Ever wonder what politicians do when it's not an election year?
Maybe they fight, call each other names, or maybe they get along. Unless you are willing to watch C-Span, you will likely not hear much about or from your Senator or Congressman. If you are willing to watch C-Span, you will likely hear long, boring speeches on subjects like a proposal to modify a proposal on making proposals during leap years.
Back to what politicians do when they are not running for an office - every citizen must wonder from time to time, but sadly, most of us think more about where to eat out or what movie is playing than what our representatives are doing who are actually elected and charged with the responsibility of representing you and I. It is this lack of scrutiny and accountability that allows them to remain virtually hidden until the press is bored and desires to pick on someone (usually a Republican, go figure) or they sponsor some bill that is relevant enough to warrant coverage.
But the question remains....when not running for an office, or re-election, do politicians fight and call each other names and get testy when they are safe and sound and elected? The answer -- is yes. But once they are elected and seated, their fight is one that is more analogous to tug of war, rather than mud slinging. It's dodge and perry, thrust and jab, hit and run, joust and jump, and negotiate, often behind "closed doors" where palm greasing and pocket lining rules the day. The party in majority may be far more concerned with keeping power than using it to advance their agenda, and the party in the minority often looks for kinks in their armor, or they just sit back, take the scraps they can get, and hope the powers that be make a big mistake they can capitalize on later. It is so much like chess, you'd think they would paint the floor of the senate in black and white blocks.
A bigger question than 'do they fight' may be....do they fight for their principals and agendas, or do they fight just because they are on opposite sides?
We all know that private citizens get riled up for their chosen party, often engaging in heated debates with those who disagree with them. Clubs, churches, bars, even schools can be highly centered around a certain political party affiliation. Whether we call ourselves a liberal or conservative can make a huge difference in who we talk to, where we go, and how we spend. It can also spark debates so hot you could cook on them. But do the actual politicians have these same highly charged, biased feelings too? Do they really try to advance their staunchly held beliefs, or do they walk into their group meetings and deal with the opposite party with kid gloves, a random scowl, and end the day with a back slap and a good laugh? One wonders.
Football fans can sometimes be set off by seeing members of the opposing team shake hands, smile, hug, and even have prayer after a hard fought game. Of course, the actual players are far more tired than the spectators, so all they might want to do is talk a moment and lean on each other, but the rabid fan is still shouting and carrying on in the living room, livid at such a display. Makes you wonder if the guys on the field have a much better grasp of the notion "it's just a game" than does the fan.
Do they guys and gals in our senate and congress have a similar perspective? Do they know that name calling, fighting, and fierce anger only slows things down? Is their 'game' more cloak and dagger, forcing them to pretend, or actually get along, make deals, concessions, and coalitions in order to get any work done? If this were so, would the average citizen be sickened by this revelation, or would they be enlightened? Can it be that the actual politicians act like professional ball players when no one is looking, but resort to acting like the fans when they are looking?
I don't know about you, but I want any so-called conservative representative to be conservative to the core, always fighting out of principal, but doing so with a suave and methodical demeanor. I would rather have a conservative senator who fights in vain, than to have one that only pretends to fight as they attempt to hide their weak constitution. Similarly, I want liberal politicians to be liberal across the board, unless they are truly double minded, which, in either case, their leanings will get them out of office. It is said that nature abhors a vacuum, and in politics, the public abhors someone who tries to be two faced. Either be conservative, or liberal, but don't try to ride the fence. Most of the public does not reside in that magic "middle" the press pretends is there, and Joe Liberman can tell you much about that desolate waste land. George W. may be able to speak to it soon.
The fight in our nations senate halls is not over legislation and bills, it is over world views and the outcome of those world views as they are reflected within legislation and bills. The left-wing liberals do not want to mix conservative views with their own -- they want purity in their godless, chaotic intentions and abhor Republicans who hold to standard conservatism. For liberals, it is a fight to the death, and no quarter is afforded their intended victims. It is about time conservative Republicans took the same approach, and stood large and in charge for their principals that do not need or warrant any liberalism in them. It may sound counter intuitive, but we as a republic are far better off with highly principled representatives who hold fiercely to their respective conservative or liberal views, than with politicians whose only fight is to remain a politician.
I believe America is still largely conservative in their views and principals, but that may not always be the case. Americans are far more interested in being entertained than in being free and responsible, and when the populace is lead by limp wristed, middle of the road politicians, it is no wonder so many citizens are tuned out to politics as a whole. But give the masses a politician who is decidedly left or right, and suddenly, they get involved, listen up, and choose sides, which is a good thing for all. Why do we have 40 and sometimes 50% turnout for elections? Because the middle-roader, bottom feeding politicians neither lead nor inspire as they seek only to appease and remain in office. How do we increase voter turnout? Run a candidate who takes a decided stand, be it liberal or conservative, and let them be consistent in their views and principals. Look no further than Ronald Reagan to see what happens when a presidential candidate "sticks to their guns." He truly won by landslide votes, and he did so being a unapologetic conservative.
Christians ruin their witness by being wishy-washy in their alliances and allegiances. Politicians ruin their opportunities to represent when they seek only to be electable, rather than principled.
BHO (Barak Hussein Obama), in these last few days before the election, is FINALLY being called out as the extreme left wing liberal that he is. His Achilles heel is that he, like all liberals, is trying to hide it before the election. John McCain has been consistently a middle-roader, which by definition as per this article, is a losing proposition with the public. His saving grace is two fold: he doesn't hide his vanilla/chocolate demeanor, and he brought on a decidedly conservative running mate.
Will the citizens of this great country cover their eyes and elect a wolf in sheep's clothing, or will they vote for a guy who is a middle-roader, albeit a honest one? It's hard to say, but if nothing else is learned in this election cycle, hopefully it will be this -- the party that hopes to win in the future had better decide which end of the moral and political spectrum they are on, accept it, and stick to it, or else the citizens will revolt until they do. And that is fine. There IS right and wrong, black and white, conservative and liberal, and there always should be. The "middle" is for art teachers, florists, and weenies. Make up your mind! Take a stand! Be committed! And then, welcome a good scrap.
Jesus said a man cannot have total allegiance to both God and material wealth. Can't be double minded. Choose life, or death. I think God knows what He is talking about.
And by the way......conservative principals are the ONLY principals that will bring peace, prosperity, and passion back to this country.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Movie Review
"An American Carol" is not your conventional movie.
To say the least. Call it a cross over between "Airplane III" and....well.....something you've never seen in a movie theater before.
Conservatism.
Hollywood doesn't do conservatism. At least not in large doses. Sure, Saving Private Ryan showed soldiers as hero's and the Chronicles of Narnia had an implicit Christian theme, but overall, la la land does not cater to any pro-conservative or pro-Christian themes. And even when they do, they don't acknowledge the positive impact it has upon their bottom line.
American Carol is a very pro-military, pro-America, anti-Michael Moore flick that tries to be funny, but makes much more sense when it gets a little serious and reflective. In fact, the director (who apparently did past movies like "Airplane," a really stupid-funny film) would have been very wise to make a more contemplative movie that used a little humor to break the ice from time to time. Instead, the more serious and poignant moments broke the ice for the tepid humor, which many times wandered off into a decidedly crass area that embarrassed the point of the picture. When godless dim-wits have kids cuss in flicks, it's bad enough, but in this movie, it makes the producers and writers seem low rent.
Michael Moore and anti-military liberals are the brunt of the joke of this satire, which is fine, and helps a movie searching for genre keep a point running through the theme. Chris Farley's brother plays the part of the pseudo-Moore, and does an admirable job of it. He looks the part but is so much like his late brother in speech and body language, you think more about Chris than Michael. Other notable actors such as Kelsey Grammer and John Voigt lend a certain seriousness to the scenes, and after about 20 minutes in, you find yourself wondering who else is going to be seen in this anti-Hollywood flick. The "terrorists" were probably the most forgettable characters, reminding one of Laurel and Hardy, which was funny once 50 years ago. A little stale now.
Moore is portrayed just as he really is -- a dumpy, uninformed, angry liberal who hates business, the military, guns, conservatives, and decent clothing. Much fun (too much, really) is made of documentaries being low rent rags. Moore, by proxy, is shown to be in need of a trip through history to show why America is not only great, but in need of constant defending. JFK even makes an appearance, and the director does a good job of convincing the audience that even that skirt chaser had a hard stand upon aggressive enemies in various speeches. To be pointed, the movie suggests that if Moore would really pay attention to ALL of our history, he would change his mind and views. Maybe that's a huge step in wishing, but that's what movies are made of.
You will not laugh too hard during this movie, but you will also not be too turned off by cheesy scenes, because there are few of them. Actually, as the movie progresses and little snippets of scenes showing tid bits of history are viewed, you may find yourself wishing that the movie had been a far more serious affair. Particularly effective was the section exposing the extreme liberalism that blossomed on the West coast and pervaded colleges from then on.
Some really strong conservative statements are uttered through out the movie, which is the biggest disconnect the audience experiences. It is strange to sit in any movie theater and hear someone say that Islamic countries are our vowed enemies and need to be defeated. The shame comes from feeling uncomfortable hearing that in a movie theater.
There are a few really dumb scenes that are repetitive and show disabled children being "hurt," innocently, of course, a la Airplane, and the 4 or 5 times a child cusses for no real effect, and some cleavage scenes that add not a thing to the purpose, but other than that and the fact that it gets a "D" on the comedy scale, it is a refreshing movie to watch. Besides, at 1 hour and 20 minutes, it doesn't take that much time.
This movie had great potential, if the director/producers could have either made it really funny (which was certainly possible, given the ridiculous nature of liberals), or really pointed with a little humor thrown in to keep it palatable. Based loosely upon Charles Dickens work as it was, it had that potential. Just a word to the wise -- when conservatives do take a chance and make a movie, they undermine their message when they use juvenile humor and gutter language and references. Not everyone who is conservative is high brow or Christian, but all conservatives need to understand that they are seen through a different lens by liberals.
Go see American Carol, if for no other reason than to just experience conservatism in a movie theater. Don't expect to howl in laughter, nor cry in emotionalism. But if you are a true conservative, you will experience delight and spontaneous applause at least 6 times guaranteed.
Grade scale: 1 is poor, 10 is excellent
Comedy: 3
Drama: 4
Clarity of purpose: 8
Use of dialogue: 6
Cinematography: 5
Continuity: 6
Special effects: 3
Character development: 4
Lead actor(s): 5
Supporting actor(s): 5
To say the least. Call it a cross over between "Airplane III" and....well.....something you've never seen in a movie theater before.
Conservatism.
Hollywood doesn't do conservatism. At least not in large doses. Sure, Saving Private Ryan showed soldiers as hero's and the Chronicles of Narnia had an implicit Christian theme, but overall, la la land does not cater to any pro-conservative or pro-Christian themes. And even when they do, they don't acknowledge the positive impact it has upon their bottom line.
American Carol is a very pro-military, pro-America, anti-Michael Moore flick that tries to be funny, but makes much more sense when it gets a little serious and reflective. In fact, the director (who apparently did past movies like "Airplane," a really stupid-funny film) would have been very wise to make a more contemplative movie that used a little humor to break the ice from time to time. Instead, the more serious and poignant moments broke the ice for the tepid humor, which many times wandered off into a decidedly crass area that embarrassed the point of the picture. When godless dim-wits have kids cuss in flicks, it's bad enough, but in this movie, it makes the producers and writers seem low rent.
Michael Moore and anti-military liberals are the brunt of the joke of this satire, which is fine, and helps a movie searching for genre keep a point running through the theme. Chris Farley's brother plays the part of the pseudo-Moore, and does an admirable job of it. He looks the part but is so much like his late brother in speech and body language, you think more about Chris than Michael. Other notable actors such as Kelsey Grammer and John Voigt lend a certain seriousness to the scenes, and after about 20 minutes in, you find yourself wondering who else is going to be seen in this anti-Hollywood flick. The "terrorists" were probably the most forgettable characters, reminding one of Laurel and Hardy, which was funny once 50 years ago. A little stale now.
Moore is portrayed just as he really is -- a dumpy, uninformed, angry liberal who hates business, the military, guns, conservatives, and decent clothing. Much fun (too much, really) is made of documentaries being low rent rags. Moore, by proxy, is shown to be in need of a trip through history to show why America is not only great, but in need of constant defending. JFK even makes an appearance, and the director does a good job of convincing the audience that even that skirt chaser had a hard stand upon aggressive enemies in various speeches. To be pointed, the movie suggests that if Moore would really pay attention to ALL of our history, he would change his mind and views. Maybe that's a huge step in wishing, but that's what movies are made of.
You will not laugh too hard during this movie, but you will also not be too turned off by cheesy scenes, because there are few of them. Actually, as the movie progresses and little snippets of scenes showing tid bits of history are viewed, you may find yourself wishing that the movie had been a far more serious affair. Particularly effective was the section exposing the extreme liberalism that blossomed on the West coast and pervaded colleges from then on.
Some really strong conservative statements are uttered through out the movie, which is the biggest disconnect the audience experiences. It is strange to sit in any movie theater and hear someone say that Islamic countries are our vowed enemies and need to be defeated. The shame comes from feeling uncomfortable hearing that in a movie theater.
There are a few really dumb scenes that are repetitive and show disabled children being "hurt," innocently, of course, a la Airplane, and the 4 or 5 times a child cusses for no real effect, and some cleavage scenes that add not a thing to the purpose, but other than that and the fact that it gets a "D" on the comedy scale, it is a refreshing movie to watch. Besides, at 1 hour and 20 minutes, it doesn't take that much time.
This movie had great potential, if the director/producers could have either made it really funny (which was certainly possible, given the ridiculous nature of liberals), or really pointed with a little humor thrown in to keep it palatable. Based loosely upon Charles Dickens work as it was, it had that potential. Just a word to the wise -- when conservatives do take a chance and make a movie, they undermine their message when they use juvenile humor and gutter language and references. Not everyone who is conservative is high brow or Christian, but all conservatives need to understand that they are seen through a different lens by liberals.
Go see American Carol, if for no other reason than to just experience conservatism in a movie theater. Don't expect to howl in laughter, nor cry in emotionalism. But if you are a true conservative, you will experience delight and spontaneous applause at least 6 times guaranteed.
Grade scale: 1 is poor, 10 is excellent
Comedy: 3
Drama: 4
Clarity of purpose: 8
Use of dialogue: 6
Cinematography: 5
Continuity: 6
Special effects: 3
Character development: 4
Lead actor(s): 5
Supporting actor(s): 5
Thursday, October 2, 2008
How Do I Count?
I first met Tony Areno in the grocery store where I worked. He was a hard charging, fast talking, energetic young man who was the produce manager. He moved fast, talked to almost everyone as if he was commander in chief, and let it be known that he was going places.
Tony came from what could be called an average family. He had also served a 4 year stint in the army. When I met him, he was newly married, fresh out of the army, and was working at this store because good jobs in that small southern town were hard to find, unless you had family ties. He was also seeking significance in his life. The store owner was a Christian, and a bi-vocational preacher, and Tony was highly influenced by this man. He wanted to impress him. I was not a Christian at the time (but would become one just a year later) but I could tell that Tony's referral to Christian themes and morals were in his head, and not in his heart. You might say Tony had a NFL-esque Christian view -- "it's good to give props to God, but living it out is another thing."
Fast forward some 12 years or so later. Tony moved on to other things, I continued to work at that store for many more years, and in the meantime, moved out of town, but eventually came back to finish school. Not long after coming back, I was in my home church, reacquainting myself with old friends and some new faces. An old friend asked me if I recognized the guy across the room. I said I did not, but he did look familiar. He was beckoned over, and as he hobbled his way across the room, I was told his name. "This is Tony Areno." The reason I had difficulty making the connection was more in the way he carried himself, rather than the difference 12 years can make in appearance. This small, skinny, wobbly middle-aged looking man did not resemble the Tony I once knew. Sure, the old Tony was slight in stature, but he had a fire in his eyes and a quick tongue. The man standing in front of me held out a shaky hand, spoke with a slow, determined stutter, and could not stand fully straight. And there was no fire in his eyes.
The short version of the story is that Tony tried to "apply" a Christian label to himself all those years ago, but he lived a reckless life full of drugs and alcohol. He was motivated and determined, and wanted his life to count for something big. But one night, after he and his wife left a party, stoned and drunk, he had a bad auto accident. Massive head trauma. Some surgeries and lots of rehabilitation later, he was able to walk, talk, and get around, but in a way that resembled a 80 year old man. When I met Tony the second time, he was single (his wife left him after the accident), broken, slow talking, slow walking, but he had one thing going for him -- Christ was no longer someone he "admired," Christ was now someone he worshipped as Lord and Savior.
Tony's fundamental personality was still intact -- he liked to play jokes, laugh, and get really serious and pointed on certain issues -- but his testimony about Christ now was real and believable. That fire that used to be in his eyes had moved into his bones, because he could not help but tell people about a Christ that he now knew. Tony was unable to work, barely able to drive (very scary!) but he was always at church, always positive, and always an inspiration to others. And he still wanted his life to count. But unlike in his previous life, when he wanted life to count for him, he now wanted his life to count for Christ.
Tony died some 7 years ago. After his accident, it was found out that he had Cystic fibrosis, and that, along with other medical issues on-going from his accident, eventually claimed his life. But many times when I spent time with Tony playing softball, talking at church, or going on outings with him, he would tell me, "I thought I was really going somewhere and going to be somebody when you knew me before. But now, I see that I was heading no where. I wouldn't take back what happened to me for anything, because I see that God used that to show me I needed Him."
Most people are looking for significance in their lives. "Most" is used intentionally, because there are people out there who just don't care at all. But for the majority of humans, there is a need deep inside for our lives to "count." Defining what "count" means divides us up into many splintered communities, but possibly all of that could be reduced in to two camps: Those who want life to count for them, and those who want their lives to count for something bigger.
Success and failure, based solely upon human conventions, is an exercise in arbitrary futility at best. Donald Trump is a very rich man. He builds huge buildings. He also sucks at relationships. He infuriates thousands. He has lost millions and gained it back, and many people associated with him went down with him and never got back. Michael Jordan was a highly recognized basketball player. He made hundreds of millions. He also has a massive gambling habit, and now a divorce. Brittany Spears is one of the most recognized and wealthy young entertainers in the world. She also suffers from the pressures of her "success" in the forms of mental illness, drunkenness, and public humiliation.
Success and failure, based solely upon God's reckoning, is an exercise in understanding position and power. Jesus was once asked, 'what is the greatest commandment?' He replied that we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength (with all we have), and then, to love our neighbors as ourselves (put others first). Success, in God's eyes, is for us to recognize our position with God, and that is, that He is King, and we are His subjects. Second, it is to recognize that He has all power, and we have none, or none that counts. A "successful" person in God's view is one that worships God and God alone, and then, as a result of that proper position, serves God first, and their fellow person second. Maybe, somewhere down the line, they find time to serve their own interests. Yeah, that is exactly the point.
Wanting our lives to count is as human as wanting to breathe. But how we define 'count' really defines our overall view of the world, and He who made it. For the Christian, this can only mean that we are counted among those who worship God with all we have, making sure that all our dreams and plans and activities ultimately are motivated by wanting to glorify the God who made us. We recognize that being the best teacher or doctor, or a highly recognized personality, or making a lot of money is not going to result in "counting" for anything. In fact, by God's standards, those whose lives have counted the most have been lived in relative obscurity. How many "celebrities" in Hollywood know that Lottie Moon died of starvation, all 50 lbs. of her, because she gave all her money and food away so that starving Chinese people around her could live one more day?
Even Christians need to be reminded daily (or remind themselves) that this "counting" business is serious, and it's not a fairy tale. We have to be determined in our thinking and motivations to keep before ourselves that a life that counts is a life of service to God, on His terms, in His timing, and in His way. This is a VERY dangerous way to live, because God does not seek our glory, but His, and as His servants, it is His sovereign right to use us as He wishes. No wonder so many turn away, seeking their own temporary glory in futility.
Tony Areno lost so much, mostly due to seeking a life that counted for him, but in the ensuing tragedy, he was given a second chance to live a life that counted toward the glory of God. I knew him in both lives, and the 'second life' was far more inspirational and moving than the first.
Tony came from what could be called an average family. He had also served a 4 year stint in the army. When I met him, he was newly married, fresh out of the army, and was working at this store because good jobs in that small southern town were hard to find, unless you had family ties. He was also seeking significance in his life. The store owner was a Christian, and a bi-vocational preacher, and Tony was highly influenced by this man. He wanted to impress him. I was not a Christian at the time (but would become one just a year later) but I could tell that Tony's referral to Christian themes and morals were in his head, and not in his heart. You might say Tony had a NFL-esque Christian view -- "it's good to give props to God, but living it out is another thing."
Fast forward some 12 years or so later. Tony moved on to other things, I continued to work at that store for many more years, and in the meantime, moved out of town, but eventually came back to finish school. Not long after coming back, I was in my home church, reacquainting myself with old friends and some new faces. An old friend asked me if I recognized the guy across the room. I said I did not, but he did look familiar. He was beckoned over, and as he hobbled his way across the room, I was told his name. "This is Tony Areno." The reason I had difficulty making the connection was more in the way he carried himself, rather than the difference 12 years can make in appearance. This small, skinny, wobbly middle-aged looking man did not resemble the Tony I once knew. Sure, the old Tony was slight in stature, but he had a fire in his eyes and a quick tongue. The man standing in front of me held out a shaky hand, spoke with a slow, determined stutter, and could not stand fully straight. And there was no fire in his eyes.
The short version of the story is that Tony tried to "apply" a Christian label to himself all those years ago, but he lived a reckless life full of drugs and alcohol. He was motivated and determined, and wanted his life to count for something big. But one night, after he and his wife left a party, stoned and drunk, he had a bad auto accident. Massive head trauma. Some surgeries and lots of rehabilitation later, he was able to walk, talk, and get around, but in a way that resembled a 80 year old man. When I met Tony the second time, he was single (his wife left him after the accident), broken, slow talking, slow walking, but he had one thing going for him -- Christ was no longer someone he "admired," Christ was now someone he worshipped as Lord and Savior.
Tony's fundamental personality was still intact -- he liked to play jokes, laugh, and get really serious and pointed on certain issues -- but his testimony about Christ now was real and believable. That fire that used to be in his eyes had moved into his bones, because he could not help but tell people about a Christ that he now knew. Tony was unable to work, barely able to drive (very scary!) but he was always at church, always positive, and always an inspiration to others. And he still wanted his life to count. But unlike in his previous life, when he wanted life to count for him, he now wanted his life to count for Christ.
Tony died some 7 years ago. After his accident, it was found out that he had Cystic fibrosis, and that, along with other medical issues on-going from his accident, eventually claimed his life. But many times when I spent time with Tony playing softball, talking at church, or going on outings with him, he would tell me, "I thought I was really going somewhere and going to be somebody when you knew me before. But now, I see that I was heading no where. I wouldn't take back what happened to me for anything, because I see that God used that to show me I needed Him."
Most people are looking for significance in their lives. "Most" is used intentionally, because there are people out there who just don't care at all. But for the majority of humans, there is a need deep inside for our lives to "count." Defining what "count" means divides us up into many splintered communities, but possibly all of that could be reduced in to two camps: Those who want life to count for them, and those who want their lives to count for something bigger.
Success and failure, based solely upon human conventions, is an exercise in arbitrary futility at best. Donald Trump is a very rich man. He builds huge buildings. He also sucks at relationships. He infuriates thousands. He has lost millions and gained it back, and many people associated with him went down with him and never got back. Michael Jordan was a highly recognized basketball player. He made hundreds of millions. He also has a massive gambling habit, and now a divorce. Brittany Spears is one of the most recognized and wealthy young entertainers in the world. She also suffers from the pressures of her "success" in the forms of mental illness, drunkenness, and public humiliation.
Success and failure, based solely upon God's reckoning, is an exercise in understanding position and power. Jesus was once asked, 'what is the greatest commandment?' He replied that we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength (with all we have), and then, to love our neighbors as ourselves (put others first). Success, in God's eyes, is for us to recognize our position with God, and that is, that He is King, and we are His subjects. Second, it is to recognize that He has all power, and we have none, or none that counts. A "successful" person in God's view is one that worships God and God alone, and then, as a result of that proper position, serves God first, and their fellow person second. Maybe, somewhere down the line, they find time to serve their own interests. Yeah, that is exactly the point.
Wanting our lives to count is as human as wanting to breathe. But how we define 'count' really defines our overall view of the world, and He who made it. For the Christian, this can only mean that we are counted among those who worship God with all we have, making sure that all our dreams and plans and activities ultimately are motivated by wanting to glorify the God who made us. We recognize that being the best teacher or doctor, or a highly recognized personality, or making a lot of money is not going to result in "counting" for anything. In fact, by God's standards, those whose lives have counted the most have been lived in relative obscurity. How many "celebrities" in Hollywood know that Lottie Moon died of starvation, all 50 lbs. of her, because she gave all her money and food away so that starving Chinese people around her could live one more day?
Even Christians need to be reminded daily (or remind themselves) that this "counting" business is serious, and it's not a fairy tale. We have to be determined in our thinking and motivations to keep before ourselves that a life that counts is a life of service to God, on His terms, in His timing, and in His way. This is a VERY dangerous way to live, because God does not seek our glory, but His, and as His servants, it is His sovereign right to use us as He wishes. No wonder so many turn away, seeking their own temporary glory in futility.
Tony Areno lost so much, mostly due to seeking a life that counted for him, but in the ensuing tragedy, he was given a second chance to live a life that counted toward the glory of God. I knew him in both lives, and the 'second life' was far more inspirational and moving than the first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)