Category: Deana Chadwell

208754.png

Legalizing the Constitution


I once had a bumper sticker that read, “Legalize the Constitution.”  Occasionally, I would find myself having to explain it and often to defend it.  Really?  Not only is the Bill of Rights no longer understood or venerated, but confusion reigns.

The most important, the First Amendment, seems most prone to misuse.  It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Seems simple, yet we find ourselves at a point in our history where its import is ignored, repudiated, or twisted all out of proportion.

The First Amendment starts with the phrase “Congress shall make no law.”  So this limits the activities of Congress – not of states, or individuals, or schools, or any other group.  Just Congress.  A community can pass a law against obscene language in public if it wants to.  A teacher can limit the amount of speech and its contents in her class – she isn’t Congress.  A pastor should be able to say anything from the pulpit that his congregation will tolerate.

Secondly, it keeps Congress out of the business of setting up a national religion – common at the time of writing.  It keeps Congress – not anyone else – out of regulating religious practice.  Nothing in this statute prohibits states, or cities, from doing so.  I suspect that if Michigan continues its march toward Islam, at least some of its cities will take advantage of that freedom.

Thirdly, Congress is forbidden to make any law that abridges freedom of speech.  This is where we are up against a hard wall.  There can be, in this country, no national law enforcing political correctness.  This means that federal law enforcement cannot arrest, incarcerate, try, or convict anyone for an utterance just because it is offensive to someone.  If I fail to utilize the correct nongendered pronoun, I could be imprisoned in Canada, but the First Amendment prohibits that here.

So does that mean that a company can’t fire a person because he was overheard badmouthing the boss?  Or propositioning a female employee?  Or calling someone the N-word?  No.  The business belongs to those who own it, and since private ownership of property is another of our cherished rights, the business can hire and fire whom it will.  There are social and financial consequences, and the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect us from those.  If Facebook and Twitter keep offending conservatives, we’ll just leave – life without them is possible – but the government has to stay out of it.

Does it mean that the president can’t remove the top-secret security clearance from some ex-bureaucrat?  No.  A security clearance gives a person the right to know, not the right to speak about what he knows.  That’s why the word “secret” is involved.

Fourthly, “freedom of speech” just means that no federal legal action can be taken against you for something you say.  That is not an absolute – threatening to kill or harm someone is illegal.  Inciting to riot is as well.  Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater will land you in some trouble.  Lying under oath can cost you.  Common sense prevails.

“Freedom of speech” does not protect you from the negative social consequences of being linguistically obnoxious.  It does not abrogate laws against slander and libel.  It merely means that the federal government can’t grab you out of your bed in the middle of the night and throw you in a dungeon for complaining about the powers that be.

I like a Jordan Peterson quote I recently ran across: “Free speech isn’t merely the right to criticize those in power, and it’s also not only the right to say what you think.  It’s actually the right to think.”  I would add that it is also the responsibility to think – before you speak.  Every right has a concurrent duty, and the more important the right, the more onerous the obligation.  It is horrifying to hear elected officials and other limelight individuals saying in public that our president should be killed.  If they don’t like Trump’s policies, then argue against them, but don’t advocate his death.

It is embarrassing to hear our fellow Americans screaming obscenities, which are neither thought nor speech.  Taboo words and phrases are linguistically interesting in that they originate not the language center of the brain, but rather in the limbic system – they come boiling up out of the brain stem without a single cogent thought behind them.

What’s more, actions are not the same as speech, though courts have disagreed with me.  Burning flags, throwing rocks through windows, burning effigies are not discourse – they are temper tantrums.  If a person can’t articulate his grievances in actual language, then he hasn’t thought, hasn’t convinced anyone in power of the rightness of his cause, and it’s likely he doesn’t even know what his cause is.

The First Amendment keeps the government from denying us the right to gather in groups, carry placards, chant slogans, sing songs – yes, but the key word in the amendment is “peaceably.”  Demonstrations we are seeing in the streets these days are not peaceable.  Nor are those assembling speaking in any coherent sense.  In fact, lately, many such protests have been attempts to deny others their rights to freely assemble and to speak. 

The First Amendment does not protect us from hearing things we find objectionable.  We have no right to go through life without being offended.  We have no right to be shielded from those with whom we disagree.  We have no right to coerce others to agree with us.  I am a Christian, and as such, I have an obligation to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with my fellow man.  That is the “practice” of my religion.  Yet many today think the expression of my gratitude for my free salvation is an effort to “force” my religion on them.  “Force” involves violence, not speech.

Speaking of which, does “freedom of religion” apply to jihadi activity?  Is Islam even a religion?  One of these days, SCOTUS will have to figure that out.  The First Amendment really doesn’t protect us from anything but the federal government; however, the federal government does have the responsibility to protect its citizens from “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  We’ll have to wait and see.

How does the First Amendment affect education?  It should not have limited what I as a teacher could say in my public-school classroom – my atheist colleagues could say what they thought, but these days, Christian teachers must be careful.  Those who think there is any such thing as neutrality are mistaken.  If we limit our children’s view of the world by excluding God from the classroom, we have taught them, by default, that God isn’t.  Schools have hidden behind that sloppy thinking for generations.

We cannot protect the Constitution if we don’t take the time to think it through, if we don’t even know what it says.  It is not a bludgeon with which to accost or silence our opponents.  It is not an invitation to lie or manipulate.  It is meant to defend honorable citizens from a government’s tendency to become dishonorable.  Our Constitution – the most astounding covenant outside of the Bible – deserves not only “legalization,” but reverence, care, and protection.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com.  She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon.  She teaches writing and public speaking.

I once had a bumper sticker that read, “Legalize the Constitution.”  Occasionally, I would find myself having to explain it and often to defend it.  Really?  Not only is the Bill of Rights no longer understood or venerated, but confusion reigns.

The most important, the First Amendment, seems most prone to misuse.  It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Seems simple, yet we find ourselves at a point in our history where its import is ignored, repudiated, or twisted all out of proportion.

The First Amendment starts with the phrase “Congress shall make no law.”  So this limits the activities of Congress – not of states, or individuals, or schools, or any other group.  Just Congress.  A community can pass a law against obscene language in public if it wants to.  A teacher can limit the amount of speech and its contents in her class – she isn’t Congress.  A pastor should be able to say anything from the pulpit that his congregation will tolerate.

Secondly, it keeps Congress out of the business of setting up a national religion – common at the time of writing.  It keeps Congress – not anyone else – out of regulating religious practice.  Nothing in this statute prohibits states, or cities, from doing so.  I suspect that if Michigan continues its march toward Islam, at least some of its cities will take advantage of that freedom.

Thirdly, Congress is forbidden to make any law that abridges freedom of speech.  This is where we are up against a hard wall.  There can be, in this country, no national law enforcing political correctness.  This means that federal law enforcement cannot arrest, incarcerate, try, or convict anyone for an utterance just because it is offensive to someone.  If I fail to utilize the correct nongendered pronoun, I could be imprisoned in Canada, but the First Amendment prohibits that here.

So does that mean that a company can’t fire a person because he was overheard badmouthing the boss?  Or propositioning a female employee?  Or calling someone the N-word?  No.  The business belongs to those who own it, and since private ownership of property is another of our cherished rights, the business can hire and fire whom it will.  There are social and financial consequences, and the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect us from those.  If Facebook and Twitter keep offending conservatives, we’ll just leave – life without them is possible – but the government has to stay out of it.

Does it mean that the president can’t remove the top-secret security clearance from some ex-bureaucrat?  No.  A security clearance gives a person the right to know, not the right to speak about what he knows.  That’s why the word “secret” is involved.

Fourthly, “freedom of speech” just means that no federal legal action can be taken against you for something you say.  That is not an absolute – threatening to kill or harm someone is illegal.  Inciting to riot is as well.  Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater will land you in some trouble.  Lying under oath can cost you.  Common sense prevails.

“Freedom of speech” does not protect you from the negative social consequences of being linguistically obnoxious.  It does not abrogate laws against slander and libel.  It merely means that the federal government can’t grab you out of your bed in the middle of the night and throw you in a dungeon for complaining about the powers that be.

I like a Jordan Peterson quote I recently ran across: “Free speech isn’t merely the right to criticize those in power, and it’s also not only the right to say what you think.  It’s actually the right to think.”  I would add that it is also the responsibility to think – before you speak.  Every right has a concurrent duty, and the more important the right, the more onerous the obligation.  It is horrifying to hear elected officials and other limelight individuals saying in public that our president should be killed.  If they don’t like Trump’s policies, then argue against them, but don’t advocate his death.

It is embarrassing to hear our fellow Americans screaming obscenities, which are neither thought nor speech.  Taboo words and phrases are linguistically interesting in that they originate not the language center of the brain, but rather in the limbic system – they come boiling up out of the brain stem without a single cogent thought behind them.

What’s more, actions are not the same as speech, though courts have disagreed with me.  Burning flags, throwing rocks through windows, burning effigies are not discourse – they are temper tantrums.  If a person can’t articulate his grievances in actual language, then he hasn’t thought, hasn’t convinced anyone in power of the rightness of his cause, and it’s likely he doesn’t even know what his cause is.

The First Amendment keeps the government from denying us the right to gather in groups, carry placards, chant slogans, sing songs – yes, but the key word in the amendment is “peaceably.”  Demonstrations we are seeing in the streets these days are not peaceable.  Nor are those assembling speaking in any coherent sense.  In fact, lately, many such protests have been attempts to deny others their rights to freely assemble and to speak. 

The First Amendment does not protect us from hearing things we find objectionable.  We have no right to go through life without being offended.  We have no right to be shielded from those with whom we disagree.  We have no right to coerce others to agree with us.  I am a Christian, and as such, I have an obligation to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with my fellow man.  That is the “practice” of my religion.  Yet many today think the expression of my gratitude for my free salvation is an effort to “force” my religion on them.  “Force” involves violence, not speech.

Speaking of which, does “freedom of religion” apply to jihadi activity?  Is Islam even a religion?  One of these days, SCOTUS will have to figure that out.  The First Amendment really doesn’t protect us from anything but the federal government; however, the federal government does have the responsibility to protect its citizens from “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  We’ll have to wait and see.

How does the First Amendment affect education?  It should not have limited what I as a teacher could say in my public-school classroom – my atheist colleagues could say what they thought, but these days, Christian teachers must be careful.  Those who think there is any such thing as neutrality are mistaken.  If we limit our children’s view of the world by excluding God from the classroom, we have taught them, by default, that God isn’t.  Schools have hidden behind that sloppy thinking for generations.

We cannot protect the Constitution if we don’t take the time to think it through, if we don’t even know what it says.  It is not a bludgeon with which to accost or silence our opponents.  It is not an invitation to lie or manipulate.  It is meant to defend honorable citizens from a government’s tendency to become dishonorable.  Our Constitution – the most astounding covenant outside of the Bible – deserves not only “legalization,” but reverence, care, and protection.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com.  She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon.  She teaches writing and public speaking.



Source link

A Weak and Crumbling Foundation


 

What do humans do when they discover – albeit subconsciously – that everything they’ve believed in is wrong – is, in fact, evil?  Are folks likely to do a face-palm; shake their heads; and say, “Can’t believe I bought into such stupidity!”?  Sometimes the truly honest among us will do that, but it doesn’t happen often.  When the ground shakes under us, we are more likely to just mindlessly grab for the nearest support.

If we grew up certain:

  • that God is just a convenient fairy tale;
  • that the government’s purpose is to take the place of indulgent parents;
  • that sexual desires, all sexual desires should be fulfilled ASAP;
  • that people are just the evolutionary top of the food chain;
  • and are merely animals and therefore expendable;
  • that drugs are enlightening;
  • that truth is nonexistent;
  • and that, most important of all, utopia is within our reach because we know better than God how to organize a nation,

…then what do we do when we see even our most important leaders functioning as if there is no moral code?  What do we think when the people we see as special turn out to be sexual predators?  How are we to understand our misery when our children OD on opioids, kill themselves over Facebook bullying, or kill others just because they are angry or want to be famous?  How do we handle it when we pray to the God we no longer believe in and get no response at all?

What do we do? Most people look around desperately for someone else to blame, or even better, some inanimate object to hold accountable. Ban guns! It takes no moral courage to blame a thing, but it takes massive internal fortitude to look in the mirror and blame the unsustainable ideas that we’ve held dear now for several generations.

It’s hard to look at the slaughter of our children in a schoolyard, but we are still willing to kill them by the thousands in an abortion clinic. It’s horrifying to see the damage wrought by social media, but we don’t have the stomach to face down our spoiled children and deny them access.  It makes us sick to see the sexualization of our young children, but we’re too spoiled ourselves to limit our own indulgence in nearly pornographic television. We don’t seem to have the national backbone to admit our part in the destruction of our offspring.

So we demand the banning of guns. We don’t fall on our knees and confess our faithlessness to the God who made us free and prosperous. We don’t change our own behavior, vow to make a go of our marriages and raise our children with both love and discipline. We don’t look with a more critical eye at the policies that contributed to our fractured families, our failing schools, our angry, drug-addled youth. No. We scream, “Ban guns!” Maybe if we scream it loudly enough the guilt will go away.

And the screamers don’t follow up their hollering with careful thinking about what taking guns out of our society would look like. There are over 300 million privately owned firearms in this country. We understand – those of us who know anything about history – how important it is that we keep them.  We know that all our other rights rest on the right to defend ourselves against tyranny. I’m not giving up mine without a fight and I don’t think I’m alone in that. The confiscation of guns in America will be a bloodbath that makes Parkland look insignificant.

But the deep panic that the unwitting left feels at the blatant, obvious, horrifying evidence that all their most prideful beliefs are bogus is not going to allow any self-searching. Will there be curriculum meetings sprouting up all over the country to try to determine if we’re teaching only what’s truly wholesome and productive? I don’t see that happening. Will Congress take a fresh look at how welfare policies affect family structure? Not likely, and if they did, where would we find the strong, stalwart men to step up and become great fathers? We are training our young men to be women, so how is that going to work? Are we likely, as an entire culture, to realize that law and a godless moral code can’t protect us from evil? It’s easier to ban guns, or at least to vociferously demand that; I’m not sure the reality really matters to the screamers.

I take heart in knowing that a society can be swayed by only a small percentage of us thinking clearly. I am reassured when I remember Abraham bargaining with God over Sodom; God agreed to save it if only 10% were good, God-fearing people. I take heart in our current administration; Trump seems to be thinking clearly and several steps ahead of his opponents. His cabinet appears to understand what is at stake here.

It was Jesus Christ who said, “And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” The truth isn’t always comfortable, or flattering, and when ignored long enough, it can be excruciating when finally acknowledged. Therefore, truth is under attack today, but it is still readily available; if we want truth, we can still get it, though it wouldn’t be surprising to find that after they ban guns, the Bible will be next.

Not a day goes by anymore that we don’t come face-to-face with the evidence that our progressive worldview stands on a weak and crumbling foundation. Science is dealing blow after blow to evolutionary, Godless theories. Our liberal educational ideas are proving counterproductive. Our laissez-faire child-rearing practices are evidently inadequate. The way we care for our poor causes more problems than it solves. We don’t want to control our own behavior, but we resent the police who then have to do it for us. The Parkland shooting proves that our culture is a disaster, not that our gun policies are. We need to be able to face that fact or there will be hell to pay.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com.  She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon.  She teaches writing and public speaking.

 

What do humans do when they discover – albeit subconsciously – that everything they’ve believed in is wrong – is, in fact, evil?  Are folks likely to do a face-palm; shake their heads; and say, “Can’t believe I bought into such stupidity!”?  Sometimes the truly honest among us will do that, but it doesn’t happen often.  When the ground shakes under us, we are more likely to just mindlessly grab for the nearest support.

If we grew up certain:

  • that God is just a convenient fairy tale;
  • that the government’s purpose is to take the place of indulgent parents;
  • that sexual desires, all sexual desires should be fulfilled ASAP;
  • that people are just the evolutionary top of the food chain;
  • and are merely animals and therefore expendable;
  • that drugs are enlightening;
  • that truth is nonexistent;
  • and that, most important of all, utopia is within our reach because we know better than God how to organize a nation,

…then what do we do when we see even our most important leaders functioning as if there is no moral code?  What do we think when the people we see as special turn out to be sexual predators?  How are we to understand our misery when our children OD on opioids, kill themselves over Facebook bullying, or kill others just because they are angry or want to be famous?  How do we handle it when we pray to the God we no longer believe in and get no response at all?

What do we do? Most people look around desperately for someone else to blame, or even better, some inanimate object to hold accountable. Ban guns! It takes no moral courage to blame a thing, but it takes massive internal fortitude to look in the mirror and blame the unsustainable ideas that we’ve held dear now for several generations.

It’s hard to look at the slaughter of our children in a schoolyard, but we are still willing to kill them by the thousands in an abortion clinic. It’s horrifying to see the damage wrought by social media, but we don’t have the stomach to face down our spoiled children and deny them access.  It makes us sick to see the sexualization of our young children, but we’re too spoiled ourselves to limit our own indulgence in nearly pornographic television. We don’t seem to have the national backbone to admit our part in the destruction of our offspring.

So we demand the banning of guns. We don’t fall on our knees and confess our faithlessness to the God who made us free and prosperous. We don’t change our own behavior, vow to make a go of our marriages and raise our children with both love and discipline. We don’t look with a more critical eye at the policies that contributed to our fractured families, our failing schools, our angry, drug-addled youth. No. We scream, “Ban guns!” Maybe if we scream it loudly enough the guilt will go away.

And the screamers don’t follow up their hollering with careful thinking about what taking guns out of our society would look like. There are over 300 million privately owned firearms in this country. We understand – those of us who know anything about history – how important it is that we keep them.  We know that all our other rights rest on the right to defend ourselves against tyranny. I’m not giving up mine without a fight and I don’t think I’m alone in that. The confiscation of guns in America will be a bloodbath that makes Parkland look insignificant.

But the deep panic that the unwitting left feels at the blatant, obvious, horrifying evidence that all their most prideful beliefs are bogus is not going to allow any self-searching. Will there be curriculum meetings sprouting up all over the country to try to determine if we’re teaching only what’s truly wholesome and productive? I don’t see that happening. Will Congress take a fresh look at how welfare policies affect family structure? Not likely, and if they did, where would we find the strong, stalwart men to step up and become great fathers? We are training our young men to be women, so how is that going to work? Are we likely, as an entire culture, to realize that law and a godless moral code can’t protect us from evil? It’s easier to ban guns, or at least to vociferously demand that; I’m not sure the reality really matters to the screamers.

I take heart in knowing that a society can be swayed by only a small percentage of us thinking clearly. I am reassured when I remember Abraham bargaining with God over Sodom; God agreed to save it if only 10% were good, God-fearing people. I take heart in our current administration; Trump seems to be thinking clearly and several steps ahead of his opponents. His cabinet appears to understand what is at stake here.

It was Jesus Christ who said, “And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” The truth isn’t always comfortable, or flattering, and when ignored long enough, it can be excruciating when finally acknowledged. Therefore, truth is under attack today, but it is still readily available; if we want truth, we can still get it, though it wouldn’t be surprising to find that after they ban guns, the Bible will be next.

Not a day goes by anymore that we don’t come face-to-face with the evidence that our progressive worldview stands on a weak and crumbling foundation. Science is dealing blow after blow to evolutionary, Godless theories. Our liberal educational ideas are proving counterproductive. Our laissez-faire child-rearing practices are evidently inadequate. The way we care for our poor causes more problems than it solves. We don’t want to control our own behavior, but we resent the police who then have to do it for us. The Parkland shooting proves that our culture is a disaster, not that our gun policies are. We need to be able to face that fact or there will be hell to pay.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com.  She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon.  She teaches writing and public speaking.



Source link

Holes in Our Heads


We’ve all noticed that our leftist fellow-Americans have ceased to make sense. We’ve figured out that they’ve descended into redundant, irrational name-calling because they’ve lost the thread of their argument -– if there ever was one. But lately, due to several articles I’ve run across, I’m beginning to suspect that some actual, physical brain anomalies may be in play here. I’m not being sarcastic.

In a recent study done in Great Britain, using a half million participants, scientists discovered that people who suffer from depression show changes in the white matter of the brain – that part that is key to communication. Since depression has reached epidemic proportions, this seems important. A study done by the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance discovered that the hippocampi of the brains of depressive individuals appear to have shrunk. An article in Science Daily reported on a study of casual marijuana users that showed a noticeable difference in the shape, size, and density of the reward centers of the brain –- affecting motivation –- and of the amygdala -– the emotional center of the brain. In fact, a study done at the University of Michigan showed that experience, psychoactive drugs, sex hormones, and dietary factors affected the shape of the brain. Not the mind, the brain.

I could go on and on. Recent technology is allowing us to see the brains of living people, to watch them work, so we can now start to ask some very important questions.  The questions that come to my mind center around the leftist brain. It seems the more obvious it is that collectivist ideas are all vacant and useless –- whether we’re watching the Venezuelans forced to eat rabbits, looking at the abject failure of the War on Poverty and its dissolution of the nuclear family, or at the Muslim destruction of European culture -– the more adamant and angry socialists become. They seem utterly unable to walk away from demonstrably false concepts. Why is that?

We can show them the climate change data and the numerous times that data has been falsified, and what do we get? A stare as blank as a petit-mal seizure. We can whip out the statistics on the starvation factor in North Korea and the same thing happens –- no contact made. I’ve been amazed listening to the protestors in St. Louis. They appear to have no ability to question the presuppositions they had before the trial, nor do they have even a glimmer of the absurdity of their preference for justice-by-mob. Here are streets filled with black people demanding the right to lynch their fellow man, yet I see no flicker of irony on any of the faces.

The same was true of the protestors in Berkeley. No grasp at all of the silliness of demanding the right to express their ideas by denying another person’s right to express his.  No inkling of the contradictory nature of their stance -– i.e. that committing violence is free speech, but that free speech, when it is actually speech, is not. Not free, not allowed, not appreciated. These are supposedly intelligent, expensively educated people.

How can a normal brain function like that? How did we get to the point where people, instead of arguing logically against policies and positions, prefer to promote the assassination of a sitting president, burn American flags, or think that tearing down statues will somehow fix society? That’s not just a difference of opinion; it’s medical pathology.

There was a time when most of us saw mental disease as a disability of the mind, the immaterial self, but I’m beginning to believe that it may also be physical. Can one think untruth day after day, year after year and expect it to not affect one’s brain? We recognize that daily indulging in chocolate milkshakes will affect our waistlines; is it so far-fetched then to wonder what a constant intake of anger will do to the cerebral cortex? Will a steady diet of lies eat actual holes in the grey matter? Any attempt I make to converse with leftists always leaves me scratching my head –- the wiring just seems to be off.

Is it wise to assume that we can live in anger and bitterness for months and months and not have it twist our brain’s chemistry?  No affect to the delicate cell structures? Can we routinely ingest drugs –- prescribed or purchased on a street corner -– and expect the synapses to go off when they should? I mean, if I put water in the gas tank will the engine run?

And if we have actually changed our brains, can we change them back? Is the plasticity of the brain that flexible?

I think of the stanza from Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” –

“And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day,

Yet knowing how way leads on to way

I doubted if I should ever come back.”

Can we come back? Or have we “educated” the last two generations into serious, permanent, mental disabilities? Have people developed eating habits, pharmaceutical practices, thinking propensities, that have distorted their brains to point where they really can’t see the logic, can’t process any factual information that doesn’t already fit the rigid shape their brains are locked into?

I believe it is possible to reshape a crooked brain. I believe that’s what the Bible means when it says that those who believe are “new creatures in Christ.” It takes time for an abused brain to recover, time and a steady, hefty diet of biblical thinking, but I’m living proof it can happen and I’ve seen it happen to many, many others. But, I’ve also seen many who keep on keeping on with those things that are ruining whatever brains they have left.

You know those scenes in old movies where the heroine has thrown herself into a hysterical hissy-fit and a more level-headed character has to slap her across the face to bring her back to sanity? That’s a good metaphor for America today. Too many American brains have gotten warped, misshapen, and hysterical for the nation to function. I suspect that these Western wildfires, the two hurricanes, and whatever disasters happen next are Providence giving us a collective slap across our arrogant faces in hopes that we’ll snap out of it long enough to start rebuilding whatever remains of our national psyche, of the American soul. There is much work to do, much healing to happen, much prayer needed. God help us.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 

We’ve all noticed that our leftist fellow-Americans have ceased to make sense. We’ve figured out that they’ve descended into redundant, irrational name-calling because they’ve lost the thread of their argument -– if there ever was one. But lately, due to several articles I’ve run across, I’m beginning to suspect that some actual, physical brain anomalies may be in play here. I’m not being sarcastic.

In a recent study done in Great Britain, using a half million participants, scientists discovered that people who suffer from depression show changes in the white matter of the brain – that part that is key to communication. Since depression has reached epidemic proportions, this seems important. A study done by the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance discovered that the hippocampi of the brains of depressive individuals appear to have shrunk. An article in Science Daily reported on a study of casual marijuana users that showed a noticeable difference in the shape, size, and density of the reward centers of the brain –- affecting motivation –- and of the amygdala -– the emotional center of the brain. In fact, a study done at the University of Michigan showed that experience, psychoactive drugs, sex hormones, and dietary factors affected the shape of the brain. Not the mind, the brain.

I could go on and on. Recent technology is allowing us to see the brains of living people, to watch them work, so we can now start to ask some very important questions.  The questions that come to my mind center around the leftist brain. It seems the more obvious it is that collectivist ideas are all vacant and useless –- whether we’re watching the Venezuelans forced to eat rabbits, looking at the abject failure of the War on Poverty and its dissolution of the nuclear family, or at the Muslim destruction of European culture -– the more adamant and angry socialists become. They seem utterly unable to walk away from demonstrably false concepts. Why is that?

We can show them the climate change data and the numerous times that data has been falsified, and what do we get? A stare as blank as a petit-mal seizure. We can whip out the statistics on the starvation factor in North Korea and the same thing happens –- no contact made. I’ve been amazed listening to the protestors in St. Louis. They appear to have no ability to question the presuppositions they had before the trial, nor do they have even a glimmer of the absurdity of their preference for justice-by-mob. Here are streets filled with black people demanding the right to lynch their fellow man, yet I see no flicker of irony on any of the faces.

The same was true of the protestors in Berkeley. No grasp at all of the silliness of demanding the right to express their ideas by denying another person’s right to express his.  No inkling of the contradictory nature of their stance -– i.e. that committing violence is free speech, but that free speech, when it is actually speech, is not. Not free, not allowed, not appreciated. These are supposedly intelligent, expensively educated people.

How can a normal brain function like that? How did we get to the point where people, instead of arguing logically against policies and positions, prefer to promote the assassination of a sitting president, burn American flags, or think that tearing down statues will somehow fix society? That’s not just a difference of opinion; it’s medical pathology.

There was a time when most of us saw mental disease as a disability of the mind, the immaterial self, but I’m beginning to believe that it may also be physical. Can one think untruth day after day, year after year and expect it to not affect one’s brain? We recognize that daily indulging in chocolate milkshakes will affect our waistlines; is it so far-fetched then to wonder what a constant intake of anger will do to the cerebral cortex? Will a steady diet of lies eat actual holes in the grey matter? Any attempt I make to converse with leftists always leaves me scratching my head –- the wiring just seems to be off.

Is it wise to assume that we can live in anger and bitterness for months and months and not have it twist our brain’s chemistry?  No affect to the delicate cell structures? Can we routinely ingest drugs –- prescribed or purchased on a street corner -– and expect the synapses to go off when they should? I mean, if I put water in the gas tank will the engine run?

And if we have actually changed our brains, can we change them back? Is the plasticity of the brain that flexible?

I think of the stanza from Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” –

“And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day,

Yet knowing how way leads on to way

I doubted if I should ever come back.”

Can we come back? Or have we “educated” the last two generations into serious, permanent, mental disabilities? Have people developed eating habits, pharmaceutical practices, thinking propensities, that have distorted their brains to point where they really can’t see the logic, can’t process any factual information that doesn’t already fit the rigid shape their brains are locked into?

I believe it is possible to reshape a crooked brain. I believe that’s what the Bible means when it says that those who believe are “new creatures in Christ.” It takes time for an abused brain to recover, time and a steady, hefty diet of biblical thinking, but I’m living proof it can happen and I’ve seen it happen to many, many others. But, I’ve also seen many who keep on keeping on with those things that are ruining whatever brains they have left.

You know those scenes in old movies where the heroine has thrown herself into a hysterical hissy-fit and a more level-headed character has to slap her across the face to bring her back to sanity? That’s a good metaphor for America today. Too many American brains have gotten warped, misshapen, and hysterical for the nation to function. I suspect that these Western wildfires, the two hurricanes, and whatever disasters happen next are Providence giving us a collective slap across our arrogant faces in hopes that we’ll snap out of it long enough to start rebuilding whatever remains of our national psyche, of the American soul. There is much work to do, much healing to happen, much prayer needed. God help us.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 



Source link

To Serve My Turn upon Him


Does anyone else have the strange feeling that we’re caught up in some Shakespearian tragedy, some skullduggery creeping through the entourage of Henry VIII? I sense spies hiding in the curtains and hear whispers behind the potted palms. I’ve always thought of American politics as functioning in a fairly straightforward way, without the baroque, twisted nature of the old European courts. But here we are. Last week, watching Comey testify I kept hearing in my head the words of Iago in the opening act of Othello,

I follow him to serve my turn upon him:

We cannot all be masters, nor all masters

Cannot be truly follow’d.

Iago is the most evil character in all of fictional literature. Throughout the play he is referred to as “Honest Iago.” He’s really good at being bad. He looked good, competent, confident. Weren’t we told how honest Comey is? What a fine, upstanding person he is? Doesn’t he give that appearance? Tall, handsome, impeccably dressed, buttoning his suit jacket in the appropriate lawyerly manner, looking straight into the eyes of those he lies to.

Iago is also fond of breaking the fourth wall -– he comes right down to the footlights, looks the audience right in the eye and tells us what he’s going to do to Othello. And there we sit, stuck in our seats, unable to do anything to warn him. I felt like that listening to Comey as he told us that he leaked his memos in order to get a special counsel set up to investigate Trump (This he did right after Trump fired him.), yet no one rushed out and arrested him. No audible gasps, no rolling eyes -– nothing. It was like he’d just announced that he’d had lunch.

Last July Jim Comey shocked us all with his weird testimony about Hillary and her errant emails. Yes, she’s guilty. No, we won’t indict her. Huh? The whole nation walked around with wrinkled brows for weeks. What kind of a Janus act was this guy performing? Iago liked to swear, “By Janus!” I heard him again:

Heaven is my judge, not I for love and duty,

But seeming so, for my peculiar end:..

His “end” is peculiar indeed. Is he motivated by hatred for Trump? Or by fear of Hillary? Or fear of Obama? Obama was still in office during these first two forays. Both of them are dangerous people, so fear of them is not as irrational as hatred of Trump.

Or –- more likely yet –- is he motivated by his own ambitions, his own greed? That motivates many a villain. Comey once worked at Lockheed Martin, where in one year he earned $6 million as vice president and general counsel  (It is interesting to note that Lockheed is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation.) His questionable connections to a London bank and to his brother’s real estate dealings also raise character questions. We never do know Iago’s motivations; he tells us, but he keeps changing his mind, and his wife, speaking of his jealousies, says:

They are never jealous for the cause.


They are jealous for they are jealous.

It’s hard to tell what Comey is up to; it’s like trying to stay ahead of Thomas Cromwell. On July 5th he announces his Hillary-guilty-but decision (which was not his to make). On October 28th, he announces he’s reopening the investigation into her emails, then turns around just 48 hours before the election, and says, basically, “Never mind.”  What maneuver is this? What palace intrigue?

Never mind! On Hillary’s watch, and under her supervision classified information was left to wander the streets alone, at night, in fact ended up on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, well-known pervert and husband to Hillary’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, who has well-known close family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. And the perfect, “honest” Comey is willing to look the other way. Never mind. Nothing to see here; move right along.

This man was the head of the FBI, but we cannot tell whether he’s at all interested in the well-being of the people of the United States, or just intense about the well-being of James Comey. He certainly was interested in expressing his feelings about things, but had no factual, useful information for us. He felt strange; he was very concerned; he was even nauseous on occasion. Do any of us care how he felt? I had always thought of the FBI as a just-the-facts-ma’am kind of organization.

To make matters even more unsettling, now that the Russia conspiracy has fizzled like cotton candy on a hot day, he’s drummed up some real serious reservations about Trump’s General Flynn comment –- which only Comey heard and which Comey only brought up after Trump had fired him. Curiouser and curiouser.

And why is Comey’s BFF the special prosecutor trying to prove The Donald obstructed justice? How can you obstruct justice if no crime has been committed? Trump, could, if he needed to, just pardon Flynn, but the general doesn’t seem to have done anything illegal; talking to the Russians was his job. And if Comey thought Trump’s remarks were an order to circumvent prosecuting Flynn, why didn’t Comey do what he thought he was told? But he didn’t do anything until he lost his job.

I am glad to see the President no longer trusts this man. It was good that he waited until Comey was not around to fire him –- no chance for this Judas to hide anything. I do wonder what Trump has on him and I do hope it’s good, for Comey appears to be doing the same thing Iago did to Othello:

…practising upon his peace and quiet

Even to madness.

Later in the play, Iago, attempting to convince Othello of Desdemona’s infidelity, says,

I speak not yet of proof.  

There wasn’t any because she was innocent. Then later he adds:

And this may help to thicken other proofs

That do demonstrate thinly.

But there weren’t any other proofs — a point Othello misses. It’s a point the media and those who pay attention to it miss as well. There are no proofs. Of anything. There’s no evidence of any behavior even slightly unethical, let alone illegal. But charge ahead they will.

They do because all they have to accomplish is to kill Trump’s reputation and that’s not hard to do. As Iago points out to Cassio (whose reputation he has just destroyed:

Reputation is an idle and most false

imposition: oft got without merit, and lost without

deserving…   He (and Comey) should know.

Yet later on in Act IV he tells Othello:

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,

Is the immediate jewel of their souls:

Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;

‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands:

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him

And makes me poor indeed.

And knowing that, he went right ahead and did everything to ruin the reputations of Othello’s wife, his best friend, and of Othello himself.

Throughout the play, Iago knows exactly what he’s doing. Throughout the Trump presidency Comey has known what he was doing, too. I don’t think he’s as smart and sly as Iago, but he’s attempting to ruin the president and he’s using many of Iago’s methods to do so. We should remember as we watch this drama unfold that, though by the end of the play five people are dead, including Othello and Desdemona, Iago is hauled off to the dungeon to be tortured and executed. Comey will get his –- I just pray it’s before he does more damage, not after.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 

Does anyone else have the strange feeling that we’re caught up in some Shakespearian tragedy, some skullduggery creeping through the entourage of Henry VIII? I sense spies hiding in the curtains and hear whispers behind the potted palms. I’ve always thought of American politics as functioning in a fairly straightforward way, without the baroque, twisted nature of the old European courts. But here we are. Last week, watching Comey testify I kept hearing in my head the words of Iago in the opening act of Othello,

I follow him to serve my turn upon him:

We cannot all be masters, nor all masters

Cannot be truly follow’d.

Iago is the most evil character in all of fictional literature. Throughout the play he is referred to as “Honest Iago.” He’s really good at being bad. He looked good, competent, confident. Weren’t we told how honest Comey is? What a fine, upstanding person he is? Doesn’t he give that appearance? Tall, handsome, impeccably dressed, buttoning his suit jacket in the appropriate lawyerly manner, looking straight into the eyes of those he lies to.

Iago is also fond of breaking the fourth wall -– he comes right down to the footlights, looks the audience right in the eye and tells us what he’s going to do to Othello. And there we sit, stuck in our seats, unable to do anything to warn him. I felt like that listening to Comey as he told us that he leaked his memos in order to get a special counsel set up to investigate Trump (This he did right after Trump fired him.), yet no one rushed out and arrested him. No audible gasps, no rolling eyes -– nothing. It was like he’d just announced that he’d had lunch.

Last July Jim Comey shocked us all with his weird testimony about Hillary and her errant emails. Yes, she’s guilty. No, we won’t indict her. Huh? The whole nation walked around with wrinkled brows for weeks. What kind of a Janus act was this guy performing? Iago liked to swear, “By Janus!” I heard him again:

Heaven is my judge, not I for love and duty,

But seeming so, for my peculiar end:..

His “end” is peculiar indeed. Is he motivated by hatred for Trump? Or by fear of Hillary? Or fear of Obama? Obama was still in office during these first two forays. Both of them are dangerous people, so fear of them is not as irrational as hatred of Trump.

Or –- more likely yet –- is he motivated by his own ambitions, his own greed? That motivates many a villain. Comey once worked at Lockheed Martin, where in one year he earned $6 million as vice president and general counsel  (It is interesting to note that Lockheed is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation.) His questionable connections to a London bank and to his brother’s real estate dealings also raise character questions. We never do know Iago’s motivations; he tells us, but he keeps changing his mind, and his wife, speaking of his jealousies, says:

They are never jealous for the cause.


They are jealous for they are jealous.

It’s hard to tell what Comey is up to; it’s like trying to stay ahead of Thomas Cromwell. On July 5th he announces his Hillary-guilty-but decision (which was not his to make). On October 28th, he announces he’s reopening the investigation into her emails, then turns around just 48 hours before the election, and says, basically, “Never mind.”  What maneuver is this? What palace intrigue?

Never mind! On Hillary’s watch, and under her supervision classified information was left to wander the streets alone, at night, in fact ended up on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, well-known pervert and husband to Hillary’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, who has well-known close family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. And the perfect, “honest” Comey is willing to look the other way. Never mind. Nothing to see here; move right along.

This man was the head of the FBI, but we cannot tell whether he’s at all interested in the well-being of the people of the United States, or just intense about the well-being of James Comey. He certainly was interested in expressing his feelings about things, but had no factual, useful information for us. He felt strange; he was very concerned; he was even nauseous on occasion. Do any of us care how he felt? I had always thought of the FBI as a just-the-facts-ma’am kind of organization.

To make matters even more unsettling, now that the Russia conspiracy has fizzled like cotton candy on a hot day, he’s drummed up some real serious reservations about Trump’s General Flynn comment –- which only Comey heard and which Comey only brought up after Trump had fired him. Curiouser and curiouser.

And why is Comey’s BFF the special prosecutor trying to prove The Donald obstructed justice? How can you obstruct justice if no crime has been committed? Trump, could, if he needed to, just pardon Flynn, but the general doesn’t seem to have done anything illegal; talking to the Russians was his job. And if Comey thought Trump’s remarks were an order to circumvent prosecuting Flynn, why didn’t Comey do what he thought he was told? But he didn’t do anything until he lost his job.

I am glad to see the President no longer trusts this man. It was good that he waited until Comey was not around to fire him –- no chance for this Judas to hide anything. I do wonder what Trump has on him and I do hope it’s good, for Comey appears to be doing the same thing Iago did to Othello:

…practising upon his peace and quiet

Even to madness.

Later in the play, Iago, attempting to convince Othello of Desdemona’s infidelity, says,

I speak not yet of proof.  

There wasn’t any because she was innocent. Then later he adds:

And this may help to thicken other proofs

That do demonstrate thinly.

But there weren’t any other proofs — a point Othello misses. It’s a point the media and those who pay attention to it miss as well. There are no proofs. Of anything. There’s no evidence of any behavior even slightly unethical, let alone illegal. But charge ahead they will.

They do because all they have to accomplish is to kill Trump’s reputation and that’s not hard to do. As Iago points out to Cassio (whose reputation he has just destroyed:

Reputation is an idle and most false

imposition: oft got without merit, and lost without

deserving…   He (and Comey) should know.

Yet later on in Act IV he tells Othello:

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,

Is the immediate jewel of their souls:

Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;

‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands:

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him

And makes me poor indeed.

And knowing that, he went right ahead and did everything to ruin the reputations of Othello’s wife, his best friend, and of Othello himself.

Throughout the play, Iago knows exactly what he’s doing. Throughout the Trump presidency Comey has known what he was doing, too. I don’t think he’s as smart and sly as Iago, but he’s attempting to ruin the president and he’s using many of Iago’s methods to do so. We should remember as we watch this drama unfold that, though by the end of the play five people are dead, including Othello and Desdemona, Iago is hauled off to the dungeon to be tortured and executed. Comey will get his –- I just pray it’s before he does more damage, not after.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 



Source link

Cliff-Hanging and Earthquakes



Our national dialogue is getting nastier and nastier because, at the very bottom of the cliffs we stand on, our assumptions are diametrically opposed. 



Source link

Needing Eden


All of us –- liberal or conservative, Muslim or Christian, black or white -– are homesick. Deep inside all of us lurks a longing for something, someplace so lost in the past that we can no longer name it. I contend that we compose music in minor keys, stage tragedies, and write mournful poetry just to express this. Anyone who stops in the midst of this hectic life to think, to actually feel, knows what I’m talking about -– it feels like missing someone terribly, but not remembering who.

We all deal with this lost-ness differently. Some of us drink or do drugs. Some of us hide in frantic sex or work or social involvement. We play endless computer games, read mystery novels, watch hours and hours of bad TV. We grasp for wealth and power. We go shopping, we gamble, we go bungee-jumping and cover the longing with an adrenaline surge. Some us figure it out and grope our way back to God. What we’re missing is Eden and our evening walks with Him.

One of the great sicknesses of our time is our insistence that we can recreate Eden and do it on our own terms. We have assumed that our unhappiness crawled out of a badly designed social structure –- one that has allowed some to get ahead while others go without, one that falls short of paradise. Perhaps we misinterpret our longings and think the emptiness can be filled with things –- if only we had some of the money the rich have too much of.

This resentment toward the rich is understandable if you go back to, say, medieval times when wealth came when one sucked up to the local royalty enough that he shared with you whatever wealth he’d stolen from someone else. A man who buckled on his armor and rode off to war with his king was banking on the king’s gratitude after the battle. The rich back then didn’t get rich by inventing something useful, manufacturing something everyone wanted, by making life safer, less painful, or more fun for everyone.

I recently watched a documentary on one of the old manor houses in England and I was struck by some statistics. The owner of the manor (bequeathed to him by some king) often entertained a hundred people for dinner. One of the most admired dishes at these dinners was turtle soup. It took one turtle per guest and each turtle cost 20 pounds sterling –- the average yearly wage for the servants serving this exorbitant meal. Under those circumstances I can understand the bitterness that could take root in a person’s soul.

I listened to woman –- a professor (of Marxism 101, I assume) trying to explain how right and true and good it would be to tax the rich (which did not include her, she assured the host) at 80%. She just assumed that they had no right to that money, no more right than the nobles of the 11th century, and that everyone would live happily ever after if the rich were poorer. If she can’t think any more clearly than that, she doesn’t deserve her professorial position.

But this the 21st century, a thousand years after the turtle soup, and now any person who can muster the determination and the self-discipline to make something of himself, can, theoretically, do so. No one is locked into a feudal system, or a rigid caste arrangement; deep-seated resentment is misplaced and sounds silly, like a five-year-old complaining that his brother got more ice cream.

But in all fairness to the professor, she was just wanting Eden. She doesn’t understand that, in a sense, it’s gone -– the cherubim are stationed at the gate and we can’t get back in. Every human being since Eden has something wrong inside him. We’re all broken, from the get-go; no matter what our physical, mental, or social standing.

However, God did provide the information we need to produce a society that will provide the best possible organization, considering our fractured condition. Any society made of human beings is one built with crooked bricks and that takes expert engineering. The bricks can’t do it themselves.

The closest mankind has ever come to building a viable social order is recorded in the Constitution of the United States. That document recognizes the brokenness of man, his tendency to aggregate power, and it took the laws of God – the design of the Chief Engineer –- into account. It has worked well –- not flawlessly, but well for over 200 years.

But here we are faced with a generation of Americans who are trying to assuage their longing for the Garden by denying that we ever left it, by denying the God that created that Garden, by thinking they can make their own Eden.

And look what it’s taking to do it:

  1. Government so vast, so wealthy, so powerful that we no longer have a clear idea of where the power is even located. Is it in the bureaucracy? The press? The courts? It certainly doesn’t seem to be in the legislature or the presidency anymore.
  2. Schools dedicated to indoctrination instead of education, where speech is tightly controlled, ideas other than the DIY Eden-approved memes are prohibited, and where self-discipline and decency are no longer required.
  3. Taxation that limits all of our activities; taxation that is intended not only to raise revenue, but, more importantly, to control our daily activities; taxation that robs us of our incentive.
  4. Division. The fact is that you can’t organize individuals nearly as easily as you can groups, and if you can pit the groups against each other you can distract them from the truth of their unique individuality. The only group that is not easy to herd is the family and therefore the family also has to be eliminated and to do that sexuality has to be shaken loose from its moorings, allowed and encouraged to run amuck ruining children, killing babies, and, as an added bonus, the destruction of the Christian church. Our previous administration accomplished a great deal in this area. The much-lauded “diversity” is a celebration of just that — the fracturing of a previously stable society.
  5. Heavy doses of guilt, of angst, of hopelessness, because angry, unhappy people are also easy to manipulate. No sense of purpose can be allowed to flourish.
  6. Language manipulation. For one thing, if you change meanings often enough, no one knows what anyone is talking about so political prestidigitation is easier. For another, it’s easier to control people’s thinking if you control their language.

You see, Eden was a place of free will –- to eat or not to eat; that was the question –- the only question. But man didn’t choose well, so those trying to mickey-mouse a new Eden know not to include free will. In Brave New World Huxley kept his population so giddy with Soma, sex, and entertainment that most didn’t realize that they’d lost that all-important attribute of being human. Orwell’s Big Brother didn’t allow any options, either, and in Shangri-La, Conway could do a lot of choosing, except for one decision –- the choice of leaving. The place was perfect, but it was a prison nevertheless.

The world is littered with dead and dying utopian dreams. Man has been trying since Babel to recreate that first perfect garden. Sir Thomas More wrote out his utopian plan in the 15th century. The Pilgrims tried to rewrite society’s rules that first awful winter in Plymouth. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao, now Maduro and Kim Jong-un all have tried to make perfection out of evil. But it can’t be done. Not on human terms. We have to wait for God to come do it for us –- and He will. Until then we will continue needing Eden.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 

All of us –- liberal or conservative, Muslim or Christian, black or white -– are homesick. Deep inside all of us lurks a longing for something, someplace so lost in the past that we can no longer name it. I contend that we compose music in minor keys, stage tragedies, and write mournful poetry just to express this. Anyone who stops in the midst of this hectic life to think, to actually feel, knows what I’m talking about -– it feels like missing someone terribly, but not remembering who.

We all deal with this lost-ness differently. Some of us drink or do drugs. Some of us hide in frantic sex or work or social involvement. We play endless computer games, read mystery novels, watch hours and hours of bad TV. We grasp for wealth and power. We go shopping, we gamble, we go bungee-jumping and cover the longing with an adrenaline surge. Some us figure it out and grope our way back to God. What we’re missing is Eden and our evening walks with Him.

One of the great sicknesses of our time is our insistence that we can recreate Eden and do it on our own terms. We have assumed that our unhappiness crawled out of a badly designed social structure –- one that has allowed some to get ahead while others go without, one that falls short of paradise. Perhaps we misinterpret our longings and think the emptiness can be filled with things –- if only we had some of the money the rich have too much of.

This resentment toward the rich is understandable if you go back to, say, medieval times when wealth came when one sucked up to the local royalty enough that he shared with you whatever wealth he’d stolen from someone else. A man who buckled on his armor and rode off to war with his king was banking on the king’s gratitude after the battle. The rich back then didn’t get rich by inventing something useful, manufacturing something everyone wanted, by making life safer, less painful, or more fun for everyone.

I recently watched a documentary on one of the old manor houses in England and I was struck by some statistics. The owner of the manor (bequeathed to him by some king) often entertained a hundred people for dinner. One of the most admired dishes at these dinners was turtle soup. It took one turtle per guest and each turtle cost 20 pounds sterling –- the average yearly wage for the servants serving this exorbitant meal. Under those circumstances I can understand the bitterness that could take root in a person’s soul.

I listened to woman –- a professor (of Marxism 101, I assume) trying to explain how right and true and good it would be to tax the rich (which did not include her, she assured the host) at 80%. She just assumed that they had no right to that money, no more right than the nobles of the 11th century, and that everyone would live happily ever after if the rich were poorer. If she can’t think any more clearly than that, she doesn’t deserve her professorial position.

But this the 21st century, a thousand years after the turtle soup, and now any person who can muster the determination and the self-discipline to make something of himself, can, theoretically, do so. No one is locked into a feudal system, or a rigid caste arrangement; deep-seated resentment is misplaced and sounds silly, like a five-year-old complaining that his brother got more ice cream.

But in all fairness to the professor, she was just wanting Eden. She doesn’t understand that, in a sense, it’s gone -– the cherubim are stationed at the gate and we can’t get back in. Every human being since Eden has something wrong inside him. We’re all broken, from the get-go; no matter what our physical, mental, or social standing.

However, God did provide the information we need to produce a society that will provide the best possible organization, considering our fractured condition. Any society made of human beings is one built with crooked bricks and that takes expert engineering. The bricks can’t do it themselves.

The closest mankind has ever come to building a viable social order is recorded in the Constitution of the United States. That document recognizes the brokenness of man, his tendency to aggregate power, and it took the laws of God – the design of the Chief Engineer –- into account. It has worked well –- not flawlessly, but well for over 200 years.

But here we are faced with a generation of Americans who are trying to assuage their longing for the Garden by denying that we ever left it, by denying the God that created that Garden, by thinking they can make their own Eden.

And look what it’s taking to do it:

  1. Government so vast, so wealthy, so powerful that we no longer have a clear idea of where the power is even located. Is it in the bureaucracy? The press? The courts? It certainly doesn’t seem to be in the legislature or the presidency anymore.
  2. Schools dedicated to indoctrination instead of education, where speech is tightly controlled, ideas other than the DIY Eden-approved memes are prohibited, and where self-discipline and decency are no longer required.
  3. Taxation that limits all of our activities; taxation that is intended not only to raise revenue, but, more importantly, to control our daily activities; taxation that robs us of our incentive.
  4. Division. The fact is that you can’t organize individuals nearly as easily as you can groups, and if you can pit the groups against each other you can distract them from the truth of their unique individuality. The only group that is not easy to herd is the family and therefore the family also has to be eliminated and to do that sexuality has to be shaken loose from its moorings, allowed and encouraged to run amuck ruining children, killing babies, and, as an added bonus, the destruction of the Christian church. Our previous administration accomplished a great deal in this area. The much-lauded “diversity” is a celebration of just that — the fracturing of a previously stable society.
  5. Heavy doses of guilt, of angst, of hopelessness, because angry, unhappy people are also easy to manipulate. No sense of purpose can be allowed to flourish.
  6. Language manipulation. For one thing, if you change meanings often enough, no one knows what anyone is talking about so political prestidigitation is easier. For another, it’s easier to control people’s thinking if you control their language.

You see, Eden was a place of free will –- to eat or not to eat; that was the question –- the only question. But man didn’t choose well, so those trying to mickey-mouse a new Eden know not to include free will. In Brave New World Huxley kept his population so giddy with Soma, sex, and entertainment that most didn’t realize that they’d lost that all-important attribute of being human. Orwell’s Big Brother didn’t allow any options, either, and in Shangri-La, Conway could do a lot of choosing, except for one decision –- the choice of leaving. The place was perfect, but it was a prison nevertheless.

The world is littered with dead and dying utopian dreams. Man has been trying since Babel to recreate that first perfect garden. Sir Thomas More wrote out his utopian plan in the 15th century. The Pilgrims tried to rewrite society’s rules that first awful winter in Plymouth. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao, now Maduro and Kim Jong-un all have tried to make perfection out of evil. But it can’t be done. Not on human terms. We have to wait for God to come do it for us –- and He will. Until then we will continue needing Eden.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 



Source link

Clearing the Cobwebs


Lately, when I check the news, I feel like I’m fighting my way through a room full of cobwebs, like I’m boxing with phantoms; there are no clear, understandable positions on the left. They’re fighting, yes, but in that thrashing, flailing, windmill fashion that infuriated little boys are prone to. Liberals have no rational point to make, but they make it loudly, wearing ridiculous costumes, shouting obscenities and marching, marching, marching. They even marched for science! Who is against science? Is science something we vote for? An activist Muslim woman, who is in favor of Sharia law, organized the women’s march. What?! Are we to assume that the women’s movement is now in favor of female genital mutilation and honor killings?

I’m compelled to attempt to sort this out. I’ll grant that not all Democrats are this nutty, but they all need to face the fact that many of their fellow Dems are operating in such a deep sheep-dip of cognitive dissonance that they are a danger to themselves and to others. It’s not just that the liberals oppose conservatives; they appear oppose themselves. Perhaps it can help to lay out the contradictions in an orderly fashion.

The Top 10 Liberal Confusions

  1. Feminism can’t decide whether women are superior to men or victims of them. They can’t decide whether they’re proud of the physical capabilities of their bodies or so anxious to deny them that they have to kill their babies. They are vociferously attracted to all the trappings of Sharia in spite of its cruelty to women and young girls. Many can’t even decide if they’re women.
  2. Liberals don’t like law, but love government. (It doesn’t seem to occur to them that government is largely made up of law.) They depend on it for everything from food and shelter to protecting their egos from the onslaughts of reason. Yet, in reality, they want what they want regardless of law. In order to assuage the guilt the government schools have programmed into them, they want to flout the immigration laws — never mind the dangers of terrorism and drugs and disease the illegals bring with them. In order to cushion their economic, environmental, and cultural misapprehensions they are willing to close down highways, burn buildings, and silence anyone who disagrees with them. They are more than willing to shut down the Constitution because it limits government, and they are unwilling to obey the laws the Constitution allows.
  3. In fact, the left openly hates the Constitution and seeks to weaken it by making the claim that it’s a “living document,” though they clearly wish it were dead. And then they bristle if you question their patriotism. They seem unaware that what makes America, America is the Constitution; you get rid of that and this country will just be another starving sinkhole. Libs also love to hate on the Bible and Christians, yet they like to misquote scripture to justify whatever socialist nonsense they’re currently pushing, utterly ignorant that the West wouldn’t be the West without either.
  4. They feel so strongly about their spongy ideas that they commit violent acts against people and property to demonstrate the rightness of those ideas (They can’t argue their points rationally), and all while asserting that nothing is absolute and all ideas are relative. And that violence is always bad — all the while accusing everyone else of being hateful. How do you beat the tar out of a total stranger because you think he’s a hater?
  5. They claim to be anti-fascist, yet support Islamists and defend their asserted right to impose their religion on others and to do so in the most heinous, barbaric ways imaginable.  It’s okay to burn toddlers alive, but Christians are horrible and hateful because we won’t bake cakes. It makes my head spin to try to think like that: violence, hate and cruelty = good; love, morality, and charity = bad. Maybe drugs need to be involved to make this doable.
  6. They see no problem in their contradictory environmental ideas. It’s okay in their world to scar an area with garbage while protesting an oil pipeline. It’s okay in their world to deplete the world’s food supply to use corn in our gasoline. It’s okay to kill birds with solar arrays and wind farms, to deplete world’s lithium supply for car batteries, to jet all over the world to wring their hands about climate change. It somehow makes sense to them to outlaw cow flatulence.
  7. They don’t like white people discriminating against blacks, but see nothing wrong with blacks being anti-white. It’s like third-grade payback.
  8. Diversity is their holy grail, but only within the liberal framework. Tolerance is the liberal virtue of virtues in spite of the fact that such a moral code puts them in the confusing position of having to support murder of babies, the torture of non-Muslims, and leaders who would starve their own people. And then they get all tangled up in the fact that they can’t/won’t tolerate anyone who points out these inconsistencies.
  9. They want to change the world — take it to a better place, but they know so little about history that they have no idea where it’s already been. It’s really hard to arrive in the right place if you don’t know where you’re starting from. This week New Orleans began taking down its historical markers as if the future will be better if we roll up the past behind us. They claim to want a better world, but turn away from all the methods mankind has been successful with in the past. They embrace the evils they claim to be against: lying, corruption, manipulation, propaganda. They champion coercion, tyranny, and taxation and have no respect for freedom. (See point 2 above.)
  10. They claim to be for the little man, but have nothing but contempt for him unless said little man has succumbed to the lure of drugs, irresponsible sex, and abject dependence on his government. Then he’s cool. Otherwise one has to have a college degree — the more expensive the better, vote Democrat, and sneer at decency. “I am a naaaasty woman!”

The America I love is a place where you call an idiot an idiot; you don’t elect and re-elect him/her to office. The America that has shown the world what freedom can do, that has saved the world from tyranny, come to everyone’s aid in times of disaster is now becoming the baby-sitter for whiners, and the encourager of a plethora of evils. The more we give credence to this nonsensical “thinking,” the more we are in danger of imploding. I recently ran across a collection of Norman Rockwell paintings — a family gathered at Thanksgiving, a bunch of little basketball players before a game, a profile of church-goers praying. That America made sense. This one doesn’t. I have the feeling that we’re being played by a master magician — keeping us all so confused with his right hand that we don’t notice that with his left hand he’s slicing Lady Liberty to pieces. 

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 

Lately, when I check the news, I feel like I’m fighting my way through a room full of cobwebs, like I’m boxing with phantoms; there are no clear, understandable positions on the left. They’re fighting, yes, but in that thrashing, flailing, windmill fashion that infuriated little boys are prone to. Liberals have no rational point to make, but they make it loudly, wearing ridiculous costumes, shouting obscenities and marching, marching, marching. They even marched for science! Who is against science? Is science something we vote for? An activist Muslim woman, who is in favor of Sharia law, organized the women’s march. What?! Are we to assume that the women’s movement is now in favor of female genital mutilation and honor killings?

I’m compelled to attempt to sort this out. I’ll grant that not all Democrats are this nutty, but they all need to face the fact that many of their fellow Dems are operating in such a deep sheep-dip of cognitive dissonance that they are a danger to themselves and to others. It’s not just that the liberals oppose conservatives; they appear oppose themselves. Perhaps it can help to lay out the contradictions in an orderly fashion.

The Top 10 Liberal Confusions

  1. Feminism can’t decide whether women are superior to men or victims of them. They can’t decide whether they’re proud of the physical capabilities of their bodies or so anxious to deny them that they have to kill their babies. They are vociferously attracted to all the trappings of Sharia in spite of its cruelty to women and young girls. Many can’t even decide if they’re women.
  2. Liberals don’t like law, but love government. (It doesn’t seem to occur to them that government is largely made up of law.) They depend on it for everything from food and shelter to protecting their egos from the onslaughts of reason. Yet, in reality, they want what they want regardless of law. In order to assuage the guilt the government schools have programmed into them, they want to flout the immigration laws — never mind the dangers of terrorism and drugs and disease the illegals bring with them. In order to cushion their economic, environmental, and cultural misapprehensions they are willing to close down highways, burn buildings, and silence anyone who disagrees with them. They are more than willing to shut down the Constitution because it limits government, and they are unwilling to obey the laws the Constitution allows.
  3. In fact, the left openly hates the Constitution and seeks to weaken it by making the claim that it’s a “living document,” though they clearly wish it were dead. And then they bristle if you question their patriotism. They seem unaware that what makes America, America is the Constitution; you get rid of that and this country will just be another starving sinkhole. Libs also love to hate on the Bible and Christians, yet they like to misquote scripture to justify whatever socialist nonsense they’re currently pushing, utterly ignorant that the West wouldn’t be the West without either.
  4. They feel so strongly about their spongy ideas that they commit violent acts against people and property to demonstrate the rightness of those ideas (They can’t argue their points rationally), and all while asserting that nothing is absolute and all ideas are relative. And that violence is always bad — all the while accusing everyone else of being hateful. How do you beat the tar out of a total stranger because you think he’s a hater?
  5. They claim to be anti-fascist, yet support Islamists and defend their asserted right to impose their religion on others and to do so in the most heinous, barbaric ways imaginable.  It’s okay to burn toddlers alive, but Christians are horrible and hateful because we won’t bake cakes. It makes my head spin to try to think like that: violence, hate and cruelty = good; love, morality, and charity = bad. Maybe drugs need to be involved to make this doable.
  6. They see no problem in their contradictory environmental ideas. It’s okay in their world to scar an area with garbage while protesting an oil pipeline. It’s okay in their world to deplete the world’s food supply to use corn in our gasoline. It’s okay to kill birds with solar arrays and wind farms, to deplete world’s lithium supply for car batteries, to jet all over the world to wring their hands about climate change. It somehow makes sense to them to outlaw cow flatulence.
  7. They don’t like white people discriminating against blacks, but see nothing wrong with blacks being anti-white. It’s like third-grade payback.
  8. Diversity is their holy grail, but only within the liberal framework. Tolerance is the liberal virtue of virtues in spite of the fact that such a moral code puts them in the confusing position of having to support murder of babies, the torture of non-Muslims, and leaders who would starve their own people. And then they get all tangled up in the fact that they can’t/won’t tolerate anyone who points out these inconsistencies.
  9. They want to change the world — take it to a better place, but they know so little about history that they have no idea where it’s already been. It’s really hard to arrive in the right place if you don’t know where you’re starting from. This week New Orleans began taking down its historical markers as if the future will be better if we roll up the past behind us. They claim to want a better world, but turn away from all the methods mankind has been successful with in the past. They embrace the evils they claim to be against: lying, corruption, manipulation, propaganda. They champion coercion, tyranny, and taxation and have no respect for freedom. (See point 2 above.)
  10. They claim to be for the little man, but have nothing but contempt for him unless said little man has succumbed to the lure of drugs, irresponsible sex, and abject dependence on his government. Then he’s cool. Otherwise one has to have a college degree — the more expensive the better, vote Democrat, and sneer at decency. “I am a naaaasty woman!”

The America I love is a place where you call an idiot an idiot; you don’t elect and re-elect him/her to office. The America that has shown the world what freedom can do, that has saved the world from tyranny, come to everyone’s aid in times of disaster is now becoming the baby-sitter for whiners, and the encourager of a plethora of evils. The more we give credence to this nonsensical “thinking,” the more we are in danger of imploding. I recently ran across a collection of Norman Rockwell paintings — a family gathered at Thanksgiving, a bunch of little basketball players before a game, a profile of church-goers praying. That America made sense. This one doesn’t. I have the feeling that we’re being played by a master magician — keeping us all so confused with his right hand that we don’t notice that with his left hand he’s slicing Lady Liberty to pieces. 

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

The Point of No Return


The point of no return, the place of no more chances, the door that slams forever shut — these are concepts that make us cover our ears and holler, “La-la-la-la.” The Western world in the 21st century works hard to mask final realities. A pregnancy used to be a point of no return, but now a woman can abort (same word used to end a mission — how odd is that?) the inevitable, even just before birth. A student can fail a test, and then retake it and retake it. Some folks even freeze their dead bodies, counting on science to eventually provide a second chance. No deadline is really a deadline, no expectation must really be met, nothing is really due when it’s due. So very many of us just assume that every can can be kicked down the road to infinity, but those of us who still live in reality know better; sometimes it’s just permanently too late.

I’ve been pondering that quite a bit lately; I keep running into it in my Bible studies. Remember the Pharaoh of the Exodus? For the first five plagues Pharaoh hardens his own heart — digs in his own heels and won’t let the people go. But by the time the sixth plague hits — the plague of boils — it’s too late. At that point “God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.” He uses up all his chances; God imposes this plague and the following four, “that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.” Each time Pharaoh rejects Moses’ demands, he adds more callus to his soul until, by the plague of boils, he is so encrusted, so inflexible that he can’t make a positive choice. He passed the point of no return; after that, he, and his nation were doomed. Egypt has never really recovered.

Look at Western Europe — Sweden, Germany, the UK. Their reproductive rates have dropped so low that immigration must have seemed a good way to deal with that problem. A society can run into a population dead end if, on the average, each person doesn’t reproduce him/herself. When the birth rate falls below two children per couple, eventually that society will implode; there will be an inadequate number of young people to do the work. So Europe imports Muslims from the Middle East and now they’ve lost parts of their countries and their culture. Can this be undone? The problem with the point of no return is that those involved never see it coming.  

Now look at 2nd Thessalonians 2: 9,”The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” At some time in the future (quite possibly the near future) people will refuse truth until they can no longer do anything else. As I’ve watched the left stagger about in disbelief over the election of Donald Trump, I can’t help but remember this passage. “Strong delusion” is right. Russia? Really?! But here’s the sobering part: are all these people past that point of no return? Is our Western society permanently screwed? Could be.

I look around American society today and I see many dead ends looming. Education, for instance. With John Dewey (at the turn of last century) our school systems began a subtle change from attempting to produce independent, knowledgeable thinkers to generating non-thinking workers. During the late 60s the pace increased, curricula backed off the classics, and social engineering became a major thrust. God was banished from the classroom, and since He couldn’t be there, we had to find shortcuts, counterfeit ways to teach virtue: tolerance instead of real mercy; acceptance instead of righteousness; self-esteem instead of love and care. We erased purpose, discipline, and need. We’re several generations into this fiasco and even if DeVos manages to clean things up and institute vouchers and charter schools, where will we find well-educated, un-indoctrinated teachers to man those schools? How can we deprogram our colleges and our public schools? It may be too late.

Let’s go back to the Bible. Look at what happens in Matthew 12. Over and over in previous chapters we see Jesus healing the crippled, the blind, the mute, the demon possessed. Yet in the 12th chapter the Pharisees demand that He give them a sign that He is in fact the Christ. So He does another healing, and what do they say? “He does that in the power of Beelzebub.” After that, Jesus teaches only in parables and explains them only to his disciples. He cuts Israel off and later we discover that an irrevocable curse has been placed on Jerusalem; 40 years later the Romans lay siege to the holy city and over a million Jews die, Israel and Judah are no more, are scattered over the earth not to be reconnected with their land for 2,000 years. They each used up all their chances — a point after which they would no longer be able to believe. And of course, once they were dead….

According to the gospels, on Passover of A.D. 30-something, Roman soldiers nailed an obscure rabbi from Nazareth to a cross propped between two thieves. One thief made the deadline just in time and secured his place in Paradise. The other missed it. Forever. Throughout the entire Bible there is one theme: God will fix the problem of sin — our job is to believe that, to accept the free gift of salvation. God was able to offer this because His Son was willing to take on the punishment for that sin. Our part is to just receive the gift — before death takes us. If a person misses that deadline, there is no going back. In the most permanent and irrevocable way imaginable, there is no going back. And we never know exactly what that due date is.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 

The point of no return, the place of no more chances, the door that slams forever shut — these are concepts that make us cover our ears and holler, “La-la-la-la.” The Western world in the 21st century works hard to mask final realities. A pregnancy used to be a point of no return, but now a woman can abort (same word used to end a mission — how odd is that?) the inevitable, even just before birth. A student can fail a test, and then retake it and retake it. Some folks even freeze their dead bodies, counting on science to eventually provide a second chance. No deadline is really a deadline, no expectation must really be met, nothing is really due when it’s due. So very many of us just assume that every can can be kicked down the road to infinity, but those of us who still live in reality know better; sometimes it’s just permanently too late.

I’ve been pondering that quite a bit lately; I keep running into it in my Bible studies. Remember the Pharaoh of the Exodus? For the first five plagues Pharaoh hardens his own heart — digs in his own heels and won’t let the people go. But by the time the sixth plague hits — the plague of boils — it’s too late. At that point “God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.” He uses up all his chances; God imposes this plague and the following four, “that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.” Each time Pharaoh rejects Moses’ demands, he adds more callus to his soul until, by the plague of boils, he is so encrusted, so inflexible that he can’t make a positive choice. He passed the point of no return; after that, he, and his nation were doomed. Egypt has never really recovered.

Look at Western Europe — Sweden, Germany, the UK. Their reproductive rates have dropped so low that immigration must have seemed a good way to deal with that problem. A society can run into a population dead end if, on the average, each person doesn’t reproduce him/herself. When the birth rate falls below two children per couple, eventually that society will implode; there will be an inadequate number of young people to do the work. So Europe imports Muslims from the Middle East and now they’ve lost parts of their countries and their culture. Can this be undone? The problem with the point of no return is that those involved never see it coming.  

Now look at 2nd Thessalonians 2: 9,”The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” At some time in the future (quite possibly the near future) people will refuse truth until they can no longer do anything else. As I’ve watched the left stagger about in disbelief over the election of Donald Trump, I can’t help but remember this passage. “Strong delusion” is right. Russia? Really?! But here’s the sobering part: are all these people past that point of no return? Is our Western society permanently screwed? Could be.

I look around American society today and I see many dead ends looming. Education, for instance. With John Dewey (at the turn of last century) our school systems began a subtle change from attempting to produce independent, knowledgeable thinkers to generating non-thinking workers. During the late 60s the pace increased, curricula backed off the classics, and social engineering became a major thrust. God was banished from the classroom, and since He couldn’t be there, we had to find shortcuts, counterfeit ways to teach virtue: tolerance instead of real mercy; acceptance instead of righteousness; self-esteem instead of love and care. We erased purpose, discipline, and need. We’re several generations into this fiasco and even if DeVos manages to clean things up and institute vouchers and charter schools, where will we find well-educated, un-indoctrinated teachers to man those schools? How can we deprogram our colleges and our public schools? It may be too late.

Let’s go back to the Bible. Look at what happens in Matthew 12. Over and over in previous chapters we see Jesus healing the crippled, the blind, the mute, the demon possessed. Yet in the 12th chapter the Pharisees demand that He give them a sign that He is in fact the Christ. So He does another healing, and what do they say? “He does that in the power of Beelzebub.” After that, Jesus teaches only in parables and explains them only to his disciples. He cuts Israel off and later we discover that an irrevocable curse has been placed on Jerusalem; 40 years later the Romans lay siege to the holy city and over a million Jews die, Israel and Judah are no more, are scattered over the earth not to be reconnected with their land for 2,000 years. They each used up all their chances — a point after which they would no longer be able to believe. And of course, once they were dead….

According to the gospels, on Passover of A.D. 30-something, Roman soldiers nailed an obscure rabbi from Nazareth to a cross propped between two thieves. One thief made the deadline just in time and secured his place in Paradise. The other missed it. Forever. Throughout the entire Bible there is one theme: God will fix the problem of sin — our job is to believe that, to accept the free gift of salvation. God was able to offer this because His Son was willing to take on the punishment for that sin. Our part is to just receive the gift — before death takes us. If a person misses that deadline, there is no going back. In the most permanent and irrevocable way imaginable, there is no going back. And we never know exactly what that due date is.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking. 



Source link