Prayer Request: Dima

Our church recently had a presentation from Doctor's Without Borders and they are doing an outreach program for homeless children. Part of that is a prayer comitment, and my comittment is to prayer for a child named Dima. I would request prayer for him and the outreach. Dima is 17 years old, and has a toxic drug addiction. Part of the prayer request is for that, the other is for his spiritual and social development as he has potential for leadership.

Prayer Warrior

For all professing Christians reading this I have a question for you: Are you a prayer warrior? If you answered no, then you need to begin to really re-evaluate your sincerity in professing Christ. Harsh? Yeah, it is, but I keep going over that sentence and realize there's no nicer way of putting it. If you are a Christian you should be a prayer warrior, end of story.

Now don't get me wrong, some are defintiely better than others. There are some, how shall I put it...Green Berets of Prayer Warriors. There's one that comes to my mind in my church here in Moscow, as a friend of mine put it "Just from what she says to you, you think she must pray all the time." Don't even for a minute think that means she's bragging about her praying. She doesn't, she will simply mention to you that she's praying for you. And from what I can tell, she says that to most everyone she meets. And I believe her. She is an elite prayer warrior. One who makes the rest of us stop in awe and re-evaluate our own prayer lives. It's an amazing and encouraging example.

But tht doesn't keep us GI's from the line. We should all be prayer warriors. It's our first and most powerful weapon. If we fail to use it, we will fail. There's no question that if we are to be in a relationship with someone you need to talk. So how can you be a follower of God if you don't pray? And what sort of conversation is it if you don't share the problems, and beseech them for help.? It's a horrid thing I see in the church where prayer is neglected.

Take public prayer for instance. There's so many people who are afraid to pray in public, and I think that's a bad thing. It's not humility, as public prayer is not an act of arrogance if you're actually praying. The Pharisee and the tax collector: the pharisee wasn't really praying. So praying publicly (i.e. for a bible study dinner) is NOT an act of arrogance. If it is for you, I really encourage you to go back to the drawing board of your prayer life.

So what's the problem? It must be fear. And that's even worse than arrogance I think. This is equally as bad (in my mind) to being afraid of sharing the gospel. Spreading the gospel and prayer are two things there's no question that we should do, and yet then we squander it? What sort of people are we? I'm not setting myself up on a pedestal, I have plenty of growth in these areas myself. But at least I'm aknowledging the problem. All to often we tend to pretend things aren't a problem.

We get to obsessed with gifts I think. Yes we all have spiritual gifts, some have the gift of prayer, but all to often I think we use the excuse that prayer's not our paticular gift to hide the fact that we don't pray as we should. Number crunching and legal documents might not be my gift, but I still have to pay my taxes. Why should prayer be any different?

I don't know the whole of the problem, nor do I have a solution, but I do know there's a problem that we must overcome if we are to grow in our relationship with the Lord.

In this vein, I think I'll also start using this as a place to post prayer requests.

The Status Quo

It's interesting in me to read the news on Alito, the new supreme court nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Conner. Now, I'm not in the midst of things, not even being in the same country, but thanks to google news (see the side bar) I think I stay decently up-to-date.

Any, it's this article that especially gets my attention: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/national/15confirm.html
What I find interesting is how this article is only one of many that likes to point out that he's supposed to be replacing the woman who was a swing voter in abortion. Now I begin to wonder, when did the ammendment get added that "A supreme court nominee is to duplicate his predecessor in his actions." That seems to be the point there. You know, if this was always the case then blacks would still have their own horrible schools that they were mandated by law to stay in. It's amazing to me how politics seem to shift and slide.

Or take the recent events in Israel versus Iraq. In Israel people are practically forcing the U.S. into dictating terms. We're talking a country completely independent of us that's waging it's own war (however you want to define it, it IS a pretty contained conflict). Now flip over to Iraq, a country that was SHOOTING AT OUR PLANES, and we're just a bunch of busybodies. Now where the heck does the line belong? It confuses the heck out of me just trying to decide where things belong.

We are such a race of hypocrites, and I do mean that globally, I'm just as bad as any of you. On one issue we're all soft and compassionate (usually because it effects us directly), and then on another we're very free with our apathy. We draw ridiculous lines as standards, that zig-zag as bad as congressional districts.

For instance, did you realize that Clinton actually was trying to do some things about al-Quaida, Afghanistan, and Iraq. However, when he started to put it into work, Republicans threw a fit because he was "trying to distract" from the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal. Now I'm by no means a Clinton fan, but I don't have to be to see the whole problem with THAT paticular attitude and it's effect on where we are today.

I guess it's a problem of perspective in that we, as humans, are so limited. If things aren't going how we want it's someone's fault, and definitely not ours. And consistency doesn't matter. After all if it did, we'd have to admit it's our own fault. It's really amazing God can still love us after all that isn't it?

Point

Theological debates are a fascinating thing to me. We get very worked up sometimes on what's often a rather trivial thing. Should Communion be taken every Sunday or once a month? Is an earing offensive in men? If it is (according to Leviticus) wouldn't be offensive in women to? Is there one person God has chosen for you? And what about Fred? Sorry about that, it's a rather obscure reference that probably no one else will understand.

I am not necessarily saying such debates are un-ethical, just that they often miss the point. The point of Christianity isn't all the theological understanding of God. The point is love. That's the basic underlying point to EVERY piece of Christianity. What is a right action? An action in the vein of Christ's love. What is sin? As many theological pieces as I've read, the best I've come up with is that sin is the absence of love.

Really, I think that's all sin really is. Why is lust sin? Because it's a denial of love, focusing on the other person as they relate to your own selfish desire. Why is lying sin? Because it's a denial of loves honesty. This definition of sin works the best in my mind because it relates how things can sometimes be rather relativistic to a human perspective. Something that may be perfectly fine for you, because it doesn't involve a denial of love can be very wrong for me because for me to do it involves denying love.

Now, of course, I'm using the word love here as in aggape (I think that's the greek word). That is, God's love. English is hampered by the difference between love not expressed but in it's contextual use. I actually made myself look like and idiot and a heathen because of that distinction. In a bible study someone was trying to say that romance is our expression of God's love (or something like that). Now the problem is, I think that crosses two different definitions of love. God aggape's me, one eros's their wife, two very different things. And I think to equate the two cheapens God's love.

Anywho, have a lesson, and now I'm rambling all over the place.

A Vision of the Past

Reading the news really irritates me sometimes. It's not what happens, it's the assumptions made. For instance, today I was reading an article about how the Queen of England was being threatened by al-Quaida, and ranted at 'mainstream' muslims who submit to western culture and laws.

It's the mainstream assumption that irritates me. I remember a few months ago when a fatqah was issued by the U.S. and Canadian islamic council or whatever it's called, condemning terrorism. What followed was a lot of news casters and 'experts' talking about how this was the first step of the moderate muslims to take back islam and tell extremists what's what, and how more moderate groups like this would soon be issuing such statements. However, they are in grievous error in one thing, the U.S. and Canadian muslims were not moderates. No, they are liberals, down right radicals. They are about as left leaning as you will find. World wide, moderate muslims may not be terrorists, but they don't necessarily think it's expressly forbidden in the Koran. And you know the 'extremists' and the 'reactionary' muslims we here about? Really, they're just conservative relative to the whole of Islam.

I'm not necessarily condemning the whole of Islam, though I do view it like I view religions other than Christianity as a grievous mistake. I'm saying that if we're going to make any progress in dealing with this problem we need to quit looking at this with rose colored glasses and start aknowledging what's really going on.

It's actually amazing how our society and our news services tend to remake things to how it best fits. For instance take the current stance on how "Bush deceived us all" into going into Iraq. It's amazing the way memory works. If you go back to before the invasion, EVERYONE thought they had weapons of mass destruction. Kerry, Chirac, Kennedy, Annan, even Clinton, they all saw the information and thought that Iraq had bad stuff either active and ready or in the works. The question wasn't that, it was what were we going to do about it? The opposition was based on not wanting to invade but do surgical strikes or sanctions (as if that hadn't already been done and proved fruitless). Yet now it's all about how we were deceived by the White House and Tony Blair, how they knew it wasn't it, blah blah blah. It's also funny that people don't remember the atrocities that were contantly on going that were also a big part. Ask the Kurds or Shi-ites if Saddam, and his near genocidal policies, being gone is a good thing.

I'm not pushing the Iraq war as a full fledged hawk, mind you. What I am doing is questioning the way we perceive things. I'm not bashing Islam, I'm asking if we really understand what's going on. We need to seriously start re-working the way we analyze and assimilate information or we are in serious danger of destroying ourselves through ignorance.

A Lament for a Friend

My dog was recently put to sleep.

You know, I really didn't expect it to be this hard. I mean this dog was wearing out, it really was only a matter of time. But Mozart was my dog. This has been the hardest thing for me since Mema died.

Isn't it funny how we can become so attached to things. I mean Mozart was a dog, and for the past 7 or 8 years, she was a dog that didn't even live with me. She lived with my grandparents for more than half her life. Yet she was still my dog.

There were just these things that kept reinforcing that. For the past year everyone swore she was deaf. Maybe it's because I'm just the loudest one, but I could get her to come to me by calling.

She was also a bit pyschotic. She used to run outside and just bark and bark and bark at nothing. Even when she lost most of her hearing she'd bark like it was the end of the world. My parents HATED it. When she stayed out our house they would dread the times when she'd accidentally get let out, and she'd go and bark and bark and they couldn't get her to come back. One day when I was back from OBU I heard my father lamenting the said event that had just happened, and I made fun of him. In disgust he told me I could try and catch her, so I did. It took me all of 45 seconds. I just walked out there, yelled at her to come, and she did.

There was also the fact that she was ALWAYS under my feet when I was at the computer. My parents' house has 3 computers set up on a LAN, and often all 3 were in use. And yet whenever I looked down she was always under my feet.

I don't know really what I did that made her mine, I just know she was. And I loved her, in my own way. It's really hard to lose a friend, and this is harder for me than I really thought it would be. As I said, this is the hardest thing for me since Mema died (my mother's mother). How can a heart be bound so much in an animal? I don't know, but I do.

Who are you and what have you done with my party?

I am a registered voter of the Republican party. I am such because I generally prefer the Republican perspective to that of the Democrat, Reform, or Flag party (I believe those are the four registered parties in Kansas). I am not a total devotee to the party, I am more than willing to vote for another party if it is the lesser compromise. That's what Democracy is, compromise. After all, the only person I agree with 100% is myself, and right now I'm not running for any office. I'm not even sure if I'm eligible for any office. And if I was, being in Moscow would make it a little difficult to run a good campaign and serve my term.

That said, I'm slightly disturbed with the current trend within the Republican party. Now the central platf0rm of parties change over time. After all, they're made up of humans, and human minds change. However, one of my biggest draws to the GOP is it's focus, supposedly, on keeping power closer to the local level. This is a platform position that I believe was adopted after the term of FDR in reaction to a gigantic growth in government under his administration due to his New Deal and WW2.

This is a very important idea, and I'll tell you why. When is the last time you called and had a personal conversation with Bush? How about your U.S. Senator or Congressman? How in the world can you really influence people who represent at least a million people like you? It's virtually impossible to have a real influence on them. However, my current stat representative I happen to know personally. Forrest Knox happens to have been both my friend and employer for a number of years. Do you think that if i have input he will hear it? Now, generally I don't, being in Moscow Russia is a bit withdrawn from Wilson County, Kansas so my useful input is nearly nil, but if I wanted I could. The same goes for most any other of my State and local officials. They have the time and the proximity to hear and understand where I am coming from.

However, with the Bush administration and the current congress, the government doesn't seem to be decreasing. The only thing I think that's keeping it from increasing more is the tax cuts that have been kept, putting a bit of pressure not to increase size and debt more, though these to are increasing. Now, I'm sure you can argue for the necessity of all the increases, but you can really argue for the necessity of most anything. The question is, where is this trend going to take us? Does this mean that the Democrats are the party of Big Government, and GOP is the part of Slightly Smaller, But Still Sizable Government? Where's the regulation going to come in? The idea behind the american government is balance of power, the the party system is supposed to reflect that. The competing points of view are supposed to weed back extremism, keep all views represented and promote and overall increase in the general saftey and welfare of the US society.

The disturbing thing to me is that the current opposition between the major parties is two issues which are not truly central to the whole of societies long term well being. It seems to me that the two points of contention seem to be how to handle the war in Iraq, which is important, but not long term social importance. 10 years from now Iraq will be a most likely important note in history books, but will not be the center of American law and social welfare. And then there's abortion, which is also important, but not a blanket issue that supports the whole of society. Abortion is such a touchy subject that it is almost the center piece of the two parties, making such rivalries as to put it at the center of supreme court nominations and election issues, often to the exclusion of other, arguably more important, issues.

That brings me back to the center piece. As it stands, both parties are on dangerous ground. They are holding themselves up in the ocean of politics by clinging to an inflatable life raft when what they need is a ship. And so what do they do? They try to put more hot air in the life raft hoping to blow it up bigger, when most likely what it's going to do is pop. Okay, enough with the analogy. Seriously, if the parties want to really start really working they need to get some positions that are of real importance to keep themselves afloat and put some backbone behind the parties and some cohesiveness among their members. Really, if you thing about it, why is Arnold Schwarzenegger (Sorry gubernator, can't spell your name worth beans) a liberal leaning republican? Mainly due to party choice, he could easily be a right leaning democrat. There is nothing that truly defines a Democrat vs a Republican, there is no real cohesiveness between the parties other than a general left/right division, that's also disappearing. Seriously, the fierce conservatives and liberals seem to be drifting away or losing hope, at least in my view.

If you want my opinion they should go back to the days of one of two things (or possibly both). Either business or levels of government. Both are good issues that have strong opinions. Levels of government I already touched on, and I prefer localized if you hadn't got that point. Or there's the Laissez faire business relation model versus the "All corporations are evil so we need to keep them under heel" model. This was and in ways still is an important political issue, just been swamped under other issues.

The idea of letting business go as it will actually has some merit, as competition does keep things under control, the problem is that competition often forces a winner, who then buys the losers. And that, in turn, leads to Theodore Roosevelt-era economies where people get pushed around because they only have one source of anything. This leads to the 'businesses are evil' perspective, which is also a bit extreme, but understandable. The problem is, if you over regulate you get communisim. And trust me, I can still see the problems left from communism here in Moscow, so it's not desirable. Also, over regulation becomes a problem because, despite what people seem to think, the real way to effect society and the economy is not through a personal touch, it's through corporate. Businesses have more clout, because they are more in touch with the people than the government. They also are a more direct pulse on the economy. A business does better, it's stock goes up, the DOW goes up, analyst and traders get optimistic, the economy goes up.

I'm rambling, but hey it's me and it's my blog, I'll ramble if I want.

Maybe the extremities of these views are why they don't make serious party platforms. Maybe they need a whole new basic platform to back thereselves with. Personally, I'd like to see a return to the local government, smaller central government approach for the GOP, but I whatever they choose, they need to choose it soon or might find that the Green party really will surpass them.

Welcome

This is my first attempt at actually doing a blog, so bare with me. It's kind of difficult to say why I started this, but I did. It's kind of an experiment really. See, my mind kind of wanders, but in its meanderings it dwells and pursues subjects I think others may find interesting. These vary from spiritual, social, political, and realms I don't even know if I can classify. I've tried keeping a written journal, but it's hard, as I hate writing by hand. And maybe feedback (if anyone actually reads this) will keep me regular.

By the way, if you couldn't tell by the title (or you don't know me personally) I'm originally from Kansas and now I live and work in Russia, as an English teacher. I have been since September of this year. So far it's going well, though my russian seriously lags behind.

Anyway, hope you enjoy, if not, oh well

The War

As I live and work here in Moscow I am increasingly reminded of Spiritual warfare and how it is so present and active in our lives. My new roommate and I were talking and we both acknowledged how we could feel our thoughts drifting away to other things when we most needed our thoughts to remain on the much needed issues (mainly things like children's church, or youth group activities).

The conversation reminded me of a movie quote, actually two. The first comes from "The Usual Suspects" and has profound and scary spiritual implications. It's a good movie, though violent and has very bad language. I'd recommend seeing it if you can catch it on TV, where they cut the unnecessary stuff out. In it, Kevin Spacey says "The Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world he didn't exist." What a real and frightening statement. The Devil is real, but most people either don't believe in him or don't believe he has any influence. And so it turns to something we don't acknowledge. And then it turns to something even more dangerous and insidious. That reminds me a quote from "The Recruit." Another good movie, worth seeing. In it Al Pacino says, referring to the CIA, but applicable to spiritual warfare "Your victories no one will ever know about, and your failures will be known throughout the world." Or something approximating that. This is often how spiritual warfare is. It's a covert war, one usually waged internally. And when we win, God knows and we know, and few others. When we lose, well, it manifests itself so that everyone knows and we are humiliated and often embittered. It's scary.

I have said that we often give the devil to much credit, and I do believe that to a point. We are responsible for our actions, and to say "It's the Devil" is removing responsibility from where it should lie. However, that's not to say he doesn't exists, and he doesn't lean on us. And is he good. He knows just when and where to push, in such ways as I don't notice at the time. On reflection I can usually spot such, as the thoughts and doubts that arise are so out of place with the situation and my mindset coming into it that it's amazing I didn't notice it.

That's what I mean by spiritual warfare. Maybe when the world believed in an alive and active Satan spiritual warfare was something more akin to the Exorcist (a movie I haven't, and have no desire to see). Maybe that's why demon-possession came to a climax around the time of Christ. But with a public disavowal of Satan he's moved to where he can lurk in our lives unseen, akin to the real warfare we see in the world today with terrorism. This insidious disapearing trick pushes us to a more quiet, and often lonely, spiritual battle. One where our victories are unlauded, but our failures may become the object of gossip and ridicule.

If any of you who read this are not Christian, then you probably think I'm nuts. That's okay, I can live with being thought crazy. I do, however, caution you not to judge something you can not accurately see. What I speak about is a war that is only observed by those involved, and without Christ, involvement is purely collarteral (or possibly that of an unknowing and unprepared victim) on humanity's part.

A really good book on this is C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters." While I might not agree with all of his theological statements, the basic idea of how Satan works is probably frighteningly accurate.