Real Clear Truth

Alas, I’ve been too busy of late to post to my blog here. But today Chris Cree of HighCallingBlogs.com sent out a newsletter that mentioned a very interesting group writing project that they have started called: What is the Strangest Job You’ve Ever Had?

I’ve read Mark D. Roberts (Lessons From Odd Jobs) on his lawn work for a gregarious and  assertive employer named Mrs. Bivans who taught him that even those who seem very professional have real lives too. Behind professional exteriors lie human hearts and emotional histories we all too frequently are little aware of.

I also read Marcus Goodyear’s post (Once Upon a Time I Was a Guinea Pig) whose experience having to stand for hours as an ergonomic study subject forever altered his perspective on Paul’s writing on how Christians have to “stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand”.

So what is the strangest job I’ve ever had and what did I learn from it? Well, I’ve only had a few jobs in my life. Just about 99.9 percent of my working life has been as a software engineer, and while you may think that is a strange job, I assure you, it is simply logical.

But after my first job programming computer simulations of nomadic herdsmen in Saudi Arabia, I found myself unable to get another software job so I tried a couple other things neither of which lasted for any amount of time. Selling solar water heaters just wasn’t my cup of tea, and telling my last prospect that I would be fired if I didn’t close my sale with him, only caused him to get angry at the company for engaging in such strong arm tactics. For some odd reason, it didn’t instill in him a desire to actually buy the product.

But that wasn’t the strangest. No, the strangest was the day I worked for Mrs. Hope Jones.

I met Mrs. Jones at a fast food establishment. She looked for all the world like a homeless bag lady; disheveled, unkempt and overly weighed down with coats that didn’t fit the hot Arizona weather. My wife and I figured she couldn’t afford a meal, so we offered to buy her some food, but we soon learned that she owned a large lot of land right next to the apartment building where we lived.

While we ate our food at that Jack in the Box, she told us a tale of woe that started with unreliable Mexican workers and ended with her son trying to steal her land from her by citing her alleged languishing mental faculties as justification. In between, we learned that she had inherited lots of money from her rich East-coast establishment family, roughly on par with the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts.

Now, it turned out she needed help as she had taken in dozens and dozens of stray dogs and put them in pens on her land. Seeing she was having trouble finding reliable workers, we mentioned that I could help her out and she promptly offered me a job on the spot.

The next day I showed up and discovered that the dogs were in horrible circumstances, with little food and water and covered in ticks. One dog literally died in my arms as I tried to give it some water and as Mrs. Jones pulled ticks off of the other dogs.

Seeing the situation and the hopelessness of being able to do anything, I never went back, but later that week, the local television news showed up and broadcast for all the city to see that the authorities had served notice on Mrs. Jones and had come to take her dogs away. The city viewed her as a crazy lady that didn’t care about what she had done to these dogs. But I saw something different.

And that’s what I learned from my strange one-day job. I learned that Mrs. Jones really did care about those dogs. She wanted to help and not let them suffer as they wandered the desert areas of hot Tucson. She meant well, but because so few took her seriously, she was unable to provide the care she wanted to.

If she would have looked like a rich Eastern-establishment family member, people would have treated her decently and offered her their services. As it was, they ignored her and treated her like a crazy woman. And maybe she was a little off, but not nearly as much as the news made her out to be.

I learned that appearances can be very deceiving. As Disney’s Beauty and the Beast reminds us, beauty is found within but we too often judge by what we see on the outside, and we pay a price when we do that. Instead of seeing Mrs. Jones as a lady who desired deeply to help stray dogs, the city judged her as a crazy lady who treated dogs poorly. Instead of seeing a person who had dignity (besides an abundance of resources), I saw a bag lady who only deserved my pity and handouts.

I meant well but I demeaned her because I allowed her appearance to stereotype my view of her. The city meant well, but they diminished her by assuming that she hadn’t tried hard to help those dogs.

At least Hope Jones shredded my stereotype of her quite quickly. How long does it take others to be appreciated for who they are, not what we see them as?

———-

If you happen by this post, why not join in and participate in this blog meme? Check out Lessons from Odd Jobs, and share your own story of the strangest job you’ve ever had and what you’ve learned from it.

In part 1 of my article, “I Saw The Welsh Revival” (see here), we see that Evan Roberts was “accompanied by two young lady converts” Now why wasn’t Roberts accompanied by two “old” converts, or simply two converts for that matter? Why do so many talk about “youth” when revival is talked about?

Some call the youth the “Joshua Generation” implying that older people just can’t handle going into new territory and it requires the youth to do it. Is this true?

Well consider these issues…

• Half of the world’s population is 26 or younger (according to 1996 figures from the Census Bureau). For many countries in Africa, half of their populations are 14 and under!
• The older you are the more likely you will have a family to support making it harder to give 100% of your energy to God.
• The older you get the more likely you are to become jaded and calloused and lose the heart to believe revival will really come.
• The older you get the more set in your ways you become and the harder it is to break out and accept the new ways God may do things this time around.
• The older you are the less likely you’ll become a Christian and thus in a mass revival, most people getting saved will be the youth.
• When you’re younger you have more energy and enthusiasm. You’re more idealistic and don’t comprehend the obstacles in your way that give older people pause.

To me then, this is simply a practical matter. While God will certainly use ANYONE who’s willing and obedient, it’s simply a practical matter that most people in a mass revival will be the youth.

But even if this is a practical reality, we should certainly NOT suggest that revival is somehow inherently limited to the youth. May that never be!

And while we in the “older” generation may feel we are being left out when pastors or speakers focus on the youth, let us remember that Joshua and Caleb were NOT youth themselves!

Even better, they were the leaders. How cool is that?!

A professor I know in Wisconsin has started a project for Christians to engage in dialogs on topics outside the normal range of issues typically discussed in churches. Her website describes it this way:

The GROUNDINGS PROJECT seeks to stimulate dialog, inspiration and action among Christian artists as we walk together in an authentic pursuit of Christ and our creative calling. We look for opportunities to engage the church and the artist in an exploration of the deep and sometimes difficult issues of our times at the vibrant juncture(s) of art, faith and culture.

The first topic that she will tackle during a retreat this summer called, ON EARTH, will be on the issue of the global environment, or as she puts it:

As we discuss our environmental future as a global community, there is an growing discussion and challenge within the Church to active engagement. This week will allow individuals of creativity and faith to reflect on the beauty as well as the responsibility for caring for creation.

I was especially intrigued by how she desires to create an authentic dialog among people with differing views. Again, she puts it this way:

I have felt God telling me not to be afraid of the complexity facing us today within the world, that He will show me and the rest of us how to be “in the world but not of it”. I really feel He is encouraging me to talk about the seemingly untalkable….even though we seem to talk about it all the time. Issues like the environment or the issue of war…these are things we essentially have stopped talking about unless we are pretty sure everyone in the room agrees with us or we get our anger stirred and jump into our monlogue of conviction and opinion. I just feel He is guiding me to allow a discussion and allow people who have different opinions in the room and enter a dialog….not a compromise and not a conversion monologue but a simple dialog…and to trust Him that His truth will be revealed.

I really love this idea of a simple dialog. It can be so difficult to dialog without causing offense. And yet we grow so much when we pause to truly hear what others are saying. Growth doesn’t happen by giving up what we believe. Growth happens when we see the differing viewpoints of others who care just as much as we do.

Dialog requires more than just taking time to listen. Dialog also requires taking the time to form how to express one’s differences. It is not enough to say that a given discussion raises red flags. One must probe what those flags are, what they mean and why they are significant. And then pause to see that the intent of the person who raised the flag was not as you initially thought.

Dialog should not be used to impose or demand. Dialog should be used to understand and clarify each person’s heart on an issue. Dialog should be our opportunity to hear what others have found of value and for us to share what we have found of value. Dialog should be seen as a gift that helps us see what we couldn’t see on our own.

Dialog is for those willing to be open and vulnerable, but also willing to challenge orthodoxy and group think. Dialog is for those willing to open the windows of their box and hear the sounds of all that is wild outside. Dialog is for those willing to have their foundations shaken, and willing to prod the foundations of others.

A dialog is not a debate. There are no losers in a dialog. Everybody has the opportunity to win — and will win — as long as they dialog in love.

I also like the idea of people of faith dialoging. Is it possible for Christians to take a few minutes to seek God and ask Him to reveal things that could help us truly hear from each other? Maybe instead of thinking about how to counter what someone else says, we can ask God how we can encourage that person. Or maybe we could ask God to show something about how He made that person we disagree with unique. Or maybe we could ask God what He would want us to hear from that person that we have never really considered before.

I believe that God is well able to quickly unblock misconceptions and misunderstandings that have grown up in our lives over many years.

What do you think?

P.S. As part of her retreat this summer she will be making a roadtrip out to see Frank Lloyd Wright’s house called “Taliesin”. On the Taliesin Preservation website they say that Wright, “learned that people are most content and happy when they live in harmony with nature rather than imposing their will upon it”. Take a look at this photo of Taliesin and see if you can catch what Wright might have been saying…

I’ve not had time to post lately because the company I have worked for for seventeen years in Tucson was acquired and the new owners recently announced plans to relocate us to the San Jose area. Each employee has a limited time to decide if we will accept their relocation offer and that means I have been spending LOTS of time looking at the housing situation in the Bay area. Fortunately, the current sub-prime mortgage crisis has lowered prices significantly. Unfortunately, for the Bay area, that means that houses that had been in the $700,000 range may now be in the $500,000 range, which is still VERY HIGH!!!!

Now, If you are willing to spend forever commuting, there are some good deals about fifty to seventy miles East of San Jose, but who wants to spend so many hours of their life stuck in traffic?

Anyway, my wife and I will soon be making a trip out there just to get a better feel for the area and what might be possible. We are praying that God will show us what to do.

Dean

Peggy Noonan’s column today in the Wall Street Journal is about Hillary’s “Bosnia” story, but it struck me more as the marking point of the end of her campaign. Hilary has lost to Obama. The Rev. Wright story didn’t turn the tide and now even her supporters are realizing that her campaign “doesn’t seem to be working”. More and more Democrats will be calling for her to withdrawal from the race (as Pat Leahy did today). Hillary is losing her grip on the party and they are wanting to end this mess. I’m beginning to wonder if she’ll even make it to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Once things unravel, they tend to unravel quickly. The Clintons have a habit of clinging and fighting on, but she’s at the end of her rope on this one.

What do you think?

Getting Mrs. Clinton, by Peggy Noonan

I think we’ve reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don’t. There’s no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don’t. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don’t, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

[...]

I sat next to a woman, a New York Democrat who’d been for Hillary from the beginning and still was. She was here. But, she said, “It doesn’t seem to be working.” She shrugged, not like a brokenhearted person but a practical person who’d missed all the signs of something coming. She wasn’t mad at the voters. But she was no longer so taken by the woman who soon took the stage and enacted joy.

The other day a bookseller told me he’d been reading the opinion pages of the papers and noting the anti-Hillary feeling. Two weeks ago he realized he wasn’t for her anymore. It wasn’t one incident, just an accumulation of things. His experience tracks this week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showing Mrs. Clinton’s disapproval numbers have risen to the highest level ever in the campaign, her highest in fact in seven years.

You’d think she’d pivot back to showing a likable side, chatting with women, weeping, wearing the bright yellows and reds that are thought to appeal to her core following, older women. Well, she’s doing that. Yet at the same time, her campaign reveals new levels of thuggishness, though that’s the wrong word, for thugs are often effective. This is mere heavy-handedness.

[...]

What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. She can’t trace the line from “this moment’s difficulties” to “my triumphant end.” But she cannot admit to herself that she can lose. Because Clintons don’t lose. She can’t figure out how to win, and she can’t accept the idea of not winning. She cannot accept that this nobody from nowhere could have beaten her, quietly and silently, every day. (She cannot accept that she still doesn’t know how he did it!)

There has been a big to-do over what former vice-presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton supporter, Geraldine Ferraro said recently about Barack Obama. Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal put it (see here):

In recent days, the Obama camp has been demanding an apology from Geraldine Ferraro, the former Vice Presidential candidate and current Hillary Clinton supporter who last week let slip that, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Though Ms. Ferraro resigned from the Clinton campaign yesterday, her remarks reveal little more than a firm grasp of the obvious, even if she could have found a less artless way to express herself. There is no disputing that Mr. Obama’s skin color has been a political boon for him to date. And the suggestion that saying so aloud betrays racial animus implies that only the Illinois Senator can discuss the issue of race in regard to his candidacy.

Now, I’ve heard radio show host Dennis Prager on this topic say that what Geraldine Ferraro said is so obviously true that how can Obama get upset about it. I’ve also heard radio show host Michael Medved say that Ferraro’s comments are demonstrably NOT true, and that Obama has every right to be upset. So which is it? Or maybe even more important, why is there such a clear disagreement on this topic even among good conservative friends such as Prager and Medved?

Well, in my view, I side with Medved, though I can see where Dennis is coming from. After all, didn’t Obama win 91% of the black vote in Mississippi? Yes of course he did, but he also won in states like Kansas and Iowa that have almost no blacks. Were the white voters in Iowa simply trying to end “identity politics” like Mickey Kaus suggests in Slate (see here)?

While that may have played a factor, to me it was far from an overriding factor. Go back and look at the polls and I’m sure most will say they voted for Obama because they liked his message over the other Democratic contenders. After all, isn’t Obama the one trying to present himself as the best candidate to bring about change, to end division (yes racial but also much more), to restore unity and bring hope to our nation? Wasn’t it his message, his optimism and his charisma that brought him to the national stage — not entirely unlike Reagan when he came to the national stage early on as a newly elected governor of California?

Yes, Andrew Sullivan has a point (see here) about Obama’s face and the potential for the “re-branding of the United States” in the eyes of Muslims around the world, but I don’t think that many votes were cast in Obama’s favor based on that factor. It is merely a contributing factor that has helped him some. The true reason he has come this far has much more to do with his message of hope that strongly resonates with many liberals who are so tired of the Bush years.

To say Obama wouldn’t be where he is at if he were a white man is to perpetuate all the racial stereotypes that have enraged the black community for years. It seems black men have to be many times better than a white man before whites will acknowledge that they have achieved their position on merit and not preferential treatment. I would be angry myself if people said I got where I am based on the color of my skin. Why wouldn’t one expect Obama to get upset about this?

Yes, the Democratic primary has devolved into divided camps with women voting for Hilary and blacks voting for Obama. But it didn’t start out this way, and Obama may well have won over a different constituency if he had been white. I don’t think one can conclude at all that he wouldn’t be where he is if he weren’t black.

That aside, I do think it’s great that he is black. There is a real sense that the country would be relieved to get the race issue behind us. And while that sentiment may have changed some percentage of the vote in his favor, Obama no doubt also had some percentage vote against him just because of his race. Without in-depth analysis, it is foolhardy to jump to conclusions otherwise — even if it seems obvious at first glance.

Sometimes I wish I could hear Prager and Medved debate issues like these that they disagree on. They both come across as completely sure of themselves and sure of the logic of their beliefs. And yet both are conservative, both are Jewish and they are good colleagues and friends. Isn’t it amazing though how easy it is to draw vastly different conclusions — even among like-minded and well reasoned people?

But then, what conclusion would you draw?

The exceptional military historian Victor Davis Hanson has written an excellent column today in National Review that parallels some of what I wrote yesterday on Iraq — albeit with much nicer prose.

Here is an excerpt from: Mirror, Mirror… Looking at Iraq

What is never discussed is how many Islamists flocked to Iraq, determined to defeat the U.S. military — and never got out alive. Or, more bluntly, how many jihadists did the U.S. Army and Marines kill in Iraq rather than in Manhattan?

And what was the effect of that defeat not only on the jihadists, but also on those who were watching carefully to see whether the terrorists should be joined in victory or abandoned in defeat? Who really took his eye off the ball — the United States by going into Iraq, as alleged, or Osama bin Laden and his jihadist lieutenants by diverting thousands there to their deaths, as is never mentioned?

When the war started, contrary to the current rhetoric, Osama bin Laden was popular in the Middle East, and the tactic of suicide bombing had won a sizable following. But after the war was fought, and despite years of anti-American rhetoric, bin Laden has never polled lower while support for suicide murdering in the Muslim Middle East continues to decline.

In 2001, the Arab street apparently thought, for all the macabre nature of suicide bombing, that it at least had brought the United States to its knees and such a takedown was considered a good thing; in the latter reflection of 2007 and 2008, it worried that such a tactic brought the United States military to its region, and guaranteed the defeat of jihadists along with any who joined them.

Iraq, as no one ever imagined, ended up as a landscape in which the United States and al-Qaeda would battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab world on the world stage. And in Anbar Province, the jihadists are losing — losing militarily and losing the support of the local Sunni population. Again, whereas the conventional wisdom holds that we have radicalized an entire generation of young Muslims, it may turn out instead that we have convinced a generation that it is not wise after 9/11 to wage war against the United States. In any case, there is no other constitutional Arab government in the Middle East that actively hunts down and kills al-Qaeda terrorists.

When the insurgency took off in late 2003, Europe immediately triangulated against the United States, courted the Arab world, and hoped to deflect jihadists by loudly proclaiming they were vehemently against the war in Iraq. This is in itself was quite remarkable, since the entire recent expansion of the European Union to the south and east had been predicated only on a partnership agreement with the United States to extend NATO membership — alone ensuring these weak new European affiliates American military protection.

One of the reasons I named my blog “RealClearTruth” is because I have a strong desire to make complex issues clear, to dig down to the essential elements in order to bring clarity and make it easier to determine what should be done. In this regard, I have not been satisfied with any of the leading presidential candidates with how they have framed the issue of the war in Iraq. I’ve heard them speak. I have gone to their websites to read their issue papers and have watched their videos on this issue. And while there are large differences, no one seems able to present the issue in a way that makes it obvious what is really at stake here.

Naturally, we’re talking about politicians whose priority is to win, not to help us make the most informed decisions, and thus their policy papers focus more on how to best differentiate and make them stand out, but even so it seems to me every one of them could do better.

I have provided below the links to their policy papers on Iraq where you can read or watch a video for yourself, but allow me to briefly summarize each of their positions, as best as I understand them.

John McCain — McCain’s focus in on developing strategies for how we can win this war. The better the strategy, the quicker we will win. He favored the surge for just this reason. The surge has improved stability and that has enabled the process of reconciliation between the Iraqi factions to begin. McCain also warns of the consequences of losing in Iraq, including a terrorist safe haven, possible regional conflict and the “nightmare scenario” of genocide.

Hillary Clinton — Hillary wants to end the war by immediately starting a phased redeployment, while simultaneously pursuing diplomatic initiatives (regional level and UN sponsored) and aid packages in an effort to broker peace and achieve stability among the various warring factions. She would continue fighting al Qaeda with targeted operations by specialized units.

Barack Obama — Obama will immediately begin removing troops and have all combat brigades out in 16 months. Troops will be maintained in the region to protect our diplomats and to carry out targeted attacks on al Qaeda if they attempt to reestablish bases inside Iraq. He will convene a new constitutional convention in Iraq, with UN assistance, that will not adjourn until a new accord is reached. He will couple this with regional diplomacy to create a security compact with Iraq’s neighbors and confront humanitarian issues.

As you can see, Hillary and Obama have very similar approaches. She emphasizes her experience with foreign leaders which presumably gives her knowledge of how to tackle the diplomatic challenges while he emphasizes his leadership skills, a desire to talk directly and openly to all parties (including Iran), and the hope that things can change.

Both offer the hope that there is a way to extricate our military from Iraq and still bring stability to Iraq and the region. Both want to restrict our military fighting to targeted attacks on al Qaeda, in the hope that we can prevent the “safe havens” McCain warns about. Both have three point stability plans: negotiate non-interference of neighbors outside of Iraq, mediate the differences between factions inside of Iraq, and provide funding for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.

Both assume that there is no real military solution, that the war has been too costly and that getting out will actually reduce tensions because we will no longer be an occupying force nor a magnet drawing terrorists into Iraq to kill us.

Part of the problem here is that no one can guarantee what the future will be if we take any of these paths. We’ve already been fighting for years, so how many more years will our military have to be engage for McCain’s plan to succeed? On the other hand, if the Palestinian issue is any indication, who can possibly hold out much hope for diplomatic initiatives in the Middle-East?

One can easily get frustrated, throw up his hands and say if the Iraqi’s can’t handle this problem on their own, then that’s their problem. We’ve paid a terrific price to free them, if they don’t want freedom then why should we continue to force it on them? Why not just go after al Qaeda and leave the Sunnis and Shias to fight it out?

But notice that NONE of the candidates are saying this! They all recognize the chaos that a civil war in Iraq can cause, not just for the Iraqi’s on humanitarian grounds, but also for the region which could well be destabilized leading to major problems in the oil markets — and much higher prices than we see even now.

No, all the candidates are “realists” to one degree or another. They all recognize the mess we’re in and they recognize the potential for things to get even worse. This is why they want to “stabilize” this problem. McCain prefers a military solution. Obama and Hillary prefer diplomatic solutions. But everybody wants stability.

America wants it. Our friends in the Middle East want it. Our European allies want it. Even Iran wants it — well mostly.

This is why diplomacy is seen as having a chance. If stability is truly in the interests of everybody in the world, then diplomacy and negotiation will find a way to make these interests apparent to everyone and a solution will be found.

But this is where the problem lies. Not everybody wants stability. Al Qaeda has invested everything they have to make sure stability is never achieved. This is their primary goal right now. If they can continue bringing chaos, then they know America will give up and leave. If they can continue bringing chaos, then they know the Shias and the Sunnis will never reconcile their differences and will continue to fight each other. If the can keep Iraqi’s fighting each other, then they can’t be forced out.

It should be clear. America wins if stability is achieved. Al Qaeda wins if chaos is maintained.

But what is al Qaeda’s real goal here? Why do they even care about Iraq? Is it only because we are there, and easy targets for them? Well yes, they do like killing us especially given that we have invaded “their” space. Our presence has been a marvelous recruiting tool for them.

But it is more than that. Al Qaeda hopes to create a new caliphate in the region and eventually worldwide. They believe they are on a mission from God to carry this out. They believe America is the principle evil of the world spreading cultural filth as well as being the primary military obstacle to their aspirations.

If they can make America withdrawal from Iraq, then they will not only see this as a victory, encouraging them that God has been on their side, but it will prove to them that we are a paper-tiger, emboldening them with the hope that they now possess a strategy for defeating America –  simply sow enough chaos and America will leave.

Isn’t it clear then that al Qaeda won’t stop once our soldiers leave? They can’t afford to have our diplomatic efforts succeed either. They can’t afford to have the Iraqi government stabilize and reach reconciliation. They have to convince Muslims worldwide that destiny is on their side, that America has failed completely, that there is a way to thoroughly defeat America.

Does al Qaeda merely aspire to create “safe havens” in Iraq? Or is their true objective to defeat us in Iraq, making us leave? Which implies that their next objective would be to defeat us in Afghanistan, making us leave there. And what country would be their target after that? Pakistan with its nuclear arsenal? Saudi Arabia with the holy sites of Islam and modern weaponry?

It is true that leaving Iraq could spark a civil war even without al Qaeda involved. Civil wars can lead to a humanitarian crisis, regional conflict and even genocide. Regional conflict can destroy oil fields and trigger a meltdown in world markets leading to depression.

But those are only possibilities. No one knows for sure. If something really bad happens then presumably we can step back in and do something. In other words, as bad as those possibilities are, the war has wearied us to the point that we don’t care any more.

But al Qaeda goals and strategies aren’t speculation. We know how brutal, merciless and unconstrained they are. No tactic seems to give them pause. They even kill garbage collectors because they prefer the trash to go uncollected as that gives them cover for their roadside bombs (see here). They scrape the faces of women off with piano wire for the crime of showing their faces in public.

The only way we have succeeded against al Qaeda is to turn the locals against them. This tactic hasn’t been easy though. Locals, and their families, who are found to have turned on al Qaeda are sadistically murdered. Thus, it takes a significant presence that reassures locals that they are relatively safe and it takes commitment to persist so the locals know they won’t be abandoned to the al Qaeda butchers.

Isn’t it clear that only the latest strategy of the surge, that deploys soldiers and maintains them where they are deployed, is what has turned this whole thing around? Isn’t it obvious why our surge “coincidentally” coincided with the decision of the Sunnis to abandon their insurgency against us? They saw we finally came up with a strategy that might actually work!

Isn’t is equally clear then that diplomacy can never work against al Qaeda’s strategy? If our soldiers are not there in the streets, then the locals will go back to being intimidated by al Qaeda and al Qaeda will be able to regroup and achieve their goals.

Isn’t it clear then that this is a turning point in this war, in our fight against al Qaeda — in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the entire region? Because of the surge, the Sunnis have stopped fighting us, the locals have turned against al Qaeda and al Qaeda is on the run. If we abandon Iraq now all this will be undone and no amount of diplomacy will be able to stop al Qaeda’s barbarism.

Must we stay forever then? Well no. Iraqi forces continue to improve, albeit slowly, but gradually they will replace most of our soldiers on front line positions. We will be able to fall back to bases where we’ll become more of a stabilizing force than an actual combat force, and eventually we will be able to leave.

My point here is that we are at a significant turning point. From this point we can continue to drive al Qaeda back, deprive them of the victory they crave and build on the realization of local Muslims that al Qaeda is NOT the future they want. Or, we can turn from this point, allowing al Qaeda to recover their abilities to sow chaos and bring about civil war, allowing them to claim they were destined by God to push us out, and allowing them to renew their intimidation not only of locals but also of leaders throughout the region.

In other words, this is not simply the possibility of bad things happening if we leave Iraq. This is the fact that we currently have an effective strategy that is pushing back on al Qaeda. If we leave now it means we will stop pursuing this strategy which means we will stop pushing back on al Qaeda and that means they will push the other way.

Our only hope is that the Iraqi government is ready to take over what we’ve been doing. But the more precipitous our withdrawal, the more unfounded that hope is.

Isn’t this clear? Isn’t this obvious?

I honestly hope I have made this issue clearer. I hope some of the candidates will likewise be able to present this issue as clearly to the American public.

What do you think? I would like to hear from you. Thanks.

I went hiking at Gates Pass in the Tucson Mountains west of downtown Tucson on the weekend. The weather was beautiful, although not too many flowers were out yet at this location.

I climbed up the steep mountain slopes where there are no trails, as I did when I first arrived in Tucson back in 1978.

This looks worse than it is. However, I did fall on the way down (ouch)! I’m not sure what happened, but I took a step where it seemed easy, and the next thing I knew I was falling forward — and down the hill. I instinctively did a somersault which got me on my rear end, stopping my fall, but in the process I ran right into a “jumping” Cholla cactus.  That’s the cactus in the first photo above. If you’ve never ran into jumping Cholla cactus, believe me, you don’t want the experience. They break off and cling to you with many needles. Worse, there is no way to touch the cactus to remove it. Any attempt just causes you to get stuck more!

I ended up using rocks to scrap the cactus off my hands, wrist, neck, and head. I removed the needles I could but the ones in my head had to wait until I got home and my 16-year old daughter volunteered to help get them out. The moral is to be even more careful than I typically am!

I’ve always loved a particular chapter from David Matthews, “I Saw the Welsh Revival”, taken from here, and commented on below one part at a time.

Now, it’s not easy to describe a revival. As Matthews says at the end of this chapter, “one realizes the limitations of his human vocabulary when attempting to describe these scenes”. Nevertheless, because I have had some experience myself in seeing God move (through the Toronto Renewal), I feel as if I understand a little of what Matthews is trying to convey, and in that regard I’d like to add some comments to what he has written.

Please note that Mathews wrote this in 1957, fifty-three years after the events he describes took place. Isn’t it interesting how events like this can be so significant and yet it’s not until years later that we realize the importance of recording them so that future generations will know what took place — not entirely unlike the situation the Gospel writers found themselves in decades after Jesus rose from dead.

IN THE MIDST of the Loughor turmoil, something suddenly occurred causing Mr. Roberts to stretch his spiritual wings, and increase his sphere of influence and service for the Master. A church of his own denomination in Trecynon, a suburb of the mining town of Aberdare, had read accounts in The South Wales News and Western Mail of the work of grace taking place in Loughor. For some reason, which can only be described as one of God’s glorious accidents, their appointed minister for that particular weekend had canceled his engagement. Someone ventured to suggest, perhaps timidly, that the young revivalist be invited to occupy the pulpit. That was the limit of their intention.

I’ve heard many a minister implore his audience on what they must do to see a revival. We must fast and pray we are told. We must evangelize the lost. We must pray for the sick. We must give more — to the poor, to missions, to building programs.

Many of these things are great and I’ve certainly done my part, and yet in large measure we are still waiting for the revival we all hope and pray to come. On the other hand, the people of Trecynon were merely trying to fill their pulpit for a given Sunday. They weren’t striving for revival. They weren’t praying for one and they certainly weren’t fasting for one.

And yet revival came to them because of only one thing. They just happened to pick a certain young revivalist to fill their pulpit. He was in the news and some had read the reports and were curious. That’s all it took. They had no idea at all what they were in for and what would happen that Sunday.

Believing that he was led by the Holy Spirit to do so, Mr. Roberts accepted. No one doubted later the reality of this divine guidance. Early Sunday morning, after having spent the whole of Saturday night conducting—if that is a correct term to use in view of what followed—the revival, he arrived practically unannounced. He was accompanied by two young lady converts mightily inspired by the revival and brimming over with the joy of the Lord.

One must understand that Evan Roberts wasn’t exactly sitting around waiting for requests to speak at churches. He was engaged in full on revival where he was at. Meetings were taking place every day and would last well into the wee hours of the morning, some going to 4 AM. Roberts spent the entire Saturday before going to Trecynon in meetings. His acceptance then of taking the pulpit in Trecynon was no little thing. Evangelists typically don’t like to leave a place when God is moving. Who can say what will happen in the next city, especially if there has been no advance preparations to get the people ready?

But when a revival breaks out on the level of the 1904 Welsh revival, niceties such as advance planning and preparations just don’t seem to matter. It’s like a tidal wave that has wiped out one city, leaving glorious results behind, turning to see where else the wave can be directed.

But notice also that Roberts didn’t go alone. He brought two new converts, who had been greatly “inspired” by the revival in Loughor. They had no in-depth theological training. They had no history of Christian service. They were young and by definition inexperienced. But they had one thing. They had been transformed by revival and were “brimming over with the joy of the Lord”. They were infectious, energetic, unqualified believers in what God could do, and above all, they were unquestionably moved to tears and joy by what had happened to them.

They arrived at Bryn Seion Church quite a while before the scheduled time for the ordinary morning service. From the moment they entered the building, these young enthusiasts rehearsed and described some of the marvelous scenes witnessed in their village.

What’s this? A special guest minister arriving early? Didn’t Roberts know how such ministers are to be escorted in at the proper time? Didn’t Roberts need time to rest from the revival services the night before?

Apparently not.

Didn’t the young enthusiasts know that they should wait for the meeting to begin? Didn’t they understand how these things need to be choreographed for maximum impact?

Apparently not.

No, they just couldn’t contain themselves. What they had seen and heard in Loughor was to such a degree and such a magnitude that the stories came spilling out like a torrent of raging waters.

They exhorted all present to “be obedient to the Holy Spirit” when they came together for worship. It is safe to assume that not a single member of the audience had any inkling of what was about to happen in this never-to-be-forgotten service. There had been only a brief announcement in the national dailies on the Saturday morning, giving a colorful description of the Loughor meetings and suggesting that Mr. Roberts might be leaving for Trecynon, Aberdare, very soon. “Just an ordinary weekend appointment” was the mental attitude of the church leaders as they entered the building. Imagine their astonishment when they found two young, inexperienced women facing them, and in the most moving tones beseeching them to surrender to “the leading of the Holy Spirit.” They proved to be two young revival fire-brands.

But look at this. These “young revival fire-brands” didn’t stop with telling stories, they repeatedly exhorted all present to “be obedient to the Holy Spirit”. In the most moving tones, beseeching them to surrender to God.

The implication here is that the moving stories they started to tell of the revival in Loughor could happen in Trecynon, if only they would surrender to “the leading of the Holy Spirit”. The joy and passion that was theirs could be obtained in Trecynon, if only everyone obeyed the Holy Spirit.

What kind of talk is this? Why haven’t we heard similar talk? Why haven’t we been implored to surrender and be obedient to the Holy Spirit? Why not?

The sober, sedate Calvinistic congregation that gathered in Mount Seion that morning received a shock. They looked askance when they saw their minister’s place occupied by a young man, accompanied by such youthful maidens. Instead of announcing the customary hymn for the commencement of the service, one of the young women burst forth in a spiritual song expressing her new experience, tears streaming down her cheeks. The whole congregation gasped! Before the solo concluded, her partner joined her. What did this mean? was the question on every lip. Like the people in the Gospel of Mark, they felt like exclaiming, “We never saw it on this fashion before.”

Cannot we exclaim the same thing as the sober, sedate congregation of Mount Seion? Cannot we likewise say we have never seen it “on this fashion before”? Don’t we also expect church to follow familiar and customary steps? Wouldn’t we too be shocked to see young ladies burst forth in spiritual songs with tears streaming down their cheeks?

Remember, some of those in church that morning would have arrived later and missed hearing from these girls before the service began. They would have arrived expecting nothing unusual. They would have arrived expecting a normal typical service. What a shock indeed!

That prim congregation breathed heavily and deeply. But the young minister in the pulpit—for such they all considered him, remained absolutely silent. They observed, however, that his body shook perceptibly as tears coursed down his pale cheeks. Then, we were told, a strange stillness fell upon the people, like the quiet presaging an electric storm.

This is it. This is the point at which revival hit Trecynon — and Roberts hadn’t said anything! How can God move like this? Doesn’t He realize it requires a sermon to move people into revival? Doesn’t He realize that it requires a minister with a distinguished background and an eloquent message?

Apparently not.

Apparently, all it takes even for a sedate and sober congregation is passion unleashed in their midst — and the imperative to surrender in obedience to the Holy Spirit.

Now let me add that I know well this moment that is like the presaging of an electrical storm. In my experience, I have often compared it to a huge capacitor that is building up a great charge. You can feel it. You can sense the moment of discharge is at hand. There is nothing like it. You can see other people notice it as well. You can see that people know something is up. And then it hits. Wow!

Have you ever felt that electric “charge” building up? Have you ever seen it released and a meeting take a turn that no one had expected it to?

I don’t know about you, but this is what I live for. I even actively push for it. When I sense that moment approaching, I lean into what God is doing more than ever. As a singer, I’m quite aware of what the worship team is sensing and I join in with my voice to encourage them to go for it. Too many times we back away when things get to this point. We don’t realize that we are close to a tipping point. We don’t know that the dam is about to burst. We think that we’ve had a good meeting and we assume it’s time to move on to the next item on the agenda. That’s why when we get close to a moment like this, I want to be one pushing to keep going. I don’t want things to end.

If I’ve learned one thing, times like these are when we need to surrender to the Holy Spirit. Too often we ruin the moment by taking charge and not letting Him be in charge.

What do you think?

Part 2 later this week…

Here are two more photos I took while in Hawaii. I also hope to take some pictures tomorrow of the wild flowers in Tucson, perhaps near Picacho peak, as they say they are the best we’ve seen in the last ten years.

So stay tuned…

This is part 3 in a series looking into the question of whether or not our soul and spirit are two distinct and separate “components” of our lives. The next verse I looked at was this one:

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

These verses mention the word “spiritual” so many times that it is easy to conclude that the important component of our lives is the spiritual side. While I certainly agree that we are spiritual beings, I’m not so sure we understand these verses very well.

First, the phrase, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” might be better translated, “fitting jointly together that which comes from the Spirit with that which comes from the Spirit”. In other words, the Holy Spirit helps us to build up our understanding of God and His nature, one aspect at a time.

The word for “natural” man (see definition here) means one who is governed by his “sensuous nature”, a nature that is subject to worldly appetites and passions.

The phrase “spiritually discerned” means “to examine or securitize by the aid of the Holy Spirit”.

The phrase “he who is spiritual judges” means “he who is filled and governed by the Holy Spirit examines or scrutinizes”.

The phrase “mind of Christ” means we understand things as Christ understands things.

But notice that the “natural” man has the “spirit” of this world. That “spirit” is sensuous and carnal. We are meant to have the “mind” of Christ. That is, we are meant to receive things from the Holy Spirit. We are meant to be “spiritual” in the sense that all our understanding comes from the Spirit of God.

The spirit of the world drives men to focus on their sensuous appetites. But the Christian receives one “spiritual” understanding after another, given to us by the Spirit of God who helps us make sense of what He shows us.

We are all spiritual beings living in a physical and spiritual world, but the natural man is fooled into thinking only his sensuous appetites matter, while we — because of the Holy Spirit — get to perceive and understand the things of God that transcend this physical world.

What I am trying to say is that our emotions may get worn out at times, but it isn’t because our souls have been in charge of our lives. It’s because our souls have been fooled to not receive of the Holy Spirit. We have been receiving the “spirit of the world” instead. Conversely, we — spirit, soul and body — need to receive from the Holy Spirit, not just because we recognize we have a “spirit” but because He is the source of life and understanding for our entire being.

The distinction here is on what spirit we are receiving from, as opposed to where we receive it into us (soul or spirit).

Think of it this way. I am saying that we can receive of the Spirit of God directly into the intellect of our minds, directly into the emotions of our hearts, directly into the desires of our soul, and directly into the knowing of our spirits. I think that’s pretty cool.

What this comes down to and why I felt this was important to write on is that I don’t feel right in talking about our souls as if they are so distinct from our spirits. Our soul is us. Our heart is us. Our mind is us. We simply need to be still and hear from the Spirit of God. Every part of us. We have to chose to trust Him and settle our emotions down and hear His still small voice.

The more our soul lives in the Earthly realm, the more it will function on a carnal level. The more our soul lives in the heavenly realm, the more it will function on a spiritual level.

This is important to me because I want every part of me to be in sync with Him. I want my mind to hear His thoughts. I want my heart to feel His heart. I want my emotions tied to His. I want my intellect sharpened by His. I want every part of me to be able to live and focus on Him — in the spirit.

I can’t help but see that the spirit isn’t a “part” of us. It’s how every part of us should live.

If this makes sense to you, I would love to hear. God bless!

Let’s look at another verse in the discussion of “spirit, soul and body”:

Luke 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

Is this saying that we need emulate Jesus and grow the distinct part of us that we call our “spirit”?

Well, I take the phrase “filled with wisdom” as a descriptive phrase explaining one way that Jesus grew “strong in spirit”. In other words, those two phrases are linked together, and they help us to select the appropriate definition of what is meant by the word “spirit”. If you look up the various definitions for the word “spirit”, you will find the definition that seems to fit this context best (from here):

2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated.  A) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides. B) the soul.

Now notice, that it wouldn’t have made sense to say Jesus “waxed strong in his soul, filled with wisdom”. This is because the (appropriate) definition for “soul” is (from here):

2) the soul. A) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.).

In other words, it doesn’t make sense to say Jesus “waxed strong in the seat of his feelings, filled with wisdom”. It does make sense though to say that Jesus “waxed strong in the power by which he thought and decided, filled with wisdom”.

The key here is not in a separation between Jesus’ soul and spirit. The key is where this vitality to think and decide wisely comes from! Clearly it comes from God, or that is, from the spiritual realm.

Now it is true. We hurt ourselves spending too much time getting our thoughts and wisdom from the natural world while neglecting the spirit side and what God will show us. But that does not mean that we have been living in our souls at the expense of living in our spirits. It means our hearts and minds have been captured by this world and not by God. But our hearts and minds can be captured by God. We can turn to Him with all we are and grow in the vitality by which we know and decide. We can turn to Him and be filled with wisdom.

The key is the direction on which we focus our hearts, not in which component of our nature we live in. It’s hard for me to picture Jesus living primarily in his spirit. Nor do I see Him somehow balancing the three components of His being either. No, I see Him knowing that God is where life, wisdom and understanding comes from, and thus focusing all parts of His being to receive of God’s wisdom.

But consider that what I detailed above is also why Jesus left the word “spirit” out of the command, “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind”. One doesn’t love God with a “vital principal by which [we] are animated”. But we do love with the part of us that is the “seat of our feelings, desires and affections”.

The point is that these two Greek words are apples and oranges. One is talking about a thing that can grow inside of us. The other is a location inside of us where things flow out of. They are used in different ways and in different contexts.

Certainly we have a physical nature and a spiritual nature. Certainly we need to be open to God in the spiritual realm. But we don’t need to think that our heart, soul, strength or mind are incapable of connecting with God, and only our spirit can. No, all of us can connect with God. Every part of us.

Next, part 3…

I was unable to keep up with my blogging this week because I have been involved in a separate discussion. However, that discussion relates to something I recently wrote in my article The Code Breakers, pertaining to the subject of one’s “spirit, soul and body”:

But this is where we often miss what was truly unique with Daniel. He not only had light and understanding and wisdom, but he also didn’t separate them into separate spheres of heart, mind and spirit as we typically do with the Western mindset. To us contemplation and understanding are elements of our minds and intellect. Light and illumination are elements of our spirit. Wisdom largely flows from our hearts and souls.

But this is not the way Daniel saw it.

Instead, Daniel pulled on God’s wisdom each step of the way. Think about it. Step one is the illumination phase when God’s light reveals things that have been hidden from others. Step two is the contemplation phase when our minds seek the mind of Christ and to perceive how God understands what has been illuminated. Step three is the wisdom phase where we seek the discernment of God on what to do about it.

Each phase requires our spirits to hear what God is showing us. Each phase requires our carnal hearts to be subjected to the heavenly ways of seeing things. Each phase requires our minds to perceive as His mind does.

In other words, wisdom doesn’t simply come down from God to help us with insight and understanding, but Godly wisdom is a comprehensive aspect of His character that is meant to transform our hearts, minds and spirits so that all aspects of our lives function as He does in His heavenly realm. All three must be renewed. All three must follow Him. All three must be linked by and to Him.

The issue of the discussion hinged on the matter of whether our soul and spirit are truly distinct entities, whether we can put them into separate compartments, or whether what I suggested above is more appropriate. The first verse I examined in researching this was:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

This verse seems to say that our soul and spirit can be divided apart (or torn asunder). But is that what it really says?

First consider that one of the definitions for the Greek word for “spirit” (see here) happens to be, “a human soul that has left the body”. Another definition simply calls it, “the soul”.

More basically, the word for “spirit” — pneuma from which we get the English word pneumatics — simply means, “a gentle blast or movement of air”, or “the breath of one’s nostrils”, or the “disposition that governs one’s soul”. The word for “soul” — psyche — simply means, “the breath of life”, or the essence of us that is not dissolved by the death of our bodies.

These two words are nearly interchangeable and the major difference seems to be more the context in which they are used. A soul is more tied to what gives life to a body, while the spirit is the life that lives on after the body is gone. I would think this differentiation comes more from the need to use a different word before and after the death of the body, than anything else.

Notice that Jesus does NOT mention the word “spirit” when He tells us:

Luke 10:27 So he answered and said, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ “

Ask yourself, why does Jesus leave out “spirit” if it is such an essential and distinct part of us?

Now, I found myself often translating the word “soul”, as many use it, into the word “intellect”, as that is more what I keep hearing people talk about. One might say that the word “mind” in the verse above refers to “intellect”, but after looking up that word I’m not so sure. The definition for “mind” — dianoia – can mean, “the mind as a faculty of understanding”, but it can also mean “the way we think or feel, i.e. by means of our spirit”. Or in a narrower sense, it can mean, “the higher powers of the soul to perceive spiritual truth”.

Even the word “strength” may not refer to simply our physical strength. That word means, “ability, force and might”. In other words, we should love God with all our abilities, with all the might of who we are — not just with our physical strength.

To me, these words go way beyond simple definitions. They refer to everything we are. Everything we can be. Everything He made us to be.

To me, the verse in Hebrews (4:12) is talking about how God’s words cut through all of what we are (soul and spirit, bone and morrow, thoughts and intents) to see where there is belief and where there is unbelief. It is NOT a declaration of how soul and spirit are distinct or divisible. The dividing asunder has to do with dividing belief from unbelief. Read the context around that verse to see.

Some suggest that we can hear a different voice for our soul as compared to the voice of our spirit, but consider this. We often hear people tell us what they think they should do. If they give us a stock description based on simple logic, we typically turn to them and say, “but what does your heart tell you”? In this case, the “heart” is really the same as what others might call our “spirit”. It is that voice inside of us that says there must be more, there has to be more to life than this!

Or turn this around. When somebody is telling us all the logical reasons for something and not hearing what we are trying to tell them, don’t we grab them and say, “listen to me — stop listening to all that is running around in your mind and listen for a minute to what God would tell you!” And then we tell them, hopefully filled with God’s Spirit, just what we believe God wants to say to them. Once again, for me this is basically what some would call speaking to a person’s “spirit”.

But in one sense, I’d rather call these two voices the voice of “belief” and the voice of “unbelief”. One comes from the part of us that agrees with the mindset of this Earth and man’s reasoning. The other comes from the part of us that agrees with the mindset of heaven and God’s heart.

It would be easy to call one side the intellect and other side our spirit, but I don’t think it’s this easy. Our “life” can be lived on either side. Our “souls” can partake of either streams. Our “spirits” can dwell in either camps.

Next part 2…

These are two more pictures I took of the snow that fell on Tucson last week. The first one is looking into Ventana Canyon with the Ventana Canyon Resort at the bottom. The second photo shows a panoramic view of the Catalina mountains with the Ventana canyon on the right side.

This is an expanded version of the first article I wrote on this blog: Daniel - A Man of Light, Understanding & Wisdom.

—————-

Dan 12:4 But you, Daniel, keep these words secret and seal the book until the time of the end…

Consider how God tells Daniel to “keep these words secret and seal the book”. The implication is that God has secrets (or mysteries) that are awaiting a time to be revealed. Another implication is that these secrets are something we will understand at the proper time, like a puzzle that can be solved once we have the final clue, or like a dream that finally makes sense once one has the correct interpretation.

But what if God had Daniel shut up the book not simply because the things written were for another generation, but what if they were also shut up awaiting a generation that perceives things as Daniel did?

In other words, what if we have missed the point here? What if the secrets here are not mere “facts” that our minds will intellectually understand, but what if these secrets (or mysteries) require an entirely different way of seeing things? What if God has been waiting for those who are wise as Daniel was and not as our Western mindset comprehends wisdom? What if Daniel had unlocked a key to the wisdom needed to understand the mysteries of God?

It is my view that God is looking for a new Daniel generation; what we could call the Code Breaker generation. It’s a generation that sees the things that God has hidden all around us. Things that are in plain view if only we see as He does. Things that have been embedded into the very fabric of the universe since the time of creation. Things that bare the very signature of a God who not only created everything but also indued His creation with the elements of His character.

This is a bit like what Francis Collins talks about regarding DNA in his book The Language of God. In fact, you can catch an interview of him on The High Calling website (see here).

Not only did God stamp his signature into the world at its creation, but He is actively involved by His Spirit moving over His creation. Even more significantly, He has breathed His life into us, filled us with His Spirit and we now impart a measure of His touch as we live out our daily lives.

The point here is that revelation of God’s mysteries is not restricted to heavenly visions or the study of Hebrew and Greek words used in scripture. Revelation is available all around us — if we know how to look for it. We may long for God to unseal the books of Daniel, and yet so much has already been unsealed all around us — from DNA to the galaxies. The key is to be wise as Daniel was in understanding what has been opened to us.

Dan 5:11 There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him…

I have been intrigued by this verse in Daniel. It says that Daniel was found to have “light and understanding and wisdom”. When I initially looked up these words I found that all three can be translated as “wisdom”. But obviously, one does not describe something by using three words that ultimately mean the same thing. The words must convey some subtle differences that are hard to convey in an English translation, and thus I decided to look deeper.

The first word is “nehiyr“, a noun that can be translated as “light, illumination or wisdom”, but note how it is used in this verse:

Dan 2:22 He reveleth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him.

This verse makes the meaning clearer. Because Daniel had a light that dwelled within him, he was able to see what was in the darkness, or really what was hidden from others. This light brought illumination to secret things allowing Daniel to know things that others did not know. Thus, one could say that the usage of “nehiyr” here means to have a light that reveals knowledge and things hidden from others.

The second word used in Daniel 5:11 is “soklethanuw“, a noun that can be translated as “wisdom, insight or understanding”, but this word is derived from the verb “sekal” which means “to consider or to contemplate”. In other words, “soklethanuw” means that Daniel could consider and contemplate matters and that would lead him to an understanding of them.

The third word used in Daniel 5:11 is “chokmah“, a noun that can be translated as “wisdom, skill, shrewdness, prudence, the comprehending of various learning, or the wisdom ascribed to a ruler or king”. But this word is derived from the verb “chakam” which means “to be wise, to become wise, to act wisely or to judge and hence to rule wisely”. In other words, “chokmah” means that Daniel could learn and comprehend allowing him to become wise and giving him the ability to make shrewd judgments — just like a wise ruler or king should be able to.

To sum this up, when the verse says that Daniel was found to have “light and understanding and wisdom”, this means that Daniel had a light within him that illuminated and revealed things hidden from others, things that he also had the ability to contemplate in a way that led to a true understanding of them, an understanding that he could then apply his wisdom to in order to make shrewd judgments. The accumulation of these abilities enabled Daniel to function as a ruler which is why king Nebuchadnezzar appointed Daniel as the “master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans and soothsayers” — supposedly the wise people of the day.

These other wise people may have had their own abilities, knowledge and talents, but clearly they didn’t have the combination of all three attributes that Daniel had.

What we can learn from this is that we don’t simply want knowledge, understanding and wisdom. We don’t even want simply the ability to bring understanding to the knowledge of man by applying the wisdom we have from God and scriptures.

No, we want God’s illumination of things that are hidden and missed by others who do not have His light. We want real understanding that is birthed from contemplation in the presence of God, by living in His Spirit. And we want comprehension on how to act prudently that is based on insight and wisdom derived from the heart of God.

To be like Daniel is to have God’s light within us illuminating mysteries and knowledge. To be like Daniel is to have our contemplation and understanding be guided by His Spirit and character. And to be like Daniel is to have our decisions and judgments be ascribed to the nature and wisdom of God.

Daniel was found to have light and understanding and wisdom. May we be found to be able to illuminate things that are darkened to the world, to be able to contemplate with the mind of Christ and bring understanding to the things that have been illuminated, and to be able to make wise judgments on how to act based on the understanding of the things that have been illuminated.

In short, Daniel was able to step into spheres of authority and rulership because he had wisdom on how to prudently act based on a contemplative understanding of mysteries that had been illuminated by the light of God within him.

Or simply, Daniel was a man found to have light and understanding and wisdom.

But this is where we often miss what was truly unique with Daniel. He not only had light and understanding and wisdom, but he also didn’t separate them into separate spheres of heart, mind and spirit as we typically do with the Western mindset. To us contemplation and understanding are elements of our minds and intellect. Light and illumination are elements of our spirit. Wisdom largely flows from our hearts and souls.

But this is not the way Daniel saw it.

Instead, Daniel pulled on God’s wisdom each step of the way. Think about it. Step one is the illumination phase when God’s light reveals things that have been hidden from others. Step two is the contemplation phase when our minds seek the mind of Christ and to perceive how God understands what has been illuminated. Step three is the wisdom phase where we seek the discernment of God on what to do about it.

Each phase requires our spirits to hear what God is showing us. Each phase requires our carnal hearts to be subjected to the heavenly ways of seeing things. Each phase requires our minds to perceive as His mind does.

In other words, wisdom doesn’t simply come down from God to help us with insight and understanding, but Godly wisdom is a comprehensive aspect of His character that is meant to transform our hearts, minds and spirits so that all aspects of our lives function as He does in His heavenly realm. All three must be renewed. All three must follow Him. All three must be linked by and to Him.

This is wisdom. This is how deep mysteries will be revealed. This is how the codes will be broken.

This is what will make us the Code Breakers, the revealers of the mysteries of the living God.

Does this make sense to you?

Consider the Copernican Principle, the idea that we do not occupy a privileged position in the universe. As Fred Heeren of First Things says in an article here:

Many regard [the Copernican Principle] as a necessary axiom for the continued success of the scientific enterprise. The practice of science begins, we are told, with the assumption that we are typical, not exceptional. We can’t scientifically study a sampling of one, after all. Moreover, history suggests that Copernicus began an unstoppable progression: the world’s greatest modern thinkers proposed and then proved that the Earth is not the center of the universe, that the Sun is not the center, that our galaxy is not the center, and finally, that there is no center.

Copernicus gave us the theory to take the first step, and Galileo demonstrated its truth. Einstein gave us the theory to take the last steps, and Edwin Hubble’s observations of distant galaxies convinced the world.

Astronomer Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, calls Hubble’s achievement “the last great step in the revolution of thought regarding mankind’s place in the cosmos that had been initiated by Copernicus.” But today’s Copernican Principle proposes, not only that the universe does not revolve around the Earth, but that the universe does not revolve around us, either literally or figuratively.

But the Copernican Principle isn’t the only one contending to explain our position relative to the universe. Heeren goes on to explain:

In their classic book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler [write that the principle they prefer] is their Anthropic Principle, which doesn’t try to explain away our privileged place or time, but instead says that the features of the universe are constrained by the need to permit observers like us. The less delicate way to put this is to say that the universe appears to have been finely tuned in its fundamental force strengths, particle mass ratios, etc., for our benefit.

Most scientists dislike the direction the Anthropic Principle points them, not just because it implies God as an easy answer, but because, once again, it commits heresy against Copernican dogma. “It seems to me a sort of hubris to think that God made the universe just for us,” said cosmologist George Smoot. “It seems to me, I’d just make the universe full of life.”

Theoretical physicists such as Stephen Hawking have spent much of their energies looking for better explanations for the many anthropic “coincidences,” seeing red flags go up with each violation of the Copernican Principle. But surely there must be a deeper reason for choosing one principle over another. Hoping to learn it, I asked Stephen Hawking himself. What disturbs him most about the Anthropic Principle? “The human race is so insignificant,” he told me, “I find it difficult to believe the whole universe is a necessary precondition for our existence.”

In other words, the Earth may be so rare in the universe that we may be the only intelligent life in the entire place. The entire universe with all of its billions of galaxies may actually be the “necessary precondition” for our existence. And that is just too much for some to accept. The Copernican Principle is so much more palatable. It is so much easier to deal with. With Copernicus, we are not special, we are not the center, we are not important.

Unfortunately, the universe isn’t cooperating with this thesis. Instead, it is providing evidence that draws us to consider that we may in fact be very special indeed. Not only the center, but the climax of what the universe was wired — dare I say created — to produce.

And isn’t that difficult to accept?

But consider how all of Christianity is difficult to accept. Think about it. Christians believe in an eternal God that created all the billions and billions of galaxies, filled each with billions and billions of stars, and yet he supposedly cares about some grubby sin-infested creatures on some small and insignificant planet called Earth! Why should he care a bit about us? Why should such a powerful Creator want to have anything to do with us?

We aren’t all that smart. We aren’t all that good. We aren’t all that strong. We can’t fix our own problems. We pollute. We kill. We destroy.

And yet He loves us? You got to be crazy! What arrogance! What audacity! What shear hubris!

He is perfection beyond our wildest imaginations. He breathed His life into us and created us in His image. And what have we done to thank him?

We have taken what He has given us and squandered it on sinful lusts. We have grieved Him and brought shame upon Him. We have mocked Him, not listened to Him, rebelled against Him, and even
believed He is a hoax!

Why should He want to have ANYTHING to do with us? Really. It’s utterly insane!

And yet…

And yet, like the father in the story of the prodigal son, He comes running to us when we return to Him. He throws a robe on us giving us dignity, He puts His ring on our finger bestowing on us the authority of His household, and He kisses us! He kills the fatted calf and throws a feast because He rejoices that we have come home to Him!

And yet, He sends his only Son — who is entirely one with Him — to die in our place so that we can live and not be separated from Him. The Son takes on our sin separating himself from the Father, so that we can be declared sinless.

And yet, He sends his own Spirit to comfort and help us, to pour his living waters into us bringing us His life, to show us the deep mysteries of the infinite God.

And yet, He chooses us to be His bride! He courts us and woos us. He waves his banner over us and gives us the new wine of His love. He speaks to us and calls us. He heals us and dances with us.

Over and over He reveals to us a love beyond comprehension, a heart that is set on us, a passion unparalleled in the universe, whispering our names and calling out to us.

Who could possibly believe in such a God? Who could dare to say such a God exists? Who could claim to be the object of His love, the very reason He created the entire universe? Who could even speak of such things without being considered a raving lunatic?

And yet, blindly, crazily, insanely — we believe.

Like Eric Liddle (as portrayed in the movie Chariots of Fire), our hearts run to such an incredible love, we throw back our heads in the wondrous sight of Him who is like no other, we become a curious spectacle in the sight of others with our hands flailing — and we feel the pleasure of our God!

It is amazing beyond belief. And yet we have heard His voice calling our name.

Listen. Listen for He whispers to you. And in that whisper you realize that Copernicus was wrong after all. We are far more at the center of some grand play than we ever dared dream. Amazing. Truly Amazing.

No?

Radio talk-show host Dennis Prager recently wrote a column about some thoughts he had on the subject of love (see here). Two of his points stood out to me:

3. That is one reason the notion of “unconditional love” is foolish. The fact is, we all earn love, and it is a good thing to have to do so. What possible good purpose can the belief that your spouse loves you unconditionally — i.e., no matter how you act — serve? If we believe our spouse loves us no matter what we do, what would motivate us to be on our best behavior at all times? Why be kind even when we are in a foul mood? Why work to stay attractive if he will love me no matter how much I neglect how I look? Why continue to pay attention to her — like regularly calling her from work — if I know that even if I ignore her, she will continue to love me?

Unconditional love is not a good idea. I don’t know where it originated, but I am quite certain it’s relatively recent, a product of an age that has put primary importance on feelings. With the possible exception of a parent’s love for a young child, unconditional love is not a good idea among people, and it’s probably not a good idea concerning God’s love for us. I am familiar with no biblical basis for the notion that God loves us no matter how much cruelty and evil we engage in (God’s love of His Chosen People, Israel, is specifically depicted as conditional upon Israel’s behavior), or for the notion that God loved Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa equally. Frankly, I would be disappointed in such a God. It renders Him a love machine whose love cannot be affected by our behavior, not a loving being who is affected by how we act. It renders His love amoral. And it prevents us from growing up.

4. “God is love” is a half-truth. God is many things, and love is only one of them. One can just as accurately say “God is punishment” or “God is justice” or “God is truth.”

Certainly, Dennis brings a Jewish perspective on God’s love. But what about that? Do we need to alter or expand our Christian perspective of God’s love given Dennis’ perspective?

Well, this past week I was at a Christian conference and heard two ministers say something that pertains to this topic. First was a lady from Costa Rica who is now a Canadian citizen and assists the government of Canada in negotiations with other governments.

One time when she was in Brazil she had to meet an important judge in the Amazon region. When he came into the room where she was, everybody bowed in his presence in a way that showed great respect. When she told him she needed the help of another official who had put off meeting with her, the judge walked to the man’s office, who upon seeing the judge bowed down and immediately agreed to give the woman whatever assistance she needed. Everywhere she went with the judge, doors were opened, people moved out of the way and bowed down. When they determined that the laws of Canada and Brazil conflicted preventing the project she was negotiating from going forward, the judge simply declared that he would order the laws of Brazil to be changed.

The lady said that God impressed upon her that He wanted her to meet this judge for a reason. We seldom see a true sovereign ruler on Earth, and with our Western mindsets we just don’t grasp what it means to be sovereign. God was telling her that she needed to realize that He is not just a loving Father God, He is also a ruling sovereign judge and king.

This was an important lesson for her because of what she related next.

She said her 11-year old daughter suffered a seizure one day. They rushed her to the hospital but they couldn’t stop the seizures that lasted over an hour and a half. At the end the doctor told her that one of the worst possible things had occurred and her daughter had contracted cerebral palsy. Having had a relative with that, she could clearly recognize the familiar appearance on her own daughter.

But she said she had just been to a church retreat where they spoke a lot on the love of God and how much He is a loving Father. For whatever reason, she simply couldn’t shake the feeling of how much God loved her and she couldn’t stop smiling — even in the face of the tragedy of her daughter.

The doctor thought she had snapped and stopped talking to her. But she kept feeling God’s love and so she prayed that God would heal her daughter. By the next day, all signs of the palsy left. The doctor was so surprised that he ran lots of tests until he was convinced she really was back to normal. He kept saying how he couldn’t get over what had happened and he took pictures of the girl because it so impressed him.

The mother said she asked God why He had put her through that horrific experience and she said God impressed on her that He had been drawing the doctor to know Him, but the doctor had a block. So, God used her daughter to help the doctor see that there is a real God.

Now would a loving Father do such a thing? No. But a sovereign God would.

And that’s the point. Christians too often constrict God to a God that can only function as a loving Father. But of course He is more than that.

The second minister I heard at the conference is a pastor from Indonesia who now lives in California. He mentioned that when Bible translators begin on a new language they almost invariably begin with John 3:16 and then proceed to the story of the prodigal son. And isn’t the story of the prodigal son one of the central pictures we have of God’s amazing love for us — no matter what we’ve done?

Now, there is a condition in that story. The prodigal son had to return to the father.

But the prodigal son had it right. After what he had done, he no longer deserved to called a son. Justice demanded that his son-ship be forfeited. But there is something greater than justice and that is God’s mercy.

The prodigal son did not merit mercy. The mercy was solely a gift of the father’s heart of love for his son.

We can walk away from God’s love. We can leave on our own accord and end up in desolation. But even at our lowest point, we have the option to make a choice, the choice to return to the Father. It is when we chose to return that He sees us from afar and runs out to meet us not even giving us the chance to confess what justice says about us. God’s love outruns His justice. His love calls for dignity to be restored to us — a ring on our finger, a robe to cover us and sandals to shod our feet. His love calls for a celebration, a party, a feast.

But wait. Look, for somebody isn’t too happy with all this love and mercy.

Somebody has been living his whole life doing what is right, being good, doing what the law instructs he should do. And what has he gained for all this? Has the father given him even a goat, let alone the fatted calf?

The father entreats him to come in and join in the celebration for the one who was lost but is now found, the one who was dead but is now alive.

But he doesn’t even want to call the prodigal his brother. He is angry and doesn’t share the father’s heart. In fact, for all his obedience to the father’s commands, he doesn’t seem to even want to be with the father. He seeks feast and merriment with his own friends — apparently apart from the father.

Now, who do you think the father loves more? Or does he love his sons equally?

In one sense the father’s love is equal for his two sons, but in another sense his heart has clearly been gladden by the one who finally made a choice to return, and his heart is torn by the one who while being obedient and living in the house, hasn’t chosen to share the father’s joy, or heart of mercy.

For me, the obedient son represents the Jewish Pharisees. Obedient for sure, but not ones who move the father’s heart. The prodigal son represents all those who have fallen short, and especially gentiles like us. We have squandered our inheritance — our gifts and the resources He has granted us. We have lived outside the law — living the way we saw fit. We have become lost and dead — deadened even to our plight.

And yet one day we wake up, come to our senses and say it would be better to be God’s slave than to live in our misery. And so we chose to return and to our utter amazement God has been watching and waiting for us. He takes us in as if we have always been his children. He gives us more than what even the obedient son has come to expect.

And it’s all because we come to our senses and return. And from that perspective we are able to see what the obedient son cannot. We have the gift of seeing God’s rich mercy and grace. And it changes us.

Suddenly that’s all we talk about. His love has been so great that we see little else. It’s our hope. It’s our marvel. It’s why we know we can trust and believe in Him.

And yet He remains sovereign. He remains a God of justice — a God to be feared — exactly the Father the obedient son knew.

Could it be that the perspective of both sons are needed? Could it be that we (Jew and Christian) have been looking at two sides of the same coin? Could it be that His justice can only be understood when we see His mercy — and His mercy can only be understood when we see His justice?

Unconditional love? Not exactly for the prodigal had to return, he had to come to his senses. But God’s ability to forgive and restore relationship is incomparable.

“God is love” a half-truth? Well, for me God’s love is what BOTH His justice and mercy flow out of. It is the basis that makes both work as one. It is His essence. And yet His sovereignty means He is not bound by what we think that love will look like.

The obedient son didn’t think the Father should show the amount of mercy He did. Neither did the prodigal. They were both wrong. It seems nobody really comprehends the heart of the Father or the richness of His mercy. But at least the prodigal experienced it — and that opened his mind to what the obedient son couldn’t get his heart or mind around.

Not only were both sons wrong about the Father’s mercy. They were both wrong about His sovereignty. Both thought justice would demand the Father behave differently. But again, the Father is not bound by our conception of justice. He is sovereign. Truly sovereign.

And full of love. Thank God.

What is your perspective? I’d love to hear!