Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

Before I continue mocking the Nobel committee (not Obama), let me say I thought Obama's tempered, humble response was appropriate and classy. A polite refusal of the award, as has been done before, might have been even better, but whatever. The criticism of the selection, which is coming from both sides, is less about him, and more about a glaringly obvious example of the continued dazed admiration and "Obama as celebrity/messiah" storyline that plagues the extreme left. I'm quite confident he wishes they would not have selected him at this point, but I hope in the future we will one day say, "Okay, NOW he deserves it." If you don't hope that, you are lame (profound, eh?)

Health Care: Getting past the mongers

I understand there is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there in regards to the whole health care reform issue. While thankfully I don’t get the chain e-mails (don’t get any ideas), I have seen the numerous inflammatory and exaggerated Facebook postings and blog commentaries (don’t worry, I haven’t forwarded any of the “fishy” ones to the White House … yet). And (again) while thankfully I don’t have TV, it’s obvious the media spends way too much time on the political back-and-forth rather than the substance of the issue (specifically the proposed bill), fanning the polarizing flames of controversy. And there are a lot people yelling and not enough are listening and debating. And finally, there are too many mongers (I love that word). A monger is a person who promotes something undesirable or discreditable in order to gain power or influence. And in case you didn’t notice (impossible), they are out in full-force and in wide variety these days on both sides of the health care issue.

But on the bright side, that’s not the whole story. There are also many healthy discussions taking place in different forums, it’s just those don’t often make the news (people carrying Nazi signs, union thugs intimidating people, and guys biting fingers off is way more entertaining). Also, I think it is great to see so many people involved in the discussion about a proposed fundamental change to how America works and how 1/6th of our economy functions. Despite some of the screaming, the sound bites, the distorted information, and of course, the mongering, many people are engaged, and that part is good. I read someone who said, “Imperfectly-informed involvement is better than complete disengagement.” I would agree. And I am still convinced that if people would just stop, listen, think, and respectfully engage, they can learn a lot, and that, given time, people can figure out the underlying truths and make sound judgments.

Now before anything, as a Christian, I believe it is vitally important to point out that Jesus cares about the poor, the sick, and the marginalized, including those who suffer (and even die) due to lack of health care. Throughout the Scriptures God’s people are commanded to show compassion to the poor. In fact, Jesus goes so far as to suggest that caring for the poor – or neglecting to do so – is caring for or neglecting Him. So regardless of where you stand on the legislation, EVERY Christian should care about the poor and has a responsibility to help them. There is enormous diversity in what that might look like (poverty alleviation as a career, volunteer at hands-on ministry, promoting justice at a government level, providing jobs through a business, or simply walking across the street to a neighbor in need – among many others), but all Christians have that call.

However, I disagree that Jesus was, or would be, as a good friend of mind recently said, “singularly-minded about eliminating as much poverty in the world as possible”, or any other social justice issue for that matter. He is “singularly-minded” on something far deeper than people’s physical condition, and that is their spiritual condition. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned from living amongst the poor in a 3rd world country for the last 3 years, it’s that they are often the most spiritually rich. Clearly Jesus’ perspective is that it is poverty of the mind and spirit that leads to great suffering – often greater than that caused by physical deprivation. I would much rather lead someone to spiritual health than physical health, though I do, and will, work for both.

So it seems like there are two distinct parts to this whole health care discussion: the debating of the actual issue and the mongering of the issue. I’ve even noticed some mongers of mongering (I think they would be called monger-mongers). Anyway, first, the issue.

As you may have guessed, I am definitely NOT a fan of the current, proposed health care reform. I have done (and continue to do) my best to investigate both sides of the issue and I am pretty far from convinced that what has been proposed is a good option, and I definitely don’t think it is the best option. Granted, I am instinctively opposed to bigger government, higher taxes, bigger budget deficits, and more government spending, but it truly goes beyond that. I don’t believe the proposed plan will improve the system, especially not in the long run, and I believe it is going to hurt the system, causing more, bigger problems. So, as a person who cares about helping people, I feel compelled to oppose it. So while reform is clearly needed, I believe the proposed legislation is the wrong solution.

The following are some links to some articles/commentaries that I think do a good job explaining many of the problems with the current legislation, as well as lay out some alternatives that I think would be far more effective:

• This and this article are both by Keith Hennesey, a former White House economic advisor. He does a good job pointing out some of the problems with the proposed reform.


• This is an article by a couple Republican congressmen that breaks it all down well and gives a number of specific suggestions to help solve the root problems of health care.


• This is the article by John Mackey, the founder and CEO of “Whole Foods Markets”, where he lays out 8 specific reforms that would greatly reduce the cost of healthcare for everyone. Sadly, he was totally demonized by many on the left for expressing his opinion (though having learned a little about him, I don’t think he cared much).


• While admittedly Krauthammer can be quite partisan at times, here he highlights a few excellent suggestions for helping fix health care.


• Here's another one from Hennesey that gives more specific proposals for health care reform.
  

So yes, we need reform. But no, I don’t think what’s been proposed is the best answer.

Now to the mongering. Again, the forms are varied and numerous, but these are a few of the most common:

Fear-monger
We’ve all heard of this one. In fact, all of the other one’s are probably just off-shoots of this one. This is the one that plays on our fears to try and scare us into being against something.

The clearest example would be good old Sarah Palin and her “death panel” statement. This was a blatant exaggeration and it doesn’t help. Focusing on misleading or secondary issues like that gets in the way of real questions about the plan that are more worthy of consideration. There are serious questions with policy aspects of the reform bills, but centering the discussion on exaggerated claims like “death panels” or “grandma having to choose euthanasia to cut costs” is a distraction.

I would also put the aggressive, screaming wackos who dress up, carry Nazi signs, and say all sorts of ridiculous things (“don’t let the government touch my Medicare”) at the townhall meetings in this category – definitely not productive. But let me be clear here: I do NOT believe even MOST of those who are present at those meetings are doing this. I think most are polite, tax-paying citizens who want to have their voices heard.

Monger-monger
I’m guessing this isn’t a real word, but I still think it could work. A monger-monger would be someone who promotes the mongers on the other side as if they represent all who are opposed. You could call it monger-mongering.

The prime example of this would be Obama, who didn’t help things by spending way too much time focusing on the few exaggerated, sensational claims. Attacking Palin and other conservative talk show hosts may have fired up his political base, but it did nothing to reassure those with legitimate questions about the proposed reform. That often works in a campaign when you are running against another person, but not when you are trying to promote a piece of legislation. It seems like he can’t switch out of campaign-mode. It’s not a good sign when his strongest point of emphasis is “Don’t worry, this bill won’t kill your grandma!”

I think many other Democrats fall in this category also. Demonizing everyone at the townhalls as right-wing nut jobs was not accurate, nor productive. In doing this, they have failed to address the justifiable concerns expressed by millions of citizens, using these mongers as straw-men to argue that all of the concerns about the reform are just exaggerated and spurious.

Status-quo monger
Maybe I’m out of the loop (which is entirely possible given where I live), but I haven’t met or read anyone who thinks health care does NOT need reform – nobody who is FOR the status quo. Sure, many would prefer “nothing” to the “something” that is currently being suggested (because they believe that “something” would do more harm than “nothing”), but I don’t know of anyone who thinks “nothing” is the best option. Characterizing all those who oppose the legislation as just “defenders of the status-quo” is mongering. The options are not 1) do nothing or 2) totally change the system. The aforementioned articles, along with many other people, have presented numerous alternatives that totally refute that idea.

Christ-mongers
These might be the worst kind of mongers, using and distorting Jesus to try and sell a political policy. It was inappropriate when Bush did it and it’s inappropriate when Obama does it. It’s inappropriate when conservatives do it and it’s inappropriate when liberals do it (oh yeah, and it’s inappropriate for moderates too).

One example is talk show host Ed Schultz, who recently said, “I believe Jesus would vote yes for a public option, but some Bible thumpers don't see me eye to eye on this one." Obviously that’s an extreme, but I have seen many others imply as much. Obama recently said his version of health care reform is "a core ethical and moral obligation”, accused some of those opposing it as “bearing false witness”, and asked religious leaders to promote his government-run plan. Jim Wallis has made a not so subtle attempt to compare the battle over health care reform to the Temptation of Christ with his “40 Days for Health Reform” campaign, supporting the plan. In a similar vein, a friend of mine recently wrote on her blog, “To not work for a reasonable public option for health care creates a loud message which says that only those with resources really matter. That message truly infuriated Jesus when he walked the earth and it would be no different now.” Obviously I disagree. Just because somebody opposes a bureaucratic, government solution to a problem (isn’t that an oxymoron), it doesn’t mean that they don’t want to solve the problem. One can “not work for a public option” but still believe those without resources matter and work on alternatives that would make health care affordable for those people without the numerous negative consequences of the public option. Ironically, she went on to say we need to “dispense with the fear-mongering”, as if “infuriating Jesus” by “not working for a reasonable public option” isn’t scary.

And on the other side I’ve seen almost just as many people promoting the ridiculous idea that ALL the uninsured are that way because of their own doing. People parading the numerous verses, especially in Proverbs, about the “lazy”, the “slothful”, the “sluggardly”, etc., as if that describes all who don’t have healthcare and justifies not helping them. This is clearly not the case.

Also, it’s important to remember that Jesus was not one who seemed to care much about politics, and this was under an extremely brutal, corrupt government who ended up executing him. So to speculate on what his government policies might be, especially with something like health care reform, is quite dangerous. Trying to color Jesus as a liberal, Obama-supporting advocate of universal healthcare is as ridiculous as those who claim he is really a part of the American, Religious Right, Republicans. Not that His life and the Bible as a whole shouldn’t inform the decisions of a Christian (it definitely should), but obviously it's not always clear that there is a Biblical principle, or a Biblical teaching, or some aspect of Biblical morality that relates to every element that is being decided in the political arena.

The bottom-line is we need reform, there are numerous alternatives, quite a bit of common ground, and the debate should continue. We should continue focusing on the root problems, good, coherent options for solutions, and avoid the constant temptation to distract, or be distracted, from the debate by mongering. Let’s move beyond the mongers!

Obama's "back to school" speech

I just read the text of Obama's "back to school speech" and I think it is excellent. I honestly think he should spend way more time on this kind of positive message, as I think many students could benefit from it.

As for the "controversy", it was obviously overboard by some and definitely premature. But I think it was the "lesson plans" he distributed to the Department of Education which included a part where they write to the President on how students could help him meet his education goals that, by their own admission, was inappropriate, poorly worded, and changed.

I also think it's worth remembering what happened with H.W. Bush, the only other President to give a speech like this. Maybe we are making progress.

Dr. Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary puts it well:

"Children are to be asked to help the President meet his goals the day before the President puts his administration on the line for his controversial health-care reform effort? Conspiracy? No. Horrible timing? Yes. Administration slow to get it? Obviously."

His conclusion:

"Barack Obama is President of the United States. Christians must be the first to pray for this president and to model respect for the presidency, even when we must disagree with the President's policies and proposals. Given what this president intends to say tomorrow to America's students, count me as one who hopes many are listening. If even a few young hearts are encouraged, those moments will be worth all the controversy."

Overcoming exclusivity

Even though I wrote in my last post of the benefits of healthy dialogue (even with disagreement) on religion, I want to point out again that I sympathize with those that resist discussions that involve it. Like most, I have seen how religion (especially the major, traditional, theistic religions) has often been an obstacle to the goal of healthy dialogue. Tim Keller (my favorite author right now) puts it this way:

“Religion, generally speaking, tends to create a slippery slope in the heart. Each religion informs its followers that they have ‘the truth,’ and this naturally leads them to feel superior to those with differing beliefs. Also, religion tells its followers that they are saved and connected to God by devotedly performing that truth. This moves them to separate from those who are less devoted and pure in life. Therefore, it is easy for one religious group to stereotype and caricature other ones. Once this situation exists it can easily spiral down into the marginalization of others or even to active oppression, abuse, or violence against them.”

So religion definitely has the ability to stifle healthy dialogue, or much worse. However, this isn’t just the case with theistic religions (those that believe in a personal God). For every Jame Dobson and Rush Limbaugh there is a Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann. Some of the more outspoken atheists these days (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet) are as venomous and condescending as I’ve seen toward other religions. Further, some of the most heinous acts of oppression in the 20^th century (Soviet Russia, Communist China, the Kmer Rouge, Nazi Germany, among others) were carried out by those attempting, to a certain extent, to eradicate religion. Alister McGrath, in his book Twilight of Atheism, points this out saying:

“The 20^th century gave rise to one of the greatest and most distressing paradoxes of human history: that the greatest intolerance and violence of that century were practiced by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and violence.”

But as Keller goes on to explain, within Christianity – robust, orthodox Christianity – there are rich resources to overcome the problems exclusivity can bring. Not eliminate it, as that is impossible (we all have exclusive, unprovable beliefs that we think are superior to those of others), but understand how these unavoidably exclusive beliefs can lead us to humble, peace-loving behavior instead of hateful and divisive behavior. Keller writes:

“Christians believe that all human beings are made in the image of God, capable of goodness and wisdom. The biblical doctrine of the universal image of God, therefore, leads Christians to expect nonbelievers will be better than any of their mistaken beliefs could make them. The Biblical doctrine of universal sinfulness also leads Christians to expect believers will be worse in practice than their orthodox beliefs should make them. So there will be plenty of ground for respectful cooperation.”

So a truly Christian understanding should lead believers to be loving and receptive to those with whom they differ, making them advocates for peace and eliminating the divisive tendencies within the human heart.

Further, Christianity is not about gaining our salvation by living morally superior lives. It is about Jesus’ life and death in our place and God’s grace to those who admit their failures and recognize their need for a Savior. Again, Keller writes:

“Christians are not accepted by God because of their moral performance, wisdom, or virtue, but because of Christ’s work on their behalf. Most religions and philosophies of life assume that one’s spiritual status depends on your religious attainments. This naturally leads adherents to feel superior to those who don’t believe and behave as they do. The Christian gospel, in any case, should not have that affect.”

So again, while I sympathize with those who see the divisiveness of “religion” (in the broader sense) and the many injustices that have been done in its name (definitely including Christianity, but not limited to it), I believe the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity should be a powerful impetus for healthy dialogue and peace-making.

Separate blog

I just started this blog to separate my political, religious, and sexual musings (that sounds funny) from my family/life blog. The two are of course intertwined, but I'm sure far fewer are interested in those "controversial" subjects (though as you'll read, you shouldn't be). I posted a few old Facebook notes (along with comments) that fit in that category (the politics part), along with a recent note on religion. I don't really believe what I have to say is any more important than the next person, but I've learned the beauty of healthy dialogue and hope to promote that here, even if it's with myself.

Good times!

-Gregg

Somethin’ to talk about – RELIGION

As I’ve said before (and is the subtitle of this blog), there’s this strange understanding in our culture that we avoid talking about politics, religion, and sex. However (also as I’ve said before), as I get older, I’m realizing these are practically the only things worth talking about. They are certainly 3 of the most important things in our existence: meaning and purpose (religion), freedom (politics), and intimacy and enjoyment (sex) (and yes, I could have used a lot of other words there). Not that you JUST talk about these subjects ALL the time, but we certainly should NOT avoid talking about them. If you think about it, it’s kind of messed up that more trivial subjects like sports, entertainment, fashion, etc. are all open game (and I’m the first to admit I love talking about those also … okay, not so much fashion), but 3 of the more important things in life are off limits. It’s no wonder there seems to be so many people illiterate in politics, ignorant of religion, and in shallow relationships.

Now I understand that one of the main reasons is to try and avoid disagreement and/or conflict. I ran into this recently when I commented on the blog of an acquaintance of mine whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for and often agree with. I asked for some clarification on a few statements she had made, pointed out (I thought respectfully) a couple areas where I thought she might be mistaken, and asked her what she thought. Long story short, my disagreements were censored and she said she would rather not engage. I was kind of taken back. I hadn’t been censored since I was prohibited from using the word “masturbate” in a high school campaign speech for student body president (don’t ask). Fortunately, we are still friends, but I’m guessing it will now stay more superficial, which I think is unfortunate.

Anyway, while I understand this desire to avoid disagreement, I don’t believe it is a good reason to avoid engaging in dialogue. Avoiding arrogant, unhealthy diatribes is one thing (though I think there’s a way to even considerately deal with that without getting caught up in it), but discussion and dialogue, even WITH disagreement, is not a bad thing. In fact, I think respectful dialogue between people who disagree is exactly what we need to see and hear, especially in the “cable news, sound-bite, talk show, screaming heads, 24 hour news” environment most are accustomed to (that’s one thing I haven’t missed the last 3 years). We need to see that it is possible to disagree and still be respectful. I also think it helps us to learn to understand each other. It’s so easy to wrongfully demonize some ambiguous, faceless group of people who “strangely” believe or support some “outrageous” thing. But once we realize they’re not really “demons”, but our friends, family, and neighbors, the beliefs often don’t seem so “strange” and “outrageous”. We certainly may still disagree with them, but instead of tritely discounting a point of view without any personal encounter or effort toward reconciliation, we could engage in healthy dialogue and learn to respect and understand those with whom we may disagree. THAT is tolerance.

And finally, thoughtful discussions are a great way to encourage people to reason through what they believe – which they often have not done, again, on account of never having discussed it, at least with anyone they disagree with.

Anyway, about a year ago, a few weeks before the Presidential election, I opened up a political dialogue by laying out who I would likely vote for and why. It generated some significant, but healthy dialogue with my acquaintances, friends, and family via comments, Inbox, and e-mail. Some were swayed, most were not, but I think everyone walked away at least having thought a little more about where they stood. I also simply found it interesting to hear where people were at. Since then I have felt more free to express my political opinions and have had numerous discussions on a number of topics and all (except that one I mentioned earlier, which wasn’t unhealthy, it just didn’t happen) have been healthy and enlightening.

So I now think it’s time to approach the next subject: RELIGION.

Now before you leave (though I’m sure most have already … after all, I am talking about religion), I am not going to try and lay out all my beliefs in one long post. That would be ridiculous and impossible. I simply hope to open up the topic, share a little of my story, and make it a more regular part of my musings. So here it goes …

First of all, what do I mean by “religion”? This question is fraught with difficulty and I think many definitions are too narrow. One of the best definitions I’ve seen is from the organization “religioustolerance.org”. They reach what I think is a good compromise on the innumerable definitions out there with this:

"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview."

Thus, they would consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Wicca, and other Neopagan traditions, as well as Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture, etc. as religions, because they all contain a "belief about deity", even if the belief may be that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist.

That being said, many, including myself, dislike the term religion because it seems to imply just cold, hard facts, beliefs, rituals, ethics, etc., when it is often much more than that to people. For example, many Christians are quick to point out that Christianity is more a personal relationship with Jesus Christ than a religion, and I agree. Similarly, many Native Americans believe their spiritual beliefs and practices form an integral and seamless part of their very being, totally integrated into their life experience. So let me make it clear, I think religion is usually (and hopefully) more profound than just our “beliefs, rituals, and ethics”, though those things are definitely an important part of it.

So here it goes … simply put, I am a Christian. I am convinced that Christianity is true. I believe there are sufficient reasons for believing Christianity is true (more than any other religion I have come across), that there are not sufficient reasons for disbelieving Christianity (unlike any other religion I have come across), that it makes the most sense out of our individual life stories and what we see in history, and that it best explains “reality” – the way things are (again, better than any other worldview I have come across).

Now I realize these beg the questions: “What is Christianity?” and “What do I mean by “sufficient?”, along with many others. I hope get to that later. But first, a little about my journey.

I did not grow up in a “Christian” home. My parents did not take my siblings or I to church, did not teach us about Jesus or any Bible stories, and I don’t recall any “religious” topic ever coming up as a child. I knew our alcoholic neighbor and his family dressed up and went to a place called “church” every Easter and Christmas Eve, I remember these friends called Jehovah’s Witnesses not coming to school on any holidays, and I remember my dad and grandpa saying “God damnit” quite a bit. That was about the extent of my “religious” upbringing. It’s important to note, however, (especially since my mom will likely read this) that that doesn’t mean they were NOT Christian (that’s a different topic). It’s just they did not communicate or teach that to us children and there may have been reasons for that. It’s also important to point out that my parents were more or less “moral” people as far as I could tell – that is to say they pretty much held to Judaeo-Christian beliefs about what is right and wrong. Looking back, of course I see ways they were FAR from “perfect”, but they did instill in us what I would now consider a good “moral compass” – a foundation for determining what is right and wrong. They didn’t directly base this on any higher, absolute ethical or moral law, but it was instilled through their actions and how they lived their life. And I am thankful for that (along with many other things about my childhood).

Then came high school. I recall being in an English class where, through some of the literature we were reading, I was forced to confront some of the deeper questions in life, like “Where did I come from?” (the children’s book by the same name, with the cartoon, chubby married couple in the bath and in bed didn’t quite cut it … does anyone else remember that book, or was it just in our household?); “Why am I here?”; and “Where am I going?” Around this same time I remember my older sister (by 6 years), whom I really respected (and still do), came back from college as a “Christian”. I don’t remember her calling herself that (nor would I have had any idea what that meant), but I do remember there being a difference in her. Nothing huge, but something different in her “being” and personality that I noticed. Also at this time I met a few friends who were also “different”. Not just in a strange sort of way (though they were that also), but in a way that seemed so unlike most other people. It was a depth or inner-joy that, at that age, I could not fully understand, but again, it was noticeable. It was through them that I went to a few “youth group” meetings at a Baptist church where my friend’s dad was pastor. I don’t recall much about the church itself, other than a lot of old people who smelled like pastries and coffee, but I do recall the youth meetings. It was quite simple – a group of youth, most who I did not know and who did not seem like what I would have deemed “cool”, in a circle, discussing the Bible. The youth pastor, on the other hand, was “cool”. He had recently left his life as a surfer, model, and beach volleyball player to be a youth pastor in a small, rural, Baptist church (go figure). But it was way more than that. He was humble, funny, kind, and most of all, genuine. I felt loved and appreciated not for what I accomplished, but simply for who I was. And as far as I could tell he didn’t treat the “uncool” kids differently than the “cool” ones. Once again, there was something different about him, and I noticed.

Anyway, I recall being given a Bible by someone and beginning to read these crazy and confusing stories I had never heard before. Through that, and my interaction with a number of different people in my life, this “God” and “Jesus Christ” and “Christianity” began to become clearer. You could say it “rang true in my heart”. It answered those deepest questions in life in a satisfying way. So one afternoon, a couple weeks after a youth weekend in Lake Tahoe where the “gospel” was presented (at which point I didn’t respond), I grabbed some random book of my sister’s that I remember having the (admittedly formulaic) “how to become a Christian” prayer in it, went into my parents closet with a flashlight and nobody home, and read the prayer. And then waited … and waited some more … probably shrugged … and left the closet wondering what had just happened. I don’t recall ever telling anyone about that specific instance until years later. So I didn’t get the often cheesy “congratulations” reception, I just went on living life, continuing to pursue this “relationship” I was feeling and learning about.

After this I remember going to a couple summer camps that were a blast and where I grew tremendously in my understanding of who this Jesus Christ was and what he was about. I also recall clearly “feeling” this presence for the first time. This ineffable sense that God is personal and real.

So that was my early Christian experience. Looking back, I’m quite thankful for how it all played out. Nobody ever tried shoving anything down my throat or thumping me over the head with the Bible. They just lived their lives and I noticed something different and wanted to know about it myself. I’m quite sure had it been any other way, I would have rejected it and been out of there. I was a starter and standout in all the sports I played, student body president, homecoming king, etc. (but looking back, also a total dork), so I didn’t necessarily “need” religion and had plenty of “crutches” to get me through life in high school. So again, I’m thankful it played out the way it did. And for that reason, I strive to be extremely sensitive to others I see in a similar position.

Then came college and my first, and biggest, barrier to belief. It was an intellectual one. Like many who go to college, I was confronted with a host of tough questions about Christianity as well as other religions and began to wonder why I believed Christianity was the truth. Sure it “worked” for me and “felt good” or “true”, but was it really? Did absolute truth even exist? (And if not, was THAT “absolutely true”? … doh!) In light of all the other religions and/or worldviews out there, was Christianity really the best option? Because if it wasn’t, why would I believe it, let alone submit my life to it … that’s stupid. And other religions were far more aesthetically appealing. Being my own God (New Age) or realizing my oneness with the cosmos (Pantheism) sounded good to me (high on freedom, low on accountability), but ONLY if it was true. So I began to read books, study other religions, and investigate the arguments for and against Christianity. This “search for truth” culminated with a journey to Israel and Greece. The first couple weeks of the trip was with a small group of students who I did not know prior to the trip, where we visited the different biblical sites, including taking part in an archaeological dig. The last few weeks I was totally on my own exploring Israel and Greece. It was definitely one of the more powerful experiences of my life. I still can’t believe I was just 19 years old and wandering around Israel and Greece on my own, trying to “find myself”. Needless to say, at the conclusion of this trip, and what had really been a year of questioning, I was totally convinced that the Bible and Christianity IS true. That (as I said earlier) there are sufficient reasons for believing it and that there are not sufficient reasons for disbelieving it. I also had a few acute, sincere moments of “feeling” the presence of God, which just further confirmed my confidence in what I had become convinced was true. This “search for truth” also instilled in me a passion for “apologetics” (Greek for defense), or why we believe what we believe. Again, more on that later.

So here we are, back to those key questions: “What is Christianity?”, “What do I mean by sufficient?”, and now I’ll add, “What are those reasons for and against?” and “Why do I believe those reasons are sufficient?”

That’s where I will go from here, along with other areas … but another time.

President-elect Obama: Impossible not to get the chills

It’s just after midnight here in the Dominican Republic (they don’t do that Daylight Savings crap here) and Obama has done it. The status updates are quite amusing (from venomous anger and depression to pure joy and hope for the coming utopia under the leadership of “The One”). I’m realizing how politically diverse my acquaintances, friends, and family are … a good thing I think, though the extremes are a little ... well, extreme.

First, I want to say I appreciated the healthy political dialogue that was had here (both on the Wall, and via Inbox and E-mail with many). It started out as a time-filler as I recovered from a bad case of conjunctivitis and was lacking a political outlet living overseas, but it was fun to see where people were at and hear their perspectives. I definitely walk away more informed.

Second, I don’t care how right-wing you are, you’ve got to admit there is something pretty cool about this historic election. Despite all his far-left policies, liberal voting record, questionable associations, and on and on, there is something satisfying about seeing Barack Obama as President, and I have no doubt he is a genuinely good person. He’s wrong on most of the issues in my opinion, but clearly not a bad or evil person. He ran arguably the best campaign in recent history (granted with the help of the mainstream media), out-thought and out-maneuvered both the Clinton and McCain campaigns, stayed totally calm in the midst of an unimaginable amount of pressure, and his youth, charisma, and eloquence clearly has inspired a great many people. So though I could not in good conscience vote for him myself, there are reasons to be excited.

I would also hope that those who got caught up in the ridiculous side of the Obama-mania and went on to totally shred and ridicule John McCain, a GREAT American hero who just ONE year ago would have been on any Democrats list of top-3 Republicans, will soon come back to reality and see the error in their ways. The same could be said for Sarah Palin (and Joe the Plumber for that matter), but we don’t need to go there.

I’ve never been quite so torn in an election, liking the personality but disagreeing on almost every major issue with one, and vice-versa with the other. But for that very reason I’ve thought from the beginning that I could live with either candidate as President. I definitely think McCain would have been the better man for the country and I am a little concerned of what the Obama, Pelosi, Reid trifecta might try to pull off, but I believe the American people aren’t stupid and any attempt to point the country in an extremely liberal direction will be quickly accounted for in the mid-term elections. At least I hope. And thankfully it doesn’t look like it will be a filibuster-proof majority … for now. Gridlock has never sounded so good.

Congratulations Barack Obama and may God bless and guide you.