What kind of freedom do we most need?

[This is an excursus of sorts that fits in the middle of a sermon/essay on Pyromaniacs, titled "What Price Freedom?]

Christians who study their Bibles know that Christ secured freedom for us on the cross. But freedom from what? What binds us?

The Bible indicates three malevolent forces: the world, the flesh, and the Devil.

First, we are bound by the WORLD (1 John 2:15-17.)

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world - the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions - is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

The world first opened for business in the Garden of Eden. The first seller was Satan. The first buyers were Eve, and then Adam. Satan’s challenge as a salesman was twofold: first, Satan had to convince them that God was not enough -- His counsel was not enough, His word was not enough, His provision was not enough, His person was not enough. Second, Satan had to convince them that he could provide what God did not provide. He alone could provide meaning, fulfillment, knowledge.

And that is the world’s business today: to convince you and me that God is not enough, and that it can supply what God does not. The specifics are manifold: cars, jobs, body shapes, philosophies, good works, bad works, better sex, no sex, perverted sex, money, power, houses, exotic vacations, foods, colognes, makeup. Some of these things are evil in themselves, some are not. But they are wrapped up in a package that is absolutely deadly, because it is delusional, and damnable. The point in the world’s approach is that these things, these experiences will give you worth, meaning, value, joy, fulfillment — and they’ll do it without God. That is what makes them worldly.

The world has as many “good” works as bad. Whether you or I beat the stuffing out of this guy to get drugs to dull the pain of our Godless lives, or whether we help this child, to feel good about ourselves, to dull the pain of our Godless lives, either way, it’s the world!

Does the world have many slaves? Are you one?

Second, we are bound to the FLESH (Romans 8:5-8).

For those whose lives are according to the flesh think about the things of the flesh, but those whose lives are according to the Spirit, about the things of the Spirit. For the mind-set of the flesh is death, but the mind-set of the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit itself to God's law, for it is unable to do so. Those whose lives are in the flesh are unable to please God. (HCSB)

The flesh is the world’s outpost in me. When the world says, “I’m selling,” it is the flesh that says, “I’m buying!” That is, when the world says, “I’m selling a fulfilled, meaningful life without God,” it is the flesh that says, “That’s what I want! I’m buying!”

The flesh is not simply what we do, it’s what we are. In fact, by natural birth, it is all we are! We are naturally inclined away from God. The idea that all men seek God is a crack-dream!

We all need God, true — but seek Him? Not a chance!

Why? If there’s a real God, a big God, a holy God, then how can we be God, as we all want to be? And because it’s what we are, it means we carry the world with us wherever we go. Do you think you can escape the world by retreating to a monastery, with no ads or magazines or scantily-clad women or men? Guess again! Everywhere you go — there you are! And that’s the problem!

Third, we are bound by the DEVIL (Ephesians 2:1-3).

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Satan is the mastermind behind it all. He is thousands of years old, he's tireless, he's relentless, he's pitiless, he's remorseless. Satan is utterly focused and driven and committed in pursuing his goal.

Think of Adam and Eve. They had no bad genes, perfect "childhood," flawless conditioning; they were pure and innocent, and Adam was taught by God Himself.

And how long did they last? How long did they resist the Devil's sales pitch?

Do you really think you’re more of a match than they were?

What's worse, we’re Satan's natural constituency!

Are you going to loose yourself from these powers, shake off these chains?

Can you free yourself from the entire culture into which you and I were born, of self-absorbed, self-willed, self-reliant Godlessness? Growing up, you were no more conscious of this mindset than you were of being surrounded by air. Less! This is the mindset that motivates advertising, the media, the schools. It is our context, our framework, our matrix — how do we free ourselves from that?

And if we imagine the answer to be “yes” — where are we going to get that power? From ourselves? From our flesh? By natural birth, you are the flesh! I am the flesh! Our very being, our thoughts and feelings and inclinations, are 100% in sync with the world. When our very nature is bound to the world, what power from within us will free us from what we are? Can the Ethiopian change his skin? Can the leopard change his spots? Can we “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps?”

How can the power to change our nature arise from our nature?

All the self-help, self-motivation programs just deepen this problem. It is possible by willpower to lose a bad habit. But if the lesson one learns from that is “I have the ability to create a fulfilled life for myself,” then the real problem has simply been doubled! When my self-improvement deepens my self-addiction, my real problem is vastly worsened.

But even if you could beat the world and the flesh -- and you can't -- could you beat the Devil?

Do you really think you’re smarter than he, a better debater, stronger? Character actor John Quade, years ago, said he turned down certain roles in plays or movies. Their plots—you’ve seen them—had a man outsmart the Devil. He said he couldn’t do it: “No man can out-smart the Devil!”

These powers — the world, the flesh, the Devil — are beyond us. We are bound by powers vast, and pervasive, and damnably effective. Had we the will to do it, we could no more free ourselves from them than we could start breathing in water instead of air.

And there’s the real kicker: we haven’t the will to do it.

Our only possible hope for freedom, for loosing from this bondage, would have to come from a power superior to that of the world, superior to that of the Devil, utterly outside of us, and not dependent on the tiniest fragment of contribution from us to our liberation.

[Concluded at Pyromaniacs.]

Has WORLD magazine lost it? (Goodbye, cruel WORLD)

I received my latest and last copy of WORLD magazine.

It says "Last issue. Don't miss another issue -- RENEW TODAY!" But I won't be.

I've gotten a few pleas to return, but I don't plan to do so.

WORLD set out to provide a Christian alternative, from the Biblical and Reformed viewpoint, giving TIME and Newsweak a run for their money. Joel Belz was the editor, and he was a good brother who wrote consistently excellent editorials. I had, and have, the highest regard for him. It was a thin magazine at the start, but it was promising, and I "bought in" years and years ago.

I was an aggressive advocate. I have said, publicly and often, that WORLD magazine subscriptions should be required by law. Free publicity, glad to give it.

But now I'm letting my subscription lapse, and I'm taking its blog off of my preferred links.

Why?

It started many months ago, with an adoring, non-confrontive interview with Anne Lamott. I was non-plused as to what such a softball interview was doing in WORLD -- except that the "reporter," Susan Olasky, was evidently editor Marvin Olasky's wife. (I tried to find verification of that relationship and didn't, so I rely on my memory.)

This interview opens with Mrs. Olasky saying, "I love your description of becoming a Christian." However, as I read the article, the fruit in Lamott's life left me seriously, profoundly wondering whether Lamott had any concept of what it meant to be a Christian, beyond that it has something to do with someone named "Jesus." However, the Jesus of her description bears little resemblance to the real one, the one of the Bible. The concept of the Lordship of Jesus Christ did not seem to me to have broached itself to her.

You may be thinking, "Anne Lamott... that name sounds familiar...." It should. This is the Anne Lamott who just confessed (proudly) to the murder of a sick friend, lacing it with references to her being such an ardent Christian -- though clearly one who feels free completely to make it up as she goes. (Read Ron Gleason's very acerbic commentary; h-t Slice of Laodicea). It's a self-consciously literate, gauzy, white-wine-and-brie narrative of a murder.

Wonder how WORLD will cover that. Will it? Will it allude to Susan Olasky's adoring fluffy interview?

Then there was the interview with "convert" Anne Rice, best known for her Interview with a Vampire series, her baldly immoral storytelling.

The article was titled Into the Light, and subtitled "Novelist Anne Rice leaves the vampire Lestat and embraces Christ, 'the ultimate supernatural hero'." You may know the story; Rice became a Roman Catholic. That's right, a Roman Catholic.

Note very carefully: the title and subtitle express a spiritual evaluation of Rice's spiritual condition.

Now, I don't doubt that there are Roman Catholics who do not understand and do not believe the RCC's damning dogmas, and are genuine, if mistaught, Christians. WORLD is ostensibly coming from a Reformed perspective, and its writers and reporters presumably know this also. So naturally, with their readership in mind, the interviewer is going to ask Rice about her conversion, right? What is Rice's understanding of the Gospel, what does it mean to her to be saved, to be a Christian? What drew her to Rome? Just the natural, basic questions every Christian will wonder, all perfectly capable of being asked in a friendly, respectful way.

No. Not at all. Not even close.

Follow-up: in WORLD 's blog's post on this article, I object in posts 3 and 6. In #10 the reporter herself, Lynne Vincent, gives the most clueless sideways response (around me, not to me) that I can imagine, sniffing that it is a "turn off" to examine a testimony when you're reporting on a testimony.

Read that again. Then say it with me: "Huh?" You make sense of that.

But again I note: WORLD had no trouble concluding in its title that Rice had indeed gone "into the light," and had indeed embraced the Lord Jesus Christ. It is just that readers are denied information that would help us understand the basis for that evaluation. Every Roman Catholic -- in fact, let's broaden that and say every "Christian" cultist -- will claim to have embraced Jesus Christ. Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses. We can only understand what folks mean by asking questions. It isn't rude, it isn't loveless -- in fact, it is respectful. It is saying, "I respect you enough not to assume that I know what you mean without asking."

But it's a "turn off." To a reporter. To ask questions so as to elicit information and attain understanding.

One can only sigh and shake one's head.

[UPDATE: Anne Rice has since renounced any claim to be a Christian.]

Then again, there was the End of the Spear controversy. You can search this blog for articles and comments on that movie, and homosexual activist Chad Allen, chosen to portray martyr Nate Saint and his son Steve. Olasky in his comments proved himself to be, in my opinion, startlingly tone-deaf on the issue and its implications again and again. Is that where the slide has been coming from — Olasky?

On the first of those two posts, I replied: "Is the lead article a parody? It is written as if the author is not even aware of the concerns many Biblical Christians have very carefully worded for well over a week. If it's serious, I'm very disappointed by its shallowness and seeming unawareness of easily-available counterpoints and responses."

To the second, I replied: "After years of very vocally supporting and promoting WORLD, I'm getting the impression that WORLD is very anxious to turn into Christianity Today. This leaves me wondering if they shouldn't just merge."

I suppose others could give examples as well, but it was enough for me. I did what I never thought I'd do. When renewal time came around, I just didn't. I bailed on Christianity Today -- the real one -- years ago, after they thumbed their nose at Biblical teaching about creation and the roles of men and women. I was uninterested in heading back incrementally, along with WORLD.

WORLD may or may not have lost "it."

But it lost me.

[Note: this essay has been revised and extended.]

Need a chuckle? Purgatorio has one for you

You Supply the Caption 42 is about the funniest thread I ever remember seeing on Marc's site. Wouldn't it be hysterical to be in a room with all those people?

Okay... with many of those people?

Dang, this is good

Not this. That -- which could be retitled "How George Bush Aborted My Baby" -- is appalling.

What's good is this blow-by-blow deconstruction/commentary on it.

I was tempted to pull some quotations -- but the whole is quotable. Read it.

(H-T Mary Katharine Ham.)

Forgiveness, the Dixie Chicks, Christianity

This headline annoys me: Dixie refuses to forgive the Chicks [SunHerald article, link now dead]. Its assumption is that there is a reason why "the South" should forgive the anti-American country-western band "The Dixie Chicks," and that it refuses to do so.

In 2003, during wartime, the Chicks were enjoying their freedom in a foreign country, and used that opportunity to — sing? Heavens, no; liberals seemingly never simply shut up and sing. No, they attacked our Commander in Chief. When outrage was expressed back home, they ultimately simply dug in their heels and maintained their opposition and refused to admit just how wrong their action was.

Immediately afterwards, there was a mealy-mouthed non-apology — but now they have retracted even that.

So now they're not selling well in the South, and having to cancel concerts.

So my question is: whyever would the South, or anyone, "forgive" them for what they proudly maintain was the right thing to do? What does "forgiveness" mean, anyway?

I've had people tell me they "forgive" me for being a dispensationalist, and I don't generally do much more than grin, because I know it's just a tease. But if I seriously thought someone was telling me he'd forgive me for holding to something that is a conviction of mine, something I am persuaded is true, I'd react very pointedly. I might say, "Please don't. I haven't changed my mind. Taking all of the Bible seriously is not a moral crime crying out for repentance and forgiveness."

Similarly, I'd decline anyone offering me forgiveness for loving my wife, for being devoted to my children, or for liking fried chicken and "24." Please don't. I don't regard any of those as moral wrongs, as sins, and I don't ask for forgiveness. So don't give it to me.

There's this traditional notion that Christians are required to forgive unrepented wrongs. I simply have never seen it in the Bible. What's more, I simply can make no sense of it.

On the contrary, Jesus says, "Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him..." (Luke 17:3).

"If."

If he sins, I am not told to forgive him, but to rebuke him. Tell him that what he has done is wrong, and why. And then, if he repents, if he admits that what he has done is a sin, then I am to forgive him. But Jesus says nothing about what to do, in this section, if he does not repent.

Not that He never speaks of such a circumstance. Take Matthew 18:15-18. Now, there is a situation where a brother sins, is rebuked, and refuses to repent.

What does Jesus say to do? Forgive him? Not at all. He says to rebuke him again and again, with increasing intensity. And then, if he still refuses to repent, kick him out of the church and regard him as an unbeliever.

So where does the idea come from that I am morally obliged to forgive every sin, whether it is repented of or not? I do not know. God doesn't do that (1 John 1:9), and I know of no passage where He says I must.

What would it mean, anyway? When I ask you to forgive me, I am thereby telling you that I have come to regard what I did as being wrong, as being immoral and sinful, as being indefensible. I am saying that I should not have done it. I am asking you to let it go, not to hold it against me, on the basis that I too have let it go, insofar as I no longer embrace the mindset that it was a right and justifiable thing to do.

But forgiving an unrepentant person makes no sense to me. He doesn't regard what he did as being wrong. He doesn't see it as immoral and sinful, and indefensible. He doesn't think that he should not have done it. In a sense, it is insulting to him to "forgive" him of something he defends, embraces, clings to.

Let's say I'm the president of a seminary, and T. D. Jakes expresses an interest in teaching there. A representative approaches me. I say, "No, I don't think so; there's good reason to believe that Jakes is a modalist and rejects the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. That's contrary to our position."

The representative expresses shock at my response, and says "Brother, that is such an unforgiving spirit!"

I blink. "Sorry?" I might say. "Come again? 'Unforgiving'? Did Jakes admit that he was a modalist, repent of it, denounce modalism as sinful and heretical, and embrace the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity publicly and unambiguously? Did he ask the Christian community to forgive him his past heresy?"

"No, of course not."

"Then how could I even 'forgive' him for holding a position he still holds? What would that even mean? 'Brother Jakes, I'm so glad you're teaching here and admitted that you once held to heresy, but no longer do?' He'd be outraged — and he'd have a point! Of course I'm 'unforgiving,' because he's 'unrepenting'!"

So what does it mean to be unforgiving, in such circumstances? Simply to regard the sin as a current issue, and deal with it as such. I must not take vengeance, but must rather bless, love, and do good (Matthew 5:43-47; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 3:9). There may sometimes be consequences for another's sin (Matthew 5:32; 18:15-18), but the motive is not revenge and the attitude is not bitter hatred.

If anyone ever convinced me of a Biblical obligation to forgive the unrepentant of their unrepented sins -- to regard them as not having done what they have proudly done and will do again, gladly and without concern, at the next opportunity -- his next task would be to help me see what possible sense it would make.

As the first has never been done, I don't anticipate the second anytime soon.

UPDATE: since I wrote this post, Chris Brauns came out with a wonderful book on the subject, titled Unpacking Forgiveness. I reviewed it here. Get the book, read it. You won't regret it.

More abortion news from Bedlam

A young woman was found guilty of "felony murder for causing the baby's death while committing first-degree cruelty to children," because she left her newborn to die in a Walmart restroom.

Not even meaning to be sarcastic: I find myself unable to guess how the pro-aborts would explain this sentence, when this exact same woman could have had that exact same living baby torn to pieces until dead, perfectly legally, if she'd simply managed to get herself to an abortuary instead of a Wal-Mart.

Shouldn't it be practicing medicine without a license, rather than murder?

That last sentence was sarcastic. But honestly, when the subject is abortion, I keep coming back to the sense that it is simply an area of national moral insanity. It is not possible to mount a rational, morally-sane explanation for the abortion-on-demand mindset. Yet it still is the legally prevailing position.

What it illustrates is this:

They have rejected the word of the LORD,
so what wisdom do they really have?
(Jeremiah 8:9b)

The path away from the word of God is not the way to sanity.

To put it mildly.

Karate, Kidneys, Kitties: What I've been up to lately (instead of blogging much)

I've had to go easy on the blogging for the last few weeks, and here's why -- for anyone who cares. That is, it will almost all be personal and not directly theological, and if (as I assume) most of you don't care about the details of my life, you should feel free to skip it. No hard feelings.

KARATE!

After dropping about 100 pounds thanks to God and Dr. Atkins, I enrolled in karate last year. My three sons (now 6, 10 and 19) had already been advancing up the ranks, and I'd been watching from the sidelines. I kept thinking that the sparring looked fun, the rolling-around-and-grunting (floor grappling) looked absolutely miserable, and the kata's (choreographed fight moves) looked increasingly insane and impossible, particularly for a confirmed lifelong oaf.

Under the guidance of always-positive Sensei Abe Cerezo, I worked towards my first test. In our system (Cerezo-ha Shito-ryu karate-do), the first test is for advancement from white to yellow belt. Praise God, I scored well enough to skip yellow and advance directly to orange.

This meant I was instantly behind, and had to learn make-up kata's plus new ones, and new moves and facts and Japanese and history and other fun things. So I puttered along, doing what the classes did, whittling away at catch-up-and-advance, quite leisurely.

One night at class, after I'd done some work with a bright young female student, Sensei took me aside. I honestly expected him to give me a friendly but well-deserved chewing-out for being so unfocused and unapplied, and telling me to get serious.

Instead, to my drop-jawed astonishment, he said that I was doing so well, and had it so together, that I could either test for my next belt (purple) or, if I wished, skip that belt and test for the next belt beyond purple, which is blue. He said further that he thought it possible that I'd do so well in that test, that I might actually skip blue and go straight to green, thus actually advancing three ranks in one test.

But, he cautioned me, if I failed the blue-belt test, I would not receive purple. There would be no "consolation prize." In that event, I'd simply have to re-take the test another time.

Well, I was floored, gob-smacked, and otherwise astonied. I consulted with my wife and, in particular, my oldest son Matthew, who had already advanced to black belt. After all that, and with their encouragement, I decided to go for it.

It had a wonderfully focusing effect on me. I now had this large, distinct, and menacingly looming goal bearing down on me. There probably is a spiritual lesson in this, by the way (1 Corinthians 9:23-27). So I worked very hard, both alone and with my two older sons -- Matthew, the black belt, and Josiah, the green-belt-one-stripe who was about to test for a brown belt on the same day.

So the much-anticipated test week arrived, and with it arrived....

KIDNEYS!

I already had kidneys, of course, but here's what they did to me -- sparing you unnecessary specifics and photo's.

I'd recently become a bit uncomfortable, but it was fairly mild, and I assumed it'd pass. But on the eve of test week, I became very and distressingly uncomfortable, in ways I'll not detail for you. I bemoaned the timing, and got myself to the doctor. Our quick guess was unusual but not unheard-of: urinary tract infection. I optimistically began taking an antibiotic.

Briefly put, it didn't work. So I got myself back to the doc. We began a second antibiotic, and considered the possibility that I had achieved another one of those wonderful gifts and prizes you get for being a fifty-year-old man, prostatitis.

When I took the first part of my formal test on Thursday evening, I was in a lot of discomfort, to the point of distraction. I didn't feel I did very well. It was a typical test-situation, in that the things I felt I could do best weren't tested, and some of the (innumerable) facets I hadn't mastered were, instead. But I soldiered on, and Sensei was characteristically encouraging, ordering me to "stop freaking out!" I think the freak-out syndrome is genetic, but I tried to heed his advice.

Well, the next day, along with more pain came blood, which was new and unwelcome. So the doctor saw me again, changed the diagnosis to a fairly firm "prostatitis," gave me some counsel and took another sample to diagnose.

I never considered cancelling the test. For one thing, Sensei would kill me. Not literally, but I'd already delayed longer than he preferred, and I had promised him I'd take it this month. I don't break my promises, God helping me. For another thing, I'd not be any younger, and really don't like to set a precedent of failure or dodging if I can help it, so....

I went to the test Saturday in a good deal of discomfort. That test-day went considerably better -- mostly. (I still beat myself up severely over failing to throw a brown-belt lawyer [really nice guy, but dang!] to the floor during a fun pile-on portion of the test.)

And when the time came for the awarding of belts, I found, to my tearful gratitude, that I had somehow managed to score high enough to skip purple and blue, and indeed advance to green belt, two-stripe.

Then, the next Monday, I passed a kidney stone. End of mystery, and symptoms.

KITTIES!

Out of a sad family event came a very happy one.

I had been, not a cat hater, but certainly a cat disdainer. I didn't care much for what I perceived as their snotty, abusive, unrewarding ways, and was uninterested ever in having one infest our house.

And then some fifteen years ago, my wife discovered three little feral kittens in our garage. Mom ran off, and kids scattered within the garage. Armed with leather gloves, Valerie caught them all and put them in a crate. They were tiny, probably very recently weaned. "They're going to the pound, of course," I declared.

Sure, Valerie responded; but if we could keep them a little while, and tame them a little bit, they'd be easier to adopt. (Women can be so devious.)

I grudgingly agreed. Now, since I was home more than she at this time, this meant that I would feed and care for them. We didn't have cat food, so I got hamburger meat and baby food, and fed them.

To telescope the story, they completely won me over, and I converted hard. I said we might keep one... which turned into Well, it'd be better if the one had a sibling to play with; which became Oh, let's not break them up, they're all so great.

So we kept them, got them fixed and cared for, and loved them. The male unfortunately turned out to be an unrepentant house-wrecker, so we did give him to an agency in hopes of adoption, and kept his sisters Prickle and Smudge. They became family-members for the next fifteen years, with their very different temperaments.

Prickle however took ill a couple of years ago. Prickle was such a sweet cat. She was everyone's friend, was a happy presence at every family meeting and prayer time, and just was a dear little cat. We tried a long list of measures to help her, to get her over it, but eventually I had to make one of the hardest family-decisions I have ever had to make, and have her "put to sleep." I may write more on that sometime, but for now I'll just tell you that I shed a lot of tears, lost sleep, and had nightmares over that joyless, lonely and miserable decision, even though I still think it was, overall, the kindest and wisest. But given my temperament, you can easily imagine the kind of working-over I gave myself over that one.

This left us with beloved Smudge who (in cat years) is a very healthy 80, and mostly keeps to our bedroom. So we began considering kitties.

My wife's tales of growing up with a really special Maine Coon-mix cat named Mischief had always tickled me, and after my conversion to cat-lover I began wishing that one day we could have Maine Coon cats, or mixes. Maine Coons, for the uninitiated, tend to be unusually intelligent, personable, loyal, and LARGE.

So, again telescoping, I began searching fruitlessly for mixes, and only slightly more fruitfully for breeders with adoptable cats. (Be warned: pure-bred Maine Coon kitties are expensive.)

We found and were very seriously considering a delightful-looking little cat provisionally named Babette in my old home town of Glendale. The breeder, Susan Hansen, was very helpful in telling us about her and working at the logistics of us Sacramento-bound folks seeing her cat. What a gorgeous cat; anyone with the inclination in the area should consider looking Susan up.

But we renewed some earlier correspondence with Geree Martin of Tabbypatch, in Oakland, California, and found that she had a number of kittens who either were available, or soon would be. So we made an appointment, and all of us except my oldest son went over to meet her kitties.

We were all immediately smitten with a female kitty, who actually began purring and was very interested in everything before she even left her cage. She played happily with my boys, let herself be petted, and impressed us as a sweet, intelligent kitty. She was probably our first choice.

Then there was a male who had actually gone to a breeder as a female. The vet checked "her" out and broke the news that "she" would not be producing any kittens... at least not from "her" body. He had just come back to the cattery that morning, and even though he was a bit disoriented, he was friendly and playful, with classic Maine Coone lines. He was our second choice, mostly....

But we were torn. There was another male, beautiful and with a brown coloration I had particularly been looking for. Also, he was friendly and sweet; but he'd not be ready for adoption for another three weeks. That meant taking one kitty home, risking her having no other kitty to play with, then coming back and introducing a third cat to two strangers in three weeks.

And then was this one other male, but he was very small. The vet said he was perfectly healthy, and would probably be larger than an average cat, but he was still small for a Maine Coon. (We met his sire, and he was huge!) He had a beautiful face, interesting colors, but he was very timid and quiet. He stole my daughter's heart, and sat quietly with her as we played with the others.

Geree offered us a very tempting deal if we would take him as a third cat.

We deliberated fast and hard, and decided that the mix of colors and temperaments could be very winning. So we took all three home.

That was last Sunday, and, with church, took my whole day.

And then this week I've been working a different shift (5am-2pm), working with various crises, not having my usual blog-time.

So that's what I've been up to. Life happened! Pain, pleasure; blood, sweat, tears; more pain; and furry little kitties.

Illegal "immigration": some thoughts

This is not a topic about which I'm wild-eyed and obsessive. Here are a few thoughts I can't seem to shake, whenever I hear the subject broached.

1. The proper frame: anyone who illegally crosses the border has broken into my "house." The government is supposed to keep my "house" secure. Instead, it is proposing pronouncing them to be members of my family, and arguing how much I should be forced to pay to support them, tend to their medical wants, and generally reward their lawbreaking.
2. The Bible has nothing good to say about home invasion (Exodus 22:2).
3. The Bible urges voluntary mercy toward the needy (Mattthew 5:42), but never constrains enabling or rewarding of home invaders or lawbreakers. In fact...
4. The Bible discourages the rewarding of lawlessness (Proverbs 28:4; Ecclesiastes 8:11; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14).

On this topic, frankly, I just do not have The Answer. I just know I don't think much of any of the solutions I've heard, and any solution that rewards past border invasion strikes me as immoral, insane, and ultimately nationally self-destructive.

And one last thought: what is this disconnect in President Bush's brain by which he (correctly, IMHO) pursues America's security issues on another continent, but doesn't see the need to secure our own porous border with equal or greater intensity?

Light blog week

Work schedule, personal life -- keeping me from giving much to either blog this week. But I've not forgotten, and I do have ideas! It's just that... life happens.

You already knew that one, didn't you?

Family Films

An email reminded me that I'd done a post at FreeRepublic four years ago, recommending family films and soliciting other recommendations. I should really do an update. Hope you find some use of this as a resource.

What I'm working on: posts on temperament, WORLD magazine, and Harry Potter.

Oh, and one on illegal immigration.

(It does say "eclectic" up there, doesn't it?)