My sister wouldn’t give up. My father was patiently trying to satisfy her, but it wasn’t working. Finally, she said, “Daddy, I know God always was. What I want to know is – when did he start always Wasing?”

There is a concept akin to infinity that people struggle to grasp, and many famous people have resisted an answer because they don’t want it to be true. To copy my sister’s question: How did the universe start Wasing? Before the galaxies were, what was? Or, to put it the other way, what was there before there was anything?

Stephen Meyer has a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge. He has a YouTube video covering the history of resistance and acceptance of the “big-bang” theory” of the origin of the universe.

He starts by covering how Darwinism gave rise to:

The prevailing view of the universe was that it had a fixed size. Einstein was concerned that his theory of gravity would cause all objects to collapse into a massive black hole. To counter this, he defined a cosmological constant whose value meant that the universe would neither expand nor contract.

Edwin Hubble, an astronomer, began using the great-dome telescopes at Mount Wilson in Southern California. He saw that what we thought were smudges were galaxies, and they were moving away from us. In every direction, they were moving away. Those further away were moving faster. Meyer describes it as “a kind of spherical expansion like a balloon being blown up. “

Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest and physicist, was working on Einstein’s field equations and showed serious problems with the mathematics. They were in a taxi together on the way to the conference, and Lemaître confronted Einstein with this. Einstein said:

Meyer gives another example:

Meyer summarizes, “Well, this alternate theory in psychology is known as denial.

In a prior article, I explained how writing computer code inside a mainframe operating system led me to reject random evolution. I am a science fiction fan and willing to accept parallel universes in fiction, but I am still firmly settled in the belief that the creator, or “unsourced source, “ created the universe.

We can’t call it a moment because nothing was there. But at time t-1 nothing existed, then…

For those of us who accept Genesis 1:1, the idea is fantastic. There is something so incredible: the entire universe exists by choice, and we are allowed to be part of it.

On Christmas Day, the idea moves from fantastic to incredible. For many people, the idea of any connection between a baby in a stable and whatever could produce the Big Bang is, indeed, not credible.

Sometimes, the idea that the creator of the Big Bang came to us as a baby to live a life as one of us, suffer horribly for us, and open a door to everlasting life is a message of love, joy, and hope that we have trouble fully comprehending and living in. We really have trouble remembering that and keeping its depth in front of us when the troubles of the day bother us.

But it is true!

“We must always tell what we see. Above all, and this is more difficult, we must always see what we see.”
Charles Péguy:

I admit I’ve done everything I can to delay writing this column. I don’t like writing unwelcome news, and I know that people don’t like reading it. Sometimes I must describe and explain what is there.

The American “Baby Boomer” generation of Jews (can I say ‘Joomers?’) has experienced an extraordinarily generous reception from their gentile neighbors when compared to almost any other time and place in history. Alan Dershowitz discussed the unique period in a YouTube talk.

Because these “Joomers” know nothing else, they struggle to understand the alternative on a visceral level. They believe their experience of other humans is normative. When they hear people shout, “Kill the Jews!” they think it is a political chant and not something to be taken seriously. They don’t understand the depth of human evil.

They saw the end of restrictions on their ability to live in many neighborhoods. Severe quotas or outright bans on their admission to prestigious schools or academic careers were loosened or eliminated. Dershowitz graduated first in his class from Yale Law School in 1962, but at the time, no prestigious law firm was hiring Jewish lawyers.

I “experienced” an antisemitic quota as a child actor sixty-five years ago. Baltimore’s Jewish Community Center did a production of The World of Sholom Aleichem. I played a Jewish boy studying to try to earn a spot in a Russian Gymnasium (high school) around 1900, when there were severe quotas limiting Jewish students. In 1960, I was in a selective admission high school in Baltimore with hundreds of students, one-third of whom were Jewish.

Hard times are coming. When that happens, several vital rules should be kept in mind. The first casualty of any conflict is truth. There are those on both sides who will try to make you hate the other side. This is especially true to hide the following fact.

In each new conflict, make sure your “friends” and enemies haven’t traded places. Your “friends” may have just been allies who shared an enemy. Franklin Roosevelt did not enter the war in Europe to save the Jews. It was always a war for European democracies, even though our major ally was Soviet tyranny. I have written about FDR’s disgraceful action in turning away a ship of Jewish refugees from Germany, and the weak to non-existent coverage of German pogroms by the New York Times.

Speaking of the Times points to the next temptation. We want to be fashionable and be associated with the “best people.” At times, it can be deadly. In a crisis, you need to be decisive and clear-headed when assessing threats and allies.

Herman Wouk’s famous novels The Winds of War and War and Remembrance demonstrate the consequences of refusing to understand the severity of the threat you are facing. Aaron Jastrow is portrayed as someone who believed he possessed sufficient prestige and honor to be untouchable. He never quite understands how the world has turned against him now that Nazi anti‑Semitism is in full force.

Jastrow was a professor. Some think bigotry is a characteristic of the uneducated. Sadly, the history of Germany in the 1930s shows the opposite. Ambition is in play when Jews who hold an academic position can be replaced by a loyal party member who deserves the position and the money.

In the 1920s, Julien Benda wrote The Treason of the Intellectuals. He noted that they had moved from training thinkers to training partisans and believers. He predicted this would lead to another war. British historian Sir Niall Ferguson recently wrote a piece with the same name.

It might be thought extraordinary that the most prestigious universities in the world should have been infected so rapidly with a politics imbued with antisemitism. Yet exactly the same thing has happened before.
...
Anyone who has a naive belief in the power of higher education to instill ethical values has not studied the history of German universities in the Third Reich. A university degree, far from inoculating Germans against Nazism, made them more likely to embrace it.

Two of the allies of the past can’t be trusted. Media and academia often function as enemies of the Jews. What about the Democratic Party? There is a significant bloc of Islamic voters in the party in swing states like Michigan and Minnesota. Segments of the Black vote are anti-Semitic. This includes leaders like Al Sharpton, Lewis Farrakhan, and the minister who wed the Obamas.

There also seems to be a matter of supporting the party in a way I don’t understand. Given the Sharia policy on women and Gays, it seems absurd for either of those groups to support Palestinian goals in any way. But they do.

President Trump has a Jewish son-in-law, daughter, and grandchildren. He is working on initiatives such as the Abraham Accords. A large part of his party backs him. There is indeed an isolationist wing (no war anywhere). But support for Israel is strong in the party. Support for court action against anti‑Semitic actions is stronger.

Jews have a choice. They can be fashionable and hang out with and support people who will make life harder for them and their offspring. Or they can get real and start working to fight the resumption of this perpetual evil.

“I find that very, very troubling. … The notion that rights don't come from laws and don't come from the government but come from the creator. That's what the Iranian government believes. It's a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia law … So the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.

This statement is so inane that it is unbelievable. Good people and bad people both believe the sun rises in the East. It is still true.

Kaine was raised in the Midwest and married a native of Richmond, Virginia. He certainly studied civics before he left high school. He has a Harvard Law Degree. I’ve lived in Richmond. Kaine was a Virginia Governor. You can’t be in that area long enough to have dinner before you know who wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian and a Governor of Virginia, wrote those words. Jefferson said clearly that the government doesn’t give us our rights, it protects them. If a government can give us rights, it can take them away.

A long time ago, I was still a Democrat, and the Democrats still believed in the activity of what the Founders called Providence. Over time, things have changed. They don’t want to have to answer to anything: Providence, Mother Nature, voters, or parents.

Nationally, the Democrats are still taking very controversial positions. Virginia voters are not that far from the middle. The Democratic candidate for Governor is former Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger. She is trying to use the “say nothing and they’ll think I’m a moderate” strategy. Whenever there is a controversy, her team releases a comment.

Her Republican opponent is the sitting Lieutenant Governor, Winsome Earle-Sears.

Northern Virginia suburbs would usually be overwhelmingly Democratic. But in state and local politics, school issues play a significant role. Analysts are sure that the Republicans won the 2021 races for Governor and Lt. Governor when Democratic candidate Terry McCauliffe said, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

This year, parents are fighting school boards in Northern Virginia over protecting girls and young women in sports and locker rooms. They even need to work to keep young women out of boys' locker rooms. The school boards are adamant in resisting the parents, state, and federal efforts. Earle-Sears is publicly and openly backing the parents by showing up at rallies and county council meetings, and promising support as Governor.

Supporters of the school boards are part of the Democratic base in Virginia and nationally. Votes and money are at risk for Spanberger if she supports the parents. Silence is her best option. It is up to the parents to make an educated guess about how she will act if she becomes Governor. Do they really think she will suddenly support them if she is elected?

The impact of the government cutbacks on Northern Virginia workers favors Democrats. Safety and immigration issues favor Republicans statewide. Northern Virginians regularly travel to Washington, D.C, and experience safety issues there. Spanberger’s former district bordered Richmond, which also has crime and safety issues. The current Republican Governor, Glenn Youngkin, has entirely cooperated with President Trump in having ICE agents work in Virginia.

Substantial portions of the Democratic base are passionately committed to positions many parents oppose with the ferocity of a mama bear. The “progressives see the views as the inevitable future and insist their candidates hold them. Parents who would otherwise “vote blue” will run away from any candidate who, in their view, puts children at risk.

The politicians are in a box. As much as their media allies might try to help them, they can’t all “pull a Biden” and hide through the campaign. The “mama bears” are determined to protect the little ones, and they want to know who the candidates will serve.

A Derogatory term for an idea that works.

Voters must always be cautious when politicians claim someone else will cover the cost of something they intend to receive. Don’t tax us, “tax the rich” is the classic example. There is always someone with more money than I have who should cover the cost. Right? Those who believe this is not appropriate are accused of believing in something called “Trickle Down Theory.” This suggests that leaving a lot of money in the hands of the rich will result in some of it “trickling down” to those below them economically.

Thomas Sowell earned his Ph.D. in Economics at the University of Chicago. He is one of the most eloquent and prolific writers of his generation. He was so frustrated by the false label “Trickle Down Theory” that he published a small 22-page essay available as a Kindle book for $1.99 to explain why the term is a pejorative rather than a theory.

Sowell emphasizes that politicians concentrate on the next election. They strategize for that goal and don’t worry about the long-term impact of their actions. This essay is an essential review for any reader who wants to understand why cities, states, and nations are destroying their economies and seeing voluminous out-migrations of the very people they need to keep their societies growing.

I am not exaggerating. New York, Chicago, California, Great Britain, and others have created such hostile environments for wealthy people and productive activity that those who have wealth or who are interested in producing it are fleeing in impressive numbers.

In an equal-share system like tithing, every person, or family, gives the same portion of their income level. Everyone was involved. Before government taxes became steeply progressive, many individuals with greater wealth would allocate their resources in a manner that benefited the group, but they made the choice. A commercial activity employs people. A charity does that and gives aid. Hospitals, universities, libraries, museums, and orchestras have made significant contributions to society.

Sowell notes the major problem with the idea that you can continually get a lot of revenue from rich people.

You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth - and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.

Everyone reacts to changes that impact their ability to improve their bottom line. Families will have both adults work only if it covers the after-tax cost of childcare. The wealthy will invest their money in areas where the risk and return align.

The early classic case in American taxation occurred shortly after the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, which created the national income tax. By 1921, the tax rates were so high that the wealthy parked their money in tax-exempt state and local bonds. Even though the returns were low, the after-tax revenue was better. Thomas Mellon served as Treasury Secretary under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. He oversaw three laws reducing tax rates and increasing tax revenues. People were willing to invest more and even pay more in taxes if they got more for themselves as a result.

John F. Kennedy understood this history. When he came into the Presidency in 1961, the top marginal rate was 90%. He lowered the rate and triggered an expansion. Ronald Reagan did the same thing. In both cases, revenues increased. Deficits didn’t necessarily decrease. Congress can spend more than it gets, but revenue did increase.

Donald Trump followed the same idea. He understands what clogs an economy or opens it up. The key is the attitude of government leaders towards those who have the resources and take the risks needed to keep an economy dynamic. As the Twenty-first century began, envy and cowardice reigned in America, Canada, and Europe.

Nations, as well as American cities and states, had decided that the wealthy were appropriate sources of revenue. They also convinced the public that by taxing corporations, they could raise money without causing any harm to individuals. Reality was biting. Cities like Chicago and Los Angeles were losing upper-class and middle-class people. The same thing was happening in many “blue states” like California and New York.

NATO countries, especially Britain, are seeing a massive exodus of the wealthy and the productive. Educated young people left as soon as possible, seeking a place where they could retain a reasonable portion of their income. Because some of these countries have many lower-income, lower-skilled immigrants, population loss is not apparent. But the tax base and productive capacity are pretty different.

Once the wealthy and productive are gone, growth stops. These are the people who take risks and invest in ideas, stores, factories, machines, and everything else that adds to the wealth of a society. Drive them away and, as Sowell said, “future wealth is less likely to be produced.”

First, a quick stylistic note: when I speak of "the Pope" or "Leo" in this piece, I will refer to Leo XIII unless I specifically indicate otherwise.

Rerum Novarum was written in 1891 when the Industrial Revolution was in full bloom. Marxism, Fabianism, and other versions of Socialism were being considered to address the apparent problems in the system. Because this document addressed the issues of that day, it also covers the same issues as they apply now.

Those who hear that Leo XIII stood for the workers and unions may think this is a one-sided document. It is anything but. Instead, it epitomizes a balanced, realistic analysis of human life. He urges everyone to understand and accept reality, be fair and honest in their dealings with others, and understand the relative importance of this world and eternity.

In other words, it is precisely what would be expected of a religious leader who serves God first and does not bend to the political whims of the day.

Pope Leo is, first and foremost, a realist. He knows Paul's comment from 1 Corinthians 12 that we have different roles in the church and life.

He also warns against those who argue class differences can be ended.

The overwhelming tone of this document is moderation. Leo calls for balance in pursuing wealth to limit workers' demands and insist they are treated fairly. He recognizes that employers have legitimate requirements that workers must acknowledge. He talks about the right to associate and warns that those associations cannot become enemies of the church.

He rejects Socialism in all forms. It is a tool of envy and class warfare.

Leo sees private property as one of the ways a worker saves money and keeps it in his family.

He argues that poverty is a given aspect of life and that the church should and does help alleviate it. He talks about the church's charities and the traits and habits it teaches, which train the poor to have better work habits and manage their money to keep more of it.

He also discusses the proper definition and role of the State.

Pope Leo XIII understood what was happening and what was coming. He saw that when everyone acted without charity and in complete combat mode, we would have what followed. Business and union leaders had to demonize each other and score points. Strikes and lockouts became the norm rather than civil negotiations. Politicians identified with one side or the other, adding to the strife.

Even then, he saw the workers' "societies [were] in the hands of secret leaders, and [were] managed on principles ill-according with Christianity and the public well-being."

Rerum Novarum is a thoughtful document that is as important for our age as it was for the day it was written. I know some of my Protestant friends don't trust anything Roman Catholic, but I urge them to get past that for this. This piece has much Christian charity but no Catholic theology or dogma. Leo XIII is a devout man who loves God, Jesus, and his fellow human beings, sees a world of troubles brewing, and tries to address them.

Sadly, he wrote it a hundred and thirty-four years ago, and the problems haven't changed.

As I near my eightieth birthday, I’ve seen various types of governments and worry about where we are and where we are headed.

We are often told something is wrong with those who want to “go back” to the fifties or early sixties. That’s because we take for granted the progress that was made then. The “greatest generation” had survived the depression and defeated tyrannies. I know you’ll scoff, but they then restocked the country with people through the “baby boom.”. Don’t laugh! That was a serious part of the post-war rebuilding.

The country’s leaders took everyone seriously. Yes, there were differences in abilities and skills. During the war, we learned the need for all types of skills. We had shop classes, vocational-technical schools, and the GI Bill for college. We looked for ability across all economic levels. Eventually, we even included Black students in the search. After Sputnik, the search ramped up.

It was an era of a true aristocracy. I lived in Baltimore and needed various medical treatments. Johns Hopkins Hospital had outstanding people. I attended one of the country’s oldest and finest high schools, Baltimore City College.After my undergraduate degree, I worked on computers, including the IBM 360 and the UNIVAC 1108. I had the chance to work on the code inside the operating system and saw the incredibly elegant and sophisticated code making those machines work. I took graduate classes at night, including one with a true industry pioneer, Dr. Carl Hammer.

I know physicians and other specialists socially, and have found one rule true of the top-tier specialists. They don’t worry about accolades. They work to learn more about what they don’t know. They are part of Plato’s aristocracy because by seeking to excel in their specialty, they help the common good.

In summary, that group was, and as much as it survives, still is, a positive contribution to society with an optimistic outlook, continuing to search for ways to improve society for everyone.

Problems start to occur at the next level, Timocracy. This group is marked by all the traits of the dominant in-group in a high school. They set a bunch of rules. You must know the secret words and codes; outsiders are unworthy, and everything is about them. Their “experts” are not specialists in the fields they harangue us about. There is one rule. Know the axiomatic truths and the verboten phrases and stay current.

Thomas Sowell has written about the “intellectuals” in these groups in several books. In Intellectuals and Society, he describes the difference between the aristocratic specialist and the timocratic “intellectual” as a matter of accountability. The output of the specialist is a product which is objectively evaluated: a bridge stands, surgery works, computer software runs, people get paid, electricity powers cities, etc.

Intellectuals live in their private club. They impress each other with their brilliant and novel ideas. These can be as pointless as anything developed by teenagers or college sophomores. Still, if the language is sophisticated and/or bewildering, they can convince somebody that what they say is intelligent. You are not as brilliant as they are if you don’t understand it. It doesn’t matter if they contradict Buddha, Confucius, Aquinas, and your very intelligent grandparents; you are just too dull to understand.

The most disappointing thing about this group is their pessimism, leading them into an Oligarchy. They don’t understand anything hopeful or optimistic about the universe or humanity. Sowell understands wealth can increase because it is created by effort. Timocrats see all assets as a fixed pie.

They see the world in Malthusian terms as one with too much pollution and human beings as being too numerous and a threat. They are blatant hoarders. They use every private jet in the world to go to a meeting and then say we need to save fuel and stop polluting, so the public must stop flying to see their grandchildren. They have multiple mansions by the sea and tell us to get smaller homes because water levels are rising.

Plato described the response to a greed-riven oligarchy as a punishing, vengeful Democracy. I think our theorists are missing the difference between modern Western democracies and democracy as Plato explained it. We don’t have direct democracy. Our representative government is designed to let us raise a warning flag when the leaders have gone too far.

Think of it as signaling it’s time to change your car design. I’ve had cars from GM, Ford, Toyota, and Subaru in the more than fifty years I’ve owned vehicles. I’ve changed companies for various reasons. I’ve also voted for candidates from multiple political parties over the years.

In a responsive political system, leaders would look at the votes and treat the voters as intelligent customers calling for change. However, they live in a closed intellectual environment, where they are right, and the public is not smart enough. Leaders ignore the voters and start doing very dangerous things. Dave Roos lists one of the actions of a tyrant as taking action

against [their] enemies and critics, using the courts to execute or banish them.

Sadly, in both North America and Europe, this tactic has been used against the populists. That is a terrible sign. Our modern oligarchs won’t let a dissenting thought enter their minds. Their motives are pure, and their intelligence can’t be matched. They see no need to consider any alternatives. If they are being doubted, their opposition must be ignorant, foolish or, - what was that word? – deplorable!

More than 2000 years ago, a child was born in a manger in Bethlehem. What that means for us is something we’ve discussed ever since.

For Christians, the explanation starts as a birthday. We can explain it to children and join them in singing “Happy Birthday” to Jesus. People of all faiths, or none, can say it marks the birth of the founder of a major world religion.

However, all those explanations fall short when you examine Christian claims about the day’s meaning. In the third century, Christianity changed, almost overnight, from a highly persecuted religion to the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Christian leaders were called together to explain the beliefs of the faith.

The first question was: Who is Jesus? They had been willing to die for their faith, and many had been maimed. They were trying to describe that faith, which was so important to them. In answering the first question, they used words they could not fully explain or understand.

Mathematicians use the terms “Infinity” and “Imaginary numbers.” They mean something but are hard to explain. Early Church leaders tried to explain something more impressive than Mathematics: God. They also used words that made sense but were hard to explain.

They said the baby, Jesus, was “fully God and fully man.” That means the birth we celebrate at Christmas is the appearance of God into our existence as a human being. If we believe this, it changes the way we view God.

The Christian leaders, versed in Jewish Scriptures, believed God created the universe and humanity. It was not just a collection of material that somehow led to the creation of life.

But how do we understand God if God comes into our universe as one of us? He came not as a triumphant ruler but as a helpless baby. What kind of God would do this?

First, it rules out a childish God who made a toy He could play with and discard. Such a God might look for reasons to stomp on his creatures. We would have to follow all the rules, and I hope he didn’t see us.

It also rules out a more adult but detached God. Some see God as a watchmaker who created the universe and lets it proceed independently. He might come back someday and decide whether to keep or wipe it out and start over. But this God is somewhat disinterested. Human beings are only amusing as an experiment.

Even our greatest minds find this somewhat satisfying. Albert Einstein said, “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

That view is a reasonable understanding of God, but amazingly, God is unreasonable or beyond our reason. The appearance of God in our universe is beyond our comprehension. We have seen artists who paint themselves as one of the crowd, but that doesn’t come close.

A member of the Divine Trinity came to Earth as one of us. He did not do it as an experiment or to “lord it” over us. He came because we needed it. But what did we need?

Many emphasize that God became human to “pay a debt He did not owe and a debt we could not pay.” The view of Jesus as a sacrifice for us is essential, but it is incomplete. Were it simply this, he could have come as an adult, gone to the cross, and been resurrected.

Others emphasize His time as a teacher and deemphasize the cross. In the early church, there were debates about whether God could suffer. Again, the church leaders refuted this and affirmed that, as “fully God and fully man,” he did experience the entire burden of crucifixion.

In the life of Jesus of Nazareth, Christians believe we are seeing a life as God would have us live it. In the Gospel stories, we see someone who spreads healing and love, is patient and understanding, and constantly seeks the “lost sheep.”

The self-important see no need for Him, and He does not force Himself on them. He always offers and never imposes. He honors our freedom.

I believe He built a lifetime of examples of how to treat people so we could understand what He was trying to tell us.

The message of Christmas morning is easy to say as it is hard to believe: The God who created the universe and everything and everyone in it came to Earth because we needed it. There is a God whose love for humanity is so deep that He will do whatever He must to fully meet our needs and provide what is best for us in the long run.

More importantly, this is the same God who continues to watch over us and care for us every moment.

We, in turn, are offered the chance to understand the magnitude of the gift and the depth of that love and try, out of gratitude – not duty – to show others some of that love.

May the Blessings of the Child of Bethlehem and the God who created and loves us all be on all of you!

Have a Blessed Christmas!

Oswald Chambers (James Riemann, Ed.)

Why are so many people resistant to the idea of miracles?

At a recent dinner conversation, one lady expressed her delight at a sermon she had heard about the biblical account of Jesus feeding the multitudes. She was relieved to hear that it wasn’t really a miracle. The priest said that it was true the disciples had only a few “loaves and fishes” but that didn’t mean others hadn’t brought food.

It made more sense to her, and was apparently reassuring to her, to think of it as a giant ‘pot luck’ instead of a miracle.

Why would miracles scare us or put us off?

We take delight in “miraculous” medical cures, miracles of technology and even the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey “Miracle on Ice“. But we seem hesitant to consider the idea of a real miracle, something we can’t explain.

F. A. Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom talks of a shift in the western approach to many issues which occurred in the nineteenth century. Before that, philosophy ruled in government and society. It was understood that some things are beyond us and therefore must be accepted.

With the rise of technology, the engineering viewpoint took over. Everything had to be analyzed and reduced to its parts. There are no unsolvable problems, just solutions we didn’t yet understand.

But we all understand that there are things beyond our comprehension. Some would argue that we will eventually explain everything that happens at all levels of the universe. They argue our science is immature.

But many of us doubt that. We have a hunch that “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your books.”

But what advantage could there be in refusing to accept miracles. Could a world without miracles be safer, easier for us to control?

A long dead teacher can ask nothing of us. Socrates, Aquinas and Confucius are left in the past. We can admire their ideas and try to follow them, but they can ask nothing of us. We can also feel free to reinterpret their teachings to fit our “times”, or rather, our whims.

But what if the person whose teachings we claim to follow still lives? What then?

This is the dilemma posed by Jesus of Nazareth. Many people are comfortable with him as a non-miraculous but wise teacher. We can follow his teachings, or not, and there is no reason to think he can affect us any more than Socrates.

But what if he is, indeed, the risen Son of God? What if he is not a figure from the remote past but alive and aware of our every thought, word and deed? Then He is not so easy to ignore.

A living Jesus has opinions about how we live. He may or may not tell us, and we may or may not listen, but He has his opinions of us and our actions.

He is in charge of our lives. We aren’t.  We can’t assume we know all there is to know about what happens in our lives. Maybe those “coincidences” we encounter from time to time really aren’t accidents. Maybe He is arranging events and people in our lives for His purposes.

To put it simply, maybe we aren’t in control. Maybe we don’t know as much as we think we do.

The thought that He is alive adds uncertainty and obligation to our lives. If, indeed, we were created by the Holy Trinity to know and love Him/them, they are waiting for us. We can’t just study Jesus as a long dead teacher. His “bible” is a guide book not just of how to live, but, more importantly, how to learn to walk and talk with Him.

Do we really want to hide in the safety of long-dead Jesus who can ask nothing of us and never “interfere” in our lives? Apparently many people do.

But for those willing to accept the idea that “He Is Risen!” it is, perhaps, time to understand what that means and seek him out. He lives and wants us to share everything with him.

Are we ready for that

?

It is a typical Sunday night and the most routine of tasks. I move around the condo gathering all the trash for the morning pickup. I’ve done this uncounted times before. My mind is off in a whirl of thoughts.

My wife has been away helping care for her ailing mother. She is about to start the thousand-mile journey home. I am a little worried about the journey. I’m worried about her. I’m worried about her mother.

My daughter has been here for her summer visit. I took her back yesterday. I wonder about her coming school year. How will she do? She fell from a horse last year and broke her collarbone. Even with that, her love of horses is so great she is dropping other activities to have more time to ride. I’m reminded of a famous actor who was recently paralyzed in a fall from a horse. I wonder about my daighter’s safety and know she won’t stop riding.

Tomorrow starts another work week. My mind starts to race through the details and schedules of the coming days. Which meetings are the most important? How do I balance the requirements of various co-workers and activities? What surprises are waiting?

Creating a New Life Story

In counseling, I’ve found that I often fall into a very negative story about my life. It is a story of suffering and hurt and pain. There is doubt about God’s love and kindness. My counselor has suggested I create a new story about why I am on this earth. Why did I come here and what do I want to accomplish?

I remember the words of the gospel hymn that tells how Jesus shows his love by leaving the “splendor of Heaven” to save the world on a cross. It is a moving and powerful hymn.

In my down moment, I wonder: Did I leave heaven to empty trash on a Sunday night in a lonely condo? Did I give up all that glory, even temporarily, to live in uncertainty and confusion and all the unknowns of human existence?

Like a bolt of lightning, the answer hits me. Yes. It’s exactly the routine moments and a life of unknowing that I came for. It’s a chance to spend a life time in the sheer wonder of what the next moment holds.

Science Fiction is full of super races who know everything there is to know. But my boredom is temporary. Those beings can’t possibly be surprised. They know all the answers. Nothing is unknown for them to wonder about.

Have you ever watched your favorite team play on videotape? Even if you don’t know who won, it isn’t the same thing as watching it live. You know you can get the score if you wanted it, and you know that mystery has vanished.

But life constantly surprises me. I can plan and figure and analyze to my heart’s content. It makes little difference. Life will happen the way it does. The only thing I know for sure is that it will surprise me. Sometimes I’ll like the surprise. Sometimes I won’t.

The Blessings of Wonder and Trust

Yet I can do something the super races and divine beings of the universe can’t. I can wonder what the next moment holds without knowing the answer. I can wonder what the future holds for my loved ones. I can go to a game and cheer for my team and I’ll be completely surprised by the result.

There’s more. I am sure to be surprised by the answer to the most fascinating question of all. “How did my life turn out?” The answer: “I don’t know yet.”

I have the chance to learn the meaning of trust. Trust is irrelevant when you know how things turn out. How can I learn trust if there’s no possibility of disappointment? Yet what a great gift. Only by not knowing the future can I learn to trust.

Routine Becomes Awesome

Then another feeling flooded over me. It was awe. This surprised me. In the Catholic church, I learned awe in the observance of expertly and exquisitely executed ritual. I felt the splendor of God in those moments. I was filled with awe.

But I never expected to feel awe in collecting trash. Then, I understood. I was in awe of me! Somewhere, sometime, I agreed to this. It may have been before my birth. It may not have been before this moment. Still, it has happened.

I have agreed to completely put my trust in God. I’m willing to give up the right to know what the next minute holds, or even if I will have another minute.

Peter was willing to step out onto the water at Jesus’ word. In the same way, I am out on the ocean of life. I cry a lot. I holler and complain a lot, and still, there are those moments when my trust is complete.

In those moments I am in awe of everyone. That any of us have the courage to leave the “splendor of heaven” and to live in a sea of the unknown is amazing. That we all do is awesome.

Gathering the trash will never be quite the same. In the routine of day-to-day life, I encountered a moment of awe.

To be thankful, you need to know who or what to thank. Your life is better than it otherwise would have been through the blessings of Providence or your good fortune in being born here instead of a less benevolent country. We call a person who is never grateful an ingrate. Grateful people and ingrates have different views of our country. The balance of the two will determine our nation’s future.

Appreciative people accept the good offered without demanding perfection or imposing an arbitrary requirement on how the benefit is provided. They may even understand there was a gift they did not recognize.

An example is the meal blessing in the 1965 movie Shenandoah. Jimmy Stewart starred as the father. He notes he had cleared the land, plowed the acreage, planted the seeds, tended the crop, and harvested it. His wife had prepared the meal. Even so, he assumes God somehow helped or protected the food, so he thanked Him for it anyhow.

Appreciative Americans understand the gift they have living in America. They know the difference in lifestyle and relative freedom. They see the country is remarkably generous and works to correct its faults. Winston Churchill said America does what is right after she tries everything else. Our nation consists of human beings, and that creates problems. But our record is far better than most. To reapply Churchill, we believe she is the worst country in history, except for all the other countries.

Two kinds of people are never grateful. The first is the person whose standards can never be met. They have a version of arrogance. We have all known these people in our lives. No meal, room, car, performance, or anything else is good enough for them. They can find the fault in a Stradivarius. These people see no need to appreciate a deity whose creation can never meet their standards. The world would be a better place if God would step aside and let them run things.

When it comes to politics and nations, no actual government can satisfy them. They live in the theoretical or utopian. Only a version of socialism or communism led by them can be the answer. A hypothetical world has no way to reveal its problems and disappoint them.

The other type of ingrate continually violates the tenth commandment. They live in a constant pool of envy and covetousness. If you have something they don’t, you didn’t earn it. We are not just talking about the pauper and the prince. If someone has a bike or a pair of shoes, they are to be resented or robbed. The envious live in a world of resentment and hatred. In politics, they are the target of politicians who promise to punish the rich and tear down Capitalism.

When Donald Trump chose “Make America Great Again” as his campaign slogan, he divided the country between those who are grateful for the USA and those who are not. I will note that some people joined the anti-Trump crusade to be with the fashionable in-crowd. These joiners do not fully fit the pattern of an ingrate.

The support for Trump among Evangelicals and other religious groups has surprised and confused many so-called analysts. That support is based on their shared appreciation and gratitude for America and his support for judges who will uphold religious freedom.

Trump has made support for Americans of all kinds his top priority. His supporters understand that he is helping blue-collar workers no matter the skin color next to the collar. They have long since disregarded what they know to be a propaganda campaign from the media’s arrogant leaders.

Trump says, “America will never be a socialist country.” I hope he is right, but I am not sure.

In theory, socialism appeals to both types of discontent. The envious want to be given “according to their need.” The idea that competition will end, and everyone will have the same is appealing. The arrogant know they, unlike all their predecessors, can be perfect leaders.

Americans have no problem turning to actual experts, but they reject incompetent egomaniacs. Thomas Sowell calls them the (self) Anointed. They think they can do better than anyone else has done, is doing, or ever will do. When they look for a god, they look in their mirrors.

By voting for Donald Trump, many Americans rejected these leaders, and the Anointed went berserk. All pretense of journalism disappeared. Every rule of justice was ignored. Lies were called truths and vice versa. Social media sites joined the mainstream to ignore, or even block, any story that helped Trump or harmed his opponents. The Associated Press Style Guide changed the usage of the words riot and looting to minimize their impact.

When a virus from China hit, unbelievable and unending lockdowns were imposed. I keep hoping the Chief Justice will support the Bill of Rights instead of the New York Times’s goals, but he always disappoints. Even the right to worship, the bare minimum of religious freedom, is restricted in a way that would warm Stalin’s heart.

The Anointed will do whatever it takes to stay in power. Trump increased his vote count in 2020, yet Biden apparently has the ballots to win the election. Law firms are threatened to force attorneys to withdraw from helping the President litigate the matter.

The New York Times’ blatant lie, the 1619 Project, is being taught to school children. They will believe there is no reason to appreciate our country and no Providence to thank. Ingrates seem to control essential media outlets, one major party, and a good deal of the other. It remains to be seen if the grateful can withstand the pressure and find, or restore, the champion needed to prevent the ingrates’ apparent march to socialism.

The easiest trap is to believe that because we are "doing something for" God or our church, our community or even "the good of the world" we are helping our salvation. God wants us to trust in Him. Our "good works" (the Jewish term is Mitzvahs) are something that should flow from our trust in God instead of being a way to "earn" his love.

There are many ways we can get distracted from focusing on God. Many of them occur in the context of a church or other place of worship. Sometimes we let our task become the most important thing and argue with other church members about how things should be done.

Yet, the workings of a house of worship are where we learn to practice love. The problem with every church or church hierarchy is the same: It is filled with human beings who have faults and issues. If we are truly following God’s direction, our time with our fellow sinners will give us more trust in God and a better understanding of His love for them.

There are many temptations outside of church which try to present themselves as an object of trust. Money, cars, homes, IRA’s and jobs can all be false sources of security. In tumultuous economic times it is easier to see how this security is false. Yet we want to cling to that hope.

There is another group which more actively competes to be our focus of trust. This is governments and politicians. Jesus’ famous direction to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s" becomes at some level a threat to Caeser.

It is becoming more obvious by the day that some political groups, from the local level to the international level are becoming more opposed to churches and traditional morality than they have ever been.

Robert Nisbet, in an out of print book called The Quest for Community, talks about the role of "intermediate associations" and how they cause problems for any political entity which seeks to totally control its citizens. These groups come between the individual and the state. They offer a different focus of loyalty. The two major "associations" are the family and the church, or other religious group.

In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg talks about Otto von Bismarck and the German Catholic Church. Bismarck was a Prussian, from the Northern, largely Lutheran section of Germany. He was concerned that Catholics in Southern Germany, particularly Bavaria, would focus on the religious differences and delay the coming together of the German state. The German word Kulturkampf or what we call "Culture Wars" is part of this effort. It is an attempt to push the churches aside to prevent their interference with either the goals of the politicians or the loyalty of the people to the governing class.

Let me de direct. No political party or political leader can save us. The bible is clear:

(Psalm 146) "Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation."

It is our duty as citizens to look into the various candidates, parties and programs and vote our best judgment about the better path. But no party or politician can save us. Heaven on Earth will not happen because someone is elected to or voted out of office.

Even if we are highly committed to a service group, a charity or any group trying to help the world, that group can’t save us.

We eventually realize that no person, group, policy or action will save us or protect us. It the end, when we tire of searching anywhere us, we can turn to the only One who can be trusted, God.

It reminds me of the gospel story of Peter walking on the water from the boat to Jesus. He is fine until he looks down and lets a doubt come into his mind. “I can’t walk on water!” Peter was doing just that, but by thinking of what he was doing instead of looking at Jesus, the “impossible act” becomes impossible for him.

We copy the child and Peter. When things are going well, we sail along. Then something happens and we look around to try to find the one who is always there.

Fortunately, God understands our weakness and provides various means to help us get on track. In my recent readings, God has repeatedly led me to understand that I need to live knowing He is there even without thinking about it.

This is a message He repeatedly sends to me. Years ago, I was in what is usually considered a “New Thought” church, part of the Unity School of Christianity . It would be considered liberal by many people. James Dillet Freeman (1912-2003) served as their “poet laureate” Most Unity churches end their service by saying Freeman’s “Prayer for Protection”:

The Light of God surrounds Us 

The Love of God enfolds Us

The Power of God protects Us

and the Presence of God watches over Us

Where ever we are God is! And all is well!

Amen.

It is a wonderful reminder that there is no place we can be where God isn’t. Whatever we do and wherever we are, He knows it and is watching over us and watching for us.

And yet, let us find something that bothers us or doesn’t go the way we want and we start asking “Where is God?” The answer, of course, is right there, next to us. But we decide to ignore that and believe that “if God were there” the result would be different.

I have just been introduced to Oswald Chambers My Utmost for His Highest. It is a set of daily devotions originally published in 1935. In his entry for August 20 he writes that “A child of God never prays to be made aware of the fact that God answers prayers, because he is so restfully certain that God always answers prayer.”

That indeed is childlike trust. To be so certain of God’s presence and love that we don’t have to continually ask if He is there.

In Ruthless Trust, Brennan Manning talks about how to move all of this from an idea to something we live.

Our trust in Jesus grows as we shift from making self-conscious efforts to be good to allowing ourselves to be loved as we are (not as we should be). The Holy Spirit moves us from the head to the heart, from intellectual cognition to experiential awareness. An inward stillness pervades our being, and the time of prayer is characterized by less rational reflection and speaking and more contemplative quiet and listening.

I would love to be able to add my own experiences and observations to all this, but I can’t. I have been blessed with moments of this peace but, all too few. I spend far more time trying to do it myself or “be good” or whatever I can think of instead of relying on God.

I started this site because I know I need to get the message and God could use my writing efforts to give me another way to hear Him. That is certainly the case for this subject.

I know God is waiting for me to have a childlike trust in Him. I am currently far from that. I hope my writing this will help anyone who reads it. I don’t know if they “need to hear this.” I know I do.

The chapter entitled “the Beginning of our Healing” describes the true nature of grace and how it changes the entire nature of the religious quest. Before this chapter, he discusses the ways we accept shame or shame ourselves. He also discusses those who constantly try to do things to make ourselves feel worthy. He talks about Martha, who is busy serving food to Jesus instead of enjoying his presence, and the Prodigal’s brother who is constantly “doing what he is supposed to” with a feeling of duty instead of joy. These people do things in order to be acceptable to themselves or others. They can’t just be relaxed.

In most self-help classes, and some religions, the answer offered is, as Smedes says, “Persuading ourselves that we are just fine the way we are.” This doesn’t work for many people.

He then writes:

[T]he experience of being accepted is the beginning of healing for the feeling of being unacceptable.

Being accepted is the single most compelling need of our lives; no human being can be a friend of herself while at the edges of her consciousness she feels a persistent fear that she may not be accepted by others.

This is the dilemma for those who feel they are not accepted.  They do everything they can to be accepted and yet it never works. In the end, they still feel the same way about themselves. Smedes writes that we are not ready for another answer until “we are bone tired of our struggle to be worthy and acceptable.”

He avoids heavy theological discussions about the nature of God and grace and cuts to the chase by describing four ways we experience the “Grace of God.” The pertinent one, for now, is

We experience grace as acceptance: we are reunited with God and our true selves, accepted, cradled, held, affirmed, and loved. Accepting grace is the answer to shame.

This is the difference. God’s acceptance of us is never earned; it can only be experienced and welcomed. We can’t do anything to earn acceptance, we can only be aware that we are accepted.

Jesus said we had to come to Him like a child. Smedes description of this truth is:

To experience grace is to recover our lost inner child. The heart of our inner child is trust. … Shame cheats us of childhood. Grace gives it back to us.

… Trust is the inner child we rediscover in an experience of grace.

Grace overcomes shame … by accepting us, the whole of us, with no regard to … our virtue or our vices. … Accepted at the ultimate depth of our being. We are given what we have longed for in every nook and nuance of every relationship.

I find no comfort in a general idea the universe somehow accepts me. The universe has no personality. Christianity offers a grace I can understand, at least somewhat. It says the God of all there is loved the world, and me, enough to lower Himself to a human state and suffer for my benefit.

I remember a prayer session many years ago when I asked, “If I were the only person who needed your great act of love, would you have gone through all that for me?” It was clear to me His love was so great the answer was “Yes.”

Another time, after an extended period of prayer, I had the experience of Jesus just standing beside me with His arm over my shoulder. It was the deepest feeling of peace I have ever experienced. He was asking nothing of me. There was nothing to do but stand there and be at peace with nothing to worry about.

Yet, I strive to impress Him or earn something. He doesn’t want that, but I forget to be trusting and try to do something for Him.  Today, I was trying to figure out the difference being doing and being. At that moment, by coincidence or “God-incidence” I happened to be reading the exact chapter in the exact book which perfectly describes the difference.

It was God’s polite way of saying that no matter how much I try to do for Him, His love for and acceptance of me will always be more than I can earn or ask. The trick is simple, lighten up and look for and be willing to receive his gifts.