Life is not all fun and games. Originally, I created this blog to address weightier issues like faith, personal safety, safe driving, and parenting. Oh yeah, politics too. A lot of it.
Shortly after creating this blog, I was robbed at gunpoint. This is where I came to vent. Providentially, it the blog was helpful in generating leads that lead to the arrest of the robbers.
This story is for everyone--but not everyone is for this story.
It is a dangerous tale of times past. A torrid love story full of deep seduction. A story of terrible longing and bold sacrifice.
Then as now, evil begins its courtship cloaked in light. And the heart embraces what it should flee. Forgetting it once had a truer lover.
With a kiss, evil will ravage body, soul, and mind. Yet there remains hope, because the heart knows no bounds.
Love will prove greater than lust. Sacrifice will overcome seduction. And blood will flow.
Because the battle for the heart is always violently opposed. For those desperate to drink deep from this fountain of life, enter.
But remember, not everyone is for this story.
This should be a good read. I like Dekker's fast past action story lines and deep, thoughtful premises. IV will be out the first week of September. I hope it is available as an e-book for my nook!
Well, the book is out but so far it is only available in hardcover, CD Audiobook, or Amazon's proprietary Kindle format. The Nook uses Adobe's standard E-pub format. C'mon Ted, let's get the e-book out there. Your fans are waiting.
If you were only allowed to own one book, what book would you choose? Submitted by The Private Library.
If I were only allowed to own one book, I would own the single most dangerous book in history. I would own a book that addressed life, reality, and ultimate reality. I would own a book that addressed the core of humanity. I would want varying genres to stimulate my thoughts. I would want a book that would take time to read and would not reveal all of its mysteries in the first reading.
The book would touch the mind, heart, and soul. It would speak to history, biology, geneology, spirituality, justice, mercy, conflict and love. It would challenge the reader to seek greatness, deny self, and grow in grace and truth.
I would own a book I have already read a dozen times and hope to read again a hundred times more.
I am not reading Glenn Beck's Common Sense. It's not that I don't want to, rather, I can not find it anywhere. Instead, I am listening to it on Audio Book.
Mr. Beck's premise--may I call you Glenn? Glenn's premise is that our country is in trouble and politicians and power brokers keep the general public distracted from the real problem by pointing fingers at each other. They (the political & Wall Street elites) keep us busy arguing over minor issues while they steer our country out of it's greatness--trading our liberty for a false sense of security.
I am only on the 2nd CD, but I am able to relate to Glenn's logical, sensible approach to the issues of our day. Drawing on the inspiring words of National heroes like Thomas Payne and Martin Luther King, Jr., Beck encourages patriots to seek ways to spur a non-violent American Revolution that uses the tools of democracy to turn our country back in the right direction. For a moment, drop your party affiliation, set your passionate issues aside, and examine our country with common sense.
For the record, I can really relate to the average American described at the beginning of the book except that I look forward to going to church.
Glenn Beck paints a big, scary picture--and he does it all in real colors, not hypersaturation. In other words, America IS facing real problems and the politicians are more the cause and less the solution. Listening to his book can be overwhelming when you consider the scope and nature of the conflict he is addressing. So what can we do about it? While we still have a voice, we can push for term limits for all public servants. We can vote for character instead of party or charisma. Most important, we need to engage with the facts; seeing past the smokescreen that the politicians have created.
Concurrent to the release of the book, Beck published a letter from one of his listeners. He has attached a petition to the letter that you may sign if you agree. At the time of this composition (Saturday night, June 20th) the petition had 116,078signatures.
I haven't finished the book yet, but I am excited about it and I can whole-heartedly recommend it. Of course, by the time I have this scheduled to post on Tuesday, I may have finished the whole book. I know I will be passing it on to my friends and family.
Tolerance seems to be the word of the day. Hate crimes, gay marriage, illegal immigration -- all valid issues in American society today -- pit our traditional way of thinking with a more progressive, tolerant view. Somehow, when truth was replaced with relativism, love was displaced with tolerance. Instead of setting the bar high and encouraging one another to stretch upward to reach it, we have set the bar low and dared one another to limbo under it.
Tolerance comes from the Latin, tolerantia. The root word means "to lift up" or "to bear". Common use for the word "tolerance" is in the context of the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: (My tolerance of noise is limited). Modern usage has stretched that the word to mean: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. Even so, the modern usage still demands that we "tolerate" that with which we are not familiar and not comfortable.
Say the word, tolerate. Can't you feel the underlying current of disdain? I tolerate you. That is not a compliment. I tolerate your religion. I tolerate your behavior. I tolerate your presence. Each of those sentences carry an unspoken "but I don't like it". In one sense, tolerance brings freedom--freedom from responsibility. If I tolerate your actions, I have no obligation to tell you why they are self destructive. On the other hand, tolerance is binding. If I don't say what I know is right, then I am wrong and I must sublimate my anger and frustration. Tolerance is not an action verb, it is a being verb. Tolerance implies not acting.
And yet, America today is being pushed toward tolerance. We are told that we must be tolerant of anyone and anything except those who are intolerant--specifically Christians. Although Christianity is not the only monotheistic religion and although Christianity's biggest crime was the crusades (which no one alive today was alive to experience back then), Christians have been targeted for persecution as intolerants. Even the recent Islamofascist terrorist attacks have been blamed on Christians by some atheists, and kooky celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell.
Admittedly, their are kooks in every walk of life and some claim the faith of Christianity, but that does not explain why evangelists of tolerance target Christianity more than Islam, Judaism, Atheism, or any other -ism.
I just finished Ted Dekker's September '08 release, Sinner. In this novel, Ted addresses the problem of tolerance and where he thinks it will take our nation. He feels so strongly about the issue, he also published an essay on free speech. I am one of many who agree with him.
Instead of tolerance, why don't we set the standard of love. Unlike tolerance, Love requires action. We love one another, not with words, but with actions. We can love strangers by opening a door, giving a smile, buying a cup of coffee or tea. We can love the less fortunate by providing food and clothing or supporting a local rescue mission. We love our friends by giving affirmation, encouragment, and speaking the truth. We love our families by providing for their needs.
Imagine if we, America, strove for love instead of tolerance. Imagine the decrease in STD's because we would tell our friends and our children that sex outside of marriage is a minefield. Imagine the decrease in drug use since fewer people would need to self-medicate with meth or coke--their families and relationships would ease their pain instead. Imagine less crime. Imagine less greed. Imagine less corruption. It would not be heaven, but we would point in heaven's direction.
None of us are perfect, I get that. All have sinned and gone astray. No earthly kingdom will have perfect heavenly peace, but a kingdom that does not strive for love is a kingdom that will abide in hate. The doctrine of tolerance has set us firmly on the road to hate. No amount of thought-police legislation will change the wickedness of man's heart. The irony is that tolerance doctrine and hate-crime legislation is designed by government officials to give the government control of our hearts. In doing so, the government is not decreasing hatred, but they are decreasing love. Why should I care for my neighbor if that is the government's job? This direction is not just wrong, it is bad for American citizens as individuals and it is bad for the country as a whole.
That was supposed to be the end of the essay, but I know I am going to get some heat. Recently, some viewers commented on a post regarding the arrest of suspects in the home invasion at my house in January of this year. When the first suspect was arrested, I posted an entry about her upcoming birthday and how I wish I could get the individual a gift that would compliment the new prison attire. The comment was not tolerant. The comment also was not loving. The comment was sarcastic (which is sometimes funny and never virtuous) and it was born out of months of grief and frustration. Ironically, the first comment came three months after the entry was posted. The commentor derided me for "crying" about the home invasion and visciously attacked me for posting the individuals name and the comment about a birthday gift. Truly, it sounded to me like the commentor was someone close to the arrestee and was acting in love but let passion get the best of him or her. My friends posted comments in my defense chastising moraima, again, passionate responses.
The blog posts about the home invasion have a lot to do with the healing process. In recounting my experiences, I am able to anylize them more objectively and even come up with lessons learned. Blogs, being what they are, also allow a forum for opinion. Since it's my blog, you can bet I leave my opinion even when that opinion is rooted in frustration and grief. My wife suggested that I could delete the post since two people found it offensive. The post carries all of the comments. If my entry was disrespectful to the person arrested, then the opposing comments are an attempt to defend the individuals dignity. As such, I will let them stand--as an act of love, and free speech.
Last night I finished The Shack, by William Young. This short novel is a work of Redemptive Fiction--a story of forgiveness and grace. It is especially poignant to me as I am working through my own forgiveness issues.
William Young takes great liberty with the freedom inherent in a work of fiction. With bold steps he stretches our preconceptions about God. The book is impressive in it's ability to touch the heart and lead the reader through depths of sorrow and heights of joy. The author writes in a familiar and easy to read style. The book moves fast even without fast paced action. Although replete with fantastic imagery, I found myself wanting it to be a true biography. Mack, the lead character, seemed almost to be a real person. More importantly, the personification of God felt genuine, personable, and loving.
The Shack is a worthy read and I recommend it -- especially for people who have a strong doctrinal background or who are uncomfortable with the notion of a personal God. It is not a strictly theological narrative, but it is a glorifying narrative in it's presentation of grace.
Note: In response to some comments from a trusted friend, I have tempered my review of the Shack. The first two comments on the post will flesh out my reasoning. Hopefully, the reader of the Shack will find him or herself pointed back to God and therefore, back to the bible.
