I watched a news segment this morning about Muslims living in Las Vegas. The report examined how Muslims remain true to their religion while surrounded by three things antithetical to their religion: gambling, alcohol, and public nudity. I think they said 18,000 Muslims live in Vegas. It was an interesting segment.

And I thought: tens of thousands of Christians live and work in Vegas, but the story isn't about how they remain true to their religion amidst gambling, alcohol, and public nudity. Is it because Christians are viewed as so compromised by the world, that avoiding those vices is not an issue for them? Is that how the world, sadly, sees us? Muslims seek purity, but Christians in America long ago gave up the fight?

One Muslim cab driver admitted that occasionally he goes into a bar and gets a drink. "I've been Americanized," he said with a smile. But because he does it so rarely, he said, "God will forgive me." Sounds like he's becoming like too many Christians.

Posted at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Go USC!

I've always been a USC football fan, going back to my schooldays in Arizona and California. When I came back to Indiana for college, I took obnoxious pride in the (then) annual Rose Bowl victories by the Pac 8 (now Pac 10) team. One year I worked the main desk in the union building on New Year's Day and was able to proudly announce that--yes, once again--the Big Ten had been defeated in the Rose Bowl.

My college years were 1975-1979. Each year, the Pac 10 won--USC in 1975, then UCLA, the USC, then Washington, and then USC again in 1979 and 1980. In fact, the Big 10 won just one Rose Bowl during the 1970s--in 1974 (OSU over USC). And their rep was always either Ohio State or Michigan. Meanwhile, the Pac 10 mixed it up with a variety of schools, any of which were up to the challenge of drumming Bo or Woody--Stanford (2 wins), USC (5 wins), UCLA (1), and Washington (1).

During the 1970s, of course, USC had that great string of running backs--Sam Cunningham (4 touchdowns in the Rose Bowl vs. Ohio State), Anthony Davis (I remember watching his 6 touchdowns against Notre Dame), Ricky Bell, and Charles White. And bookending them were OJ Simpson (1968) and Marcus Allen (1981).

A Google search tells me that USC has had more first-round draft choices than any other school--67, with Ohio State close behind at 63. I look forward to seeing those two teams meet in the championship game this year. Though I admit: Michigan has a very good claim to USC's spot.

Posted at 04:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Last Wednesday, Pam and I took my parents to the World War 2 Victory museum in Auburn, Ind. I've been wanting to go there ever since the museum opened in 2003. It contains the world's largest collection of World War 2 vehicles--over 150 of them, a good share of them German vehicles.

Wow, what a place! I loved it. The WW2 movies tend to show the same vehicles--an assortment of tanks, trucks, jeeps, and motorcycles. But my goodness, the variety of vehicles from that period was incredible. Very interesting vehicles like I've never seen.

There were no Japanese vehicles. We were told that they were mostly destroyed during the war. So everything was from the European theatre.

The museum is across from the Kruse car auction lot, and is owned by Kruse. He bought the whole collection from a Belgian collector. The WW2 collection is housed in just one side of the mammoth museum building. The other side consisted mostly of the Car and Coach Museum. The cars were nice, but we all felt that the horse-drawn carriages, including some royal carriages and stagecoaches, were the stars of this collection. They also had three Batmobiles--two from movies, plus the TV show Batmobile. Plus Batgirl's cycle.

Wow, four days since I've posted. And I've been on vacation. Just shows how busy this vacation has been.

Posted at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today is my brother Stu's birthday. It's easy to remember, because it was also the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. I think Stu is 47. A prime number totally unworthy of any special recognition.

I, of course, turned an ominous 50 a month ago, and Pam made a big deal out of it. As part of it, we had supper with her dad and my parents.

My parents are coming over in a few minutes. I was thinking about the fact that my mom turned 70 in August, but we didn't do anything special. In fact, I can't recall anyone celebrating turing 70, or 60 for that matter. But people resume the fanfare maybe at 80, certainly at 90 and 100.

Why's that? Well, I pondered that, this being a day off from work and little else being available to occupy my mind.

When someone turns 40 or 50, we bring out the black stuff, and the birthday becomes a joke that "you're getting old" or "you're now over the hill." It's funny. But at 60 and 70--not so funny, because you actually are old and over the hill (sorry Mom). Then when 80 comes, it's simply a matter of, "Wow," a sentiment repeated with increasing emphasis at 90 and 100.

So those are my deep insights for today.

Posted at 09:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On the way home from work today, a little red car was really pushing me. I had to speed up faster than I wanted so I could pass the car in the right-hand lane and then get over myself. When I did, the red car zoomed on by.

A few miles later, I came upon a police car with flashing lights. He had just stopped someone. And words cannot express my delight when I saw it was the little red car.

Posted at 07:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday at church, two persons came asking for a handout. I talked to both of them. They told their hard-luck stories and explained what they needed. I've heard three such stories in the past couple of weeks, and they were very similar. All three, I'm sure, knew I was listening with skeptical, maybe even cynical, ears. That might explain why they tried so hard, with their rambling words, to convince me that their situation was for real.

What they didn't know is that I basically accepted (naively, I'm sure) their situations as true, or at least within the ballpark. I certainly didn't see them as ever becoming rich from handouts. These are guys for whom life is a constant, day-to-day struggle, and nothing will change that. "Begging" is a survival thing, not something they enjoy or take pride in.

For the two guys yesterday...well, these are not guys who would get hired anywhere very easily. There is this whole underclass which, before coming to Anchor, I never saw. People who piece together an existence from government programs, from begging, from occasional work, and from mooching off of relatives and friends. They lack job skills, education, social skills, confidence, and self-esteem.

These are the people for whom the minimum wage matters. If they can find work, it'll probably be minimum wage. So I'm glad that the Democrats are in charge, because, in their mixture of quasi-good and charlatanish motives, they do intend to raise the minimum wage, whereas it's nowhere on the radar of Republicans.

The first guy came before the first service, while the worship team was practicing. He said he needed gas money, and wondered if we could provide some food for Thanksgiving. We don't give out gas money, I learned. I don't think we give out cash, period, and there are very good reasons for that. But I did give him money (which may or may not go toward gas--I prefer to think it will), and I suggested he stop by the church during the week about his other needs.

The other fellow came halfway through the second service; the worship team had just finished our part, and we were out in the foyer. His arm was in a sling, and lest I not believe his story, he pulled his T-shirt aside to show me a substantial scar on his shoulder. I directed him to Cheryl, who handles our Needy Fund. He sat through about half of the service, so that's good.

I am unbelievably blessed. Skepticism toward the poor underclass should not be part of my make-up, but I do wrestle with a good chunk of skepticism. If I'm going to err, it needs to be on the side of generosity, not the side of skepticism. But how it works out in everyday life--how and when to give a handout, without becoming some kind of "enabler" (if that concept even applies to people like this)--is not something I'm close to having figured out.

Posted at 09:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

So the Colts finally lost. Now people can stop talking about an undefeated season, and they can get that distraction off their backs.

The Ohio State - Michigan game lived up to its hype. Tremendous game. I was in Bellefontaine, Ohio, Saturday morning for a meeting. Afterwards, at a gas station, I saw a black fellow wearing a Michigan hooded sweatshirt and cap. I pointed at what he was wearing, chuckled, and said, "You've sure got a lot of courage!" He said he worked at the Honda plant and was headed to work, and would miss actually seeing the game. "The Japanese just don't understand the importance of this game," he told me.

My USC Trojans kept their march going. I predict it'll be Ohio State and USC in the title game. If, of course, USC can get past Notre Dame next week. Won't be easy.

Posted at 11:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've been going to write about something I learned last Friday during my Communications workshop at Granger Community Church. The leader was Kem Meyer, Granger's Communications Director. I took a seminar by her at the MinistryCOM conference in September, out in Phoenix, and loved both the content and her delivery. Her slides expertly use graphic metaphors, with not a single bullet point in sight. And aren't we all tired of PowerPoint bullet points, which just keep coming and coming and COMING from all directions with tiresome, gimmicked-out flourishes? They are soooo nineties.

Perusing my notes, I see a lot of good stuff, but nothing which I feel compelled (or smart enough) to expand upon. So I thought I'd just bullet-point some tidbits which I found interesting, useful, or insightful. These are not necessarily the main points. Just things I scribbled down.

• Churches are often a small number of people overhyping their product. Can they really deliver on their promise of health, success, good families, etc?
• People want information, but not more information. They have a specific question, and want the answer to that question.
• Don't give people more choices to make. It has negative consequences, regardless of generation. Boomers get overwhelmed and shut down, GenXers fuss over whether or not they're making the right decision, and GenYers just ignore you and move on.
• Pastors can be prostitues or prophets. A prostitute is someone you pay to make you feel good. A prophet tells you what you need to hear.
• In trying to reach nonChristians, put them in their comfort zone. That may mean behind a cup of coffee, or in front of multimedia.
• People today enjoy the buzz of large groups, but they like to process in small groups.
• If you can't maintain something, don't implement it. (For instance, a website.)
• True creativity comes from limited resources.
• Two types of people read the bulletin: first-time visitors, and people looking to see if you used their announcement.

Posted at 09:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

My friend Dave Datema serves with the US Center for World Mission in Pasadena, Calif., and his blog, "Freakin' Missionary," is one of blogs I check every day. He grew up as a missionary kid in Jamaica and Sierra Leone, and now he works alongside missions statesman Ralph Winter.

In today's post (November 9, 2006), Dave presents two explanations on why so few Americans are signing up to be missionaries. These are well worth repeating here.

View #1: The main problem is that there are major hurdles in the way of missionary service. Some of the major ones are: raising financial support, school and consumer debt, the stigma of being a narrow-minded fundamentalist who believes his/her views of salvation are absolute and for everyone, parents who'd rather hold grandbabies than touch the nations, and the loneliness involved in pursuing something off the beaten track of one's peers. It is HARD. 

View #2: The only real problem is that people today simply don't want it bad enough. Stop this incessant whining about how hard everything is. What do you expect? What did Jesus warn? The hurdles to missionary service have always been daunting, even more so in years past - MUCH more so. Do we really need to hand-hold people into missions?  Wouldn't it be better to give them a kick in the pants instead? Waa, waa, waa. I wish CT Studd would come back to life and give us a lesson in sacrifice and commitment. It's enough to make a person puke.

Check out his post for the rest of his self-described rant, and while you're there, page down through some of the rest of his posts. He writes with a blunt edge. There's a lot of good stuff regarding missions.

Posted at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last Friday Pam and I attended seminars at Granger Community Church near South Bend, Ind. It's considered one of the nation's most innovative churches. They run about 6000 people on Sundays, and they focus laser-like on reaching the lost. I took a seminar on Communications, and Pam took one called "Maximizing the Arts," which revolved around worship. Both were excellent.

Granger is a superb church. I loved hearing about their ministry. Loved gleaning great ideas. I highly respect what they do. And I'm glad I don't go there.

Size matters. The critical mass of people and money enable a church to do things with great quality. And it enables a whole lot of people to go under-used in ministry. The demand for high expertise (to reach the desired level of quality) means many talented (but not highly talented) people ride the bench. I basically did that for a number of years at my previous, fast-growing church (my fault--there was no need for my service, so I didn't provide much service). At Anchor I have no doubts about how much I'm needed, and I can work my butt off in ministry. I can truly use all of my skills and gifts in fulfilling ways, and do things that give me great joy (like playing the piano), whereas at a megachurch I would have little to offer.

At the end of the day, we got a tour of the Granger facility. Our guide, a fellow in his 50s, clearly loved being part of something alive and growing. He was articulate, a good thinker, probably a successful professional. And I thought of how valuable a guy like that would be at Anchor, and how much he could do to help us reach our neighborhood for Christ. More than he's doing at Granger...?

But churches like Granger are doing wonderful things. I can't knock them. Nor do I accept the postmodernist arguments that the days of the megachurch are numbered. I think those days are just beginning. Many people (like me) will be drawn to small communities. But it seems that a much larger number of people will be drawn to megachurches--good for some people, bad for others. Sorry, Brian McLaren, but I don't see the sky falling on megachurches.

Posted at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The latest Time magazine included a "God Vs. Science" dialogue between Richard Dawkins, an atheist, and Francis Collins (right), a Christian who headed up the human genome mapping project. Collins is an interesting fellow. He's not a literal seven-day creationist and holds old-earth views, which places him in opposition to our fundamentalist brethren (and perhaps a majority of UBs). I'm very intrigued with and drawn to his views, and I appreciated his spirit in this dialogue. Dawkins came off as very combative and close-minded, whereas the Christian was courteous and more open-minded on things. Interesting.

At one point, Dawkins suggests that Collins "cease to give [Fundamentalists] the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?"

Collins responds, "I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case." Touche!

A bit later, Dawkins suggests that Christians are lazy and lacking in scientific credibility. Collins replies, "I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is."

I loved it! Collins was showing that the atheist was the close-minded, dug-in person because he refused to accept the possibility of a supernatural world. Elsewhere, he said because scientists are restricted to the physical world--what they can see, hold, and measure--they can't truly weigh-in regarding God, because God isn't restricted to the physical world.

It's great seeing a Christian like Francis Collins show, to hard-core scientists, that God and science are not incompatible. Unfortunately, many Christians would shun Collins because he accepts the idea that God might have created the world through evolution. I, too, hold that view. The difference is that I would get demolished if asked to defend that view around anyone with a halfway decent IQ.

Posted at 04:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

You know those yellow, computer-generated lines they put on football fields during televised games to show how far the team needs to go to get a first down? Lines that only the TV viewing audience can see? I believe those lines rank as one of the greatest inventions of my lifetime. This I believe with all my heart.

Posted at 11:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Today Pastor Tim preached from Song of Solomon and showed the fabulous "Flame" NOOMA video from Rob Bell at Mars Hill Church. It also happened to be the anniversary of his very first date with Tara (I forget the number--13? Something like that). Tara sang, as a surprise, the song she sang at their wedding: "All of Me," by Stryper. Tim was expecting a different song, but she secretly arranged this with the worship team and we played it live.

Tim talked about remembering the things you did when you were dating. He told about a typical date he and Tara have now (eat, movie, Starbucks--I think that's the basic formula), and recalled what they did when they were dating.

So I got to thinking about what Pam and I enjoyed doing when we were dating. We often--at least once every two months--spent Saturday doing what to us was marvelous, but which would have been boring to most couples. We would drive to Fort Wayne and hit the various used bookstores. We started with the Book Rack on South Calhoun, near Rudisill (this store has since closed). Then we drove to a large used bookstore at Georgetown on the east end of town (this store later burned down). Then we hit the Book Rack on East State Street (it's still there). And we ended at a bookstore near Glenbrook Mall located in a house (with used books in every nook and cranny; it closed some years ago).

That was our idea of a fun date. We would come home with gobs of novels, all bought at half-price. And a few weeks later, we would do it all again.

When Pam has continuing education CPA seminars in Indianapolis, I take the day off and accompany her. While she's learning stuff, I kick around in computer, music, and bookstores. She had a seminar two weeks ago. When I picked her up at the end of the day, we headed straight to our favorite store: a huge used bookstore in the Castleton area. We both left with a bunch of books (Pam with a gob of Christian novels). So used bookstores remain high on our fun-time list.

We are, undoubtedly, the Fun Couple of the Year.

Posted at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last night at our prayer meeting, Jennifer had a neat praise. She's a twenty-something who works at Taco Bell, and she has great difficulty reading. But on Tuesday, she voted for the first time. A poll volunteer helped walk her through the process, but she did it, she pressed the red button at the end...and she voted. She was included. It was a big deal for Jennifer. So it's a big deal for me. For all of us in that group.

Mark, our leader, led us in a little discussion of some verses in Philippians. We talked some about the fact that Paul was writing this from prison. Both Dan and Alan, other members of our prayer group, have spent time in prison. Alan wasn't there last night, but Dan gave us some insights into prison life.

We've prayed a lot about job situations, and we've seen answers. Mark has been working fulltime. Alan got a job (started this week). Terry got a different job. Nicolette got a promotion and it's going well. We've been praying that Jeremy, the son of Mark and Tami, would find a job. Tami's phone rang during our meeting last night. It was Jeremy. He landed a college teaching position and starts Wednesday.

This prayer stuff really does work, because God's listening on the other end, and he knows how to make things happen.

Posted at 08:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's a sad, sad day in my gloriously all-Macintosh world. Justin Long is the "Mac Guy" in those fabulous Apple ads that leave both PC and Mac guys in stitches (well, at least all Mac guys, plus PC guys with a sense of humor--and they do exist, though not in overwhelming quantities).

However, though Apple is making more of those ads, Justin Long won't be in them. In my world, this is worse news than the Democrats capturing both houses of Congress. But according to a rep, "Justin's a movie star, not a commercial guy." Well la-de-da.

Regardless of any misplaced hubris on Justin Long's part, I mourn his departure. He and John Hodgman (PC Guy) were perfect together. I can't imagine anyone else taking his place. But then...Apple doesn't produce lame commercials. Whatever they come up with, it'll be good.

Posted at 08:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm pleased with the election results. Republicans weren't doing anything with their control of the House, and had given in to corruption and laziness and yes-man behavior for the White House. So, I say, "Off with their heads!" As a Republican, I'm ashamed of their arrogance and inaction. Wanting the Democrats to take charge is like wanting the Babylonians to conquer Israel...which, as it turns out, was what God wanted to happen.

Now it will be fun mocking Nancy Pelosi and rest of the liberal, disorganized Dems as they take over the House. They have no idea what they're going to do, as opposed to the Republicans, who were united only in what they were not going to do--which is, be responsible legislators. The Dems will at least be earnest.

And the investigations will be fun and helpful and, in my view, necessary for our democracy. This time next year, we'll be fully engulfed in hearings on the Tom Foley scandal, Halliburton, CIA torture factories, and general what-the-heck-is-happening-in-Iraq hearings. Republicans deserve to be put on the spot, and they will be...by grandstanding Democrats eager for the spotlight. The hearings will make us mad. But they'll be good for the country. Sort of. Or maybe not. We'll see.

I am glad that (so it looks) the Republicans retain control of the Senate. The Senate is, for the most part, a higher calibre of people, more classy and thoughtful than the messy House.

Posted at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's no fun living in a bulletproof Republican district. While epic wars rage in other parts of the country, all is tranquil in northeast Indiana. I've seen very few political ads, and the charges candidates throw at each other are pretty lame, the political equivalent of, "The other night, my opponent didn't eat his broccoli," countered by, "Well that's nothing. My opponent got a C- in eighth-grade English." Nasty, nasty stuff.

When I voted this morning, I was surprised to see several state-wide seats up for grabs, including a US Senate seat. I thought this was the year free of Senate races, but no, there was Richard Lugar's name on the ballot. Lugar has been a senator since the Pleistocene era, and I like him. But he obviously took our district for granted, and figured he would save his campaign funds for other districts. Likewise for other state-wide seats.

For probably half of the positions on the ballot, the Republican candidate had no opposition. That stinks.

I said previously that I wouldn't vote for Mark Souder, our Republican congressman, but I wouldn't necessarily vote for his opponent. Well, I did vote for his opponent. Initially, he may have fantasized about pulling a huge upset, but I can't imagine that lasted long. For most of the campaign, he exerted energies exuding false optimism, rallying troops in a doomed cause, convincing people to contribute money to a sinkhole, and generally playing the role of sacrificial donkey for the Democratic party. I gave him points for effort and general pain and anguish, and voted for him. This can only be described as an act of irresponsible, cynical citizenship on my part.

I like the new voting machines.

Posted at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Ted Haggard story is heart-breaking. It's probably over now as a news story, and didn't get the attention it might have received had we not been consumed with midterm elections. Haggard's contrite, honest statement to the church yesterday (with another statement from his wife to the women of the church) are wonderful examples (download statements in PDF).

A lot has been written already in the blogosphere about this. Much more will come. Here are two I found exemplary:

• Gordon MacDonald, who himself was caught in adultery 20 years ago, addresses many issues regarding this situation. This is an excellent, excellent piece of writing. He also talks about Christians in politics and the role/future of the NAE, and wonders if the NAE can (or should) recover.
• Mark Driscoll, pastor of the Seattle Mars Hill church, gives some practical suggestions to young leaders.

Posted at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday Pam and I saw Clint Eastwood's new movie, "Flags of Our Fathers," about the famous flag-raising on Iowa Jima during World War 2. Excellent movie with a complex structure, moving back and forth between the battle, the battle's aftermath, and present-day.

Photos from the actual battle were shown throughout the credits. Nobody left until the credits ended. It's neat when that happens.

We hadn't seen a movie since July 1--Superman.

Posted at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I, personally, hope the Democrats take the House back. I will cheer if they do. (I won't be disappointed if they also sieze the Senate, but I'd rather they didn't.) The Republicans have shown themselves to be unworthy and incompetent, and have given in to corruption. Let the Democrats take over until they're corrupted (it probably won't take as long).

With Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, we've lost any checks and balances. Which is why George Bush hasn't used a veto to stop pork-barreling or anything else. The Republicans in Congress and the Republicans in the White House just give each other whatever they want. If the Democrats are in charge, Bush will finally begin using his veto power, and Congress will finally start pushing back with more than token resistance.

Plus--I gleefully welcome some Congressional investigations. The word is that Nancy Pelosi has warned her colleagues that she doesn't want the House to become a courthouse. But some investigations will occur, and they will become political circuses with lots of self-righteous Democratic grandstanding (not unlike the eight tedious years--eight years!--of Clinton-era Republican hand-wringing over Whitewater). But I say to the Dems, "Go to it!"

I want to see Congressional investigations on some issues where I feel the Bush Administration has shown itself to be incompetent, unethical, and occasionally evil. Issues like how my beloved country embraced state-sponsored torture, the Abramoff scandal, declaring ourselves exempt from the Geneva Conventions, sinful tax cuts for the rich. And I want bright spotlights on the whole Iraq War Debacle, for which history will rightfully shame Bush.

I want heads to roll. Republican heads. And since that'll only happen if Democrats wield the sword, I'm all for it. God often used pagan nations to discipline Israel, so I'm okay with using Democrats to discipline Republicans (since Republicans utterly refuse to discipline their own, unless they trail off-message or are powerless, low-level pawns).

I have abandoned any notion that the Republicans are the "Christian party" or the "family values" party. Both parties are secular entities, and I place little hope in either. So let them trade power back and forth. Doesn't matter a pittance to me anymore.

Posted at 09:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I spent yesterday in Indianapolis while Pam attended one of her CPA continuing education classes. She gets to sleep while I drive down, and then I kick around at music stores, computer stores, and a wonderful used bookstore in the Castleton area. Before leaving Indy, we eat at Skyline Chili.

As we left Skyline, a fellow probably 55-60 years old approached the car timidly and motioned for me to roll down the window. He was dressed in older clothes and a stained jacket, and wore a cap, but didn't look unkempt in any way. A respectable appearance.

He quickly told me his story about moving recently from St. Louis, having an accident and breaking his ankle, and several other things going badly. He was also diabetic, and needed a little over $19 to get insulin at Wal-Mart. He said he only had $3 on him. He assured me he didn't smoke or drink. Could I help him?

As he told me this story, he kept looking down, trying not to make eye contact. He knew I didn't believe him. The thing is, if I found myself in his position, a proud fellow who had no other options, I would have acted and spoken in exactly the same way he did. It had the ring of truth. But it could just as easily have been a well-practiced act.

When he finished, I looked at Pam and said, "How about it?" Then I pulled a $20 bill from my wallet and gave it to him. He thanked me profusely, shook my hand with a strong grip, and said, "God bless you." And then we drove away.

I don't know if I got taken or not. Probably did. But I don't care. People will tell me I should have taken him to Wal-Mart and purchased the insulin for him, just to make sure how the money is used (and to call any bluff that needs to be called). I'm aware of these principles. Time didn't allow that.

A Christian should err on the side generosity, not on the side of suspicion, cynicism, and stinginess. I've erred like this before, and will again. I feel a lot better about that than telling guys like this, "Sorry, buddy. Look somewhere else." And even when I do get conned, I think Jesus smiles with satisfaction.

Posted at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

George Bush justifies our Iraq adventure by saying we are spreading democracy. But....

• Can Iraq be a democracy if 80% of Iraqis want the US out of their country, yet we stay anyway?
• Can Iraq be a democracy if it's unsafe to be a minority--a Kurd, a Christian, a Sunni?
• Can Iraq be a democracy if women are oppressed?

Tony Campolo raises these questions on the "God's Politics" blog. He says Iraqi voters are choosing a Shiite government that embraces Shia law. That Christians face much more persecution than they did under the comparative protection of Saddam Hussein, and that their numbers have declined from 1.4 million to around 700,000 (he cites a United Nations report). That the new parliament is "showing signs of increasing the oppression of women." A hallmark of a democracy, Campolo writes, is that the government makes it safe to be a minority. An excellent point.

Fareek Zakaria, in the current Newsweek, says the Shiite politicians he talked to "seemed dead set against sharing power in any real sense." If not for the US presence, they (and the predominantly Shiite army) would crack down viciously on the Sunnis. The Sunnis, the main insurgents attacking US troops, would be massacred without the presence of US troops. The world is a complicated place, George.

To be fair, Iraq's new government is very young. Heck, we didn't have democracy in the United States until 1920, when women were given the right to vote (and then you can argue that blacks weren't really free to participate in the political process until the 1960s). I think it was Pat Buchanan, speaking on the Daily Show, who said the American model of democracy is: first you say everybody is free and equal, 100 years later you free your slaves, and 60 years after that you let women vote. So we can't expect perfection out of the Iraqis yet.

But neither should we accept the delusions of George Bush that we are creating a democracy in the Middle East.

Posted at 07:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)