Franklin & Winston

If you are looking for an enjoyable read, Franklin and Winston (here) by Jon Meacham will, I think, satisfy what you are looking for. I have, through reading this book, come to admire the intellect and wit of Winston Churchill (two things I wish I had). Here are two quotes from the book which show both quite clearly:

"The Labourite Clement Attlee was at the urinal in the men's room of the House of Commons. Churchill came in and, seeing Attlee, moved away. 'Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?' Churchill replied: 'That's right. Every time you see something big, you want to nationalize it."

"On June 18, Churchill briefed the nation on the crisis it now faced without the French in the fight.

Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free, and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands; but if we fail then the whole world, including the United States, and all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more prolonged, by the lights of a perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that if the British Commonwealth and Empire lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'"

Read more

Abortion--"A better healthy choice"?

TIME recently ran a piece on the abortion debate, focusing primarily on the rise and work of crisis pregnancy centers (for a good commentary on this article go here) One of the objections against crisis pregnancy centers brought up in the article by the vice president of Planned Parenthood is,

The movement toward "medicalizing" the centers particularly concerns groups like Planned Parenthood that define their mission as offering the most accurate information about the most complete range of reproductive options. The motive behind offering free ultrasounds, which would typically cost at least $100, is
more emotional than medical, critics argue, and having them performed by people with limited training and moral agendas poses all kinds of hazards. "What is really tragic to me is that a woman goes into a center looking for information, looking to be able to make a better, healthy choice, and she doesn't get all the facts," argues Christopher Hollis, Planned Parenthood's vice president for governmental and political affairs in North Carolina. "That's taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it.

Notice, as Dr. Mohler points out, "the effort to disguise abortion as "a better, healthy choice." The only reason a woman would choose not to abort, some pro-abortion advocates seem to say, is that she didn't "get all the facts." What are the "facts" that they may be missing? Notice some "facts" that this quote gives:

1)"The motive behind offering free ultrasounds, which would typically cost at least $100, is more emotional than medical..."

2)"...having them performed by people with limited training and moral agendas poses all kinds of hazards."

3)The information, or lack thereof, that these crisis pregnancy centers are giving amounts to "taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it."

Three is rather interesting to me since I think that Planned Parenthood is more guilty of this than the crisis pregnancy centers, and worse; for Planned Parenthood's failure to give all the facts (the fetus is a human being) amounts to "taking someone's life."

In regards to two, I am not sure how performing an ultrasound, even with limited training, poses a health hazard. I suppose I need more information on this.

One, I am sure, is quite irrelevant.

Now, the inspiration for me to even introduce this article is for the following reason: Recently my wife and I discovered that our son, which my wife is carrying in her womb right now, has a 0% chance of surviving outside of the womb. He has a severe form of skeletal displaysia (current diagnosis: Osteogenesis Imperfecta, level 2). We have spent countless hours talking with various doctors, specialists, geneticists, etc. And, initially, the consensus of the experts was that we needed to abort our baby (interestingly, these specialists had no problem referring to the 'fetus' as: baby, child, son, human being).

I must admit, we did take into consideration what they were telling us. Namely, abortion appears to be the best option. However, after considering all the facts, my wife and I decided that the moral choice here was to keep the baby--not for reasons that some people would give (I am sure)--for the simple 'fact' that our child is a human being. Here, I think, is a counterexample to Planned Parenthood's argument. That is to say, we have all the facts, we even considered abortion as an option, and in light of those facts we made a reasoned decision to keep the baby because we believe that not keeping the baby would amount to "taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it."

Read more

Enjoying God's Blessings

I just finished sipping a glass of Jim Beam bourbon, and since we've been hitting some "heavier"subjects of late here at the pub, I thought I'd lighten the conversation up a bit with a post on some of my favorite "heavier" beverages. Here's a list as they come to my mind:

1. Cognac- I've tried a number of these delicious drinkables, and I'd have to say that my favorite is Remy Martin. I hear (though I've never had the blessing of tasting) that Louis XIII is the creme de la creme, but Remy Martin XO is the best I've ever tasted hands down. I think that the best buy ($30/bottle at Costco) is definitely the Remy VSOP. It is pretty smooth, and has a tremendous aftertaste. It's full-bodied, and deliciously sweet; a perfect dessert drink.

2. American/Canadian Whiskey- Although Jim Beam is a good standard, and Maker's Mark goes down smooth, Jack Daniel's is so far above the rest. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but when I'm at a pub and I want a good whiskey, I always go for Jack. Crown Royal (a Canadian whiskey) is a close second, but Jack just tastes so sweet and full that I can't resist. I wish I was drinkin' it right now.

3. Scotch Whisky- This is a tough category since there are so many good ones. Lagavulin has a wonderful and unique peaty flavor, but I just couldn't drink it on a regular basis. Dalwhinnie and Oban are also very tasty and smooth single malt scotch whiskys, but I have found that they can't compare to The Macallan. I especially like the Macallan 18, although I imagine that the 25 and 30 are amazing (I just can't afford them!). You can really taste the oak in Macallan, and the 18 in particular is so smooth! All in all, you can't go wrong with any of the Macallans.

4. Tequila- While I have much respect for Sauza and and Jose Cuervo, my personal favorite by far is Patrón. Gran Patrón in particular is equally respectable straight up as it is in a nice, warm Mexican coffee. Unfortunately, it has become somewhat of an icon of wealth in the hip-hop culture, but I won't hold that against Patrón.


Well, there you have it, Drewdog's delectable drinkables. Have I left anything out? What are your favorites, and why?

Read more

My Doubts About Doubt

Doubt is a rather funny word. For some Christians, I think, it is a sort of barometer for one’s spiritual health. That is to say, if a Christian is having doubts than that Christian must still be ‘spiritually’ immature. I remember thinking this as a young Christian; that somehow the doubts I was having (maybe this whole thing is one big sham) were somehow a sign of immaturity. What I needed to do was learn more about God, find a more mature Christian to mentor me, and act more spiritually at church, and then my doubts would go away.

Interestingly, as I (seemingly) ‘mature’ in my faith I have discovered just the opposite. The more I learn about God, the more I surround myself with Christian friends, the more I go to church, the more I find myself doubting my faith at times. Just the other day I remember thinking, something like, maybe the disciples really did make up all these stories about Jesus. I wonder why this is?

I was reading the gospel of Matthew the other day, and I was struck by something (which I have noticed before but never really thought about clearly). In Matthew 28:16-20 we have a record of some of Jesus’ last words to his disciples. In this passage Jesus commissions his disciples to go into the world and make disciples. Interestingly, we read that some of the disciples, who were with Jesus at this time, were doubtful (v17). The text does not tell us exactly what they were doubtful about. So we have to do a little guess work here. I suppose that the people who doubted, doubted that this really was the risen Jesus whom they had spent time with before he had died.

The thing I find most striking about this passage is Jesus never speaks to their doubt. He never questions them, or their commitment to him, because of their doubt. Instead, Jesus begins by saying "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and earth..." The reader, I think, is kind of left hanging here. Were these people wrong to doubt? Why didn't Jesus speak to their doubt?

I think, in a way, he does. When Jesus claimed to have all authority he was speaking to their doubt. In other words, he understood that some of them had doubts, and rather than rebuking them for this (as if they were somehow less mature than the other disciples who worshipped Jesus), he reminded them that he was the one who had all authority. It is this authority which trumps their doubt. This does not mean, however, that those disciples were not going to doubt, or that they shouldn't doubt. It simply means that in spite of their doubt, Jesus is sovereign over all things (and therefore they were to obey him). It is rather like the book of Job where we are sort of left hanging. Why did God allow these bad things to happen to Job (a seemingly innocent person)? We never get a good answer. We are sort of left hanging. The only answer we get is simply; God is in control.

There have been many times in my life where I have had my doubts (maybe this whole thing is one big sham!). I remember, when I was laying in the hospital just a few weeks ago, doubting the existence of God After all, a good God really wouldn't let someone like me experience this kind of pain would he? In that moment, however, I was encouraged by the simple words that a certain pastor spoke: "God is in control." Indeed, that's it! Just like the disciples experience--just like Job's experience--when we go through times of doubt in our lives it is more than enough to realize that God is in control--that all authority in heaven and earth belongs to Him.

Read more

The New Man, the New World

The following is not from my brain, but I thought it was worth posting and discussing. I'm hoping y'all will find it thought-provoking, and perhaps want to comment on it. If not, then post something provocative yourself (that means you, Paul, Aaron, Steve, Vijay, and Bill)! Anyway, here it is:

The Gospel of John is the Gospel about the new man, and the book of Revelation is the book about the new world created by the new man, culminating in the Great City.

It seems to me that John is the intensly Jewish book that is an answer to Hellenistic culture. Friendship is not a particularly Jewish or Hebrew theme (only being raised in the context of David) but is the great Hellenistic theme. It seems to me that... what accounts for the great difference in this Gospel from the others is that it is written by Jesus best friend, and therefore it is the book that knows Jesus not so much even from his actions, as from the inside.

The book begins by telling us that Jesus is in the bosom of the Father, and therefore He is competent to "declare Him" (exegete Him). Likewise, John is in the bosom of Jesus at the Last Supper, the implication being that as the Jesus is competent to exegete the Father, John is competent to Exegete Jesus and make Him known. The book is a kind of Hebrew Symposium, a book of love, minus homosexuality that defaces all of Greek humanism. It is the true humanism about the true man who makes the new world.

So, John is relevant to our humanistic world that makes "man the measure of all things." It corrects humanism by agreeing with this maxim, but pointing out that it is the True Man in Jesus who is the measure of all things, and then his "friends" who are the makers and builders and inheritors of the new world.

Any thoughts?

Read more

Who Wrote the Bible?

A friend of mine (who happens to be in the hospital right now in a lot of pain, and could use your prayers) and I frequently get to talking about what the Bible is. We have lamented how so many Christians consider the Bible to be a sort of magical book that just fell out of the sky, or that some deistic god just took over the minds of various authors, and forced their hands to pen the words that we find in the Old and New Testaments.

Another friend of mine recently asked me what I thought of N.T. Wright's book, Simply Christian, and I told him that it was disappointing. After having given this low view of one of my favorite author's books, I thought I better reread it afresh to make sure that I still agreed with my assessment. To my delight, I found it a wonderful read the second time. To make a long story short(er), while rereading this book I found a passage where Wright puts so eloquently what I have been trying to express regarding scripture, so I thought I would post it here, and see what you all think:

Supposing scripture, like the sacraments, is one of the points where heaven and earth overlap and interlock... In particular, it enables us to say that the writers, compilers, editors, and even collectors of scripture were people who, with different personalities, styles, methods, and intentions, were nonetheless caught up in the strange purposes of the covenant God--purposes which included the communication, by writing, of his word. It enables us to speak about God the creator (the one we know supremely through the living Word, Jesus) being himself (so to speak) a wordsmith. [It] enables us to insist that, though words are not the only thing God specializes in, they are a central part of his repertoire. It also helps us see that when this God is going to work within his world, he wants to work through his image-bearing human creatures, and that, since he wants to communicate with and through them verbally--in addition to, but also as a central point within, his many other ways of getting things said and done (182).

Any thoughts?

Read more