The heart of Jesus Christ was pierced by a lance and from it came blood and water. Longinus is the name given to the soldier who dared touch the Lord Glory. Tradition tells us that one drop of blood from the wound converted Longinus. Augustine writes that the blood and water represent the chief elements of the two great sacraments of the Church: baptism and communion.

Whatever one makes of this story, it encourages me. The terrible lance that touched the Body of Christ, became forever holy by that encounter. The cross itself where our Lord died was transformed from the ugly instrument of torture to a most precious thing. Longinus became a new man at the seeming lowest point in Christ’s story. Christ was dead, but even then traditionally rightly recognizes in this story that His blood could make the worst person clean. Clean! Forgiven!

I have been touched by the Water flowing from the side of Christ. I have been cleansed by His most precious Blood. There is power in that life giving blood of the Lamb to work wonders and it has done wonders in me. It has taken a wretched sinner and made him through no work of his own holy. Shocking grace. Transforming love.

So many people must look at me, especially if they knew me as a young adult, and see only a lance, an instrument causing pain. My arrogance and ignorance caused me to do harm, intentional or unintentional. My sin could overwhelm me, if I did not remember that by His Grace, I have been touched by the King of Glory. Any good I do and anything I have become is due to that transformation where the selfish chief of sinners became new.

Thank you God for the Water and the Blood.

Athens, the world’s first experiment in democracy, was eventually overtaken by the tyranny of Philip and Alexander of Macedonia. One man, Demosthenes, argued for his entire political life for a concentrated assault on Philip. He was sometimes heard and sometimes ignored.

In his otherwise excellent history The Ancient Greeks Fine argues that Demosthenes may have brought Athens’ destruction by Philip of Macedonia on the city by his fierce opposition to Philip. Demosthenes never credited Philip with good motives, but always views him as plotting and scheming. Patriotic opposition to Philip gave Demosthenes power in the Assembly.

The problem with Fine’s analysis is to compare Philip and Demosthenes as if they were moral equivalents. Demosthenes, even at the zenith of his power, had to make persuasive speeches in the all powerful Athenian Assembly. He was always in danger of censure and even exile from the passions of the Athenians. Philip was absolute ruler of his semi-civilized state. He aped Greek manners, but he hated the rule of law. He introduced the notion of naming cities after himself and as much as possible ruled directly in his own person.

Athens was an imperial city. It believed in its own form of government and often acted badly as a result. When it could, it expanded democracy by force and often acted for its own good at the expense of the people who fell under its domination. However, when it “ruled” a region it generally replaced oligarchy with democracy, increased the respect for law, and raised the general cultural level. It rarely reduced cities to ash, destroyed local custom, or instituted a cult of personal hero worship. On the whole, most cities were better off being allies of Athens than being “free” to be ruled by local tyrants. By ancient standards, Athens ability to be self-critical made her very great indeed.

For the most part, Athens acted according to the will of the citizens, the broadest participation in government that would exist until very recent times. Philip’s Macedonians had rights only in relation to his person. Philip was imperial, not out of any great idea of democracy or the rule of law, but out of his own desires and ego. Such a man cannot be checked by treaty, and as became evident in his son Alexander, has no limit to his ambition. Democracy struggles with becoming too easily sated and flaccid. Tyrants can never be satisfied, because their ambition is personal.

Demosthenes was right not to trust Philip. The tyrant must be defeated for the more power he has the more power he will want. Liberty cannot co-exist with tyranny. One must destroy the other.

There does exist in a democracy the habit of blaming self for all the wrongs that happen. Against self-destructive habit, Demosthenes said, “If, then, we were all agreed that Philip is at war with Athens and is violating the peace, the only task of a speaker would be to come forward and recommend the safest and easiest method of defense; but since some of you are in such a strange mood that, though Philip is seizing cities, and retaining many of your possessions, and inflicting injury on everybody, you tolerate some speakers who repeatedly assert in the Assembly that the real aggressors are certain of ourselves, we must be on our guard and set this matter right. [7] For there is grave danger that anyone who proposes and urges that we shall defend ourselves may incur the charge of having provoked the war.” Persues Translation This self-critical feature of democracy is a real strength, but it can also be a weakness in wartime as Athens demonstrates. It does not allow for strong action until it is too late. By the time Athens began to prepare for total war, moving social spending to military, it was too late. Philip won. Churchill, a modern Demosthenes, was heard in time. What will be the fate of our democracy, I wonder?

JEFF JACOBY

How is it going? Pretty well.

Victor Davis Hanson on al Qaeda and terrorism on National Review Online

The most brilliant article yet on why we fight.

Malone: It’s OK to Poke Fun at Religion: “‘I think it’s important to poke fun at things we find really serious,’ the 19-year-old said in an interview with AP Radio. ‘I think if we applied that to things in our own lives we’d be able to take things much better.’ “

Self-irony is good. Poking fun at things is also good. However, that is where the movie “Saved” fails as a movie. It does not like the people it deals with. It does not “poke fun” anymore than “Birth of a Nation” pokes fun at African-Americans. Good satire (like the fun film “Galaxy Quest” which pokes gentle fun at sci-fi fandom) has affection for the group being taken apart. “Saved” hates evangelicals. It says a few trivially true things, most of which are true of the entire American culture (too materialistic, can be judgmental without reason, shallow). It takes on easy targets that Hollywood hates and then postures as “brave.”

It is not brave to make a film that Jerry Falwell hates when you live in a place and work in an industry where everyone hates Jerry Falwell.

I love and view myself as a member of the evangelical sub-culture which produces (on the whole) strong families, low crime rates, and good citizens. “Smart” evangelicals often try the Uncle Tony route of putting down their own sub-culture in order to fit into mainstream elite society. Want the symptoms of being an Uncle Tony? Here are four:
1. Pompously pointing out “Left Behind” is not well written, without saying the same thing about “DaVinci Code.”
2. Being more ashamed of “big hair” and “tacky” sets on TBN than anything else.
3. Groaning about Christian music while tolerating music that frequently is lewd or assualts your world view.
4. Hating the religious right for being “narrow” and judgmental while living a life that shows no personal holiness. (In the South in the past, this was the drunken wife-beater that would rail against the hypocrisy of the Church. Sins of choice change, but the pattern does not.)

Never trust a critique of evangelical culture from someone who thinks Jesus died so they can use the f-word.

In the United States, why are there poor people? As someone who is from one of the poorest states in the Union (West Virginia) and who has in the past lived by choice in urban areas allow me to make a few observations. I would also recommend reading some articles from the Heritage Foundation to get some data to support my conclusions.

First, let us state a few obvious things from a Christian perspective. Poverty in and of itself is not a moral condition. The poor are not “evil.” Prosperity is not a sure sign of God’s blessing. Scripture and common sense make it clear that (law of large numbers) a good lifestyle will usually lead to material success (though not necessarily ‘wealth’). However, God’s ways in any given person or situation cannot be known. One cannot meet a given poor person and say, “God is punishing him.”

Poverty can also be a position chosen for effective ministry. As a vocation being free from worldly goods can be an excellent way to live. In fact, a simple lifestyle is quite freeing. Every few years Hope and I try to purge ourselves of “stuff” by giving things away. We also try to have an open door policy in our house. While not called to holy poverty, we do believe that we are merely stewards of the nicer things God has allowed us to have. Religious (monks for example) are often called to more extreme lifestyles. I celebrate this holy call.

On the whole, good and moral living leads to prosperity in a just society. (I am not talking about wealth, but the goal of having the basic needs of the family met with some comfort.) Injustice can also lead to poverty. For example, racism in our society has historically caused African-Americans to live less well.

What of modern America? Taken as a whole, while not perfect, modern America is the most economically just nation that has ever existed or is likely to exist before the Second Coming. While there is room for improvement, essentially any American can provide for the basic needs of his or her family with hard work. (Of course, this broad description allows for those few who through bad luck need help from the social safety net any Christian society sets up. We spend billions on this social safety net.)

Many people are poor because they fail to take advantages of free education. Government schools are not good, and I would argue for free market solutions to this problem, but they do provide a basic education. Combined with a “chump change” job, they provide access to the nearly free Community College system. A person who behaves morally, does not abuse drugs, and works hard can most often escape poverty and become an owner of a home and business. In the history of the world, such social mobility is nearly unprecedented. In fact, I think we take it for granted.

The difficulty often (in places like my home state) is a culture of poverty. Education is derided or viewed as useless. Goals are not set for children. Moral behavior is not shown by parents, who are often missing. The best cure for poverty and crime in the United States is strong families. For the most part, in the United States poverty is caused by a culture of failure in families.

Is there institutional injustice that leads to poverty? No one who has lived in the city can deny it. Police would pass known drug houses and go “light” on crime in our neighborhood. When our house was robbed for drug money, the police could name the “perps” as they came in the door. Government paid lawyers would have these folk back on the street before the paperwork could be finished. Cable television pumped its message of lethargy, bad morals, and “blame” to our neighborhood night after night. Still, despite crime and inferior educational options escape was more than possible with a small amount of work. The largest impediment I have seen to such an escape were personal choices on the part of individuals. The question is not whether America is perfect, but whether (on the whole) any better society is likely or attainable.

Revolutionaries always promise utopia, but deliver death. For example, in some ways Sweden is better in terms of poverty (fewer poor), but has created a sterile culture unable even to reproduce itself. It cannot defend itself and were it not for American military power would be helpless against other states.

At this point a brief word on international poverty might be in order. Most countries in the world that experience high levels of poverty are unjust states. They propagate unfree societies that do not allow for free men or free markets. They do not impose equality under the law and so cannot sustain a free and fair business climate. In the United States crooked businesses eventually fail and many business criminals are at least ruined. We can argue about how harsh such punishment should be or whether it is still just enough, but we are one of the few nations where men like the leaders of Enron would face serious jail time for their crimes. As President Bush has said, this should be more and truer and is an area where our society can improve. In any case, giving money to the poor of these unjust (Islamic, communist, socialist, or otherwise unfree) states has proven counter-productive at best. The Heritage Foundation has excellent resources on foreign aid.

Is there still racism in America? Of course, there is. Does it cause some of our poverty problem? Of course, it does. I have had friend who have experienced the negative impact of this in their own careers. However, racism can be overcome in most cases. We do not need revolutionary change, but changes in the hearts of individual people. We must continue to look for ways to give equality of opportunity for all. Immigrant groups of color in the last fifty years have proven the ability of any person to “make it.” Race simply does not account for most poverty. Most persons on long term welfare are white. Some of the poorest people in the nation are whites in Appalachia. Here racism cannot be a factor, but a culture that cultivates failure retards the ability to move forward. A recent study of the causes of poverty in England showed the same thing.

I believe major media may be a major cause of poverty. Our pop culture which glorifies sexual misbehavior, mocks “good” students, makes heroes out of the rare few who can misbehave (music stars, athletes) and make a living, and provides easy access to gambling (lottery) is hardest on the poor. The anti-hero may make an interesting movie, but the “prostitute with the heart of gold” or the “Matchstick man” who is really a nice guy just is too rare to serve as a role model. Bad behavior mostly leads to bad ends, especially amongst the poor. Movies rarely show someone making it by working hard, paying their bills, and marrying, yet that is the best way to avoid poverty. Children of rich parents may get a mistake or two. Children of the poor are deeply impacted by their mistakes and sins.

What of those who are poor (cannot feed or shelter their family in dignity) through no fault of their own? There the call of the Church is clear. Help must be provided. The Church spends millions a year to do just that, but it is not enough. Punitive taxes to fund inefficient government programs which often undermine the very behaviors most likely to end poverty (marriage, chastity, education) reduce the income available for giving.

American Christians are also captivated with owning ever more stuff. There cannot be a government edict, or even a Church one, on how much is too much. Every person must answer that question before their God. Still, a life of giving (to at least the level of the tithe) and service is not an option for the Christian, but a holy calling. We should be known for giving. Hope and I try to make our house and “stuff” available for fellow Christians, while raising our own children in a secure way. These are hard calls and one must be careful of easy judgments. God may give my neighbor a very nice car. I should not covet or judge. He has given me a nice film library. I should use that gift in His service while allowing Him to deal with my neighbor.

A final word about goals in a culture: Radical equality of possessions or wealth in this life is neither desirable nor necessary for a just society. The folks enjoying their boats in the ocean today do not keep me from enjoying my house in La Mirada. God has blessed them in ways He has not blessed me.

The Atlantic | July/August 2004 | The Old Man | Hitchens

Read this article about folk responsible for the murder of millions. Leftist ideas that kill people get a pass and the socialists who kill are given points for their good intentions. Socialism is a religion of death. It glorifies one group of people over another. In some socialist nations, unborn children must die so that aging Swedes can go on pretending to be young. In another, Lenin must kill thousands of middle class people who might resist the power of the state to help other people. Stalin will kill millions to do the same.

Later, so called intellectuals will write about you fondly. If you were an intellectual, unlike Hitler, then your class will protect you. Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest were moral monsters, Hitler and company with better p.r. It makes me ill to see young adults at Disneyland with CCCP t-shirts or pictures of Lenin. What would polite society say if they came with Nazi insignia or a picture of Hitler? The double standard for the Communists is a moral evil that must be faced. Hitler was horrific, but in whatever depth of hell to which he is now consigned Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin have joined him. If he does not repent, Castro will soon face the certain judgement of a God not put off by charisma.

Go read the “Black Book of Communism.” Realize that useful idiots like John Kerry helped enable Communist genocide by their inability to recognize the terrible nature of this movement. Vote accordingly.

Jollyblogger: Responding to Hugh Hewitt: “Telling them, then, that it’s unChristian to be a part of a party that they see as the only party that cares about something close to God’s heart isn’t going to do much for racial reconciliation or for unity in the church.”

A major goal of my life has been to see racial reconciliation and unity in the Church. I have even purchases real estate with that goal in mind!

The quotation above refers to African-Americans and the Republican party.

For a Christian the modern Republican and Democrat Pary are not morally equivalent. Often this argument is used as if they were.

The Republican Party is not for racial discrimination (in the Church or any where else). The argument is over means to achieve this end. I believe that the means used in the past (affirmative action) were marginally better than doing nothing, but that better means can be found. Most of the solutions of the left (welfare as we knew it) have actually harmed all Americans by helping destroy strong families.

Republicans suggest alternative means to help all Americans, including African-Americans. Some of those means have been suggested by good Republicans like Jack Kemp (a childhood hero). One may disagree with those plans, but the end (racial equality) is a good one, in fact the same one as the Democrats. So an African-American can vote for George Bush with confidence. He knows Bush will not favor genocide of black babies in abortion clinics that mysteriously show up in neighborhoods of color. He knows Bush does not equate the Civil Rights struggle with sodomy.

Bill Clinton used a black secretary to cover up his sins. She was the most famous African-American in the White House. George Bush gives African-Americans jobs with power. His closest advisor is, after all, an African-American woman. She is not being asked to clean up his personal life, but to run the affairs of the nation. Which is better for people of color?

The Democrat Party is for the legalization of abortion and against rational marriage laws. A vote for John Kerry is a vote for a man who thinks these two moral evils are good. A vote for George Bush is a vote for a man who may be wrong on some details, but wants no positive evils. There is no argument about means here. They have wicked ends in mind. My friends concerned, as they should be, about issues of race should ask: “Which would benefit all races more: strong families or another government program?”

Amazon.com: Books: Ulysses (Vintage International)

This book was one of the first of the gnostic cult of literature sold by smut. Homer packaged profound truth in a way even a drunken lord deep in his wine could understand. Shakespeare was great and understandable to the masses, even when writing about the Greeks. When English literature decided to move past Dickens (also popular) and Trollope (my guilty pleasure) and become Serious, it had a problem. A good reader knows what is happening in Dickens. Good readers can be produced at the high school level and then what will happen to the humanities prof? A very astute grandmother may have as much, or more, insight into the character of Lily Dale in “Small House” as a twenty-something literature professor. Just being an informed guide to great literature is a wonderful job, my own job in fact, but it does not make one an Expounder on the Secrets of the Age.

Along came works like “Ulysses.” At first the naughty bits drove sales and made the book seem daring. Of course no one could actually read the entire book and it made little or no sense, but that was fine. This allowed the book to operate as a perpetual ink blot text where Ph.D. work without end could be produced with no hope of falsification. “Ulysses” was perfect in its obscurity. Challenge its greatness and you could be accused of being dim. So generation after generation sits with “Ulysses” trying to make sense of it, when they should just go get Homer. Homer’s “Odyssey” is hard to the post-literate modern, but it makes sense in the end. It also contains a fair bit of truth. One can read “Ulysses” for a lifetime and never escape ones own thoughts.

The literary snobs did not like Tolkien. They loved books like “Ulysses.” That is because they hated Tolkien’s world view, traditionally Catholic, and hated the fact his work was masterful and readable. Not all popular books are good, see any “Star Trek” novel, but I will venture the claim that every great work was once popular.

The odd thing is that the literature types should have just waited. Liberalism has so destroyed education that literacy is now a gnostic and secret skill. Teaching people to read well in the age of the Look-Say method is now a secret art. Plot twists more difficult than those in the “Starsky and Hutch” movie are now hard for even grown ups.

Kerry advisers tell hopeful to ‘keep cool’ on religion - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - June 18, 2004

Delphic sacrifice to Hugh Hewitt for this must read story. Think religious people are welcome in the Democrat party? If you don’t like Castro and you are rationally religious like roughly eighty percent of the population, then the answer is “no.” When Kerry and company went looking for a religious liaison they hired a light weight who was so verbally incontinent that have muzzled (not fired!) her.

Once Kerry’s odd-ball choice for a religious liaison went down there was no one left in the campaign who could talk about religion. No one. They don’t like God-talk, don’t understand it, and don’t like people who use it. The only acceptable God-talk comes from people who don’t believe any of the truths of the faith they claim to hold (small things like belief in the Trinity).

Around the World in 80 Days — The Official Movie Website

Some movies are so bad they become immortal: think Manos: the Hands of Fate. Some movies are so good they become an icon for the company: think Snow White and Walt Disney. This film has blended the two roles by incarnating everything wrong with the current Disney management. It is a remake, a badly done remake. It tries to be hip, but manages to be offensive and unfunny at the same time. (Who convinced the Governor that his cameo in the film was a good idea?) Jackie Chan is an aging self-parody unable to do what he once did easily, something like the company that made this film. Can anyone save Disney from this death of creativity?

MSNBC - Rush Limbaugh announces end of his third marriage: “It was the third marriage for both Limbaugh, 53, and his 44-year-old wife, who were wed May 27, 1994 at the Virginia home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.”

This is very sad. Marriages have ups and downs, but three failed marriages indicates a problem. Combined with the revelation of a drug habit, it might be time for Rush to get some down time, move out of a leadership role for a time, and get some long term help. Rush can claim to be an entertainer, but he has a big megaphone. He is a leader and opines on important topics. More important, he is a human being created in the image of God and his life is not going well. No matter how much fame, power, or money you get, if you fail at human relationships, you have failed.

Of course I know this truth all too well from personal experience. Who has not been “down to the pit” and had to walk back? Such down time is hard, as well I know, and requires much support on the part of friends. Still the pattern of most Church discipline, which I think a healthy one, is to step back from the spot light for time, repent, and get healing. Rush does not need money so he is ideally situated to do this sort of thing.

For a long time now, I have been more interested in hosts like Hugh Hewitt and Frank Pastore. That being said, Rush is on at a time I am on the road and so I listen several times a week. He is often funny and I agree with a great deal of what he says. Lately the optimism of the show has decreased, I have thought he sounded sad and without much energy.

Of course, I am not his pastor, friend, or advisor and cannot know for sure what Rush should do in his particular case. However, in general cases like this I would say that someone like Rush should take a year off from public work, go to Church, and get some help.

Why should a Christian be a Republican? First, no political party should dominate our thinking. Christianity is not just first in my view of the world; it is the only view of the world.

Having said that, it seems important to me to work for and with the Republican Party and not just stand on the edge of the field being critical. No party is perfect, but the Republican Party maximizes my ability to make a difference. So why am I a Republican?

The Republican Party has a glorious past. It was founded to free the slaves. Abraham Lincoln, the greatest president of the United States, was its first president. It has always had an active, evangelical wing. It has never been the party of bigotry and disunity.

The Republican Party has long been comfortable with Western tradition and a sensible Christian civil religious fingerprint in policy. It is no accident that before it went mad, the Episcopal Church could be called the Republican Party at prayer. While a great advocate of social justice causes, it also has always had a high respect for tradition. Republicans produced Theodore Roosevelt, a patrician reformer. Democrats produced Woodrow Wilson, perhaps the worst President of the twentieth century.

The Republicans are the party of government. William Jennings Bryan, three times the Democrat nominee for President, gave great speeches. Republicans ran the nation and made her great. Democrats weep for the poor and produce programs that create more poor. Republicans reduce the number of poor and create citizens. Democrats pit the haves against the have nots. Republicans unite Main Street and Wall Street.

Republicans are the party of the well lived life. The Republican Party respects innocent human life and if it errs, does so in the direction of life. On the other hand, as the rational and religious party, it makes no idol of simply being alive. It takes murder seriously enough to demand the life of the murderer. It knows that a defense of freedom, which brings the death of some brave boys in uniform, is better than a life of slavery. Ronald Reagan was a Republican and only Reagan had the nerve to call communism an unthinkable option.

Republicans believe in liberty and not mere freedom. It understands that every man should have the freedom to do whatever good he can find. On the other hand, it understands that no man has a right to do evil. Republicans are the party of law and order who do not go too far. Republicans would ban abortion, but not ban your right to do business.

Republicans accept that the state does some things well, but that there are other spheres of human authority. Strong families are necessary for a strong Republic. Democrats may every area of life dependent on government; Republicans strengthen other social groups to oppose government run amuck. We are not opposed to government, we govern, but we are opposed to government that prevents good. Democrats are libertines opposed to liberty. They would allow children to access porn in the local public library, but would regulate Dad’s business to death. Republicans see no right to evil and would allow local government to regulate the library, but would leave Dad alone to produce wealth. Put simply Republicans are joiners and do-ers. Democrats are whiners and activists.

Is the Republican Party perfect? By no means, no human institution, including Christian ones can be perfect. But a primary vote is the most powerful vote I have and I plan on using it to back the one party that support rational families, a well lived life, and liberty.

Jollyblogger: Political Blogging: “This commentor raised a valid concern about blurring the line between what we call ‘conservative’ and what we call ‘Christian.’ “

Here is credit to the wonderfully thoughtful blog that started this conversation. Jollyblogger is always worth reading.

HughHewitt.com: “Very interesting stuff, but he objects to a question I have myself raised with my radio audience: ‘Can a Christian be a Democrat?’ “

This is a hard question. Of course, one can be a Christian and a Democrat. I have very good friends who are both. However, can one be an intellectually consistent Christian and a Democrat? I think the answer to that is “no.” There is no room in the Democrat party for people who oppose abortion, who find a role for religion in the public square, and who support rational family structures. The party is utterly dominated by abortion extremists, by secularists, and by libertines. How can an evangelical support such a party? Young adults in America are being destroyed by these evils. It is moral relativism that produces poverty in the United States, not Reagan’s tax cuts.

The usual response from my liberal Christian friends is to talk about the death penalty and social welfare programs to help the poor. These Uncle Tony types (named for Bill Clinton’s enabling pastor Tony Campolo), the Step-n-Fetchits of the Democrat party, claim to disagree with the mainstream Democrats on the sexual issues, but see a Christ like concern for the poor. They ask,
“Can one be a Christian and a Republican?” This is not a hard question. So long as the Republicans are pro-life, pro-family, and allow for such radical things as the word “God” in the pledge, then the answer is “of course.”

Uncle Tony should be told Republicans care as much for the poor as Democrats they just disagree about how to help them. This is a real discussion, but the picture of the Republicans as the party of the rich is contradicted by the evidence. The poorest counties in America often vote for Republicans. The richest persons often give to Democrats. The country divides on religion and not economics. Uncle Tony wishes it were not true, but the very poor people he claims to want to “help” recognize that trading the right to pray at a football game for a welfare check is another term for selling out. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, not a hand out from Washington.

The death penalty has been approved by most Christians at most places at most times. The question of how to best help the poor is one on which Christians of good will can disagree, but no Christian can support abortion or gay marriage. No Christian can agree not to say “Jesus” at his job if he works for government.

Christians should leave the Democrat party. They need not become Republicans, though I wish they would. However, they cannot vote for John Kerry and remain Christian, because they know, know as surely as they know anything, he has political policy beliefs that contradict the faith once delivered to the apostles. They cannot know any such thing about George W. Bush.