wherever i may roam

as i sit here and begin the long, arduous process to prepare for my imminent departure, i think about the life that God has called my family and i to.  it is a life of constant change:  housing changes, friend changes, location changes, school changes, job changes, doctor changes, church changes, uniform changes, just to name a few.  and then there is the huge elephant in the room.  in the military, it's one that we tend to really ignore until we bump right into it, but we are always aware of its presence.  we know it's just a matter of time before we have to start eating that elephant, one bite at a time.  that elephant?  deployment.  there's a saying in the navy/marine corps, not if but when.  it's not if you deploy, it's when.  my date is coming up rapidly, and i have begun the preparations for it.  i am preparing physically, with packing, training, etc.  i am preparing mentally, with classes, schedules, and what not.  i am preparing spiritually, constantly seeking God's face as to what He would have me accomplish for the deployment. but i am not prepared emotionally.  some would call it denial, as if i can ignore it and won't have to deal with the emotions that go along with it.  but it is more than that.  men are not emotional beings, as a general rule.  you ask a man how he's feeling, and you're liable to get either a one word answer (fine, okay, good, ticked, etc.), or the inevitable "i don't know".  this is not men being difficult.  it is simply us being honest.  we never really think about feelings too much, so when we are forced to define them, it is like asking for us to describe some place we've only been to a scarce few times.  we might know some general details, but not specifics.  you ask a woman how she is feeling, and you are likely to get 15 answers.  women are an emotional roller coaster, so a woman can truly say she's happy one minute, and sad the next, or any of the countless variations (frustrated, upset, depressed, confused, the list goes on and on!).  but not men.  we know three basic emotions:  happiness, sadness, and anger.  that's the emotional trichotomy of a man.  recognizing this weakness innate within me, i will attempt to describe what is going through my soul as i approach departure.

the first emotion i would have to own up to is excitement.  i am excited because i am getting to do what God has called me to do.  i can do it here in the states, i know that, but i joined the military with the anticipation of deploying and going where the marines and sailors need me most, and now that is here, so i am excited.  i am excited because i am an experiential being.  i have a wandering bug in me.  i love to see new places, experience new things.  i am getting to go to places that i've never been before, meet people in cultures that i would otherwise never be exposed to.  through that, i am getting to be a light for CHRIST everywhere i go.  i may not be able to openly proselytize, but i am still allowed to wear my cross on my collar, which gives me an in whenever anyone sees it, to be a witness in my actions to those i meet.  so i am excited.

another emotion i am experiencing is apprehension.  i would not go so far as to call it fear, but i will say i am apprehensive.  some of the places we are going will inevitably place us in danger.  we have been vaccinated for every disease and illness they can vaccinate us against, but there are still those out there that have no vaccination, and we will likely be exposed to those.  so there's that element of danger.  also, whenever we leave the united states, we are exposing ourselves to danger.  we will visit war-torn areas, impoverished areas, and areas influenced by those who seek to do us harm.  you never realize what a blessing it is to live in the united states in relative safety until you leave her for foreign shores.  i trust in my God, and know that He is with me, but i do understand now what the psalmist said in the 23rd psalm.  i am also apprehensive as to my family.  i worry about their safety when i am gone.  i worry about who is going to change the flat tire on my wife's suv.  i worry about my middle son jumping out of his treehouse with his superman cape on and ending up in the hospital.  i worry about my youngest son not being able to remember and recognize me when i return.  so there is apprehension.

there is also sadness.  this one is a given.  in the past week, i have hardly been able to talk about it while looking at my bride or three beautiful boys without tearing up.  they are a part of me, and you might as well be ripping me in half and leaving one half here and shipping the other off.  it is excruciating to think about being away from them, and what i will miss while gone.  thankfully, i have not had to miss a birthday yet because of military travel, and this is one of those times when i won't.  however, i do know the time will come when i may have to do that, and that saddens me.  i think about going to sleep every night without my "baby love" cuddled up in my arms.  i realize that there will be no warm body in my bed for me to snuggle up to when i am freezing.  i will miss the comfortable silences we share, when being in the same room with each other is enough.  i will miss the playful banter we toss back and forth when we talk "smack" to each other in jesting.  and i will even miss having her there to infuriate me because she told me something that i really needed to hear, but didn't want to admit because of pride or stubbornness.  i will miss my boys.  gavin is like me.  i know it affects him, but he kind of keeps it to himself.  he is truly my "mini-me".  he looks like me, acts like me, and talks like me.  i will miss his random facts about snakes, sharks, the titanic, weather, or whatever subject he happens to be focusing on at that moment.  but mostly i will miss when he calls me to his room to give him a big hug and kiss before he goes to sleep.  he won't go to sleep without it.  nathan, now he's like lori.  he looks like her more than me, and he is like her in that he wears his heart on his sleeve.  there is never any doubt about what nathan is feeling at a particular moment, as he will readily let you know.  his flare for the dramatic keeps us either in hilarity, or in frustration.  i will miss his playful spirit, coming up and wanting to try and take me down.  but most of all, i will miss nathan climbing up into the chair with me for no other reason than to sit in my lap and lay his head on my chest and watch "phineas and ferb".  then there's logan.  he's my little buddy.  we had an amazing day playing at the beach yesterday.  he loves for me to flip him up in the air like we are part of a traveling circus act, while his mom gasps in apprehension.  i will miss his giggle whenever he and i play our cat and mouse game through the house.  but most of all, i will miss holding him to get him to sleep at night.  he normally gives lori a hard time going to sleep, but when i hold him, he settles down and goes right out, as i rock him back and forth and he and i look into each other's eyes as he drifts off into dream land.  so there is sadness, and it is the elephant in the room that takes up most of the space.

wow, all this emotional talk is draining!

but there is yet another emotion looming.  i couldn't put my finger on it until last night.  as i was packing some things, i was watching my bride over on the computer, who is a master at multi tasking, as she typed, watched "army wives", and watched me.  as i was selecting items and checking them off, the excitement was building in me, but the sadness was there as well, and then it hit me.  i was feeling guilt!  i was feeling guilt that i was excited about this trip.  how could i be excited about leaving my family?!?  i was feeling guilt that i was leaving my bride all alone for months to take care of the house and the kids by herself.  she is an amazing woman and i know she can handle it, but never the less, i was still leaving her.  i was feeling guilt that i was about to cause them terrible sadness by leaving for such a long period of time.  every time that nathan comes up to me and hugs me and says in a sad voice, "i will miss wu when wou're gone," it twists the knife in my soul.  God has called me to this ministry, and i know this is part of it.  i now realize what paul meant when he said that he wished all men were like him, unmarried, so they would be more willing to go anywhere God sent them without an emotional conflict.  don't get me wrong here, i love being married, and would not change it for the world, but i understand what paul was saying.  however, i also know that when i do get back, i will experience that other verse where God said, "it is not good for chris to be alone" (italics mine!), as i will have a bride waiting on me that will wrap me in her arms and three boys who will jump on me as soon as i get off that bus, and i'll take that over coming back home to an empty barracks room any day!  so i will deal with the guilt.

i still have some time left before i leave.  it's not a long time by any means.  if you ask me, it would never be long enough.  so i have chosen to tuck these emotions away for now, and enjoy having my family beside me until the time comes that i must deal with these emotions.  all of these emotions will likely stay with me, and morph during the trip, with some outweighing others at different times.  however, the emotion that i will hold on to is anticipation.  anticipation of my reuniting with the family that God has blessed me with.  anticipation of my bride's embrace!  anticipation of playing with my sons!  anticipation of being back home, where i belong.

p.s. doesnt' this give you an idea of how it should be with us as CHRISTians?  excitement at the opportunities God places before us.  apprehension at the unknown places he will take us.  sadness at living in a fallen world, that is not our home, and at what we could be experiencing in heaven.  and guilt at having loved this present life more than the next.  but most importantly, anticipation of eternity with our Jesus!  

you say po-ta-to, i say po-tah-to

before i get started, let me first throw this out there:  webster's dictionary defines pornography as
the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

okay, now that we have that clear, i want to address something that is not a new concept, but one that has recently gained notoriety through a book and a movie:  mommy porn.

i have seen numerous blog postings by females on the subject, both for and against, by both CHRIST-followers and secularists alike.  these blog posts seem to either condemn or justify the reading of books or watching of movies by women, that are blatantly sexual in nature.  the purpose of this post is not to address these arguments, but rather to actually look at the materials and give them a proper classification, because once we can strip away all the hooplah and actually look at something for what it is, then we can make an informed decision on the morality of indulging in the materials.  again, it is not my motive to condemn anyone for any behaviour, but to simply speak the truth, and then allow persons who enjoy such materials to make their own decisions. 

the first item up for discussion is the latest craze among women entitled, say it with me, "fifty shades of grey".  now, i have not read the book personally, but i did see a rather disturbing youtube video of gilbert gottfried reading excerpts from it.  let me just say this, i was embarrassed at having seen the 20 seconds of the video i did, because i know the images that popped into my head, which with gilbert gottfried reading it, were rather horrifying!  now, there are those that would argue that they are reading the book for the story, which is always a perplexing argument to me.  if someone is reading it for the story, and the story is about sex, then what is the redeeming factor in that argument?  it goes along with the man who says, "i only read 'hustler' for the articles", when, if the pages the articles are in between are filled with sexual images, then likewise, where is the redeeming factor in that?  i postulate that the story is classified as pornography.  now, before anyone gets all bent out of shape, i ask you to refer to the above definition of pornography:  the depiction of erotic imagery (in pictures or in writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.  it is a well known psychological fact that women are not turned on by pictures to the extent that guys are, but more so by their imaginations based on emotions.  as a guy, i can honestly say that a romantic comedy does nothing to get me going, nor does reading erotic writing.  so it is clear that this book is targeted towards women (if it were for men, there would be pictures with the story underneath in captions!)  now, if it is targeted towards women, we have to ask what is the motivation of the author?  you can find articles that address the topics of s&m, as well as sexuality, that are designed to be informative, rather than gaining a sexual response from the reader.  the author clearly stated that the book was the author's own sexual fantasies written down in narrative format, to excite others.  so, the author admits that her work, by definition, is pornography.  next, is the responses by the readers.  one female critic is quoted as saying, "guys, buy this book for your wife, and you will not be disappointed", insinuating a sexual favor in return based on the wife's reaction to what she reads.  so women define it as pornography, by definition.  so, if it is pornography, as the evidence shows, then what makes it different from the erotic magazines, movies, and websites that men visit on a daily basis?  is there a double standard here? 

the next piece of entertainment (no pun intended) is a movie entitled "magic mike".  this movie is about, and this is no secret, male strippers.  the fact that it contains actors that are known for their looks further solidifies the appeal to women.  women who would never dream of darkening the door to an actual strip club are flocking in droves to see this movie.  again, based on the above definition, i postulate that this movie is also pornography.  it is designed to elicit a sexual response in women.  there was a movie along the same lines that came out a few years ago with elizabeth berkley, of "saved by the bell" fame, entitled "showgirls".  i always thought it ironic that berkley went from playing a girl who fought against the objectifying of women, to playing a role that objectified women, but i digress.  any male who went and saw that movie in the theaters, was classified by women as perverted.  i know, because in college i witnessed the treatment of guys who went to see it by girls that were their friends.  they were classified as perverts.  now, again i ask, is there a double standard here?  women are going to the movie, objectifying the men in a sexual way, and getting aroused by the images on the screen.  as one facebook picture posted by a female said, "i don't know what happened in that movie theater, but i think i'm having channing tatum's baby!" 

now, as said before, erotic fiction geared towards females has been nothing new, it has just been thrust into the limelight.  harlequin romance novels have been around for decades, and all are designed to elicit a sexual response based upon the imagination created by the emotions within the novels.  however, it has always been acceptable for women to read these, yet reprehensible for men to read "playboy" or any of the other erotica that is out there. 

based on the above items fitting the definition of pornography, should someone who calls themselves a follower of CHRIST partake in this sort of entertainment?  or does Jesus' admonition about a man "looking upon a woman with lust in her heart" only apply to males?  should a man lower his standards as the spiritual leader of his home and buy these materials for his wife in hopes of sexual repayment in return?  or, should our sexual desire be excited by, and only be for, our spouses?  when counseling a married couple, sometimes the excuse is, "the excitement is gone out of the marriage bed, so i (we) use erotic materials to excite us".  my response is, if the excitement is gone, then you must be doing something wrong!  and, if it takes another person to get you sexually aroused, then are you not lusting after that person when engaged in sexual relations with your spouse?  if so, how is that not adultery, based on Jesus' definition? 

like i said before, the purpose of this article is not to condemn anyone for watching or reading these forms of entertainment, but to strip them down (again, no pun intended) and pull the curtain back to see what they actually are, and then for people to make their own decisions.  one of satan's primary tools, as the father of lies, is deception.  if he can wrap up a hook in some harmless looking bait, then the undiscerning will take it.  there are millions of males whose lives and homes are wrecked each year because of the detrimental effects of pornography, and now it seems that satan has his sights set on the females.  "be vigilant and watchful, for your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour!"

pay no attention to that hateful person behind the curtain

i am angry.  as a CHRISTian, i am angry.  and ashamed.  and embarrassed.  "why?" you ask?  well, i'll tell you.  up until now i have kept mostly silent about the whole "homosexual marriage" debate.  i have reasons for that, but mostly it has to do with casting my pearls before swine.  and my purpose behind writing this is not to address that debate.  my purpose is to address the reprehensible behaviour by those who call themselves followers of CHRIST in recent days.

as the debate swirled around our nation like a philosophical hurricane, it has swept up everyone from the president, to state governments, to celebrities, and to various members of faith groups including CHRISTianity, judaism, islam, etc.  and like a hurricane, it has caused astronomical amounts of damage on all sides.  nobody has been left untouched.  however, the damage i am concerned about is the damage caused by those i call my brothers and sisters in CHRIST.

if you look throughout history, you can usually pinpoint a particular vice or perceived sin (whether biblical or not) that people have focused on and attacked.  in the 1920's it was alcohol.  in the 1950's it was rock 'n' roll.  in the 1960's it was race.  in the 70's it was drugs.  in the 80's it was divorce.  in the 90's it was abortion.  now, that sin is homosexuality.

now, before you start accusing me of saying that homosexuality is ok, i must reassure you that i do believe fully what the Bible says about homosexuality.  let me clarify even further:  i believe what the Bible actually says about homosexuality, not what people think it says, nor what people twist it to say.  the Bible is a powerful weapon, and refers to itself as a two-edged sword, yet some who call themselves CHRISTians choose to use it more like a machete, wielding it with no skill and hacking away at whatever vice lost people are engaged in that they think needs a good clearing.  the problem with this approach is, it is not what the Bible was given to us for!  Scripture says it is to be used for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and for training in righteousness.  it never says that we are to use it as a flagrum, beating the lost into submission.  Scripture was given so the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works.  get that?  Scripture is given to the man of God!  lost people, while under the condemnation of sin, are spiritually ignorant of Scripture, and unless the Holy Spirit moves in their soul, they will never comprehend it.  i've always said to expect lost people to act like lost people, so why should we be shocked when they do not adhere to our Scripture-based values?  so the Bible is to be used by us, for us, not to judge the lost.

however, those who call themselves CHRISTians engage in this targeting and think that they are somehow crusaders out to vanquish evil and to eradicate the infidels if they don't bow to our God or adhere to our values!  the issue is these same people are guilty of sin, many of sexual sin which places them in the same category as those who engage in homosexuality, yet they have the audacity to decry others who are guilty of the same sort of sins.  the whole concept of grace and mercy is foreign to them, making me wonder if they have ever experienced the grace and mercy of the Saviour themselves.

why do they do this?  i suspect that it either has something to do with helping them to feel better about their own shortcomings if they can target someone and make them out to be worse, or they feel like they are doing God a favor and legislating all of the evil away, as if they are God's version of "judge dredd".  their fires are further fueled by organizations such as afa, or american family activists as i like to call them.  they buy into the whole "get out and vote the evil away" mantra, and next thing you know we have a religious lynch mob attacking anyone who engages in their targeted sin and trying to beat them into submission with rallies and signs and laws.  what does this actually accomplish?  absolutely nothing.  oh, sure.  it may make them feel comfortable for the time being knowing they helped to put those evil people in their place, and if they win, then they don't have to have their comfort zones upset by seeing two people holding hands that are of the same gender.  and there you have the real reason for it.  nobody wants to be uncomfortable.  everyone wants to sit on their blessed assurance, get all dressed up in their sunday best, and go to church on sunday and have nothing but CHRISTians at their workplaces, where they don't have to interact with those sinners.  why?  because then they actually might have to start sharing their faith with someone they don't think deserves it.  many in the church today have the mentality of "get right and then you can become a CHRISTian".

THAT'S NOT THE MESSAGE OF CHRIST!!!

the message of CHRIST is love your neighbor as yourself.  it is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone, whether you feel they deserve it or not.  that is the message of CHRIST, that God loves us despite our sin, and we are to do the same to others!  not go into all the world and condemn everyone!  we do not have the authority nor the right to condemn anyone!  we like to quote john 3:16, but we leave out 3:17.  "for God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."  that's right.  Jesus did not come to condemn.  one day, all will stand before Him, and the condemnation will not come from Him, but from those who reject Him!  they are in essence condemning themselves!  so, instead of looking at those who engage in homosexuality as "perverts", look at them as people in need of a Saviour!   we are all born with the penchant for sin.  and we readily engage in that sin so we are all guilty before God.  the difference is, those of us who have been saved from our sins know the true meaning of grace, mercy, and forgiveness.  so we should not be like the man who was forgiven a large debt and then was ruthless in collecting debts from those who owed him.  instead of looking down our nose at those who do not behave as we think they should, perhaps we should follow our Master's example and actually get to know them.  spend time understanding why they choose to engage in the behaviour that they do, and then show them, not tell them, the godly way.  show them the Saviour.  but if they do not see CHRIST's mercy and forgiveness in your actions, then they will simply see you as a bigot who looks down on them, which quite frankly, you possibly are.  stop bringing reproach on CHRIST's name, and reach out to those He came to save.  we are His hands and feet, and if we don't tell them, through our words as well as through our actions, then we are condemning them to an eternity in hell.

(oh, and just for the record, i am not against voting your conscience.  i believe we should use the vote God has blessed us with to glorify Him!  but don't stop there.  that does not solve the problem.  you can outlaw the action, but unless the heart is changed, the action will always find a way to continue!)

valentine's day: a pile of dung by any other name would still stink

for years, during my single days, i had my own moniker for valentine's day:  v.d. day.  for those of you wondering what v.d. is, go ask your mother.  there were many that said my attitude was only that way out of my disdain for my perpetual singleness.  however, with almost ten years experience as a married man, i can tell you, my view towards it has changed very little.  as a matter of fact, i would say that it has actually made me view it in a far more negative light.  i have actually become borderline "anti-valentine's day".  now, i know all the ladies out there are grabbing their spikes and hammers and are poised to crucify me, but before you go pick out a tree, please hear me out.

every year at this time, we are bombarded with commercials commanding us as men to go out and spend money on our wives/girlfriends/significant others.  comedian ron white had a story on truth in advertising, and he said that he had witnessed for the first time what he would classify as truth in advertising in a diamond commercial.  the slogan was, "diamonds, render her speechless".  white's comment was, "why don't they just come out and say it?  'diamonds, that'll shut her up!'"  i actually laughed quite a bit at that one, but this year, i have witnessed what i classify as the most blatant truth in advertising i believe i have ever witnessed.  in the commercial, and frankly i don't remember what product they were advertising, there was a very attractive female who said, and i quote, "guys, valentine's day is not that complicated:  give, and you shall receive."  lori and i laughed at it when we first saw it, but then as i have sat here and listened to marines' plans for valentine's day, and what they hoped to get out of it (yes, marines can be very blunt), it really solidified the point that i have said for years:  valentine's day is nothing more than prostitution.

yes, ladies, i know that is a pretty tree that you have now picked out to nail me to, but please, bear with me for a moment more.  let's remove the emotion and look at the logical inferment surrounding this.  prostitution, by definition, is defined as the act of trading sexual favors for material compensation.  how does the average prostitution encounter take place?  a guy goes up to a girl he suspects will entertain him, and offers her money, drugs, etc. in exchange for sexual favors.  how is this different from valentine's day?  a man buys his wife or girlfriend gifts (someone he knows will entertain him), with the secret desire that it will gain him favor and hopefully reap other benefits from it.   if anything, women should not be flattered by this, but insulted.

now, there are some that will say that for them, it's romantic.  let me go on the record and say, romance is good, and necessary.  also, valentine's day, in its original intent, is good.  however, retailers took it and did with it the same thing that they have done with every other holiday:  twisted it to fatten their pockets.  i hold no ill will toward them, any more than i do toward the wolf for killing for its food, for they are acting according to their nature.  however, in recent years, our society has become so selfish that everything we do is in anticipation of what we will get out of it.  thus valentine's day has become nothing more than a holiday with selfish motives, and subsequently has tried to corner the market on romance.  well, i, for one, refuse to let anyone dictate how, when, and why i choose to love my bride. 

let's think about this for a second.  if a man only chooses one day a year to show you that he loves you, then how much does he really love you, and how much does he really mean it?  if you love someone, then your entire life, your every day, is affected by that person.  but the problem is, we have such a skewed idea of what love is today, that most people wouldn't know it if the mythical cupid actually materialized and started firing tangible arrows at people.  in fact, most would turn and run.  we have a hollywood notion of love today that has doomed marriages and ended relationships on an epic scale.  i actually attended a wedding while in seminary, and instead of "till death do us part", the bride and groom said, "for as long as love shall last".  the problem today is that society as a whole sees love as a feeling you get in your stomach whenever a certain someone is around, and when that feeling goes away, then love is gone.  newsflash:  that feeling, is not love, it is infatuation.  to find a true definition of love, we must go to the Author of Love, and to the instruction manual He left us on how to love.  we can look at passages such as 1 corinthians 13, aka "the love chapter", or john 15:13, or ephesians 5:25. 

what is the one common thread in all of these passages?  sacrifice.  true love is sacrificial.  it is the giving of oneself to another without any expectation of repayment.  is this the message that we are getting at valentine's day?  i postulate the answer is "no".  the message that we get is twofold:  1) give, and you shall receive, and 2) this is your one day a year to make up for not showing love for the rest of the year.  if someone only told you that they loved you once a year, or only gave you a hug or kiss once a year, or only bought you flowers once a year, could you confidently say that they loved you?  moreover, if someone only did something for you out of obligation, would you consider it a true sacrifice?  if CHRIST only died for you out of some misguided self-righteous sense of duty to you, would it carry the same weight?  absolutely not!  the sad thing is, we apply the same principles we have in marriage to our CHRISTian lives.  we only show our love, devotion, and level of sacrifice to God one day a week by "sacrificing" and giving up an hour or so out of our week to go to church, out of some misguided, self-righteous sense of duty, and then claim to love CHRIST. 

here is the take-away:  love is a verb.  it is an action.  it is intentional.  it is unselfish.  and most importantly, it is not confined to one day a year.  am i against doing something nice for your wife on valentine's day?  no.  but check your motivation.  is it because of what you will get out of the deal?  if so, it is selfish.  is it so you won't look bad to all of your wive's friends?  if so, it is prideful.  is it because you think your wife expects it?  if so, it is forced.  is it because you haven't done the like during the rest of the year and you are making up for it?  if so, it is inconsiderate.  all of these are antithetical of love.

p.s. - i know that this was primarily geared towards the males, (because let's face it, valentine's day is marketed towards the males' pocketbooks) but it applies to females as well.  ladies, if you are rewarding valentine's gifts with pleasure, you are prostituting yourselves.  if you expect your husband to buy you something just because it is a certain day, you are forcing love, which is servitude, in effect making you a slave master.  and if you allow him to make up for the past by buying gifts, then you have cheapened love and romance and reduced it to a commodity that can be bought and sold. 

this year, ladies and gentlemen, look at this as a learning exercise and take the time to communicate the things that make you feel loved.  if you don't communicate that, then your partner may never know.  take time to find out what the Bible says about love, and once you learn how CHRIST loves us, then you can effectively love your spouse the way CHRIST loves us, and all year long, i might add!  i admit i'm far from perfect when it comes to loving my bride, and for that i continually ask hers and God's forgiveness.  but if i, or you, ever get complacent in striving, then we will miss out on the immense joy God meant for us when He designed marriage.  i hope you have put the hammer and nails down by now.  if not, oh well.  i hear body piercing is in these days!

happy saint valentine's day!
c. 

politics, ethics, and religion

for those of you who know me, you are probably familiar with my love/hate relationship with politics.  i tend to have very strong political views (which actually are just extensions of my worldview, but since they are intertwined, i will for now refer to them in the realm of politics), but at the same time i despise politics, and more specifically politicians.  there is an old saying that the way to tell a politician is lying is their lips move.  that being said, i do believe that most politicians have the best of intentions when it comes to the office that they are trying to obtain, with a few having political aspirations for their own gain.  however, the nature of politics does lend itself to distortions of facts and figures, misrepresentations of quotes, and sometimes blatant lying, so for that reason, i trust very little of what i hear a politician saying while on the campaign trail.

that being said, there is a very big election coming up later in the year.  the gop has not even settled on a candidate yet, and the mudslinging political ads have already started, along with the rebuttals by the other side.  so, with so much mistruth out there, what is a person to do when it comes to deciding on whom to elect?  before i continue, let me say that this post is not to persuade you to vote for one side or another, but rather to be a frank discussion on what should be considered when deciding upon a candidate to back.  this will be geared towards those who refer to themselves as followers of CHRIST, but it's practical aspects can be embraced by all people of all faiths.

there has been a lot of discussion recently about the personal lives of politicians when it comes to their ability to lead.  many have postulated that a person's personal life does not affect their ability to lead, while others counter that it directly affects their leadership abilities.  the truth is, a person's personal life only affects their ability to lead when they are unable to separate their personal stress from their job.  as with any job, a large part of succeeding involves being able to keep your personal problems out of the workplace.  this is also reciprocated when discussing the home life.  one of the keys to a successful marriage is being able to leave work and the stress of work at work.  my bride and i have an unwritten agreement that the first thing i do when i get home is go upstairs and remove my uniform and change into civilian clothes.  the reason for this is two-fold:  first, it gets me out of "military" or "officer" mode.  when i come home, after dealing with marines and sailors all day, it can be very tempting to interact with my family in that short, gruff manner, which makes for a tense evening.  second, it helps me to leave at work the stress of dealing with everyone else's problems all day.  granted, there are times i have to pick that back up if i get called, but otherwise i choose to focus on my family and not the marine or sailor that is having marital difficulties.  this principle is especially important at work.  many of the marines and sailors i deal with are sent to me because they are unable to leave their home problems at home, and as a result their job performance suffers.  politics is a particularly stressful profession, and a person inept at managing their own personal life could potentially make poor choices, which could have disastrous consequences because their decisions affect not just them, but those that they are leading.  however, there are those who are able to manage both their personal and professional lives and are able to keep them separate very effectively.  in this case, a person's personal life does not affect their ability to lead.  however, what their personal life does affect, is how they lead.

a person's personal life is made up of two key elements:  circumstances and responses.  throughout a person's life, a variety of circumstances, both positive and negative, happen every second of every day.  it is not the circumstances that are the key defining character of a person's life, but rather the response that is initiated by the circumstances that determines the substance of the person.  what guides how a person responds to their circumstances?  that person's morals, which are a direct reflection of their ethical framework.  now, morals and ethics are subjects that one can spend years studying and still not exhaust all of the information throughout history pertaining to the two.  so to give you a short definition of the two, morals are a person's sense of right and wrong.  your morals will determine whether or not you will steal that candy bar when no one is looking, or whether you will point a rifle at someone who has wronged you and pull the trigger, or whether you will invite that young lady you met in a bar on a business trip back to your hotel room.  your morals are determined by your ethics.  ethics is how a person determines right from wrong.  ethics is applied to all sorts of fields, such as military ethics, medical ethics, business ethics, etc.  these fields lay out specific guidelines as to what makes a decision right or wrong within that given field.  but they all fall under what is called normative ethics.  normative ethics is our philosophy of what makes things right or wrong.  our normative ethics are based on things such as our religious background, family background, cultural backgroud, etc.  for instance, a CHRISTian's normative ethics should come from the Bible.  notice i said should, because not all CHRISTians follow this practice.  moreover, a person from a culture of racism may not see the evil of racism, and may even use the same Scriptures that condemn it, to support it (always out of context, i might add!).  while this is not meant to be a class on ethics and morals, i wanted to clarify what the two were, and to differentiate between the two, so that you have a better working knowledge of the subject for the next portion.

back to the topic at hand.  as stated before, a person's personal life (made up of their circumstances and responses, which are a direct reflection of their morals and ethical framework) does not affect their ability to lead.  adolph hitler was a phenomenal leader, in the strictest sense of the word.  he led people to follow him whole-heartedly and to condone the slaughter of millions of innocent people.  cult leaders have been very effective leaders, even leading people to their death.  but there is a difference between being an effective leader (sometimes called a good leader, which really is an improper use of the word), and being a righteous, just, and fair leader (which more appropriately could be called a good leader).  so while a person's personal life does not affect their ability to lead, it will affect the direction in which they lead. 

a person's leadership is not independent of their moral and ethical framework, instead, it is dependent on it.  a person's sense of right and wrong will determine the decisions they make in their personal life, and consequently, their political life.  if a person has shown the lack of commitment in being married to the person they are supposed to be the closest to, that lack of commitment will carry over to other areas.  we live in a society today where the idea of commitment and dedication are foreign, outdated at best.  if we have a leader that models that same lack of commitment, you can rest assured it will be reflected in other commitments.  if a person has shown lack of regard for the sanctity of human life, it will be reflected in their decisions on abortion, euthanasia, etc.  if a person demonstrates an attitude of using truth when it's convenient, it follows that one will find it hard to believe them whenever they are questioned about a stance, policy, etc.  many politicians today live more in the area of situational ethics and moral relativism.  situational ethics states that the ends justify the means.  for example, it is ok if you cheat this group just so long as you are using it to benefit another less fortunate group (the robin hood principle).  this is particularly dangerous when a person uses situational ethics in areas such as warfare and medicine.  a scenario that might play out to where a government finds it okay to drop a bomb leveling an entire village, killing innocents, just so long as the intended target is killed.  a medical example could play out to where prisoners are used as test subjects for disease cures, because after all, they are bad people so they don't deserve the same ethical treatment as the general population.  moral relativism is similar in theory to situational ethics, but it is on a more personal level.  a moral relativist says, "what's right for me may not be right for you", and vice versa.  the problem with this is it is devoid of any sort of absolute authority.  this is dangerous when applied to areas such as finance and family.

why is this important?  history has shown that in every great and mighty civilization, regardless of the religion of the civilization, their downfall was always immediately preceded by an ethical and moral degradation within that society.  this is true for the greeks, the romans, the turks, and various other groups.  the united states has been one of the great civilizations of the last 200 years, but is on the verge of a downfall.  europe is a perfect example of what happens when a society gravitates towards moral bankruptcy.  at one time, europe was the center of CHRISTianity, but now is anything but, and is facing economic and societal collapse.  lawlessness is starting to manifest itself in some of the bigger cities, and will increasingly grow worse as time goes on.  we are seeing tremors of this in the united states today.  the occupy movements are just foreshadows of the times to come, unless a change is made.  politicians would like for you to believe that the change needed is a fiscal one, but the real change needed is a paradigm shift in the ethics and morals that have taken root in the past 40-50 years.  we must elect leaders who have a strong sense of ethics and morals.  this business of shifting your position based on your numbers in the polls or who is funding your office will only produce leaders who will lead our country into ruin.  george washington said, "america is great, because she is good.  when america ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."

this year, as election season approaches, pay no attention to frightening images being portrayed in front of us on the television, and instead, do pay attention to the man behind the curtain.  look not only at a politician's stances, but look at their voting records in the past.  do your research.  don't choose a candidate because they are of a certain party, or because they are of a certain race, religion, economic group, etc.  choose a candidate that has a proven record of consistent and ethical decision making.  but most importantly, for CHRISTians, choose a candidate based on how they line up with Scripture and only after much prayer and fasting.  and remember the example of the israelites:  they wanted a king.  they did not seek God's face on whether or not they needed a king.  they wanted a king.  so God gave them what they wanted, and Scripture tells us that Saul was a ruthless and evil king that led them into ruin.  ask God who HE would have you vote for, then follow.  He is one leader that will never lead you wrong!

te-bow, or not te-bow. . .

so there seems to be a lot of controversy about a particular football player named tim tebow, particularly about his faith, more specifically about his perceived over-zealousness for that faith.  now, it was just a matter of time before i had to interject my own take on the issue, especially when it's considered a controversial topic.

the first point of contention with mr. tebow is with a particular atheist group, saying that he is using his faith for publicity.  while i will say that his faith seems to have taken the spotlight as of recently, i do not believe it to be solely his own doing.  many players have been known for being devoutly CHRISTian, and have also been known for outward expressions of faith, particularly when accomplishing some feat, such as scoring touchdowns.  this is not purely a football phenomena, either.  we can see examples of the devout engaging in public displays of faith (pdf's) in baseball, basketball, and even golf!  so what makes mr. tebow any different than any of the other players engaging in pdf's?  to accurately examine this, we need only reference the question, "does man make history, or does history make the man?"  to break it down more, is mr. tebow the football player popular because he is a CHRISTian, or is mr. tebow the CHRISTian popular because he is a football player?  while you can argue both, i believe the correct answer lies in the second question.

mr. tebow has accomplished a significant amount during his career as a football player.  he currently holds records in his school, the sec, and the ncaa, along with being the first sophomore to win the prestigious heisman trophy.  he was a heisman finalist his junior and senior years in college as well.  it was there that he gained his notoriety for his faith when a reporter asked him about his sex life and mr. tebow replied that he was a virgin.  from there, the ncaa decided to ban writing on the eye-black that the players wore under their eyes, which became known as the "tebow rule", because he regularly had Bible verse references written on his.  there were other players that engaged in this as well, but tim tebow had been thrust to the forefront of the sports faith heroes category due to that earlier interview.  however, if mr. tebow had been a mediocre player or a 3rd string benchwarmer, there would have been no interview, and some other player would have been singled out for the eye-black controversy.  this principle carries over to today, with the current trend of "tebowing", that resulted from a picture taken of mr. tebow bowing in the end zone after scoring a touchdown.  this inspired people , both of faith and not of faith, to imitate the position, and became the craze of the week.  again, many players have bowed and pointed to heaven and carried out other gestures of faith when scoring touchdowns, but none have gained the notoriety that mr. tebow has.  was it because of the particular knee he used?  maybe if he would have bowed on his other knee, then it wouldn't have become such an issue?  no!  it is because he is a rookie quarterback, starting the year as back-up quarterback for the denver broncos, and has helped gain his team a spot in the playoffs.  i can guarantee you, if i was to walk up to a news camera and kneel down in front of it with my hands together in front of my chest, people would label me as a nutjob.  i can also guarantee you that it would go no further, and that the news station would not air it, other than for a good joke, and there sure wouldn't be any national craze called "westing"!  the simple fact is, mr. tebow is an accomplished football player, and that has been the spring board that has caused his faith to take center stage.

another recent article was written by none other than mr. big mouth, charles barkley, referring to tim tebow as a "national nightmare", because of the focus on his faith.  in a day when professional sports players regularly make headlines due to their many indiscretions (michael vick's electric dog salon, the michael irving cuff-em and stuff-em shuffle, or the brett favre greeting picturegram), the media has been waiting for someone like mr. tebow.  you can rest assured that the motivation there is not a pure one.  the same media that is focusing so hard on a rising star that is rooted in his faith, is licking their chops waiting to be the first one to get the scoop if he is caught in some compromising situation.  he is simply the flavor of the month for the news media.  if you notice, the sports media does not focus so much on his faith, but instead on the game winning touchdown he threw against the steelers.  rather, it is the news media that focuses on mr. tebow, the CHRISTian, and not mr. tebow the football player.

all that being said, i have to say that i admire tim tebow, although i personally do not care for the denver broncos.  whether he is genuine in his faith (which i believe he is), or whether it is all just a big publicity stunt, he is getting the gospel out there to people who might otherwise never hear it.  the Bible says that to whom much is given, much is required, and that it is required of a steward to be found faithful.  mr. tebow is using his notoriety to give glory to God, and we know that God will honor that, regardless of mr. tebow's motives.  after mr. tebow wrote "john 3:16" on his eye-black during the 2009 bcs championship game, the verse became the top search on google for the next 24 hours, racking up over 90 million searches!  subsequently, when he changed the verse to proverbs 3:5-6, it garnered 3.43 million searches.  mr. tebow is using the talent and resulting fame that God has blessed him with to reach untold millions for CHRIST.  next year, some other player will take the spotlight, and the controversy surrounding tim tebow will have died down.  the liberal media and the atheist community that want to strip CHRISTianity from society will find a new target to go after, and mr. tebow will become another quarterback like all the rest, that will finish out his career, and continue to inspire the faithful.  in the meantime, we as CHRISTians need to applaud people like mr. tebow and continue to lift him up in prayer.  pray that pride does not take root in his life as a result of the publicity, and pray that God places people in his life to keep him grounded in his faith, because you can bet that he is on the top ten list for satan and his minions.  they are going to try and place temptations in front of him, and to bring him down for the whole world to see.  so pray.  and follow tim tebow's example, and use whatever influence you may have, no matter how broad or how limited, to reach those around you for CHRIST.  be a faithful steward.