Battle Fatigue From the Start

Trump was elected two weeks ago. I've been pretty quiet since then. The loud cacophony of voices filling the last two weeks rendered my tired voice pretty useless, I felt. I'm weary of the whole thing. In fact, I'm probably going to take a December fast from social media. (The fact that I'm not sure I can even do that shows me that I desperately need to do it.)

But before I go, I'll say a few words -- to those who voted with me. Whether you voted with enthusiasm or, like I did, with heartache.

The temptation may be to breathe a sigh of relief. "Now the nation is safe from those dastardly liberals wanting to impose their socialist, atheistic agenda on us. We're good. The battle's over."

Not a chance, cupcake. The battle is just starting.

We should take no pride in this victory. We put a man in office who has a very good chance of shaming his position and shaming the country.

"But . . but Hillary . . . but . . . " Oh, hush. She's out of the picture. Now we have to deal with the abominable mess that we created when we decided to play games with the political process during the Republican primaries. He's there, he's got potential for MANY problems, and we're the ones who have to stop them.

First, acknowledge the fear that marginalized groups feel in this country. Yes, it feels to us like it's over-the-top (like the black boy my pastor encountered the day before the election who had been told that if Trump were elected, all the black men would get put in jail -- ??!?!!?). But honestly, it's no more over-the-top than the rhetoric we would have heard about the country turning into Cuba if Clinton had won.

The man has said and done some atrocious things. Don't defend or belittle them. Don't give them cause to think he represents us in that. Acknowledge the atrocity of it, and stand firm that freedom still reigns in this country because the people make it so, no matter who is the president. The people angry enough to put him in office will be angry enough to get him out if that's what it takes. Nobody needs to fear for their civil liberties on our watch.

Second, don't get all joyful about Obamacare being repealed and such. Obamacare happened because Republicans ignored the healthcare crisis for so long that the people were willing to try something radical, just so something -- SOMETHING -- was getting done. (Kind of like the exasperation that swept Trump into the White House, really.)

Repealing Obamacare will not solve anything. We've got to come up with something better. And it really has to be BETTER -- not just different. Don't get on the anything-but-Obamacare bandwagon. Make this a debate that actually leads to something good for our country.

Third, don't act like the man is a Christian and is going to protect our religious freedom. Maybe he is; maybe he isn't. God knows his heart; we only see his behavior. I see nothing in his behavior yet to give evidence of his submission to God -- much the opposite. That said, I don't think we can safely expect him to keep any promises he made during his campaign. We have to stay on our toes.

Yeah, yeah . . . he's seemed a bit more subdued and presidential the last two weeks. He also took to Twitter to make some idiotic, rash comments about the Hamilton cast's manners. Whether or not you agreed with him, the man just needed to shut up. He has bigger fish to fry. (Seriously, somebody just take his Twitter account away!! And take some of his billions and buy him some thicker skin.)

The rancor and division in this country are getting to me. I wish it wasn't. I wish I could have faith and move on. But I'm tired.

You know what I want? I want both sides to sit down and be quiet for a while. I want both sides to admit that those who disagree with them are not necessarily evil incarnate. I want people to start looking for what we can agree on and working toward that. Compromise. Peace.

I also want to weigh what I did when I got married. I have no optimism for either prospect. Just pass me the caramel popcorn and turn off my Facebook account.

Breaking Baptist

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church (in fact, I tell people I was a Southern Baptist nine or ten months before I was born). My husband grew up in an American Baptist church (for my unchurched friends, yes, there is a difference). Over the course of our married life, we've attended an Evangelical Free church, a Methodist church, a Reformed church . . .

But we've always been Baptists at heart, and now we're officially Baptists again. Our family joined Woodland Baptist Church earlier in the summer. And a lot of this feels like coming home. Partly, that's because it's a very traditional church: hymnals, robed choir, Wednesday night dinner and prayer meeting . . . it feels a lot like the church I grew up in.

But we're also coming back to a few things that are Baptist in practice. Such as the monthly business meeting. Baptist congregations are run by the congregation. No bishops and denominational overseers who assign leadership and set rules. No elder boards making decisions on behalf of the congregation. Baptists vote. On everything.

I have "fond" memories of the monthly business meetings at my church. Robert's rules of order. Accepting the minutes from the last meeting. Approving the budget statement for the last month. Acknowledging the change of wording in this and that . . . I move we accept the minutes as revised . . . I second that motion . . . Boring stuff, except when punctuated by the occasional fun controversy. I remember once when a youth leader I respected stood up to protest the amount of money we were spending on lawn maintenance. "I mean, green grass is nice, but it don't save souls!" I thought he had a good point. His motion did not carry.

Another Baptist distinctive: committees. Baptists committee everything to death. Within three days of coming forward to join Woodland -- in fact, about forty minutes before we were officially voted in as members at the monthly business meeting -- we were already invited to be on a committee. In our Welcome to Woodland packet was a printout of the committees and their members: the finance committee, the building and grounds committee, the outreach committee, the personnel committee, the missions committee . . . there is even a Committee on Committees, and no, I am not exaggerating, people. (At my home church, that was called the nominating committee -- same dif.)

And then there was the list of Ministries, which are essentially sub-committees of the committees, in a lot of cases. The prayer ministry, the flower ministry, the kitchen ministry, the ushers and greeters ministry, the handyman ministry. There is no lack of places to plug in.

Yesterday, hubby and I had a meeting with the Young Families and Singles committee to finalize plans for a retreat happening in a couple weeks. (No jokes about that "young families" thing; we questioned whether we still qualified for that label as well, but it seems to be broadly applied.) And while I enjoyed spending time with these people, the meeting reminded me of what I learned as a young person in my home church: running things by committee, while very democratic and safe and fair, is also very inefficient.

I had offered to help two ladies plan a teaching session they are in charge of. They wanted to hang around after the meeting and talk about it in more detail. But here was the thing: I knew what they wanted to do, and being a teacher and a writer, I knew exactly how to set it up. I knew I could whip this out at home on my own in a fourth of the time it would take to talk it through with them -- and if I had something wrong, they could point it out and I could fix it. So, I told them that. They said, "Are you sure?" . . . and I know their concern was that they were dumping all the work on me when they were supposed to be sharing the load, as committees do.

But as I said, the effort to share the load this way in a committee is usually inefficient. God set up the church (and the world, to a degree) as a Body with many parts. Each part is gifted to do particular jobs. If we find the job we are supposed to do and do it, it all works out well. If we try to do jobs we aren't good at, or try to spread the load out in awkward ways, we may look like nice people but we don't work effectively.

The Baptist church is very American in how it runs things. And while I'm quite cognizant of the need to "share the load" (or rather share the power) on a national level to maintain our earthly political liberties, my Baptist heritage has also taught me the advantages of a benevolent, wise dictatorship. Which is good, because the Kingdom that my real citizenship is in is essentially that.

Best Nugget of Wisdom

"If you were to give somebody your best nugget of wisdom, what would it be?"

The Pastor asked us that question to begin his sermon last Sunday, his introduction to a sermon series on the book of Proverbs. But he really shouldn't begin like that because then my mind started ruminating on that question and I wasn't listening to him very closely anymore.

My best nugget of wisdom. If I had one bit of advice to give the world.

Well, the number one nugget of wisdom would be to seek and know God. Period. Above all else. Not join the church, or do good things, or love everybody. KNOW GOD. Everything else falls into place after that.

But that's not what came to mind immediately last Sunday morning. The first best nugget of wisdom
that I fell upon in that moment was this:

Commit to live in truth.

Complete, absolute truth.

No more lies. No more hiding. No more deceit. No more sneaking around. No more masks. No more justifying the unjustifiable. TRUTH.

Be who you are, unashamedly. If you are ashamed of who you are, figure out if you should be ashamed and if so, change that. If you should not, own yourself as a beloved creation of God and learn to accept the child He made.

If you have done shameful things in the past, recognize that once you ask for forgiveness, God wipes that as far away as the east is from the west (I love that image) . . . and then God uses your experience to shape you into who he wants. OWN your failings as much as you own your successes. It's who you are, and it shows God's hand in your life. Perfect people are no testimony to God's grace -- broken people are.

Don't lie. To anyone. Don't hide things. If you are hiding something from someone, good heavens -- that should send off major alarms in your spirit. Why are you hiding this??? Be honest with yourself. I have heard the most ridiculous justifications for covering stuff up. I've known people who convinced themselves they were doing someone else a favor -- "protecting" them -- by deceiving them in the most unconscionable ways. Very rarely is there a good reason to lie to another person. 99 times out of 100, it is wrong. Stop thinking yours is that precious one in a hundred situation every time it's hard to tell the truth.

(If somebody is too weak emotionally to handle the truth, you are only contributing to their weakness by "protecting" them. Speak the truth in love -- help them grow in emotional strength. Someday you won't be able to protect them anymore.)

Stop lying to yourself. Really, that's the most remarkable thing: we tell ourselves things that we KNOW are not true -- and we believe ourselves!! Stop it. Just stop. Nothing is ever better in your life when you are denying the truth. Nothing.

And stop lying to God. You know He knows it all anyway, so it's a waste of time.

Once you stop putting a mask on for God and yourself, you stop needing to have it on for the world . . . and you will be AMAZED how much happier you will be. I promise you.

John called it "living in the light." Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Those are heavy, heavy chains you are binding yourself up with. Throw them off, my friend. Live in truth.

Legal Homeschooling

Because I'm back to homeschooling in the fall, and because I don't feel I've got a complete grip on the ins and outs of homeschooling through high school, and because I haven't been to a homeschool convention in many years (and because I'm one of those weirdos that really enjoys things like homeschool conventions), I went to the FEAST homeschool convention this weekend here in San Antonio.

And because I'm new to Texas, one of the workshops I attended was the one about Homeschooling and the Law in Texas. I figure, I better be sure I'm legal.

This is the third state I've homeschooled in. New Jersey was amazingly hands-off about homeschooling -- there were really no regulations of any kind, essentially. I kept hearing about the overbearing, overwhelming regulations in next-door Pennsylvania and thanking my lucky stars I didn't live there.

Iowa was something in between. We had to "register" with the local school district every year, and we had to do something every year to give evidence that our students were progressing (standardized tests, portfolio . . . I paid a woman to come in and check on us once a quarter . . . she was nice and it was easy). The cool thing in Iowa was that, in our district anyway, we were able to participate in just about anything in the public schools we wanted to sign our kids up for. My youngest took violin lessons. My oldest was "dual enrolled" for eighth grade, going to the public middle school for science and the "exploratory" class with a quarter each of art, music, etc.

Texas seems to be about as free as New Jersey. The workshop speaker said the only requirements to homeschool in Texas (where a homeschool is considered the equivalent of a private school) is that you use a curriculum and that you are making "bona fide" progress in that curriculum. I asked him about that, because I am an English teacher and I don't purchase an English curriculum for my kids -- I know what they need to learn. He said that is fine. I just need to be able, if asked sometime, so produce something that shows what I'm covering and something that proves I've been covering it.

I'm not gonna lie: it is really nice to live in a state where you have so much freedom in your homeschool. But I'm also not gonna lie about this: I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of homeschoolers having such little oversight. I mean, I know I'm going to teach my children well -- and I know when I find I'm not doing a good job, I'm going to look for someone to do a better job (I've already hired a woman to do biology labs with my daughter next year because I know myself better than to believe I'm going to navigate that road successfully).

And the truth is, I have not personally known any homeschool parent who would ever have shirked their duty toward their children in homeschooling. This is a huge commitment; nobody is going to take it on who isn't going to take it seriously.

Except the really rare, really messed-up people out there. And there are a few. And a part of me still believes that the state has a stake in making sure children are protected from neglectful and abusive parents, whether they neglect to feed them or neglect to educate them.

Our workshop speaker gave a bit of the history of homeschooling in Texas. In the 80s, it was illegal to homeschool in the state, period (as it was in much of the country). He related stories of families at that time who did "CPS drills" in their school day. The kids knew when the doorbell rang, they had to pick up their books, go to mom and dad's closet, and sit in there quietly with the lights off and door shut until mom came to say the coast was clear.

Now, as grateful as I am for the pioneers of that period who went through great struggles to give me the freedom to educate my children that I enjoy today, I was uncomfortable with these stories. If it was illegal to homeschool, why were they homeschooling? I expect their answer was that they felt called of God to do it, and their obedience to God trumps their obedience to the state. And even though I don't see a biblical requirement to homeschool (certainly a case to be made for it, but not a requirement), I guess I'd have to accept that answer from those law-breaking pioneers.

Mainly because I anticipate situations coming up when Christians (maybe even I myself) will be called by God to obey in a way that the laws of the land forbid. And I anticipate there will be other Christians arguing with them (or me) that such a reading of the Bible is ridiculous. (I already get those comments now.)

And if obeying my God means breaking the law, paying fine, going to jail, or doing "CPS drills" to protect my kids, I guess that's what I will do. Just like marriage vows . . . the commitment I made many years ago to submit to my Lord doesn't get revoked when obedience gets hard.

How to View Like a Christian

Our youngest is struggling with a decision. This summer, in her copious free time, she began watching and loving a certain TV show, a show with great characters, excellent writing, witty humor . . . but with very inappropriate storylines. (I wasn't sure about her watching the show either, but I didn't stop her. I freely confess my failure in this area as a mother: over the years, I have done a terrible job of policing my children's TV time, and I still do.)

Now, she is feeling convicted that she shouldn't be watching this show. And let me start by saying I'm incredibly proud of her hearing and responding to this conviction completely on her own without her parents' interference at all. But she has come to me for advice on the matter, and I'm trying to figure out how to advise her. The easy answer, of course, is to tell her to turn it off. But the easy answer isn't always the best answer. I don't just want her to obey me today; I want her to develop wisdom and discernment on this issue that will carry her throughout her life.

The reality is, there is very little around in the way of video entertainment in our day that has nothing objectionable in it. If we eliminate everything that doesn't conform to our Christian beliefs, we are, for all practical purposes, eliminating everything. I know people who have taken that route and would promote it to others; I just don't think that's realistic for our family. Cocooning yourself from the world is cozy, but your salt and light are trapped in your cocoon with you.

These concerns came up as I assembled my reading list for my Freshman English class this year. Most of the classics one needs to read in high school English classes are not “Christian” literature, and they include decidedly unchristian elements. Odysseus cheats on his wife. Shakespeare's comedies have a lot of bawdy humor. The violence and cruelty in A Tale of Two Cities is painful to read at times.

But part of our being made in the image of God is that we approach life in terms of narrative, and Story is a necessary way of making sense of our world. One of the complaints I have about most “Christian films” I've seen is that, in a well-meaning attempt to not glorify sin, they have sugar-coated the stories to the point of making them unreal and therefore meaningless. They are just as bad as the shows that DO glorify sin. None of them are real, and so none of them serve the purposes that God intends narrative to serve in our lives.

I'll be teaching my students this year that almost all of the stories we read will have an element of truth in them – but it is always incomplete truth, truth that needs to be informed by scripture. We can't avoid storylines with ungodly elements because the world we live in is an ungodly world; we have to learn how to read – and view – with a discerning mind.

Which brings me back to my daughter and her new favorite TV show. To watch or not to watch? The truth is, I have watched some very ungodly shows that have drawn me closer to God because they depicted the reality of sin and made me all the more grateful for a God who loves me enough to rescue me from that reality in myself. I've also watched some ungodly stuff that really messed me up.

So here's the advice I think I will give her: ask yourself, when I watch this show, does it bring me closer to God or further away? Do I find myself making excuses for the behavior of the characters I watch, or do I find myself sorrowful for the pain they don't realize they're causing themselves (like I would for a friend in that situation)? Do I see my standards changing for the better or for the worse because of watching this?

And in the end, really, is there something else that would be a better use of my time?

I am becoming increasingly cautious of ever using television or movies as “mindless entertainment”. We do need mindless entertainment on occasion, but unfortunately, we can't afford to rest our minds while we allow the world's images and stories to enter them.

Just What Gives You the Big Idea that You Should Be Free?

My eldest got tired of listening to talk radio yesterday and pulled out an old Adventures in Odyssey cassette to listen to. Boy, did that send me back! My little ones buckled into their car seats behind me and John Avery Whitaker's soothing voice coming through the speakers. Enjoyed those years.

The tape she picked was the story of a boy who gets bonked on the head and goes back to Revolutionary War time (I never said the stories were realistic -- just fun). He ends up in the middle of the Continental Congress session where they are debating whether or not to declare their independence from Britain. John Dickinson from Pennsylvania is arguing vehemently and eloquently against the idea. When he realizes he can't convince them, he graciously steps down from his position so they can proceed with a united front. (Wikipedia tells me he then joined the Pennsylvania militia. Fascinating man.)

Listening to the story made the girls and I wonder: how exactly did the founding fathers, the leaders
who led our country into making this radical and dangerous move, get this all-consuming passion for "freedom"? I don't think any other country in the world had "freedom" in this way. Where did they get the idea from to begin with, and what made them so convinced they had to have it that they were willing to stake their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor on it? People all over the world lived contented lives under governments that controlled much of their lives -- why did the Americans find this so intolerable?

How Then Shall We Live by Francis Schaeffer compared the American Revolution to the French Revolution . . . but he first compares the Reformation to the Renaissance. He sees them both as reactions to the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church. In northern Europe, people reacted by separating from the church and forming the Protestant denominations, based on believers reading the Word for themselves and being accountable to God individually. In southern Europe, people reacted by rejecting the premises of Christianity altogether and celebrating the greatness of man on his own -- the Enlightenment and so forth.

The American Revolution grew out of the Reformation tradition, Schaeffer says, and that's why it succeeded. The French Revolution grew out of Renaissance and Enlightenment thinking, and that's why it failed within a few years and Napoleon took over.

Now, this may be a bit simplistic of a view of things (and I haven't read the book in a while -- I may be simplifying it too much), but I do know that even the founding fathers argued that America needed godly principles to keep it going. "Only a virtuous people is capable of freedom," Ben Franklin said. And John Adams agreed: "Our Constitution is made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

We know that the founding fathers were influenced at least some by Enlightenment thinking, and that they were rather mixed and varied in their religious views, some more orthodox than others. But we also know that they all came out of a tradition of Protestantism, and they seemed to operate on a public level as Protestant believers even when their private views were more murky. Am I right in surmising that their passion for "freedom" came from their understanding of their relationship to God? Hmmm.

Listening to Dickinson's arguments made me think a lot of the arguments I hear liberal friends make justifying what conservatives feel is dramatic over-reach of the government. Wouldn't we all love to hear that Constitutional Convention crowd discuss, say, Obamacare? I'd buy tickets for that show.

Liberating the World's Educational Burnouts

My eldest graduates this Friday night. And of course, anytime I mention this, my listener asks what plans she has for next year. An appropriate question, but a little annoying because I can't answer sufficiently without a lot of words.

She's taking a “gap year”, as is apparently common in other parts of the world. She's still pretty unsure what she wants to do with her life, so she's going to look for a job – hopefully in a preschool, because her gifts and passions have always been with little kids – and spend the year figuring out if that's what she wants to do for a career, and if so, what further education will benefit her the most in that endeavor.

But she's also going to get a step up on her education through CLEP tests. You can get credit for a lot of college courses by testing out of them this way. It's MUCH cheaper than college (about $100 per test, for 3-6 credit hours). She can do it on her own time, around her work schedule. It's a good thing.

Hubby and I think this is a wise move on her part. It just makes no sense at all for her to spend the money and time to start on a college degree that, in the end, she may not need. It used to be that one went to college, puttered around a bit, and eventually found some direction in life. Higher education has become far too expensive to serve that purpose well. You gotta find your direction first and then decide if college is a necessary spot on that path.

Here's my concern, though. College isn't just about career preparation (or at least, it shouldn't be): colleges traditionally instructed people in the Liberal Arts, the subjects and skills that antiquity taught us are necessary for a person to know to be able to take an active part in civic life. History, literature, composition, public speaking, logic, mathematics, science, languages, philosophy, the arts, debate and discourse . . . yes, someone can make a living without knowing this stuff, but you would lose a lot in the making of a life. This is the art of living in liberty, of being a free person, a person of consequence, a person who can and chooses to make a difference. This is the stuff that develops good citizens. This is the stuff that develops good humans. 

The Liberal Arts used to be the essence of education. They used to be the focus of learning even at the high school level. But I don't think even our colleges do them justice anymore. Somehow over the years, we have become a specialized, practical race who can't see the forest of Real Life for the trees of Making An Income. We're more afraid of our kids ending up in a dead end job than we are of them being dead-hearted people.

So, while I'm all on board with my daughter's "college and career" plans, I'm hoping I can encourage her, in some way, to continue to cultivate the Liberal Arts in her life. Unfortunately, that door may be temporarily closed. She's burnt out. Her high school years turned her off on education that doesn't seem to have a practical purpose. I'm hoping a year's break may make room for the love of learning to ignite again. But when it does, where will she go to feed that fire?

Society needs a way to take our educational burnouts and nurse them in the Liberal Arts without their having to go back to the schools that burnt them out in the first place.

Ah. A summer project for me.

The Queen of Appearance

I kind of like this picture -- don't you? Woman Sitting on a Throne of Clothing (my title). It's not representative of me at all, but it's very symbolic of many women in the western world these days. The Queen of Appearance seated on the source of her majesty and power. I am Woman; see my dress. And its accompanying accessories and sky-high pumps.

The second month of Jen Hatmaker's "experimental mutiny against excess" (which I referred to in my last post) was about clothes.  Out of her vast wardrobe, she chose seven items of clothing:

- a pair of nice jeans
- a dress
- four shirts (of varying levels of dressiness and formality)
- shoes (one pair of sneakers and one pair of cowboy boots -- see note)

[NOTE: Ms. Jen's "Council" (a circle of friends whom she drafted to help her set the parameters of her experiment and to keep her accountable) all agreed to make "shoes" a single item, but limited the scope of that item to two pair.  And undergarments were excluded from the fast. Understandably.]

As the month progressed, Ms. Jen found herself enjoying the fact that she didn't have to waste time and energy making decisions about what to wear (something my eldest has enjoyed about having a school uniform). She also learned a lot about how much importance she gives to her image -- and how little most people really pay attention to what you wear -- and how ridiculously much others DO pay attention.  And about the importance of regular laundering.

As I was reading this chapter, though, I kept thinking, this would be a breeze for me. I've gotten to a point this year where I seem to wear the same seven items of clothing all the time anyway.  (Okay, more than seven items, but still.)  And that was a bit of a rude awakening.

I do have excuses for my limited wardrobe, though. For one thing, I'm home most of the time. Nobody sees much of me except when I go to church, go to BSF, and drop the kids off at school. And until about a month ago, we were visiting different churches almost every week, so I could wear the same outfit to church each week and nobody would know the difference (and even if I wore the same outfit to the same church twice in a row, we didn't know anybody there yet, so nobody would pay any attention anyway).

But I realized that the biggest factor is EXERCISE. I have put "exercise" as a permanent item on my to-do list every day because that means I may actually get to it three or four times in a week. This means that when I get up in the morning, I dress for exercise; if I don't, I just cut the chances of my lazy butt actually going out to run by about a fifth. And on the days that I don't run, I end up wearing my t-shirt and sweat pants all day -- and putting them on the next morning so I'm again ready to exercise.

However, it's still kind of sad that I've come to look like a frumpy housewife every day. I'm sure my husband would appreciate my looking a little nicer when he comes home in the evenings . . . or at least would appreciate some variety in my appearance. There has to be a happy medium between needing to dress to the nines to feel good about yourself and not giving a flip at all about what raggedy threads are hanging off of your limbs.

This week, I substituted at my daughter's school two mornings. Which meant that I suddenly had to find "work clothes" in my closet. Wow! It was kind of exciting and kind of annoying and kind of frustrating, all at the same time. And it also made me wonder why, in a school where the students are required to wear uniforms, the teachers are given the "freedom" to express their individuality in their dress.

"Freedom". I think if I were teaching there, I'd find it more freeing to have a uniform. Maybe if I start teaching there, I'll impose one on myself. Standing in solidarity with my students. Yeah.

But it won't be a pleated plaid skirt. I haven't killed my pride that dead yet.

Ah, the Freedom of Unstuffing

In the past couple weeks I have taken five van-loads of stuff to the Goodwill donation store down the street – and I have another box waiting to go. Included in these loads were items like a work bench . . . curtain rods . . . an old computer monitor . . . four or five sets of bedsheets . . . fourteen picture frames . . . twelve tablecloths (twelve!! and yes, I kept a few still) . . . lots and lots of stuff.

I've also given a few boxes to my youngest daughter's school – some office supplies, some books and quite a few craft supplies to the art teacher. What she couldn't use, she recommended I see if a nursing home would be interested in. That hadn't even occurred to me. Turns out, they were thrilled to have my yarn, fabric scraps, and a few bags of polyfil.

And I have a couple boxes of homeschool supplies that I need to find a home for still. I'm not sharing all this to toot my own horn. I'm actually kind of embarrassed that I had this much stuff sitting around my house needlessly.

But I can't tell you how good this personal Clean Sweep has felt. I've been wanting to do this for so long. When we were considering the move to Panama, I started getting rid of things then. But the real impetus for all this came earlier, when my sister gave me a book for Christmas a couple years ago: Unstuff, by Hayley and Michael DiMarco. It was able to articulate the feeling I'd been having for a while.

The feeling that each unnecessary item we had stored away in the house was becoming a heavy burden. Even when I didn't use it. Even though we had room to keep it. Even when I didn't look at it for months or years on end. They weighed on me. I don't know why, but they did.

Downsizing into our new house has been remarkably freeing. Now, if I could just convince our packrat daughter of how good it feels. The six trashbags full of stuffed animals in the attic could really be put to better use in someone else's home – or many someone else's homes. And we haven't even started on the seven or so big boxes of random little items from the shelves in her bedroom.

Maybe we can charge her for the storage. Yeah . . . yeah, that's the ticket.

The Fourth

Just a few memories of past "Fourths":

- When I was a kid, we lived half a block from Cessna Stadium, the football stadium on WSU's campus where the local ABC affiliate hosted a huge Fourth of July celebration each year.  My sisters and their families would come over every year, and we barbecued and watched fireworks.  We could see the fireworks from our backyard, but trees obstructed a full view, so we usually went up to the church on the corner and watched from their lawn.  Or some years, we fought the crowds and went to the show in the stadium.  Great bands, air force flyovers, just an awesome rousing show.

The fireworks there were the best I've ever seen in my life -- the "Concert in the Sky" they called it, everything timed and coordinated to the music, like choreography.  I think I heard later that the company who put on these displays was the same one who did the famous firework display at the Statue of Liberty for its anniversary.

This defines Independence Day for me: grilled burgers, mom's potato salad, homemade ice cream, and an amazing Concert in the Sky.  Nothing since has ever equaled it.

- My husband's family lived in a neighborhood that had a tradition of getting together for a neighborhood potluck breakfast on the morning of the Fourth.  We have been there a couple years to participate in this, and I thought it was a great tradition.  We decided to try it in New Jersey one year, and it was a good experience there, too.  Our family made biscuits and gravy for the potluck.  I was amazed how many of our NJ neighbors had never had biscuits and gravy . . . and how many of them were reluctant to even try it.  Seriously?  The best breakfast ever.

- This isn't necessary a July Fourth memory, but it is one I remembered last night when they played Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA".  I was in my first year of teaching at Blue Springs High School when the first Iraqi war began in 1991.  In fact, I was eating out with teacher friends, celebrating the last day of the semester, when we saw the news story on the restaurant's TVs.

The next day was a teacher workday to get our grades finished and turned in.  All the teachers were at the school, working with their radios on in their rooms, ready to hear the latest on the attacks. It was a somber and heavy day. I walked by the room of one of my friends (one whom, incidentally, my youngest is named after) and saw she had put down her pen and papers, had her head in her hands, and was crying.  From her radio I heard, "And I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today . . . "  She had become overwhelmed with the words of the song and couldn't continue grading.

For some reason, that image will always stay with me.

- Last night, we went to the Sioux City Explorers game.  I suppose an evening of America's Favorite Pastime is an appropriate way to spend the holiday, but . . . you know . . . baseball.  It's three or four hours of sitting for a few moments of wahoo-ing scattered here and there.  And this game went to twelve innings -- the last two hours of the game, they were tied 3-3.  It finally ended with one of our boys hitting a homer out of the park -- and yes, that was darn exciting.  But worth the two-hour wait?  I dunno . . .

The fireworks, though, were worth the wait.  Although they were no Concert in the Sky. 

When the Church Gets Taken Advantage Of

The youngest and I are reading through the book of Acts for our Bible lessons these days.  For those not familiar with scripture, Acts is the book that describes the birth of the church.  It begins with Jesus' ascension and ends with Paul in Rome, under arrest for preaching the gospel.  It's a great study to understand what the church was meant to be and to evaluate how far we've wandered from that.

One of the things that stood out to me: from the very beginning, it is emphasized, many times, that the people who followed Christ "had everything in common".  When someone in the community had a material need, others in the community sold property and brought the money in to the apostles to be distributed to those who needed it. 

I've heard it accused that the early church was a communist institution.  But not so.  Everyone still owned their own property.  Everyone still had a choice about whether or not they gave it up for someone else.  But the people were so full of love for each other, and so committed to and trusting in God and his provision, that they freely gave the material things up. 

Now, here's my question as I read this.  Scripture says that the early believers "enjoyed the favor of all the people" (it was only later when the religious authorities got on their case that everyone turned against them).  So, apparently, the general public was impressed with the character of these early believers.  They probably saw the way they cared for their own and realized that this is exactly what love and charity is supposed to look like, how it is to be practiced.  Presumably, this is partly why the church's numbers increased so dramatically in those early days -- the lives of the "preachers" validated the truth of their "sermons".

But, surely the early church attracted the posers as well.  Surely there were lazy, unscrupulous folks back then, too -- people who would have no qualms about faking a faith in a risen Messiah if that meant rich people would sell their beach house to buy them food.  People who were really good (we all know people like this) at spinning a sob story to make themselves always seem the innocent victim so that they don't have to take responsibility for themselves and their foolish actions or lazy ways.

Surely, someone tried to take advantage of the early church's generosity.  How did they handle that?

There's no record of such an event, but human nature hasn't changed that much over the centuries.  What did they do when someone made a "public profession of faith" and they questioned its veracity?  Did they confront them?  Reject them? Were they always confident in their suspicions, or did they worry about turning someone away that was for real?  Did they welcome them into the group getting distributions of bread and just hope they would eventually come around and legitimately believe? 

It's an important question, because the church today DOES get taken advantage of (as do the state and all non-religious charities as well).  How do we protect against that, and how strenuously do we make that effort?  I think even many political discussions these days are really centered on this issue.

The state's charity efforts are one thing . . . but as far as the church goes, or at least as far as individual believers go, I think we have to decide that if we err, we will err on the side of love and generosity.  We give.  We try to give wisely, but we continue to give.  That is our part.  We are not responsible for how it is received.

Easier said than done, I know.  But that's the state of the heart that we are aiming for, at least.

Yes, More on Sex

I hate to keep harping on this topic, but it keeps coming up . . .

On a news show the other day, a woman I’d never heard of, who was labeled as a “women’s rights activist”, was asked by the host, isn’t it in society’s best interest to discourage teenagers from sexual activity?  Never mind for now how we do that – that’s a topic for further discussion.  But can’t we all agree that discouraging teenagers from having sex is a good thing?  The women’s rights activist replied, “It doesn’t matter if we encourage or discourage teen sexual activity; they’re going to have sex anyway.”

Did you hear what she said? “They are going to have sex.  Period.  No point in explaining to them the value of waiting or the dangers of indulging.  They cannot or will not hear what we say.  They cannot or will not understand even if they do hear.  They cannot or will not control their sexual urges even if they do understand.  They are going to have sex anyway.” 

I don’t think that’s what she meant to say.  I think she meant to say that there are some kids that are going to have sex anyway, no matter what we do.  And because of that, we need to make sure those kids know how to protect themselves from the dangers of their behavior.  We must make explicit sexual education and condoms available for those kids.

Okay, perhaps I’ll concede that.  But I will add this:  There are also some kids who are willing and capable of hearing, understanding, and applying teaching on abstinence.  In fact, there are some kids who desperately want to hear that they can get have a great relationship with a boyfriend or girlfriend without sleeping with them, that they are not doomed to follow the foolishness of the crowd, that there are ways to maneuver the land mines of a sexually charged society and end up with the kind of relationship they instinctively want to have.  They want to be taught how to do what they're convinced is the right thing, because they don't know how to do it now.  We must offer abstinence education for those kids.

And I get frustrated at the people who insist that abstinence education is only the domain of the church.  Why do we assume that only "religious" kids would be interested?  That the only teenagers who could ever have an interest in dating without going all the way are those who have been taught by their parents or church that they should do this?

Why do we assume that saving sex for marriage is a value we cannot present in a public school without stepping on people’s liberty?  We present values about exercising, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, eating healthy, staying in school, going to college, volunteering in your community, recycling, voting . . . we teach all sorts of values in the public schools. We're not afraid of offending the obese by teaching their kids how to eat healthy.  We're not afraid of offending the high school dropouts by teaching their kids the importance of staying in school.

But sexual abstinence we can't touch.  I really don't get it.

Liberty's Kids

Watching a friend's two-year-old the other day and turning on Nick Jr. to find a bunch of shows I was completely unfamiliar with reminded me of how quickly kid's shows seem to come and go.  This means that there are probably scads of you that have never heard of "Liberty's Kids", and I decided I need to remedy that this morning.

"Liberty's Kids" was a PBS children's series that was on when I started homeschooling my eldest -- so, in the mid-2000s.  It has 42 episodes that cover the Revolutionary War period from the Boston Tea Party to Washington resigning his commission at the war's end (ending with a quick jump ahead to the Constitutional Convention).  I bought the DVD set when it went off the air and the youngest and I are viewing it this semester as the "spine" for our Revolutionary War study (because our history book is a world history book and has just one little section about the American Revolution -- and I want her to know more than that).

The story centers around three fictional teenagers who are living with Ben Franklin and helping him write stories about the conflict for the Pennsylvania Gazette.  One boy is a rabid patriot, one girl is a loyalist newly arrived from England . . . and the other boy is basically comic relief.  Because of their connections with Dr. Franklin and their roles as "journalists", they get a ring-side view of much of the action.

This is a great series -- I mean, really great.  It is a wonderful introduction to all the major events of the war and to life in the time period, but it also brings in lesser known figures like Phyllis Wheatley and Sybil Ludington.  It addresses tensions in the colonists' cause -- like the fact that they were fighting for freedom but still allowed slavery (another major character is Moses, a freed slave who works for Franklin and whose brother offers to fight for the British to earn his own freedom).

One of the things I love most, however, is that having the two main characters on opposite sides of the conflict means we hear the whole story.  We see the heroism of the colonists, but we also see the loyalists and the British as sympathetic characters with legitimate concerns.  Although Sarah, the loyalist young lady, does eventually become an American patriot, we see her process getting there and the reasons why.

And we also see times when the Americans were in the wrong.  One of my favorite episodes we just watched this week:  a British sailor is tarred and feathered by an angry mob cheered on by the patriot journalist James -- who later visits the victim and writes a story about the dangers of mob rule and the need for level heads.

This is a great series.  You can buy it at Amazon, I believe, or they have a website devoted to it here.  I highly recommend it to all my homeschool friends but also to anyone with children or anyone with a passion for our country.  Good, good stuff.

The Post About Sex

You know, I realize that I – being a Southern Baptist pretty much from conception – am not typical in our society anymore.  But I honestly don’t understand the sex thing, folks.  Recently while listening to certain friends spill their guts about sexual encounters they’ve had and the havoc they caused in their lives, I’ve had to bite my tongue to keep from saying to them, “Look, here’s a simple way to prevent such problems:  don’t have sex with someone you’re not married to.”

Seriously.  I understand that we all are tempted and we all fall sometimes.  But right now, I’m talking about people who start with the mindset that there is simply nothing wrong with having sex with someone you’re not married to.  This is not an unusual mindset these days.  And I don’t understand that.  When did mankind decide that this was progress?  That this was the way to go for the betterment of humanity?

Just picture for a moment what things would be like if we, as a society, held to the good old-fashioned belief that sex is for married people only.  What would that world look like?  Let’s start with how many unwanted children would not be conceived – and also not aborted.  I realize monogamous sex would not end the problem, but surely nobody can argue that it wouldn’t improve matters tremendously.

Consider how many dating relationships would be so much healthier and happier because they are centered on something other than sex -- which would then lead to marriages starting on more solid foundations.  Lord knows the institute of marriage could use a shot in the arm these days.  Furthermore, how many married people’s sex lives would be more satisfying for lack of past wounds and experiences?  There is a lot of research out there about how people who waited for sex until their wedding night are far more satisfied with their sex lives later than those who felt no compulsion to show such restraint.

STDs?  They would almost go the way of the dinosaurs.

Think of the effect on young people – the impact of an entire generation spending their teen years NOT wasting their time and energy and intellectual resources scheming about getting in and out of various people’s pants, because they’ve entered their teen years assuming and accepting that this is not an option for them.  How much stronger would our young people be – particularly our young men – if we intentionally taught them how to rule their passions rather than to be ruled by their passions . . . and convinced them that it’s possible to do so?  Imagine what change a generation with that kind of self-discipline and commitment to high standards could make on society.

Is it difficult?  Of course.  Will people fail and need to pick up and try again?  Certainly.  Is it intrusive in people’s personal lives and free choice to even suggest it?  Well, we have no problem these days “intruding” into people’s personal choices about the food they eat.  We actively encourage good nutrition by teaching everyone about healthy food choices and why they’re healthy.  We teach it in schools – we campaign for junk food to be removed from school lunches – we are even starting to require restaurants to post calorie counts by the items on menus.  And we justify it as a public issue because of the health costs that obesity burdens society with.  Yet, we turn an amazingly blind eye to the public costs of sexual promiscuity – costs in physical health, emotional health, damaged family structures . . . they are countless and they are profoundly destructive.

It’s obvious why the religious community preaches abstinence.  What I don’t understand is why the nanny-state secular community hasn’t gotten on board. 

Capitalism and The Fall

Last summer, I read a book called The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.  It is heavy reading, I’ll warn you.  Like a college textbook or something -- one of those books I had to mark up as I read to understand it.  I’d recommend it for your reading pleasure, but I suspect few of you would find its reading pleasurable, and then you’d be mad at me. J

In any case, the book makes a case for capitalism, and one of the points it makes is that capitalism assumes the fallenness of man and takes advantage of it.  Other systems, it contends, depend on people being good – either the general population or the particular people who are running things.  But Capitalism assumes that people are going to be selfish – because we are – and fashions things so that my working in my own self-interest ultimately works also in your interest (or, it at least does so as well as any system possibly could).

This sculpture is called "The Fallen Man".  It's more
about war than sin . . . but the image is wonderful
and applies to both concepts, I think.

A brief example: if I start a business selling groceries, my self-interest is to make as much money as I can, to support me and my family and whatever personal obsessions I have that require money.  But if I’m having to compete with other grocery stores to get your business, then the only way I can make that money is if I earn your business.  And the only way I can earn your business is by meeting your needs: offering you good quality groceries at a good price with good service.  I serve my interest by serving your interest.  Obviously, it gets more complicated than that, but that’s the idea.

Recent discussions from past posts of mine have revealed, however, how many friends I have who essentially don’t believe in “the fallenness of man”.  At least, not as the Bible teaches it and not as this defense of capitalism defines it.  These friends believe that if people are sinful, it’s not because they have an inherent sinful nature; it’s because society has screwed them over somehow and made them sinful.  And the solution to “sin”, then, is to re-shape society so it stops screwing people over.

And furthermore, I think that all of my friends who have espoused this belief about the nature of man also happen to be liberals.  In fact, at the moment, I can’t think of ANY Christian liberal friends of mine (and I do have Christian liberal friends) who also hold to traditional Biblical teachings about such things as the fallenness of man.  Surely there are some . . . hmmm . . .

I’ve had hopes for a long time of identifying the basic core differences between liberals and conservatives.  Surely I’m being too optimistic to think that I might have hit upon one . . .

The Judge-Not Thing

“Judge not, lest ye be judged.”  Goodness, is there any more frequently quoted scripture in our society these days?  And probably few that are more misconstrued and misused.

Here is the Joe American’s Contemporary Translation of Matthew 7:1:  “Don’t you dare to tell me that something I’m doing is a sin – or is even wrong or incorrect.  You can’t judge me!  You aren’t the ultimate authority on right and wrong!  You just need to keep your opinions to yourself and let me live my life the way I choose to.  Hypocrite!”

If we continue reading in Matthew 7, we hear Jesus say, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Yep, he uses that H-word, too: hypocrite.  Someone who slams on his brother’s sin without dealing with the glaring sins in his own life is a hypocrite.  Jesus tells the hypocrite to clean up his act . . . but then what?  Leave your brother alone?  Hold hands and dance under the rainbows singing Kum-Ba-Yah?  No – he says then help your brother get the speck out of his eye.

As much as Joe Contemporary American may hate to hear it, the Bible has plenty of passages encouraging believers to confront their fellow believers about sin in their life – gently, lovingly, and humbly, but confront nonetheless.

My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.  (James 5:19-20)

Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth.  Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil’s trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants. (2 Timothy 2:24-25)

Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself.  Share each other’s burdens, and in this way obey the law of Christ.  If you think you are too important to help someone, you are only fooling yourself. You are not that important. (Galatians 6:1-3)

Help your brother get the speck out of his eye. So, this idea that the Bible forbids us to ever have the gall to point out someone else’s sin is inaccurate.  We are clearly instructed, in some situations, to point out our brother’s sin.  In fact, I believe every writer of the New Testament was guilty of the “crime” of confronting a fellow believer with their sin.  We shouldn’t obsess about it . . . or harangue them . . . or humiliate them . . . or confront strangers . . . we confront our brothers lovingly, humbly, gently, with compassion and patience and always making it a priority to keep our own sins in line . . . but we are to confront.  I don’t like it either, but part of faith is accepting what is true whether we like it or not -- and courage is acting on the truth even when it's hard.

There was a commercial on TV when I was a kid about talking to your friends about drugs.  A girl stood on a railroad track in the path of an oncoming train; she spoke to the camera explaining that her life was her life and she could live it the way she wanted to, right?  And the train came nearer and nearer with its horn blaring.  The point was obvious: friends do what they can to push a friend off the railroad tracks when they know a train is coming.  That’s not hypocrisy.  It’s LOVE.

Let's Make a Case for Modesty

I saw this on FB last week and haven’t been able to let go of it.  Dick Gregory reportedly has said, “If I’m a woman and I’m walking down the street naked, you still don’t have the right to rape me.”  Alrighty then.  Duly noted, Mr. Gregory.

And if I have a house full of expensive electronic equipment and leave town for a week with the front door standing wide open, you still don’t have the right to rob me.  And if I take $40,000 out of the ATM, spread it on my dashboard and leave the car in the mall parking lot with the windows open, you don’t have the right to take it.  My stupidity does not justify your evil.  However, my stupidity may still be worthy of mention and rebuke.

I understand Mr. Gregory’s point.  To blame a woman for her rape because she dressed or behaved seductively is inexcusable.  The rapist is to blame for the rape – and he should come under the full penalty of the law regardless of how the woman was looking or behaving.  And if the legal system is allowing rapists to get away with their crime because of the behavior of their victims, this should be changed.  No reasonable human being would argue this.

But is it not worth noting that a woman who chooses to dress and behave seductively in an environment where there are likely to be bad men who will have no qualms about taking that bait she’s offering – laid out on the dashboard with the windows open – well, she’s being stupid!  When did the right to “express your sexuality” become the freedom to flaunt your goods to the world and think that you should never have to worry about bad guys trying to take them without permission?  Nobody else has that “freedom”.  We all know there are bad guys out there and we lock up and protect our goods from them.  We drive defensively – we lock our houses – we pocket our billfolds – and we cover up our boobs.

There’s a line here between freedom and responsibility, and I’m seeing too many feminists dance a little too close to it.

Our Philosophical Past, Present and Future

Mary-Elaine Swanson’s book John Locke: Philosopher of American Liberty is not light reading.  It is a scholarly work about the life and influence of the 17^th century philosopher.  It’s not for everybody.  But for those of us whom it is for, it is wonderful.

Swanson begins by telling about Locke’s life, mostly through the words of his companions.  Then she shows how Locke’s thoughts and writings were instrumental in the Glorious Revolution in England in the late 1600s.  Next comes a great comparison of the American and French Revolutions in terms of the philosophies behind them:  the American Revolution being based directly on Locke’s ideas . . . and its French counterpart using a perverted twisting of them.  She closes the book with an analysis of how America currently seems to be headed away from our Revolutionary roots and toward the path of the failed French philosophy.

This is a historical work, meant for historical study.  One doesn’t read this book to get a general idea of the ideas and thoughts behind these great movements of world history.  One reads this book to understand what influenced these ideas in their formation, how they were communicated person to person, how they were adopted and rejected by various people in positions of influence, and how they have been misinterpreted and misappropriated over the years.  Swanson is trying to get at the original Locke and his original thoughts, defending him from the accusation that his political philosophy was rooted in godless rationalism.

If you are concerned about the direction of our country today, and you have the time and inclination to examine the philosophical basis of it, this is a great book to get you started. You can order it here at Amazon.

I received this book free from the publisher through the BookCrash.com book review program, which requires an honest, though not necessarily positive, review. The opinions I have expressed are my own

Boycotts and Appreciation Days

Friendly advice to those I agree with AND those I disagree with.  Before you boycott . . .

1. Do your research.  A company here in Sioux City has had to lay off hundreds of people because a lot of other people believed an article full of lies and ran with their emotions.  That kind of damage is almost impossible to undo once done.  Reputations are hard to resurrect.  Check your facts.

2. Consider what exactly you expect to accomplish.  Do you hope to get them to change their policies?  Is that a realistic expectation?  Do you want to punish the company?  Do you want to shut the company down?  Are you motivated by a desire to bring about change or by a desire to inflict pain to ease your own hurt? 

3. Is your beef with a company policy or practice . . . or with the personal beliefs and actions of somebody associated with the company?  The people you disagree with have the right to believe and say what they want, AND they can still be quite capable of performing their job with excellence, AND they have the right to try to make a living doing so.  Do we in America really want to head down the path where everyone we do business with has to hold the same values we do?  That’s a scary place to be.

4. Who exactly is going to be hurt by this boycott?  The one person you hate . . . plus hundreds of innocent employees with families to support who may be on your side . . . and sometimes entire communities that rely on the growth of this business.  If you genuinely consider the consequences of your actions, you may decide there’s a better way to make your point.

Now concerning “Appreciation Days”.   You’re free to purchase or not purchase from a particular company for whatever reason you want.  But to intentionally purchase on a particular day to make a statement – well, you need to be very clear about what that statement is.  And is that statement clear to everyone who hears it? 

Most people who ate at Chik-fil-A on Wednesday were saying, “In America, government officials do not have the right to ban commercial establishments because of the publicly expressed personal beliefs of someone involved with the company.”  Amen to that.  But that’s not the message many heard.  In some cases, that was because people heard what they expected to hear based on their opinions of the messengers.  (Is that the fault of the sender or the receiver?  I don’t know.  Accurate communication requires responsible behavior from people on both ends.)  But in other cases, at some Chik-fil-As, people heard hate in a very literal and physical voice.  This is inexcusable.  And, unfortunately, given the current social climate, it was probably unavoidable.  Again, if you genuinely consider the consequences of your actions, you may decide there’s a better way to make your point.

And, as someone pointed out, it would be nice to see Christians showing up in droves at soup kitchens and homeless shelters -- to do the things Jesus really told them to do.

So, have I offended everyone yet?  How’s this: I stopped at Chik-fil-A Wednesday afternoon, but to be honest, only because it gave me an excuse to indulge in the best milkshake around.  So, I used the event for my own selfish ends.  There.  That should hack all my friends off.  J

Liberty

So, I've been thinking the past couple days, planning to write today a post about "What I Like Most About America Now That I've Been to Panama".  Problem is, I couldn't think of much.  Don't get me wrong -- I love my country.  But most of the things I came up with were either just weak or they were things that had more to do with the fact that we were staying in a small town than with the fact that it was Panama (dirt roads, no fast food, etc.).

Our new openness to living in other parts of the world has changed my perspective on my country, and now I'm wondering, what is it that is unique about the United States that I like?  And this is a particularly good time to consider this when I'm so very concerned about the direction the country is taking.

And here's my answer:  the best thing about the United States is . . . that elusive quality that everyone refers to as "The American Spirit".  That term is difficult to define as it probably means subtly different things to different people, yet its essence is palpable here. 

As I sense it (and I have friends who will hate this) the American Spirit is inextricably connected to liberty and Christianity.  The settlers of this country learned to live in liberty.  They were under the rule of the King of England but to a great extent they were also under his radar for a good amount of time.  They learned to be independent -- to support themselves and to govern themselves. 

And . . . (and here's what some friends will hate), what made that liberty successful here was that it was anchored in Christian values and beliefs.  No, not every early American was a Christian -- and not everyone who claimed to be a Christian was a good Christian -- but the society as a whole was informed by Christian ethics.  There was an underlying sense that, above all, we are accountable to God, and this understanding tempered and guided and enabled our liberty.

That American Spirit that I love is actually akin to the much-quoted scripture, Philippians 4:13.  I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.  That idea that anything is possible . . . that a poor man can become rich . . . that the son of an immigrant can become President . . . that a public school failure can become a future Einstein . . . that we are truly free to do whatever God has called us to do.  If the Son has set you free, then you will be free indeed.  John 8

We may end up living in another country someday.  But I will always love America.  The spirit of America.  God grant that we never give up that spirit to the lure of comfort and ease.