My Grown Up Christmas List

About a week my husband’s cousin had a Facebook status that I really liked. It went like this:

Every Christmas you always hear people saying they want and bought. Well this is what I want: I want people who are sick with no cure, to be cured. I want children with no families, to be adopted; I want people to never have to worry about food and shelter & heat. Now, lets see how many people re-post this who actually care.... I have a feeling I am gonna see almost no re-posts. Then again I have faith in people…

I’m not sure the post originated with her, but I wouldn’t be surprised—she has that kind of heart. The statement reminded me of one of my favorite secular Christmas songs. My favorite artist is Amy Grant, but it has been repeated by Kelly Clarkson, Michael Buble, Monica, and even Aretha Franklin recorded it in 2007 on her This Christmas album. It’s called “My Grown Up Christmas List,” and here are the lyrics:

Do you remember me

I sat upon your knee

I wrote to you with childhood fantasies

Well I'm all grown up now

And still need help somehow

I'm not a child

But my heart still can dream

So here's my lifelong wish

My grown up Christmas list

Not for myself

But for a world in need

No more lives torn apart

That wars would never start

And time would heal all hearts

And everyone would have a friend

And right would always win

And love would never end ooh

This is my grown up Christmas list

As children we believe

The grandest sight to see

Was something lovely

Wrapped beneath the tree

But heaven only knows

That packages and bows

Can never heal a heartached human soul

No more lives torn apart

That wars would never start

And time would heal all hearts

And everyone would have a friend

And right would always win

And love would never end no

This is my grown up Christmas list

What is this illusion called the innocence of youth

Maybe only in our blind belief can we ever find the truth

No more lives torn apart

That wars would never start

And time would heal all hearts

Everyone would have a friend

And right would always win

And love would never end

This is my grown up Christmas list

This is my only lifelong wish

This is my grown up Christmas list...

I guess I’m just hoping that people who are grown up now realize that they aren’t sitting on Santa’s knee wishing for things anymore. They are grown up, responsible citizens, responsible to God, living in His kingdom, and part of His redemption plan. It’s our responsibility as His children to bring help, healing, truth and love to the world. Johnny’s cousin, Laura, is certainly doing her part in the arena of the hurting, those who need help transitioning into society from life's hard situations. May we all open our eyes more to the needs around us. There are many.

Merry Christmas!


Amy Grant: My Grown Up Christmas List

David Foster/Natalie Cole: My Grown Up Christmas List

Let us do evil that good may come

What is the Christian ethic regarding the income tax?

How can God's command to not steal be broken and yet many Christians applaud it as a good thing if accomplished by majority vote?

If you say that it is done for a good cause, how do you escape the rationale in my title?

The scripture nowhere endorses this scheme. In both Old and New Testaments charitable giving is to be done willingly.

This kind of giving puts a sword into the hand of the state that robs Christ of His glory and the church of her witness, therefore I say that Christians are presently obligated to pay the income tax. The fact that it is unrighteous is no excuse to not pay, as Christ taught Peter regarding the temple tax. We should at the same time seek it's demise, by voting, speaking, and writing as we have opportunity.

Who Owns Us?

Moral or Immoral Government

by Walter E. Williams

Immorality in government lies at the heart of our nation's problems. Deficits, debt and runaway government are merely symptoms. What's moral and immoral conduct can be complicated, but needlessly so. I keep things simple and you tell me where I go wrong.

My initial assumption is that we each own ourselves. I am my private property and you are yours. If we accept the notion that people own themselves, then it's easy to discover what forms of conduct are moral and immoral. Immoral acts are those that violate self-ownership. Murder, rape, assault and slavery are immoral because those acts violate private property. So is theft, broadly defined as taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another.

If it is your belief that people do not belong to themselves, they are in whole or in part the property of the U.S. Congress, or people are owned by God, who has placed the U.S. Congress in charge of managing them, then all of my observations are simply nonsense.

Let's look at some congressional actions in light of self-ownership. Do farmers and businessmen have a right to congressional handouts? Does a person have a right to congressional handouts for housing, food and medical care?

First, let's ask: Where does Congress get handout money? One thing for sure, it's not from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus nor is it congressmen reaching into their own pockets. The only way for Congress to give one American one dollar is to first, through the tax code, take that dollar from some other American. It must forcibly use one American to serve another American. Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership.

Government immorality isn't restricted only to forcing one person to serve another. Some regulations such as forcing motorists to wear seatbelts violate self-ownership. If one owns himself, he has the right to take chances with his own life. Some people argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt, have an accident and become a vegetable, you'll become a burden on society. That's not a problem of liberty and self-ownership. It's a problem of socialism where through the tax code one person is forcibly used to care for another.

These examples are among thousands of government actions that violate the principles of self-ownership. Some might argue that Congress forcing us to help one another and forcing us to take care of ourselves are good ideas. But my question to you is: When congressmen and presidents take their oaths of office, is that oath to uphold and defend good ideas or the U.S. Constitution?

When the principles of self-ownership are taken into account, two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does violate those principles to one degree or another as well as the Constitution to which they've sworn to uphold and defend. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?

You might answer, "He forgot the general welfare clause." No, he had that covered, saying, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."

If we accept the value of self-ownership, it is clear that most of what Congress does is clearly immoral. If this is bothersome, there are two ways around my argument. The first is to deny the implications of self-ownership. The second is to ask, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi did when asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

December 7, 2010

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. 

Copyright © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Courtesy of Lew Rockwell

Human liberty = Private property

When I suggest to my Christian brothers and sisters that God has given to individual people three basic human rights: life, liberty, and property, and that the only legitimate function of government is to prohibit and punish the violation of these rights, I find that they willingly support my assertion regarding the first two. Yet they are not sure about a human right to property.

Our anti-abortion stance is grounded on the God-given right to life.

American Christians almost universally oppose involuntary servitude as a violation of the human right to liberty.

I contend that the God-given human right to liberty is in fact synonymous with the right to property.

Each of us has been given a mind to think what we will, a mouth to speak what we will, and hands and feet to go and do where and what we will. These gifts are properly ours and belong to us and no one else. Our right to liberty is nothing if we have no property to exercise.

Though we are accountable to God for our use of this property He still grants liberty to use them as we will.

God alone accurately weighs our thoughts, words and actions but when we use these faculties to deprive our fellow men of their life, liberty and property God commits prohibiting and punishing power to men in the form of the civil authorities.

From these bodily faculties--our most intimate property--come all other property rights. As we trade the use of them for wages those wages become wholly ours and no one else's.

The same is true as we find, gather, and develop limited resources with our bodily property. These resources become ours.

On Juan Williams, Fox, and NPR…

I thought it was about time that I told somebody, anybody, why I started listening to or watching the Fox News Channel instead of CNN once we got cable. One day I was watching the Saturday morning Fox and Friends show and I heard somebody mention Jesus. They were not smirking or talking ugly about Him in any way. They were being very matter of fact in their speech, as if He really existed. That was the day that Fox became my favorite. Plus the fact that Kelly Wright from Hampton Roads now works for them! Cool!

Now I know that there are shows on Fox that are deliberately right wing and only present that point of view. However, on the other channels, there are deliberately left wing shows that only present that point of view. Everyone is free to flip the channels. I have heard so many friends of mine put down Fox, and some of them don’t even have cable. Some of those friends make a point of not watching news much at all! Yet some of my Christian friends put down this right wing network as if it is a pariah, and think that they will be considered totally uncool and socially unfit if they watch or listen to any conservative talk radio or Fox news.

I think what I search for when I want “news” or “information” is truth. Where is it? The elusive truth seems to be out there somewhere and we are all searching for a bit of it here and there from people we listen to for information about what is going on in our cities, our nation, and our world. If we don’t have some kind of balance in what we are hearing, we are not going to be able to rightly divide the word of truth in our secular world. There are so many opinions coming at us from people who have no clue what God wants them to do and who are not seeking His will for them, that those of us who are attempting to follow Him must seek Him all the more in this world of deceit, subterfuge, and folly. I don't think we're going to find God on any cable news network or radio station.

Fox is a good balance to network news and NPR. We should be careful not to get too exclusive with any of our news sources. Say what you will, NPR is not 100% down the middle. Any of you Fox haters won’t read this because of the source, but you can read of some of their bias here:

NPR Imbalance

I, for one, will hope that Juan Williams is seated right next to Charles Krauthammer at Fox each night at 6:45 p.m. so that I can hear both of their opinions on the day’s breaking stories because I like both of their analyses. I think they are both brilliant and I like to hear them both since they have differing takes on the same subjects because of their worldviews.

Just call me socially unfit, and totally uncool…

The Tinted Window…

We all see things through a glass darkly. Unfortunately, we all see things through our own tinted window.

Everything we have ever gone through in our lives, our entire upbringing, our families, our education, our work, our friends, our acquaintances, our mates, our children, our churches, our faith—all give us a window through which we view the world differently from the person standing right next to us.

We try to keep to our particular worldview—the one we choose—the one we want to have. I actually want to have a biblical worldview. Yet I do things each and every day that keep me from having that worldview, and it frustrates me. Every time I don’t thoroughly examine my own actions through the lens of Scripture I’m in danger. Let me give an example.

I love spy novels. I became especially enamored with Vince Flynn’s series of books about Mitch Rapp, the CIA operative/assassin who hunts down high-ranking terrorists for elimination (or information, which usually involves torture). Okay, let’s reconcile that with Scripture…hmmmm…I’m searching for a verse…know what? Through my tinted window, I may be able to come up with something that will justify my thirst for the elimination of a terrorist, and my agreement with Flynn that the terrorist eliminated was totally unredeemable. I wonder if really want to confer with the Lord about that, though…

Another example might be that I watch movies or television shows that are culturally relevant to today. What do I mean by that? Colorful language is prevalent, innuendo abounds, all of it is wrapped around humor so funny I’m just about rolling on the floor…my stress is being relieved…ahh…here we go! I found Proverbs 17:22a: "A happy heart is good medicine and a cheerful mind works healing." [Amplified Bible]. Oops…lets look at verse 22b: "but a broken spirit dries up the bones." Well! King Solomon just had to impart that bit of inspired wisdom! And in Proverbs 14:13 he said, “Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful, and the end of mirth is heaviness and grief." [AB]. Gets me to thinking about what I find so funny…

All this to say, as I am learning more about the worldview I chose, I am learning more about true joy. Most of it comes in the morning for me. That’s when my worldview is closest to being worked out. It is only as my day progresses that it wanders from its true home. I’m learning to make those choices that more closely align me with the worldview I love, and to analyze fully the choices that steer me from the path of slavery to true freedom. It’s a wild and fascinating ride!

Total depravity = small government

Why am I an advocate of small government?

The answer to this question seems to me to be a no-brainer.

I am an advocate of small government because I am a five-point Calvinist Christian.

Specifically, I believe that mankind in general and all men in particular are in every facet of their humanity affected by Adam's fall into sin. This belief lends itself to advocating a decentralized civil government with the greatest number of powers being exercised by the individual people themselves since the ability of one citizen to tyrannize another is extremely small.

As groups of citizens band together and create rules of behavior, (towns, cities) they must delegate the enforcement of rules to a minority, (sheriffs, police, and judges) who have at their disposal pre-legalized, overwhelming force. For this reason the extent of their powers must be severely limited.

This principle continues up from individuals to the Federal level because of man's propensities to tyrannize his fellows.

I Used To Be a Liberal. . .

I was born in the 50’s and graduated from high school in the 70’s. I’m from the era of Billy Jack. Do I need to say more?

My senior year of high school I stuffed paper boxes for McGovern. I’m sure my mom and dad thought I had flipped a lid. When I told them it was for extra credit, they didn’t say a word. Although I was pretty consistently an A-B student, they weren’t going to argue with “extra credit.” Heck, they even paid for the gas!

Do you know…I had no idea how liberal I really was? On the one hand I abhorred the thought of abortion, but I have written proof of a letter written to the editor of a newspaper about how teen pregnancy ruins the life of so many people, from the baby right on through the grandparents of the mother. Of course there were no alternatives or options given to abortion—I’m not sure there were that many or that I was aware of them if there were. My grandmother was so proud of me for being published in the paper that she put it in my scrapbook! How is that for a memory coming back to haunt you?

My parents didn’t talk about politics or current controversial affairs much, although looking back they always voted pretty conservatively. The only exception was Carter—the peanut farmer. To this day, my mother will talk about the traitorous peanut farmer who stabbed the Virginia peanut farmers in the back. It was the last time she voted for a Democrat—me too, actually. It was the first time I could vote.

I remember when Rush Limbaugh first came to the radio scene. To some of us he was a breath of fresh air, expressing ideas that we felt but never heard anyone on any of the airways communicate. He was brash, in your face, shocking in his methods, but he sounded truthful to us because he expressed something publicly that we felt privately. No one else was expressing those views with such success. We were thoroughly entertained by it. Then I was unpleasantly shocked to find that my intelligence was questioned because I listened to him and found him entertaining.

It wasn’t long before I was learning about hate—in America. I never paid much attention to it before. It seemed to me that it was just “freedom of speech” and that freedom included the right to fly flags, burn flags, pledge to flags, pray, worship…I can’t even list the freedoms there are so many we are given. Men and women of all faiths died to give us those freedoms. I understand we have the freedom to hate—but as a Christian I do not have that freedom.

Why this diatribe? I’ve been thinking lately that what might work us up is what we are digesting. Newspapers, magazines, Internet, television, and radio all set us up to digest emotion. Evidently emotion is now a commodity. Do we want to contribute to the culture in such a way that we sell ourselves totally to the information age and its offerings? In February I went to a great seminar a friend of mine presented in which she suggested a Sabbath from “gadgetry,” or technology. Another of my friends expressed it this way in one of his weekly newspaper articles:

Rex Alphin: Information Proclamation

I’m going to try the concept. I think it will be a good exercise in realizing how dependent, how addicted we have become to information.

As for being liberal or conservative, I’m not sure exactly where I stand politically anymore. I suppose I’m somewhere in between, constantly looking for someone, anyone who speaks a shred of truth. I think we’ll need more than a Sabbath to figure that one out.

The Beauty of Property Rights

Or...Toward a Christian view of, “Yours, Mine, and Ours”

As I talk with my Christian brothers and sisters lately regarding charitable giving and government policy and what approach we should advocate when it comes to providing for the poor it seems that many in the church are torn between supporting “state re-distribution of wealth” and individual liberty.

I want to at least begin a discussion of this matter by looking at the origins of property rights.
Karl Marx and Max Engels in “The Communist Manifesto” state that

“…, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in
the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

I don’t for a moment think that all who hold to Marxist ideals are Marxists themselves, however Christians are easily confused because they equate the covenant body-life described in the book of Acts which is rightly seen as a Christian ideal social structure with Karl Marx’ view of state-imposed elimination of personal property.

The first is voluntary on an individual basis. The second is accomplished by force on a collective basis.

Even though that infamous couple in the fifth chapter of Acts had joined themselves voluntarily to the Church, their giving was still a matter of individual conscience before God even to the separating of husband and wife.

The difference between Christian charity and Marxism is not a subtle one but the difference between giving and taking.

by Dan B.

Human Rights IV

If I had read my own "human rights" stuff without knowing who wrote it I would have a big question for me. It would go something like this; okay Dan, so you claim to be a Christian but all that I see you quoting are philosophers and The Declaration of Independence.

You made the assertion that God gave human rights to individuals and not to groups and then offered evidence that does nothing to back up that assertion.




You say that human rights are life, liberty, and property but you must know that as good as the Declaration is, Christians must give their allegiance to Jesus Christ as He is commended to us in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Besides, Jefferson was no Christian.



Where in the Bible do you see those three human rights spelled out? Huh? Where?

Okay. I've got me.



First of all a right presupposes authority. A right must be conferred on a lesser by the greater authority. God alone possesses all rights as He is the Author of all.

God has the right to life by His very nature.

In the creation account God breaths the breath of life into the first man and he becomes a living soul. Male and female he made them, able to reproduce after their kind. In this way God grants to man the right to life.

We know that this right is granted to individuals because of Gods reaction to the first murder. Cain did not murder mankind but a specific man. It was Ables' blood that cried out from the ground.

I dont think that I need to show how God alone has liberty

By placing man in the garden and prescribing limits God gave man liberty to obey or not. Though man had liberty to disobey he had no authority to do so. Mans liberty is bounded by Gods.

The rights to liberty and property go hand in hand. The first couple had liberty to use their property; ears to listen to the serpents words, minds to consider them and weigh them against the words of their Creator, eyes to look at the fruit, and hands to take it as well as put it to their mouths. property in this sense makes liberty something. otherwise it is nothing.
Property outside of mans body is an extension of his bodily property. When man mixes this bodily property with Gods providence he attains property rights.

Man is accountable to God only for uses of his property that do not violate the life, liberty, and property of other men.

A Quiz For You...

Who penned each of the following, and under what circumstances?  What is your reaction to each statement without knowing the authors and the situations? What are the similarities and differences of the statements out of context, but knowing the context and the authors, is your reaction to each statement the same?

Statement 1

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.”

Statement 2

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Answers for Mary Sue

Thank you for the thoughtful questions. I will try to answer them in the order they were asked.

The pros of government involvement for Christians;

• Pleasing Christ- He said go, teach, do good works, pray, and give that Gods kingdom may come and His will be done.



• Blessing men- Men are made in Gods image therefore they have dignity. Our good works are to be done to men, especially to fellow Christians. We should be strong advocates for justice, especially for the weak since they are often victims of injustice.

The cons of government involvement for Christians;

• The power of the sword is always dangerous so our involvement should be well thought out, realizing that our efforts will be joined with those who will attempt to use us for evil.


• We will attract new enemies.


• If we adhere to only protecting individual liberty we will be viewed as doing nothing by those who want to use the sword in order to make people good or to gain market share.

I would rather say that power tempts men to give free reign to their sinful natures. Some are stronger than others and even a strong Christian can have a weak moment. God will choose His champions and we are not all called to the same level of involvement. We are a body.

Human Rights III

In my second post on human rights I referred to a quotation from Thomas Paine regarding the connection between "society" and "government".

It should be obvious that the church of Jesus is part of society. Because the church is voluntary using its commission to teach and baptise in order to persuade men, in and outside of government, toward love and good works it acts positively.

The government is entirely different; utilizing overwhelming force it acts negatively to punish evil-doers after they have rejected the doctrine of the church and violated their neighbors life, liberty or property.

I think that many Christians are confused between these two very different structures.

Gospel obedience should be and is enforced on those who by free profession have joined themselves to the church, but not on those outside the faith.

Christians should advocate for the sword to punish murderers, menstealers, and thieves. In doing this they will join together with atheists, agnostics, and others in recognition of basic human rights.

Christians should not advocate for the sword in re-distributing individual wealth or favoring some citizens over others.

Human Rights II

In my first post on human rights I ended with a quote from Ayn Rand who was no friend of the Christian church.

That quote is found in a collection of articles gathered under the title, Textbook of Americanism.

Rand of course didn't come up with this. These ideas may be traced to Thomas Jefferson to John Locke and others. We can find them stated succinctly in our Declaration of Independence.

I will attempt to head off criticisms of these principles from my Christian brothers and sisters by referring to Thomas Paine.

In his pamphlet, Common Sense after his introduction he begins with these words," some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."

I would add that society is obviously first. It is brought about because man was created a social creature.

Though man was created upright he of course fell so that sin mars any society and must be dealt with. From this arises the need for Government.

Human Rights, Got any?

When it comes to men governing men Christians understand that God is the source of human rights but just how does He bestow them?

I think that the answer to this "how" question will determine how we go about redeeming government.

I will tell you my aim in beginning this discussion. I hope to persuade my fellow Christians that God grants human rights only to individual human beings NOT to groups or institutions.

The importance of this distinction will become clearer as it is fleshed out.

I offer this quote as a beginning,

" Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems."

A Man and His Dog...

Is it just me or are a man and his dog something of a phenomenon? Maybe it’s just the ones that live in the house with the man that have the weird personalities, but my husband’s dog is as routine in his habits as his master. It’s uncanny.

After we lost our blonde lab/collie mix about five years ago (one great dog), we were pretty sure there were no other great dogs out there for us. One day I was in Portsmouth at a friend’s beauty shop, and a gal brought in a puppy with my friend’s clean towels. It looked like the perfect puppy, because it was following her as she was speaking to it. It seemed very obedient, quite adorable. It was blonde, apparently a mix of something (or two or three), and endearing because some masochist had obviously tried to ruin part of its tail by putting a tight rubber band on it to stub it. So sad. This gal already had three cats in her apartment, so her husband was not in favor of keeping this puppy—which she had rescued from roaming the busy streets of Port Norfolk—and I had a feeling that my husband would fall in love with the little fellow. He was exactly the right color!

I talked him into driving down in the evening and better than $150 later we had ourselves a little puppy just happy as a lark to please us. He was fairly easy to train—we did the crate training, and as near as I can remember we never had to clean up any messes from the crate. There was the occasional accident, but on the whole Duncan was a pretty easy puppy in the training department. Potty that is. Because from the moment we brought him home there was just one word for him—hyper. My husband just egged him on.

His favorite thing to do is R-U-N-N-O-F-T. Now that he’s a little older, he tires out quicker and gets thirsty faster, so he will come home quicker. My brother even bought us one of those expensive underground fences—you all know the problem with those if they bolt—and he bolts! Then, someone drove over the wire and broke it and that was the end of that!

Now five years later we have a dog of routine. He knows Saturdays best and loves them dearly. That’s the day he gets to ride with his man in the truck to the dump. The words “go for a ride” “ride in the truck” or “go to the dump” will cause him to jump as high as my husband’s head—a full six foot three.  Until then he has to make do with dancing circles during our three cups of coffee, impatiently waiting his turn for his master’s attention.

He also likes to sit out on the deck with us looking at the birds, killing bugs, and hopefully waiting for the cat, guarding his territory with his very life because the cat shouldn’t really get any of our precious attention while we’re sitting on the deck.

Bedtime is the most precious though, when the 35-pound mutt plops down on our side of the bed (whoever is not there first) waiting for his bit of attention before he grudgingly relinquishes it to us for the night. Then he cuddles up in his favorite spot next to Mom to get some strokes (it must be constant attention, or he has to hop up and reposition, thinking he must not have given me the message…) until he falls asleep. In about twenty minutes, his internal alarm sounds and it’s time to hit the floor for the night (thank you, Jesus!) and we get the bed to ourselves!

What a great dog we have!

More Regarding Social Justice…

Dan B. suggested after we traded a few comments that a discussion regarding the definition of social justice might be in order. My original post indicated that I was leery of Glenn Beck’s warnings and admonitions to those of us who use the term, and to those churches that use it. That’s mostly because I don’t like blanket statements. It’s also why I don’t care for other seemingly unjust things such as highly populated areas like New York, California, and Florida having so many more electoral votes than the majority landmass of the country. But that’s a blog for another day.

I thought I would help the discussion along by giving a few definitions, because just like anything else, social justice and how one defines it will depend quite a bit upon perspective and interpretation. Here goes:

BusinessDictionary.com: Fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. 

Center for Economic and Social Justice: Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development.

Mavericks Teacher Resources: The fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society.

Dan B.’s definition: Each person receives what they are due.

(Dan B.’s is the exact definition of justice as defined by the Center for Economic and Social Justice.)

Mary Sue’s definition (as it applies to me): To give each person, regardless of their station in life, what they are due as I am commanded by Christ: love and access to Him, serving where I am needed to walk with them in a broken world and to encourage them to depend on the One who can provide all they need.

I feel very strongly that because sin entered the world and it is broken, justice does not work perfectly either in the courts or in society. Justice must partner with the gifts God gave us when he created us in His image, the ability to love and care for each other. We are social creatures, and as such relationships are the foundation between Him and us and between each other. This side of eternity we will not have perfection, but we can certainly live toward esteeming others better than ourselves.

It is not an easy or simple definition. I would love your thoughts!

Who's the Smarty Pants?

Ever wish you were funnier or smarter? Every time I’m with my family I wish it. They are so much fun. The talk goes 90 miles an hour and at times I feel quite slow. My family is the type you don’t want to get embroiled watching Jeopardy with or even playing a game of Trivial Pursuit unless you’ve got a team. One of my newest favorites is Smarty Pants for Wii, because the animation is so funny it keeps me entertained even when I perform poorly!

The brains in my family fascinate me, especially those of my husband and my son. I love to call them the “Kings of Useless Facts” but it’s only because I’m jealous. They could have given the late Howard Cosell a run for his money with sports facts, and either of them could have been a sports commentator on just about any sport. It’s uncanny when they watch a game or a NASCAR race to listen to them talk about the action, only to hear the commentator repeat their words seconds later.

My daughters are pretty good, too, at giving their dad a run for his money on the “name that tune” game. The problem (if you want to call it a problem) is that he wants to take the game further into name the band, the year, the lead singer, lead guitarist, drummer, you name it, he probably can! If it’s classic rock, one daughter is the expert, if it’s 80’s, 90’s, hiphop or pop, my youngest will probably beat out her dad and he will quickly tire of the game since he just can’t win.

I guess that’s the secret—it’s the competition. I don’t think I’ve ever been all that competitive. I hear about the “eye of the tiger” you need to win and although I can see it, marvel at it, and even stand in dreadful awe of it if we’re in a crowd of people we don’t know very well, I have rarely felt it. Don’t get me wrong, it feels good to win, but it doesn’t drive me to finish a game when it’s past my bedtime and two cups of coffee isn’t even keeping me going anymore!

So I guess I’ll give up wishing and hoping for being funny and brainy at this late stage of life and settle for wowing people with the occasional chocolate cake, or banana pudding with the “wrong kind of cookies.” In some ways, that makes me the “Smarty Pants.”

Does Glenn Beck listen to us? Did he listen to me? You decide!

I don’t listen to Glenn Beck every day. I couldn’t do it. I probably wouldn’t sleep at night I would be so worked up about the end of America coming any day. However, I do like to tune in for a little while a couple of afternoons a week to see what he’s talking about. Just to see if he’s on a different kick for the week. I must admit, he does his homework.

I’ve been a little miffed about the social justice issue…and the warning that if your church is talking about it or if it is in their mission statements or on their church websites, “look out because they are code words,” and other such admonitions. I know “social justice” per se is not in the Bible, and I know we tend to invent terms that fit the times we live in, but I don’t think our intent is either to be politically correct or culturally savvy, nor do we intend to innocently take terms from twisted oppressive history and make them our new religious policy or our political religion. Sometimes all we are trying to do [as Christians] is to say we have tons of social problems and the way to show justice and mercy is to pay attention, steward our resources wisely, and investigate ways to help fix broken systems. Maybe some of us don’t see the implications of using such terms, and even to get a warning from Beck doesn’t make me want to stop using it.

As a matter of fact, one of the speakers at a conference I attended in February, Dr. Anthony Bradley, was referenced in a DVD series my husband and I purchased and enjoyed from the Heritage Foundation, Seek Social Justice. On May 6, I sent an email to Glenn Beck at Fox News recommending Dr. Anthony Bradley as a contributor (he contributes regularly to CNN) and referenced a recent article on social justice in World magazine (http://online.worldmag.com/2010/04/28/the-elements-of-social-justice/).

Imagine my surprise when Dr. Bradley announced that he was on Beck’s show yesterday (July 13)! I watched the clip, and do you know, Beck explained the gospel of grace perfectly! I’m not taking credit…but it does make me wonder…

(Check out Anthony Bradley’s blog, The Institute. You can find the link over on the right.)

Continuing Discussion...

Yesterday Emily posted a question under "comments." To get the full story, go back and read all the comments on the first page. We will continue the discussion on that topic here for organizational purposes.

New topics will be posted on new pages.

Here are my most recent comments (not answers!) on the discussion:

Emily’s question IS interesting, and I don’t feel qualified to answer in a comment, if at all. I did not design or start this blog to research such theological questions, because I have a Bible study blog already. And as I am working on the post for THAT for this week…and a current post for THIS blog, now I’m sidetracked because this question is so interesting that it does bring up some questions in my mind. So…I did do a little research that brought up some more questions, all of which are valid.

In my study of the Book of Ruth over a year ago, I delved a little into Moabites, and into why Jews should not intermarry into cultures around them. I found a recurring theme from Scripture…idolatry. Race was not mentioned at all…it was the warning not to pick up their religions and their practices of worship. Child sacrifice was mentioned quite often. I don’t recall, and correct me (anyone) if I’m wrong, any passages that warn or forbid adult sacrifices, because I don’t believe that was the practice. So I believe the OT laws and warnings continue the theme of idolatry and practices common in the worship of other gods that YHWH abhorred and forbade rather than calling it human sacrifice. Again, correct me if I’m wrong.

Now, regarding human sacrifices. What would “No one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends” mean? Is this literal or figurative? Is this not human sacrifice? Did not Moses offer for his name to be blotted out of God’s book instead of Israel’s after they made the calf? What type of offer was this? Is the OT prophecy in Isaiah 53 about a human? I think we can never be too dogmatic about God and what we think we are reading into His Word. I like to go back over it a few times or more if I think I’m placing an interpretation on it that isn’t there. That being said, sometimes it is fun to imagine how much more David actually might have said to the “uncircumcised Philistine!”

And do all these questions just beget more questions that have been asked for over two millennia…?

Introducing...Our Blog

Today I am excited to introduce our new blog, Is That What You Think? As someone who thinks entirely too much myself, which can be counterproductive at times (meaning one can tend to isolate oneself, frown a lot, scowl, appear antisocial…) and observing that the Internet is now a forum for thinkers to discuss a multitude of topics ad nauseam, I was encouraged to start a blog. The difficulty in starting the project has been questions (which I have thought about ad nauseam) like: “What would make this blog different from a million other blogs?” or “Who would care anyway?”

The final decision, I decided, is that since everyone is leaving it up to me, the answer is that it doesn’t really matter as long as we have fun and don’t take ourselves too seriously—which I must have been doing up until this point. I need to take a lesson from Bob Newhart and just “Stop It!” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE).

What will make our blog different, is that those of us who write the fascinating articles for it (and trust me, they will be fascinating!) will have no fancy credentials, no college letters behind our names. We are in pleasant company! As one who has struggled with my lack of credentials, I started to investigate some well-known people that I was aware did not finish college, and stumbled upon a wealth of information about people too numerous to mention here. I will list a few of the most shocking. Let me say first, however, that I highly value education, and learning of any kind. A variety of life decisions and directions and values about money and debt plus risk versus reward can affect choices about further education. I make no judgments about anyone’s decisions, as long as they stewarded what they were given to the best of their ability with the information they had at the time. That’s about all any of us can do.

Nine of our Presidents did not receive college degrees. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, and Harry S. Truman all have this commonality. Harrison attended college and Truman attended law school, but neither received a degree.

Some of the wealthiest people in our country’s history never received a college degree. John D. Rockefeller, Sr. dropped out of high school but went on to take some business school classes, and J. Paul Getty dropped out of three universities including Oxford. Bill Gates and Michael Dell both dropped out of college in favor of the entrepreneurial dream. Thanks, guys...I think…

Benjamin Franklin, who is credited with discovering electricity, was also a writer and a political activist. Thomas Edison could not have invented the light bulb without the innovation of Franklin, and I daresay we could not enjoy our music as much as we do today without his creativity and perseverance with the phonograph.

In the entertainment field, neither James Cameron nor Steven Spielberg, both multi-
billion dollar directors, ever finished college and neither, in fact, did Walt Disney. Love them or hate them, neither Michael Moore nor Rush Limbaugh finished college, yet each is multi-talented and highly influential in his own political entertainment spectrum. Walter Cronkite and Peter Jennings brought us the news for years, yet neither of them carried a degree from an institution of higher learning. One of my favorite entertainers, and a man of all-around talents, Steve Martin, does not possess a college degree. Not only does he act, but he is also a stand-up comic, a musician (one of the few to win a Grammy for both comedy and music), and an author, both of adult and children’s books. George Carlin, another of my favorite comedians, did not finish college, yet is widely quoted as a cultural expert. One of the most shocking to me was Kitty Carlisle, the highly polished matron always wearing a ball gown on the panel of the game show To Tell the Truth. I pictured her as one of the most cultured and educated women on television at the time because of the quality of her questions and the persona she carried, which most likely stemmed from her upbringing in private schools in Europe.

So we informal learners, rabid readers, combers of the Internet, magazines, and newspapers, news watchers, Bible students, world observers, stewards of our earth, seekers of justice, lovers of mercy, fun lovers, humble worshippers of our God in heaven who will be writing here understand that we are but specks in this great universe, and we invite you to joins us as we think through some of the random thoughts that flow through our paltry brains, such as:

• Do you think people buy vehicles of a certain color to match their Hokie stickers?
• How can I use less plastic?
• Will there ever be term limits?
• Whatever happened to Bobby Sherman?

and other life altering questions for the ponderer.

‘Til next time…