Panera and God

A few days back, Saturday to be exact, I was drawn into the kind of discussion we are all told not to speak in, yet all desire to do so. That is correct we were discussing religion, politics, and social/moral values. I guess we got bored with talking about the weather and the merit of a salad for dinner. Overall, I have to say the conversation went very well. Myself and the person in whom I was speaking with disagreed on nearly every point, except that we often did agree that we disagreed.

From this conversation, though, much was learned. In the specific area of religion we found a hidden truth that lies in all people’s life. We found the point in which a decision has to be made, a decision that can change the course of your pilgrimage through life.

We were speaking specifically of the infallible nature of the Bible. I, seeing the Bible as the “God breathed word” and my antagonist (man I love calling her that) seeing it in not such a light. Her position was that the Bible may have been mistranslated or may contain potential errors. This, however, did not negate her spirituality, but instead caused her to explore other areas that she felt may contain spiritual truth.

This is an age old argument as to whether or not the Bible is wholly true or partly false. It is also one that we did not resolve in that small chain café in which we ate. Instead we came to a point of separation that was only the width of a hair.

In some point in our respective lives we both came to the point of taking an honest look at this sacred Christian text. I found the truth in the words and quickly dove into the faith and found no errors, believing God wholly and singularly.

My female counter part in Saturday’s discussion took another route. When she investigated the Bible and weighed it for its worth she found that she could not believe every last word to be fully accurate and therefore branched off to continue in her search of truth. This is the hair width that I mentioned.

At some time we both came to the same point of decision, and we both went in different directions. In the end you both believe in every last word of the Bible and therefore receive Christ, or you find potential fault with any given scripture and are unable to receive Christ. To those who believe that you can have Christ and have fault in the Bible I would say that you are gravely mistaken.

If even one line, one word, is proven to be a lie then every single aspect of the Bible comes into question. The fact that god created the Earth would be something to doubt. The fact that Christ died for us becomes doubtful. The fact that Christ will return again is something of legend. We either believe it all or we believe none.

It is an all or nothing approach. You cannot have a little bit of the truth. Christ tells us to be hot or to be cold, but to be lukewarm is to be spit from His mouth. From my perspective my friend has missed the boat, but I thank her nonetheless for helping push this vital aspect even further into my spiritual mold. I pray that she, as well as other, will one day choose to be hot instead of cold.

God and Government

Over the years I have become more and more concerned with the trend of removing any form of Christianity from our public places. People have gone through great efforts to form organizations that battle to have God, particularly our Christian God, removed from all areas of government, public service, or public property. In some cases we have even seen private property rights attacked in the name of this issue. The charge of these organizations, primarily non-profit in structure, is that there should be a complete absence of God in all public affairs; essentially we should become spiritually sterile. To this mindset I must fully disagree.

I find that Larry Schweikart, author of A Patriot’s History of the United States: From Columbus’ Great Discovery to the War on Terror explained it well when he wrote, “separation of church and state meant freedom to worship, not from worship.” Often it is neglected that in early America the question of God’s existence was not as prevalent as it is in today’s collegiate circles and that the colonists were simply stating that government was not to dictate to the people what their worship was to contain. This train of thought developing at a time in which the people were living in British colonies under British rule that had a particular British church.

Our country was developed under the primary principle of liberty, or freedom. The forefathers did not desire to control the personal choices of any one man or any group of men. In stating that there was to be a separation of church and state they believed they were protecting the inalienable right of liberty. However, in the two centuries since the drafting of our great Declaration we have seen an oppressive counter to religion come forth. In the name of supposed religious freedom opponents of Christianity have instead imposed anti-religious oppression.

These anti-religion groups have spread their oppressive ways by taking legal action in communities in which only a minority desires their services. Any group that walks into a community and thrusts its thoughts and beliefs on that community is stripping the people of their liberty. Wherever a community exists that has a majority that stands in agreement to the worship or acknowledgement of a particular faith system, then that community has the right to represent it in their public spaces and forums. If in this community a small portion of the citizens lies in opposition of the majority, then the minority has the right to petition their neighbors, but they have no right to force an alteration of policy.

In conclusion I will say that I fully agree with the philosophy of separation of church and state, however, I do not believe that the separation should be of such a nature that will cause others to be alienated. We live in a nation of democracy that has as its underlying principle that we decide policy at the polls. When we apply that principle we are compelled in the best interest of liberty to let those communities that choose democratically to promote a Christian faith system to do so and those who choose to remain neutral to also do as they choose. By this course of action we will move closer to the liberty most desire.

As a side note I wish to add that in 2 Corinthians 3:17 it reads, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” It would do us well to remember this scripture as we move forward and to meditate on this as we seek counsel as to how we are to resolve the issue at hand.

"God and Liberty"

In a recent reading of "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life" by Walter Isaacson I was overwhelmed with the length of knowledge to be had. In particular was the retelling of an incident that occurred between Voltaire and Franklin. The following is drawn from Isaacson’s account.

In 1778 Benjamin Franklin made a trip to see a dying Voltaire in hopes of receiving a blessing for his 7 year old grandson Benny Bache. Franklin, being the practical man he was, desired the blessing of a man that meant so much to the Enlightenment world. Voltaire complied and simply consecrated the boy with, “God and Liberty.”

This scene alone would have produced a scrawling from this author; however, it was the response of then Massachusetts governor Thomas Hutchinson that invoked my inner wheels of thought. When news of this benediction made its way back to the governor he responded to the scene by stating, “difficult to say which of those words had been most used to bad purposes.”

This casual response from the governor to a dying man’s most basic blessing captures a spirit that has haunted civilization for centuries. Nearly every war that has ever been thought worthy of the fight has been in the name of either God or liberty. Many corrupt methods in business and government find their justification, wrongly so, in either God or liberty.

The reason I find these two words used in this manner so provocative is due to their nature being of a moralistically good bent, not the corrupted, violent bent that man has spun. God is a term used to represent a divine being that governs the world through his providence. Liberty, on the other hand, does not necessarily depend on a supernatural being, but does depend on an unnatural state for all adherents to live in.

Of the world religions that are in popular practice today a majority contain tenets of love and individual freedoms. They will preach of assertive, not aggressive, methods of the advancement of their beliefs. A call to assist the less fortunate and to sacrifice for the benefit of others becomes a common thread.

In liberty the rules are quite simple: no man shall impede the advancement of another. Adherents to this philosophy, which is the primary philosophy in the U.S., fully believe that we should only take action against others when the others have taken unjustifiable action on their neighbor. Essentially do no harm to anyone when no harm has been done.

In conclusion, I wish I could go into more detail but the words are becoming too great in number. It is time that we as a people realize a struggle that was discovered by Voltaire, recognized by Hutchinson, and revisited today. Our personal interests in a relationship with God compounded with our need for individual liberties should never become the source of our corrupted actions. We are, at the heart of all things, a corruptible people that act in ways that offend our neighbor. When such action occurs understand this is the natural state in which we exist, not the superior state in which we strive. God and liberty lie counter to us, yet through divine providence we are able to achieve both.

To: Pastor Duane

The following story is adapted from a story as told by Benjamin Franklin who probably adapted it from someone else.

One day there was a man and his boy who were indebted to their master. Without fail they would go out and do as the master pleased as often as they were able. Daily they would be full of joy, for their master was good. In all his goodness the master declared that the man and his boy should travel to the next town over and help spread his good practices. Before they left they were given a gift to assist in their pilgrimage, this gift was a donkey so that it may carry their burden.

The man and his boy quickly set off in the early morning hours with father in the position of honor and respect by riding upon the back of their pack animal. It was not long on the road before a few passersby came to criticize the two, stating that the father was fairly inconsiderate by making his son walk the way to where they were heading. The man not wanting to offend any quickly came down off his gift and allowed his son to ride while he walked alongside.

They went on in this fashion for a short time before anyone else crossed their path. Then they came upon an intersection where there were many people. At this point many of the confused individuals who spent all their days at intersections began to call out to the boy. They would say, “How dare you young boy make your old father walk, you should be whipped,” or “Look at that dreadful character of a boy making his poor father keep pace by foot.” Fully complexed the father and boy looked at each other and the boy leapt from the donkey.

Standing next to the donkey they both thought long and hard and decided the only thing to do would be to both ride the gift from their master. The boy helped his father back on and the man helped his son. With both upon the back of their animal of burden they set forth once again.

It was not long before their next encounter, and once again it was none to kind to them. A man crossed them and was quite rude about it all. He complained of them both riding the donkey, stating that it was unfair to the animal. He made such a ruckus that before long there were a few in the crowd all saying the same thing.

Again, the man and the boy were not sure what to do so they both came down off the donkey and began to walk. They knew it was not much further now to the next town and decided it may be best to simply walk instead of harming their master’s name by using his gift for their needs.

With the destination in sight they thought they had finally done right when, suddenly, the master crossed their path. He looked upon the man and the boy and became quickly disappointed by neither of them using his gift. Calling both of them by his side he told them to turn back to whence they came, for they would not be allowed to enter this new town. When asked why, the master answered, "I gave you a gift to use; it was a gift just for you given by me. You were to use it along your way, instead you cast it aside. This gift that was given should have been used properly; instead you listened to the men on the road and stopped receiving what I had given. Only a man that has and uses my gift may enter my new town. You have but you do not use, therefore you must go back.”

The man and his boy turned back, leaving their donkey at the point in which they last met the master, and walked towards whence they came. To this day it is uncertain that they ever made it back to that town, but it is certain that their gift can still be found exactly where they left it: along the pilgrimage road.



This is entitled “To: Pastor Duane” in recognition of his always using his gifts and not altering because of critics. Pastor, you will be allowed into the new town and your gift will be found in the hearts of those you have TOUCHed and not sitting alongside the road.

Beyond the Times

“The Church always seems to be behind the times, when it is really beyond the times; it is waiting till the last fad shall have seen its last summer.” G.K. Chesterton

In this passage from “The Ball and The Cross” G.K. Chesterton expresses an ideal that rings true to this day. In my walk in ministry and in guiding others to the path of righteousness I have often heard the lament that the church is no longer relevant. It is believed by many that the tradition and the ways of Christianity simply do not fit in today’s age.

There seems to be a misconception in this thought process. We look at Calvary from a wrong perspective. One cannot begin at the point in which they stand and look backward to the cross. Instead, one must look out from the cross to the point in which they now stand. It is from this position that we can see that not only is Christ still relevant, but He has increased in necessity with every passing summer.

Christ, however, is not always the church. Notice the little “c” in that last statement. There are many churches that teach Christ, but due to false teaching will never be part of the Church (big “C”). As this trend grows alongside the fad of immoral attitudes in the people, saved and lost alike, we begin to notice that the sacrifice made on the cross is even more necessary than before. The more sin, acts that oppose God, there are, the more need there is for His perfect intervention.

The Church was created through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. It was created for a time like ours, a time like our forefathers, and a time like our future generations. Regardless of what fad we follow in our time, or summer if you will, Christ and His Church will always be with us and beyond us. It was certainly created for a time just like today.

Government Housing for All

Recently, less than six months, I became a home owner, or so I thought. When my wife and I began the adventure of home ownership we thought we were fulfilling the American Dream, a dream that was quickly dismantled. After only this short time of “ownership” I am left with a nagging question of who really owns my property.

At first glance most people will acknowledge that the bank is the actual owner of any mortgaged home, and for me that would be absolutely correct, however, I have taken this question a step further. What if the property was paid in full? What if there was no bank or other lender that could lay claim to the land? Would I then “own” the land?

The answer to this question is an astounding no. I do believe that most people may have an idea of where I am heading with this post already. In speaking with others about this topic many have quickly concluded that the government owns the land through the process of eminent domain. Again this is correct, however, from what little knowledge I have a citizen may legally fight against a claim of eminent domain.

The facet of property ownership that I am digging for is not one that many have mentioned.The facet in question is property tax.

Plain and simple, by paying property tax we are essentially acknowledging that the land that we live on, or think we “own” is not ours. If it was your home and lot that you had full rights to with all privileges of ownership no other entity would be able to profit or gain income from said parcel. In many parts of America that is not the case.

By allowing the government to tax your land you give up your ownership rights in many ways, primarily the right of sole possessor of land. If you doubt this premise maybe you should try not paying your property tax and see how long it is before the land is taken from you. Sure, it may take quite a lengthy bit of time before this extreme action is enacted, but it may and can still be taken.

I will conclude with a quote by Benjamin Franklin, “there is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the people’s money, then all their lands and then make them and their children servants forever.” While I will agree that we obviously do not have a king and that we are not at a point of tyranny as of yet, the bricks to that road are quiet when laid and nearly undetectable when walked upon. If we continue to allow the leaders of our country to tax us and our possessions as they see fit we will eventually lack the funds they require. Once the treasury runs dry the land will be sure to follow and we will become indentured servants even more so than we are today.


DISCLAIMER: I wanted to add this note that states that the agencies who receive this funding are not to blame and are not the problem. Many school districts, mental health programs, and courts receive their funding in this manner and are well worth every cent they receive, however, I desire that we would utilize an alternative taxation method in order to fund these much needed services.

Men of America (and the women too)

Let us turn back the hands of time today and look at America, and society for that matter, some 150 years ago. I know you may be wondering why I would want to do such a thing, but then again why do I do most of the things that I do. (Man that was a lot of ‘do’ in that sentence, hopefully the whole post isn't full of do.)

In the days of our great-great grandparents, or not so great in some cases, there was a certain aspect of life that was just simpler. Do you ever recall hearing of them having to deal with many of the same issues that we have today. Sure there was unemployment and the housing of a family could become a stressor, but today’s society seems to moan much louder.

In the days gone by a man used to take the care of his family into his own hands, not cry to his city officials about his short falls. The family would move to find work, or the family would work the land (if they had any), but seldom did they expect a social agency to care for their needs. In those days people flocked to our great nation for the opportunity to work and be their own person. Currently, to our great misfortune, our nation does not breed that same fervor and the flock comes for a different reason.

The answer as to why this occured is lengthier than what I can provide today, however, I contend that one key reason is the absent father/husband. When one takes a casual glance in today’s society you are more likely to find a single mother struggling to survive than you are to find a responsibly, married, man that is breaking his back for his family. Now, I understand that there were many injustices committed in yesteryear and our current system alleviates much of them, but which injustice is bigger: today’s absent father or yesterday’s overworked man?

Simply put: I am asking that America stop looking for the assistance of government agencies and to begin standing on their own two feet. America was great in the days that men took care of their family and women (hopefully I am not castrated for this) took care of their men. Unfortunately the moral standard for society has become so liberal that the hope for a return to what was once great can only be concluded as being lost.

Women, your cowboy is never coming home; not because all men are bad, but because there is no home being made. Men, your lady is not yours any longer; not because women have begun to wear pants, but because we have forgotten how to love them. America, our greatness may never return; not because America is not great, but because America has forgotten what it stands for.

A Natural God

What is natural? I know this may seem to be a fairly simple question, yet I see a potential issue with our contemporary understanding of the word. I find that there is sufficient cause to believe that what we call natural is not natural at all.

Imagine, if you would please, that you were the proud owner of a vivarium. In this created world you placed a couple frogs and fish. Everything was made to your specification. Then one day the frog looked towards you and postulated that the world in which it lived was natural, and that you in fact were supernatural.

At this point I do suppose that if this indeed happened you would be wondering if you inadvertently (or not so inadvertently, I do not judge) licked the fore mentioned frog. However, for this argument let us suppose that this was a regular occurrence and you have no cause for concern.

If this statement was in fact made to you by the frog I would think that you would find it quite a ridiculous comment for a creature to make. After all, you created the entire world in which it lives and for the sake of argument I will even say that you had the power to create the creature. In this example I find it difficult to believe that the created creature could ever postulate that the creator was not of natural existence, yet this is exactly how we view God; we view Him as if He is more than natural.

In Christianity it is put forth that in the beginning God created all things and we now live in that creation as a created. If this is truly the case then how can we ever possibly call out to God that He is supernatural? Does it not make more sense to understand that the state God exists in is the natural state of the universe and that what we live in is some altered, almost artificial in essence, state.

Now I know some etymologist may at this point be conjuring up the definition of "natural" and point out that the definition of "natural" does not reference initial state (or original form). It simply means something that was developed by nature and to what nature is would be another question entirely. To this point I would agree, however, it is the connotation that causes issue.

I contend that the use of natural in today’s societies brings with it a connotation of unchanged or original form. This connotation has essentially altered the understanding of the word and therefore transformed our idea of what is an initial state and what is an altered state. I suppose to the evolutionist this makes no difference, but to the creationist this will be the crux of their understanding.

In conclusion, I do not wish to prolong this scrawling and will summarize. The intention was to simply display that we do not live in a world that is natural in relation to the existence of God. It is God in all His glory that is natural. When God created us He created an unnatural world for us to live in, but gave us a piece of His natural spirit so that we may always know Him. In this sense our natural spirit is at odds with our unnatural flesh. Therefore, we must daily take up our cross and crucify our unnatural fleshy encasement.

Freeing the Beast

Recently I have taken up the exercise of running. At one point, five years and thirty pounds ago, I would run two miles daily. These daily runs at the time were a thing of magic and I often looked forward to them throughout the day.

Over the weekend I changed gears in my running routine, if you call one week of participation a routine, and took the jog outside in lieu of the gym. It was this jog in my neighborhood, nowhere near two miles by the way; that I realized what I had been missing this past half a decade.

There is something so natural and basic that emerges in the person who is exerting themselves by running/jogging. It is as if the world slips away and you are able to become just what you were meant to be: a living, breathing, adapting creature.

All too often we humans muck everything up with our complicated way of doing things. What we need to do is just step back and remember that we are all just here for a season and we need to enjoy the world in which we live.

We need to experience the sun shining on our face and the moon cooling the air. We need to find shade under a tree and allow the grasses to tickle our feet. We need to feel the adrenaline of an exerted body and the peace from the rest that comes after. We need to stop and remember that none of it matters as much as we think it does.

Today I challenge you to go run, maybe not in the physical, but at least in the spiritual. Let your spirit run before you and experience the world in which you live in a new way. Experience it in the way that you have forgotten.

Relief in "Relief"

As a modern day Christian I, along with many others, find that in some ways our faith has been disconnected with reality. It is as if the belief in a supernatural being that created all things is considered science fiction in a world that proclaims to be science fact. This schism in the human psyche presents us with a sort of alien effect in the world in which we live.

To compound this issue we also find that in many of the religious institutions of the world we are just as foreign. It is as if when we go to congregate with other Christians everyone wears a mask of what they believe they should be. Many churches today create this pseudo-peace type existence that our mind utterly rejects as authentic. (Quite possibly the reason conversions are down across the nation.)

So what we have is a person, such as myself, that fully believes in God (with reasonable doubt of course) and fully believes there is no place for them. The world rejects the person's premise of a Creator, and the church rejects the person's need to not only be relevant, but real. I do not believe this is what Christ had planned.

With all this considered I arrive to my point of this entry. I recently read my first issue of Relief. Relief is a Christian literary journal that treats the cause of our faith with a very open eyed, honest, and transparent perspective. They seem to understand that the corporate church environment has become just as alien to us as the world in which we live. As you read their published works you become engrossed with the theme of real world hurt married with supernatural comfort. It is this marriage that appeals to the genuine faith we all strive for.

In closing I simply thank the people over at Relief for their hard work and their vision. The goal of this publication as stated on their website is, "to pursue a complete picture of Christ and life –- real, gritty, painful, wonderful, this-side-of-heaven life." To this they have been successful. May I also recommend that all my readers take the time to look over their site (http://www.reliefjournal.com/) and even consider a subscription.

Moral Decline

Recently I was asked by a professor as an assignment (as if they ask for any other reason) to take a poll of five of my peers. This poll was to consist of them reading over 34 character strengths (finding five peers who could read did prove a little difficult) and picking five that they felt were necessary for a good elected official to possess. The results were quite intriguing.

With strengths like Communication, Commander, and Woo (the ability to win people over) there was quite a bit to consider. However, there was one strength that was only scored a couple times (yes I realize this is forty per cent, but be patient). That strength was Belief.

This trait is defined as someone who believes in doing the right thing. In retrospect it would appear that this is actually the most essential trait of them all. With my curiosity piqued I questioned those who did not score this trait as to why they felt it was not essential. Their answers, in my mind, could not be more horrid. What they responded with was, “I really do not care what they do when they go home at night.

The mindset displayed by these individuals gave evidence (though this population is way below acceptable standards) that people are beginning to care less about who they vote for. Do we honestly believe that if a man is immoral at night he will be moral during the day?

With corruption rampant in our government and the moral fabric of our country being whisked away by television one would think it was time to take charge. We need to look towards our past and utilize the rules of our grandparents as a yardstick to measure ourselves. Yes, I understand that the ways of yesteryear are outdated, but are not the moral standings needed just as much?

In conclusion I suppose I am trying to say that I feel as if our moral threads are degrading in every way and before long we will live in an anything goes society. It will be in this society that we will truly acknowledge the faults of the preceding generations. I present to all people that it is our duty to be morally minded and that we must hold all leaders to a higher moral standing than we may even hold ourselves. After all a man that leads me into the ditch of my own hand is no leader at all.

United States of Rome

It was written by Edward Gibbon in his account of the fall of Rome: “Toward the end of the Roman Empire, all religions were regarded by the people as equally true, by the philosophers as equally false, and by the politicians as equally useful.” Having read this statement I find that I am thrust into a whirlwind of modern day similarity.

Currently, in America we have a social atmosphere that allows, and even endorses, that there are many paths to God. This is not at all unlike that of the Romans many centuries ago. It is this attitude that causes the erosion of conviction and opens the door to the other two issues to follow.

In the society we now live philosophers do not hold as much of a grasp as once held. Insteadwe see their position being held in the discipline of science. Where we once speculated, we now presume to know. It is this knowledge that gives rise to a belief that God is no longer necessary.

As far as politicians are concerned; I am not fully certain that the problem of usury among them has ever truly been eradicated. While there are many good men of political industry, there are twice as many corrupt. Nonetheless, in modern America we too see the issue of men in power using religion to advance their agenda.

What was written of Rome now seems to be true in America. In a nation whose forefathers utilized the lessons and dynamics brought forth by the Romans it only seems fit that we fall on the same sword. It is often said that we should understand history lest we repeat it. Well, it would seem that even with the knowledge that history has taught we are destined to repeat their triumphs and failures to the point of our own destruction.

In conclusion, the central premise presented revolved around religion. It is apparent that the belief in God is essential to society’s united effort of progress and success. When this nation first began the majority was united and greatness occurred. Now we see a separation of efforts and therefore a decline of strength. I cannot help but believe that if only we would return to our own history and repeat the success of being one nation, indivisible, under God; that we could become the America that we all believe ourselves to be.

The World of Facebook Validation

Yes, that is correct. Apparently we have entered the world of Facebook Validation. This is a world not all that unlike our own. There is quite a bit of diversity and there is always something (but many times nothing) going on. So why don’t you join me on a short trip to the wonderful world of Facebook Validation.

On this simple little world there are millions of people, the strangest people you have ever met indeed. Whenever you look upon the natives they seem to be exposing their tongue, or wearing some horrible sweater, and sometimes they are in some odd contortionist pose that is fully alien to all who gaze upon them. Yes indeed this world is quite strange.

While here you learn more than you ever desired about the inhabitants. For instance, one resident recently informed us of their need to go study (but really they prefer to procrastinate.) Another resident just blurted out that they really had to use the restroom (and the funny thing is; I actually was curious about that.) The topper, though, is the one that just validated their relationship by posting their lovers name in their relationship status (how disgustingly sweet!) As you can tell this is a very 'open' territory and few people are holding back their thoughts.

It was recently explained to me, though I still don’t quite understand the logic, that "[I]t ain't official if it ain't on Facebook." Apparently in the world of Facebook Validation everything that is important to the residents must be shared in an open forum or it just didn't happen. It is as if the whole world has spiraled into this existence where their actions must be approved of by all other residents.

Fortunately, I have the luxury of not living in this world, though I am not fully free from its grasp. I, for one, still believe in the individual and that sometimes the unpopular decision is the right decision. In many ways this society has forgotten how to keep the mystery of self sacred, and instead has placed all their cards on the table with what are essentially strangers. Where is the romance in that?

I am glad that I only visit this world occasionally (though my current visit is getting quite lengthy) and I can leave whenever necessary. Some people (oh, how I pray) have become lost in this world and currently we are sending rescue teams to call them back. So far we have rescued a total of -8 people. That is right we lost our entire maiden team. To that we are not concerned; for we are sure our next team of 12 will prevail.

A final note for all of you lost in the world of Facebook Validation: we are on our way, just hang in there. For now I leave you, but please hurry with the teams for I write this from behind enemy lines and your link to me can be found in my status as I await you validation.

My Dog, My God?

Recently I finished reading The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis (who is my long lost English uncle, though the family disowned him for heavenly debauchery some years ago) and there were many intriguing points that caught my interest. One in particular was the meaning of the word "my". It is stunning how such a simple word can so quickly paralyze my "my" thought as I realize the horror of my "my" misunderstanding.

C.S. Lewis contends (well maybe not contends because Screwtape states it as fact) that we as people have neglected to realize the dual meaning of the word "my". This little word does in fact have two distinct connotations.

First, you can use this inconsequential pronoun to show possession; such as found in its use with the phrase: "My dog."

Secondly, you can use this word to show relation; such as is found in the phrase: "My God."

The problem that was revealed is that we have forgotten how to use the word in a relation context. Over time we have begun to feel that we not only own our dog, but we also own God. Clearly it is evident where the problem begins.

As I leave you to ponder how you have used this two letter word I want to point towards one final telling phrase. In the Old Testament God tells the people time and time again that His will is to “[I will] be their God, and they will be my people.” Given the nature of God I want to add to Lewis’ contention by stating that in this popular quote of encouragement God intended both bodies to be in the relational context. He does not desire to own us, nor does he desire to be owned. He simply desires to have a relational existence with his beloved creation.

God in School

How does one define ‘public’? When we interact in our community through the ‘public’ institutions what guidelines should there be and which ones are appropriate? These are just a couple of the questions that have been troubling me today, and they both originate from a news article that I read this morning.

A local high school has recently come under attack because they give recognition to God in their mission statement and even go as far as saying they value this sentiment in their students. I, personally, support this recognition that is held by the school district. However, a group out of Madison, WI known as Freedom from Religion Foundation has taken issue with it and has collected three complaints to give to the school board in order to strong arm the district into rewording their mission statement.

Now here comes my issue. As a ‘public’ school their actions and values should be dictated to them by two groups: the local community and the government bodies that preside over them.

1. Local Community: this group of people can easily be defined as the tax base, those who pay into the school district. Of this group of people it appears that most are in favor of leaving the mission statement alone, after all only three complaints have been lodged. One would think that when it comes to the local community’s belief there would need to be a much larger group of people involved in the complaint.

2. Government Bodies: a school district is directly controlled by the bodies of government over them (specifically the state) and therefore should reflect the values held by that government. With that said I wish to point out that in Ohio, where all of this is happening, the state motto is “With God, all things are possible.” It is obvious to me that Ohio has established a precedent that the belief in God is acceptable. Not only does this apply to Ohio, but the motto of the United States of America is “In God We Trust.” This leads me to believe that this school district has only extended the belief system, and model of standards, that has been established by their governing bodies.

In conclusion, I again have to ask, what is ‘public’? According to the actions of these protestors who lay in the minority it would seem that ‘public’ means to serve the interests of small groups. On that matter I disagree. Any institution that is in the public sector must follow two basic rules. First they must listen to their constituents and second they must follow the standards that have been put in place by their government. To both of these points the above mentioned school district has followed and therefore should be allowed to continue on with their currently stated mission until conditions change.