"The Realignment of America"

This is another fascinating read, by one of the commentators I respect the most in the world of political affairs.

This is right on the mark!

I just read Fred Thompson on National Review Online, and you should, too. Whether or not you think he should run for president, this article should remind people that our world situation in regard to the present conflict in Iraq is not really new.

Twelve Hours in Ministry--Two Lessons in Marriage

Yesterday afternoon, I led a beautiful bride and her handsome groom through the vows and promises that began their life together. It was a simple ceremony but filled with the holy--God's gift of the marriage covenant was being entered into once again by two of his children. The bride and groom were almost emphatic in their recitation of their vows. Their smiles and whispered words at the unity candle were evidence of their joy. They have many hopes and dreams, and while they cannot know all the challenges they will face, they are excited to face them together, and to embark on all that God's plan for them contains. Their lives are full of promise. Congratulations, Kenny and Nikki.

Last night, I led a wife of over 60 years to the hospital bedside of her husband where she struggled to reach his cheek for a final kiss. Unconscious, his occasional twitches were the evidence of the severe brain injury he had suffered that is going to take his life in the next few hours. Barring divine intervention, he will not awake on this earth again. His wife said quietly to us, "What will I do without him?" Partners in a life that knew all the expected joys and sorrows, endured separation during a world war, involved hard work for both, and raised three sons and has seen grand- and great grand children; his impending departure at 89 was still unexpected. But she could still say with a twinkle in her eye, "He was sure a pretty good man to me." Their lives are a promise fulfilled. Well done, Karl and Lois.

Some "Ancient Customs" are More Important than Others

I can hardly believe it.

As you may know, the worldwide Anglican communion is seriously divided, with African, Asian, and South American leaders standing for biblical orthodoxy, while the U.S. Episcopal church and its Canadian cousin are the liberal "bad seed," and England's Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to hold everyone together.

Conservative Episcopalians have sought relief from their liberal hierarchy by seeking supervision by bishops of the more conservative branches of Anglicanism. Thus, Archbishop Peter Akinola from Nigeria is coming to America to consecrate the new head of Nigeria's North American branch of its Anglican communion in Virginia.

All of this greatly upsets Archbishop Katharine Schori, presiding bishop of the U.S. Episcopal Church. She complains that such a move violates the "ancient customs" of the church.

Hmmm... let's forget the fact that at 400 years old,the Anglican communion is not all that ancient. It seems like Bishop Schori and the U.S. Episcopal leadership has managed to violate a few other "ancient customs" of Anglicans. Consider the following:
*they reject the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ alone
*there is no longer insistence on belief in heaven, hell, the virgin birth, or the bodily resurrection
*the church allows the ordination of women
*the church allows the ordination of homosexuals
*the church undertook the consecration of a homosexual bishop, who is about to marry his male partner
*the church blesses of same sex unions
*the church does not oppose abortion
*there is no upholding of scriptural authority
*there is no discipline of sinning members, even under the communion's own rules

I guess that some ancient traditions are more important not to offend than others.

See the story here.

Dear Anonymous

To my engaging, anonymous friend... I remain intrigued by your observations, including those of your last, unpublished comment. Thanks for the thoughts and clarifications, and your expressions of concern about CU. You raise excellent and valid points. I have no personal way of responding to your posts to further dialog, and don't necessarily want to have a public discussion when I am somewhat out of the loop on things you may know. I'm also trying to be careful not to disparage or affirm people or institutions without careful thought, especially in "printed" form! So, I'll leave it here for now. I would be glad to email responses, even to an "alias" if discussion is desired.

Is it "the enemy within," or just "the immature on paper?"

I may be becoming one of those grumpy alums students can't stand...if so, sorry.

OK, full disclosure: I am a former editor (2 and a half years) of the ancestor of the Cedars, C.U.'s student newspaper, back in the late '70s. We were not censored by the University during those days, but expected to censor ourselves. We tried to keep news as news, and offer opinion on an opinion page--we offered lots of opinions, too. We also saw our job to be that of being journalists with a Christian worldview (the concept was popular back then, starting with Dr. Allen Monroe in fall quarter's Foundations of Social Science). Thus, we tried to tell truth, and subject opinion to the "grid" or "lens" of truth. We hated the historic name we were stuck with (does Whispering Cedars sound like hard-hitting journalism to you?)During my years, I am sure that we published our share of rants and less than Pulitzer-quality news stories. The headline "Student Discovers 'Worm Like Object' In Food" still haunts me (I was holding out for "Maggots in the Meat!" but I lost to my co-editor).

That said, I have been increasingly disappointed by what seems to be a lack of biblical foundation in some of the opinion (and yes, some of the "news," too) stories I've seen in the Cedars the past 2 years I've been in town. Weak writing I can expect--people are learning. Points of view that are poorly expressed or weakly supported can fall under the same category. But promoting views that seem to be at odds with a biblical worldview and left unchallenged are bothersome at the very least.

The most recent issue featured an opinion piece in which a student author recounted his dialog with a friend who believes she has been a lesbian all her life ( the article is linked to heading above). She is described without comment as an adult homosexual Christian. Now, aside from the lack of a challenge to that idea, the account continues with this friend's desire to marry and be happy. The writer agrees. Viewpoints pro and con are not really examined, with one of the "weaker" arguments against gay marriage dismissed as silly. The writer's conclusion: America needs to uphold its promise of freedom to be happy for everyone, and we ought not to interfere.

Since this article was paired with another under the heading "Both Sides Matter," I figured that the companion piece would be a counterpoint. I was wrong. Instead, it was a professor's recollection of judging a debate where a gay debater for homosexual marriage identified himself as a friend of Matthew Shepard, the young man brutally murdered a number of years ago in Wyoming. The professor talked about the profound impact this personal contact with this gay man had on her, and caused her to realize the personal nature of this issue. And... that was it. Good thoughts, but no rebuttal. In fact, it could be taken (even if not intended this way) as endorsement. Do both sides of the argument matter? No, apparently only one side does.

Do I know gay people who want to marry? Yes. Are some of them people that I personally care about? Absolutely. Does this have anything to do with the political issues of gay marriage, of constitutional issues, or the relationship between societal norms, legal policy, and morality (i.e., legislating morality is what law is, at some level)? No. Does it address why Christians who uphold biblical authority may oppose gay marriage even while acknowledging Christians' failure to live up to the biblical ideal themselves? No. It doesn't even make an informed case for homosexual marriage. It only aims for feelings about fairness for nice people.

Bottom line--Cedars offered unbalanced opinion coverage supporting gay marriage. No debate, no real facts to consider, just lots of feeling. If this were an isolated case, that would be sad enough. Pair this, though, with the recent "puff" piece on Mel White--it honestly read like an adoring press release. The article offered no examination of the man's past and his agenda, or of the coercive tactics he chooses to seek to embarrass evangelicals in the media. It was left to Dr. Carl Ruby to offer a response, and while the initial story was presented as "news," Dr. Ruby's response was labeled a "viewpoint." In such cases, the paper seems content to be a promotional tool for various and sundry ideas, rather than a journalistic endeavor covering and commenting on the news and events of the campus, the area, and the world.

Without realizing it, I think the Cedars becomes strong evidence of the need for C.U. to establish a journalism program. If C.U. students are to become gatekeepers in society, as is often stated, then they need to know what a newspaper can and should be, and how Christians with developed biblical worldviews can and should report and opine. News coverage needs facts, and opinions need support other than feelings.

My hope is that next year, the Cedars will raise the bar for itself, seeing its mission as being the student newspaper of an institution whose very existence is "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Not bad for a tombstone...

A few weeks ago I made my second visit to Agra, where I snapped this picture of the Taj Mahal. Most people guess that it is a palace fit for a king. While it is grand, and a king and his queen are there, a palace it isn't.

Actually, the Taj Mahal was a mausoleum, for the favorite wife of Shah Jahan. She made him promise never to remarry, and he didn't. Instead, he spent the next 17 years building this monument in which to lay her body. It is perfectly symmetrical in every detail--except one.

You see, Shah Jahan nearly bankrupted the country building this tribute to his beloved, and when he began construction on the opposite side of the river of an identical "black Taj" that would be his final resting place, his son and crown prince had seen enough. He deposed his father, kept him under house arrest for the rest of his life, and when he died, buried him to the right of his wife's body--making Shah Jahan's resting place the one blot on the otherwise perfect symmetry of the structure and court.

Some consider the Taj Mahal as the greatest tribute to love. But its story is one laced with sorrow and death, the frustration of plans, and family betrayal. Not exactly the fruits of love we want to celebrate.