more people:

Sally Apokedak
Eric Reinhold
Christopher and Allan Miller
Rich Bullock
Val Comer
Tina Kulesa
Frank Creed

More about Fire

Maybe you heard. Southern California experienced another fire last night. This one, I suspect, may get quite a bit of attention because it threatened some very expensive estates in a ritzy part of Santa Barbara called Montecito. Oprah, among other celebrities, has a second (or third?) home there.

But it’s also a fairly normal community. I know because I grew up there. No, my family was not rich. My dad was a professor at a Christian college there, and consequently we lived, as many current professors did, near the school.

When I was a sophomore in high school, we had a fire in the community, too, so as I was watching the news reports, I couldn’t help but relive a bit of my own experience.

But then the news drew my attention to something unexpected. Westmont College, where my dad had worked, where I had gone to school, was now threatened by the fire. Eventually the report came through that some of the buildings had burned to the ground and others were damaged.

More importantly, all the students were safe. As it so happens, the college’s disaster plan, in case of a fire, was to have the students evacuate to the gym, a concrete facility with significant clearing on all sides. I suspect it has a generator too, because the reports said repeatedly that power was out all over the area, that power lines were down, but in that gym, they were showing a movie.

That’s right. Somewhere around a thousand students, faculty, and neighbors rode out the fire storm in the gym. At one point, one student needed to don a surgical mask because the smoke was causing him some breathing problems. One student.

In an interview, another student said it got pretty smoky in there as the fire grew closer. But they had put duc tape around the doors, so I guess that kept out the most of it.

The thing was, the reports asked in many ways, how the kids were holding up, were they devastated by what was happening. I saw numerous interviews, heard a couple via phone, and eventually the reporters got film out showing the activity and interviews in the gym. No one sounded fearful, devastated, panicked. You could tell this mystified the reporters.

Did I mention that Westmont is a Christian college? One student was asked in her interview to tell her experience. She was in the dining commons having dinner when the word came that they needed to evacuate to the gym. She said she was fortunate because she was able to go back to her dorm and retrieve a few things. What did she get, the reporter asked. Some clothes, something else I forget, and her Bible.

Others were asked how they were passing the time. Oh, the answer came, we’re watching the movie, and some of us are meeting in groups to pray.

Eventually, the word reached the students that some of the buildings on campus had burned. Did this cause them to lose it? No, the student simply noted that at least one of those structures was slated for demolition in the building project that broke ground last week.

And speaking of last week, it turns out that just last week, the college held a fire drill, so the students knew exactly what they were supposed to do when the real thing came.

My point? There are times God does not stop the fire, but He has promised to walk through it with us. The evidence of His presence was most clear in the peace He provided for those students.

Were there losses? Yes. I’ve heard that twenty-four professors lost their homes. At least one dorm was destroyed (with all the students’ belongings undoubtedly), and numerous students’ cars burned where they were parked. And there is yet to be determined thousands of dollars of damage to those structures that caught fire but were rescued by the firemen.

But even if it had all burned, it would not change who God is. Before three young Jewish exiles faced execution by fire because they refused to bow down to an idol, this is what they said:

Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.
– Daniel 3:17, 18

Why would they say something so … irrational, as I suppose an atheist would view it? Because they knew something the king didn’t. This world was not their home; they were just passing through. The stuff can burn, even this body, because it’s only temporary. What matters is our submission to the King of king and Lord off lords.

How very cool that those Westmont students stood as modern examples of what the peace that passes understanding looks like when God walks with us through the fire.

Suffering and God – The Refiner’s Fire

One of the reasons I loved coaching so much was because I understand team sports as a microcosm of life. Teamwork, conflict, response to authority, hard work, patience—these are just some of the areas that confront athletes. Another is keeping the big picture in mind—winning isn’t everything; in fact, the game isn’t everything.

Then there is the key ingredient—a successful team suffers. Of course, we coaches don’t call it suffering—we call it training or conditioning. But the truth is, we put players through workouts we know will leave them weak and exhausted and hurting. Why? Because I hated my players? Hardly. The more potential I saw, the more I required of them. I pushed so they would be ready to face the opposition and overcome, but also so they would learn discipline and the necessity of preparation—in other words, things they could take with them long after they stopped playing team sports.

If I had hated my players, in fact, I would have pretty much ignored them. I saw a coach who treated his kids that way once. He would bring a lounge chair along to whatever game he was coaching, plop down, and pretty much let the kids do whatever they wanted to do. Like recess, some kids might think—how cool. But come game time, when that team was getting their clocks cleaned in a big way, none of those kids was having such a good time. I don’t know any of them, so can’t be sure, but I am confident in saying their experience in team sports at that level didn’t contribute in a positive way to their building traits they would need in life.

The point is clear. Just as coaches put their players through training, at times God takes His children through suffering to form us into the image of His Son. It’s one purpose of suffering, though certainly not the only one.

Someone with a different worldview that doesn’t account for eternal life may think God is cruel. Look at Joni Eareckson Tada—confined to a wheelchair since the age of 17 (she’s 59 now). How could she not become bitter and resentful toward God? I can only answer from what I’ve heard and read her saying, and one component is that she is looking forward to unending health once this life is over.

But my, what an impact that woman has had on thousands, maybe millions, not in spite of her disability but because of it. She is a living and breathing example of what the Apostle Paul said: “Power is perfected in weakness.”

He went on to add, ” Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Cor. 10)

Easy for me to say, sitting comfortably in the land of the free and home of the brave, but what about that hypothetical girl in Sudan? Well, whether Portland Mike had an actual girl in mind or not, there are many who fit the description. From Daughters of Hope by Kay Marshall Strom and Michele Rickett (InterVarsity Press):

The villagers said that government forces were capturing women and asking them whether they were Christian or Muslim. If the … response was “Christian,” the women were raped, mutilated, and left to die where others could see them as a warning.

“This woman was supposed to be an example to others who would dare to remain Christians,” Dr. Lidu said. “But I wish they could have heard her as she was recovering. She spent her time praising the name of Jesus!”

That Sudanese woman strengthens my faith. God doesn’t hate her. And while I might think the best is for Him to rescue her out of the hands of evil men, God has a bigger, and eternal, perspective. He knows that this woman, though she may never leave that refugee camp, can impact thousands because of her faith. I, for one, can hardly wait to see the rewards stacking up for her in heaven. 😉

Does Suffering Disprove God?

One of the commenters yesterday brought up the issue of suffering as an argument against a belief in God.

you should ask yourself sometime how is that an all powerful-all knowing god would allow a young girl in Sudan to be repeatedly raped, and then murdered? Do you think that she was begging a god to save her, but didn’t get his name right? Or perhaps this all knowing, full of love and mercy god has another plan, and we ought to all rejoice in this senseless death… it was the god’s will? Great, he heard the screams and prayers but was unmoved?

My thought is to turn the question around. How does an atheist explain such heinous behavior? If God does not exist, then who is to blame for one person mistreating another?

The obvious answer is, Man himself is to blame.

Why should belief in God change that obvious truth? Just because God exists and is omnipotent, suddenly man will stop doing terrible things to his fellow man?

I encountered this argument in an online discussion I had last December and thought some of those comments might be appropriate:

I know that most of what I’m about to say won’t influence your thinking, because we have another point of difference and that has to do with Man’s nature.

I believe that Man is sinful and that at some point God lets Man go the way he wishes to.

Here’s an example. God was the authority of the fledgling nation of Israel, governing through prophets and judges. The people saw other nations ruled by kings and demanded a king of their own. God said, not a good plan, but OK. Actually this is the quote: And the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.” There’s more, but you get the gist. Thing is, God also gave them rules to follow—things the kings weren’t supposed to do … even though it was His desire to remain their King.

Here’s another example. Jesus was talking, telling the people that they were to have one wife, not to divorce. The people said, but Moses made provision for divorce, and Jesus answered, “Because of the hardness of your heart Moses permitted you to divorce…”

Later Paul spelled this out in one of his letters: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts …”

… The reality it [sic], omnipotent, sovereign God lets Man have a say-so in what happens, if nothing more than to say, I reject You.

But here’s how I know what God’s character is. Jesus was His perfect representative—God come to earth. And when He was asked, What’s the most important commandment, He answered by saying, Love God and the second is like it: love your neighbor. All the law and prophets are summed up by these two.

So, no, suffering doesn’t disprove God. In fact suffering confirms Mankind’s nature and the truth of the warnings God gave against sin.

To believe the contrary is like a little child cutting herself on the knife she was playing with after her parent told not to, then turning around and saying something like, “I don’t have a dad or he would have taken the knife away from me.”

Faulty reasoning. And focusing on such detracts from God’s compassion and love—the very real help that He wants to offer the person who suffers. When we “pass through the waters” He will be with us, when we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, He will be with us. I guess atheists, though, have to go it alone.

The Atheist Box

In the section I read today of The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister and Joanna Cullicut McGrath ( InterVarsity Press), the authors referred to something like a no-God box atheists put themselves in. It resonated with me because of a discussion I had with an atheist over at Spec Faith some months ago. At one point during the discussion, it dawned on me how limited is an atheist who believes that all we can know as truth must be discovered by the scientific method.

Essentially, an atheist who rules out the metaphysical has narrowed the options of what he will explore. If there is only the natural, then there can be no supernatural explanations of the things we don’t understand.

I’m reading John Olson’s Shade right now in preparation for next week’s CSFF blog tour, and the protagonist (one of them) came up against this very position. There can be no supernatural explanations, so when someone experiences something inexplicable, the only conclusion can be, You imagined it, conjured it up out of your diseased mind. Which is what many atheists conclude about Christians. God does not exist, they say, so a Christian who “hears” His voice, is a fool, a liar, a simpleton, or mentally ill.

It’s not so far from the conclusion C.S. Lewis (popularized by Josh McDowell) came to about Jesus based on the claims He made about Himself (liar, lunatic, or Lord)—with one exception: C.S. Lewis added that Jesus could be who He said He was.

The atheist gives himself no such option because he’s already ruled God out.

I commented on Mike Duran’s blog this morning regarding something he wrote about evolution, and once again, it hit me how many more options Christians have than atheists. After all, if an omnipotent God does exist (and He does), then what are the limits? But by making the presupposition that there is no God, an atheist is then left to figure things out via Man’s limited observations and reasoning. No wonder science keeps discovering new things and theories keep changing and science textbooks have to be rewritten.

Spiritually? Not much has changed from the day God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden. Oh, sure, lots of history has happened, including the fulfillment of the prophecy to Satan that Man would bruise him on the head and Satan would bruise Him on the heel. And of course God gave us His written word as well as His Son. But we don’t need to continually discover new revelation in order to make sense of our world.

And we don’t need to fear new discoveries. They will always make sense because we have a God who can do the impossible. When something looks incongruous with Scripture, we can rest in the knowledge that it is not. Our understanding may be incomplete or veiled or our interpretation may be in error—we have lots of possibilities. The atheist in his box? Not so many. His data can’t be wrong—at least until another scientist comes along and proves that it is.

The earth is flat, after all. We can all see that it is flat. Sadly, the most adamant fundamentalist extremists just might be atheists who box themselves into a field of knowledge they know will most probably be altered one day.

God and Delusion

Last night I watched a PBS Masterpiece Contemporary called (I think I have the title right) “God on Trial.” In essence it was the story of a group of Jewish Auschwitz prisoners who decided to put God on trial because He broke His covenant with Israel by not protecting and blessing the nation as He said He would.

If it weren’t for the death-camp setting, the story would have seemed rather silly to me. Here were several Rabbis, one who supposedly had memorized the Torah, but they didn’t really get the fact that Israel broke the covenant and God fulfilled the clear warnings He gave, should they do so.

At one point, one of the men brought up that possibility, but the discussion turned to why “good Jews” were suffering for the sins of the “bad ones,” defined as those who no longer had faith in the Torah. As it turned out, I guess they found God guilty (I fell asleep near the conclusion, but woke up to see the end), yet as the German guards hauled off the group designated for the gas chamber, the man who instigated the trial said something like, Now that God is guilty, what are we supposed to do? And the answer was, Pray and believe in the Torah. They then began quoting a passage from it, and continued to do so as they marched to their deaths.

So this morning, I started reading a book called The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister and Joanna Cullicut McGrath ( InterVarsity Press). Apparently atheist Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion, which the McGrath book is clearly answering, is most critical of what I’ll call the Faith Factor.

God is a delusion—a “psychotic delinquent” invented by mad, deluded people. That’s the take-home message of The God Delusion. Although Dawkins does not offer a rigorous definition of a delusion, he clearly means a belief that is not grounded in evidence—or, worse, that flies in the face of the evidence.

A faith such as “God on Trial” depicted the Jews of Auschwitz having.

The McGrath’s make an essential point:

Dawkins is right [about this point]—beliefs are critical. We base our lives on them; they shape our decisions about the most fundamental things. I can still remember the turbulence that I found myself experiencing on making the intellectually painful (yet rewarding) transition from atheism to Christianity. Every part of my mental furniture had to be rearranged. Dawkins is correct—unquestionably correct—when he demands that we should not base our lives on delusions. We all need to examine our beliefs—especially if we are naive enough to think that we don’t have any in the first place. But who, I wonder, is really deluded about God?

Well, I already know the answer, because I read the Book—the one written by the All-Knowing Creator God. Anyone who puts God on trial and finds Him guilty, or absent, or dead is deluded. I could have said, anyone who puts God on trial is deluded. The idea that we can judge God shows our delusion.

It doesn’t help that those who judge God and find Him wanting then turn around and profess faith in Him or His Word. It is the biggest delusion of all.

The Great Divide—Who Are We?

So I was reading an article in The Writer, a new-to-me writing mag, on conflict. The author contends it is conflict that makes us all want to keep reading. If I remember correctly, Donald Maass says it is tension. Be that as it may, that’s not my concern in this post. Instead, I’m concerned with this writer’s conclusion:

What is it about conflict that draws our attention? Is it because, just under the surface of our postmodern veneer, we are still animals, drawn to the smell of blood? Or is it that we find strength in knowing we are not alone in our daily fight to keep going, and that the urge to survive is the one thing all people can be assured they have in common? Regardless of your answer …

Well, I’m concerned with the questions. Could this novelist and screenwriter come up with no better ideas for our interest in conflict other than that we are animals or that we want someone to be in the same boat with us as we fight the impossible fight to survive?

My first thought was how incredibly sad it is that this writer has such a worldview. My second thought was, he is not alone. Half our country, I suspect, shares that perspective. And when you look at the world at large, my guess is the number of people seeing themselves and others as nothing more than soulless beings—intellect trapped in decaying bodies—would be staggering.

This, then, is the great divide. I’ve thought before that the issue of sin was the core difference between those who believe in God and those who don’t. The humanist sees Man as good and the Christian sees him as sinful. But in this postmodern culture, with humanism (enlightenment, reason) fading nearly as fast as Christianity, the new dividing line just may be at this point of definition: what is Man?

It’s not a bad question. After all, the Psalmist asked it, too. What is man that You are mindful of him? But the idea that Man is nothing but matter, that one day he will stop being, that his body will decay and he will be no more is so foreign to me, it’s like I’m staring at an alien. For some reason, it’s never hit me just how many people must hold this worldview.

If you’re familiar with Psalm 8, you know that David was asking this question of God, not because he didn’t know but because he was amazed. Here’s the short psalm in the New American Standard Version:

1 O LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth, Who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens! 2 From the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength Because of Your adversaries, To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; 4 What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? 5 Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty! 6 You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, 7 All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, 8 The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas. 9 O LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth!

(emphasis mine)

That view of Man is such a far cry from the animal/in-it-for-survival view, if I didn’t know better, I would think these two writers were discussing two entirely different entities.

No wonder abortion proponents can recognize that a fetus is alive and proceed to advocate as they do. Did you know that here in California, we passed a proposition to mandate improved conditions for chickens, pigs, and … some other livestock and at the same time defeated a proposition that would require parental notification of a minor having an abortion?

The great divide. If we’re just animals, then the chickens count just as much as the humans. And the unborn babies are as disposable as we want them to be.

So today, I had my eyes opened to this great divide.

Prayer for the President-Elect

I’ve read some excellent posts about praying for President-elect Obama (as opposed to praying against him, and unfortunately there are those posts out there as well). I don’t usually make public the things that I am praying for, but I thought it might be important on this occasion. Then if others of you want to add specifics, we can all be more informed in our prayers. Here’s what’s come to mind so far:

• time for him to grieve the death of his grandmother
• that he will be faithful to his wife, and his marriage will be strong
• time to parent his children
• wisdom in selecting the members of his cabinet
• that he will be a man of integrity
• power will not corrupt him
• a good rapport with President Bush so that the transition will be smooth
• the ability to remember and the willingness to act upon what those who did not vote for him are saying, since he declared he heard them
• that he would rethink his views on abortion
• if he is a believer, as he says, that he would make following Jesus Christ his number one task
• if he thinks he’s a Christian because of the church he attends or some other external reason, and is not, that he would come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ

Looking forward to anything the rest of you might add.

God and the Presidential Elections, Part 3

Done. I have my little I Voted sticker as evidence that I performed my civic duty. No long line. No extended wait. From front door to car to polling place and back to car was a total of seventeen minutes.

Local news had made much of people waiting four hours to vote early several days before … well, Election Day. Personally I don’t understand this drive to vote early or vote by mail. It’s just one more way to avoid the people who live in our same community.

My contention is that low voter participation results from few contended races. One of the most important propositions on the California ballot, in my opinion, was Prop. 11 that sets out a plan for redistricting and would require compromise, not a power play from the party in charge of the legislature.

But none of that is what I intended to talk about. I am more concerned with What Now.

First, I remember how shamefully many conservatives (and I’m sure a number of Christians got caught up in the tide) behaved when President Clinton beat the first President Bush. Turns out he really was a centrist … and probably an economic conservative. I’ll agree that he didn’t conduct himself in a very presidential manner, nor did he do anything to heal the divide in our country. His terms in office were the first I felt the president made no effort to be the president of the whole country. And the Democrats acted as if they had conquered the world now that they had one of their own back in power.

Ugh. I hate that word, power. I don’t really understand it, for one thing. God is in control. Any power that a man thinks he has is a mirage. But that’s yet another subject.

All this reminiscing about the Clinton years has a point. If the polls, in fact, are correct, and Senator Obama becomes President-elect, what should be the response of the McCain/Palin supporters? My hope is, Christians will be informed by our faith, and will act accordingly.

One important response should be prayer.

My church held a prayer meeting last night from 7 to 8. It was awesome. We met in the chapel, a room with seating for 400, and had to open up the overflow room. But more than numbers, there was maturity in the prayers of adoration and confession. No simplistic stuff. These prayers showed a deep understanding of who God is. It was such an encouragement.

And the confession of our sins as a church and as the Church were the stuff of revival. Then in our small groups, when we thanked God for what He has done and asked Him for His will in the election—local, state, and national—it was wonderful how our pastor kept our focus on the fact that we are aliens and strangers, that our true citizenship is in heaven, that our focus needs to be on our task as salt and light here, with the purpose to fulfill our calling as ambassadors of our King.

My thinking is this: none of who I am or what I am called to do as a Christian changes with a change in administration or with the passage of a set of laws I may or may not agree with. If we the Church act like followers of Jesus Christ, others will either ask, What can we do to be saved, or they will pick up stones to throw at us. Not because we’re hateful, self-righteous, or bigoted—may God keep us from dishonoring His name. But they’ll oppose us because they hate God and therefore can’t stand to be around His friends.

God and the Presidential Elections, Part 2

As my author friend Julie Carobini noted in her blog today, it’s nearly impossible to get away from tomorrow’s election. I was at a luncheon at church yesterday, and before you knew it, the topic had turned to politics.

Of course, here in California, we have some major issues to consider as well as national, state, and local leaders and judges to vote for.

I sat down this morning to take a look at the 141 page official election guide, and it’s pretty hard not to think, huh? How much easier it would be to let the ads I’ve been hearing over the weeks guide my decisions. I mean, some of them are so convincing. Then again, some seem too frequent (why is someone willing to spend that much money to defeat this proposition, and who are those people clumped together in those groups listed at the bottom of the ad in such tiny print it’s impossible to read?)

The pervading question I have is, how should my Christian faith inform my decisions?

You see, one thing we can know for certain: the best of candidates will not always make decisions that I like or even understand, and most certainly the opposition, at some point, will cast dispersions on that person’s record or character.

So how much time should I spend learning the truth? And, the truth about what? I mean, some candidates seem like quicksilver when it comes to trying to pin them down about their beliefs. And when it comes to voting record, that seems like an unsubstantial measuring stick because bills in Congress are loaded down with riders and pork, all in the name of compromise. What happened to real compromise, in which a bill on spending is modified to the point that it becomes an acceptable amount of spending to the majority or an acceptable target for spending in the eyes of the majority, not glutted with bribes to insure enough votes for passage?

A “litmus test” issue would simplify the decision. I won’t vote for Senator X because he states he is for (or against) subject Y. The problem with that approach is, subject Y may have little to do with performing the tasks of President, or councilman, representative, or whatever other office we may have on our particular ballots tomorrow.

Where does that leave us? I suggest it leaves us where God wants us—on our knees and in His Word.

On our knees, I’ve already mentioned, but in His Word is equally important. In fact, as I see it, in His Word should guide me in all my decisions.

What does God say in His word about money, for example, since much is being made in this election about the economy. Well, there are some specific things, like render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and owe no man and give your cloak also when someone asks for your shirt (RLM version 😉 ). Plus, we’re not to worry about food and clothing, because look at the way God clothes the birds and the flowers; or this truth—God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and He cares for us. Also we’re to store up our treasure in heaven, not on the earth where moths and rust can get to it.

What’s it all mean? I suppose each one of us needs to be before God, asking that question. For me, to misquote a political pundit of some sixteen years ago, It’s NOT about the economy, dip-head. 🙂

Here’s what Paul said when he told Timothy to pray for those in government:

I urge that entrities and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godiness and dignity.

Given this admonition, it seems logical that we Christians living in a democracy should then vote for leaders and policies and judges who will promote these same qualities. Not so our lives will be comfy-cozy, however. The passage goes on to say

this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all …

So the point is, God finds it good and acceptable for our society to be one of godliness and dignity, where we can lead a tranquil and quiet life. It is within this context that we can make the truth of Jesus Christ known at home and abroad.

So who do we vote for? What propositions do we say yes to? Turn the question around: What candidates will use their authority to create (and what propositions will add to the creation of) a tranquil and quiet society in all godliness and dignity?

Still not easy, is it. OK, let’s try one more thing. My newspaper had a list of “where do the candidates stand.” My list, keeping to the above principles, would include things like this:

• illegal immigration
• right to life
• war on terrorism
• energy independence
• standard for selecting judges
• plans for working with the opposing party
• dealing with corruption in government
• upholding the God-ordained definition of marriage

What about health care, education, social security, Wall Street bailouts, and the like? I’m not so sure a government health care system will lead to godliness and dignity or a tranquil and quiet life. Perhaps an education policy would, though I tend to think parents in local school districts are better equipped to know for their own children, their own communities. Social security? I may be a fatalist on that one. The system was never designed to last in perpetuity, but now it is a “right.” And Wall Street bailouts? Perhaps we should deal with greed and the way we have turned investment into gambling. If there was a candidate addressing those issues, then I could add the subject to the list.

Of course, I have little to go on but the candidates’ words and what others say about them. In the end, I’m trusting God to guide my decision according to His will. May He so work in and through the elections.