Trials December 18, 2009

When I consider my crosses, tribulations, and temptations, I shame myself almost
to death thinking of what they are in comparison to the sufferings of my blessed
Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Luther, Martin

Parents October 20, 2009

What a mercy was it to us to have parents that prayed for us before they had us, as well as in our infancy when we could not pray for ourselves!

Flavel, John

The Drug War Problem, Pt. 2 September 22, 2009

The causes for drug trafficking are complicated, preventing simple solutions. Poverty leads many to turn to the industry either as a practical way to survive: “Over three-quarters of the Peruvian “mules” [drug couriers] were poor or unemployed…Poverty creates a fertile recruiting ground” (http://ipsnews.net). The jobs do not come without hazards, but survival often hinges on this risk. Over thirty-six percent of Latin America lies engulfed in poverty (www.southerncenter.org). Many lack basic utilities such as food and fresh water, causing thousands languish in disease, despair, and indignity. The money offered by the drug industry proves too tempting to resist.

Bad government fosters the poverty and lawlessness related to drug trafficking. Latin America has certainly experienced an inordinate amount of ineffective or oppressive leadership. Raúl Benítez Manaut notes that “poverty and underdevelopment have often been blamed as the triggers of [drug-trafficking, but the main causes of the rise of crime organizations are state’s fragility and ineffectiveness in granting the rule of law” (www.fride.org). North Americans bear some blame as well, because they create enough demand for Latin American drug dealers to profit by smuggling their merchandise across the border (Costa www.nytimes.com). While the United States government can not end all poverty, resolve the governmental struggles in other countries, or eliminate the addictions and corruptions of its own people, it must protect its citizens from the violence and economic turmoil linked with the drug industry. The futures of nations and individuals depend greatly on the way the United States government handles the crisis.

It has not been idle. David T. Johnson, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement affairs, states, “In July 2008, Congress appropriated $465 million for the first phase of the [Mérida] Initiative” (www.state.gov). The act of throwing money at a problem itself never ameliorates any affair. However, members of the United States Foreign Service have striven to make the Mérida Initiative a success through aggressive use of funds. The Foreign Service attempts to reform the root of the problem: poverty, bad government, and addiction. The majority of the responsibility lies in the Department of State, making it possible for general ambassadors and Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) to gain the cooperation of Latin American leaders with those of the United States. This insures that the governments experience no miscommunications as they attempt to work together. FSOs often risk their lives so that they can guide countries toward stability.

Other members of the United States Foreign Service serve in “various efforts to improve crime prevention, modernize the Mexican police force, and strengthen institution building and rule of law” (www.state.gov). Outside the Mérida Initiative, the U.S. Foreign Service has worked to defeat poverty and despair by sending healthcare into unsafe areas. The U.S. Agency for International Development works closely with struggling countries to promote democracy and free-market economies. Furthermore, the Foreign Agricultural Service encourages citizens to market harmless natural resources.

The war on the illegal drug trade seems unconquerable, but it must end in victory. A defeat would mean failure in war on violence, failure in the war on poverty, and failure to the people of the Americas. However, the causes of the problem render triumph almost impossible. Thus, the United States must win the trust and cooperation of the Latin American governments, address the issue of poverty, and attempt to lessen actual demand for drugs. The U.S. Foreign Service has actively taken a part in ensuring that the money of the Mérida Initiative effectively reaches these goals, taking additional steps to encourage self-sufficiency among the Latin American people. Clearly, involvement of the Foreign Service proves vital in the drug war because it addresses the causes, rather than the symptoms, of the problem.

Lessons Learned at Burger King August 21, 2009

Lessons Learned at Burger King

This summer, I took a job at Burger King to earn some extra money before college. Yesterday was my last day there, and I was actually sort of sad to leave. They liked me enough to tell me to call when I came back on breaks so that I could get in some extra hours this winter. What a victory, considering the fact that I was not the best employee when I first started. The job was not about flipping burgers or making money; it really taught me some important lessons that I must share.

1. Money does no grow on trees. First, you have to get the hours that you need. Then, you work, and work, and work…for money that you could spend in less than an hour trying to get some decent clothes or desk supplies. Every dollar counts.
2. The government does not help. I have already paid I’d say a tenth of my earnings to my overly indulgent Uncle Sam. Then, it is going to be MY responsibility this spring to make sure he gets even more.
3. Kids—that math really IS good for something. The managers seemed to think that I had great potential as a cashier (I don’t really understand what they saw, but oh well). Learn how to add and subtract in your head NOW. Practice quickly giving change in all sorts of scenarios NOW. It will save you a lot of awkward situations.
4. Always, always, always be cheerful. This will rectify a lot of mistakes, allow you to better serve the nice customers, and heap coals of fire on the heads of the grumpy ones. You will stand out among all the managers and employees who get angry really easily.
5. If you are like me, you will make plenty of mistakes everyday. Get used to it and stay cheerful. Be ready with a GENUINE apology but don’t dwell on it more than necessary.
6. Display initiative. Even if you are not the most talented employee, if you find things to do, get things done before your are told, and show that you really want to be there, you will get more hours.
7. Don’t judge people until you really know them.
8. Know which manager is on shift. One will yell at you for putting fries in the bag first while others will yell at you for putting them in last. Some MUST have everything well stocked, some MUST have the dining room spotless, some MUST have each customer served within two minutes, some want someone to talk to…and some send you home early no matter what you do.
9. Be ready to take the job by having a regular, flexible schedule during the rest of your life. You will not have a set schedule at a fast food job, so be sure that you can handle changing hours.
10. As with the rest of life, speed and accuracy are the name of the game.

Correction July 27, 2009

In one of my previous posts, I someone kindly informed me that I meant to write Ronald REAGAN, not Ronald Regan. I apologise; spelling is really NOT my strong point, as you have probably noticed on my comments. My purpose with this blog is to provide stimulating discussion and reliable information, so I find it necessary to bring this mishap to everyone’s attention so that you don’t go around writing about ‘Ronald Regan.’

Hey, to paraphrase Andrew Jackson, it is a small mind that cannot spell a word more than one way!!

Eternal Knowlege July 25, 2009

The time will come when Christ, the Teacher of teachers, the Lord of angels, will appear to hear the lessons of all–that is, to examine the conscience of everyone. Then He will search Jerusalem with lamps and the hidden things of darkness will be brought to light and the arguings of men’s toungues will be silenced.

Thomas A Kempis

The Forgotten President July 3, 2009

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won a controversial election. Having to struggle to rebuild reputation of the Republican Party after the scandals of the Grant administration, repair the damage of the Civil War, and reform the corruption of some government offices, Hayes would have an eventful presidency. Although several years had past since the ending of the Civil War, the country was still divided. In an attempt to balance the political and regional differences, Hayes appointed several Democrats and Southerners to his cabinet. In addition to making peace between the North and the South, he desired tranquility between black and white people. He enforced equal voting laws between them, despite threats from the Klu Klux Klan.

Racial division was also an issue in California. White Californians resented the large boatloads of Chinese immigrating to San Francisco. According to the Bulingame treaty of 1868, the Chinese were allowed unlimited immigration rights into the United States. Faced with the pressure of several bills to change this situation and end the immigration, Hayes vetoed them all. He placed mild restrictions on the Bulingame treaty however, to mitigate the protests of White Californians.

The economies of the both North and the South were in shambles. By 1877, the railroad companies had enacted severe payment cuts—causing workers in several cities to go on strike or riot. Debtors knew that inflation would be to their benefit, but many others knew that the only way to restore the economy was to return it to the gold standard—thus promoting deflation. Although Hayes himself was a debtor, he believed in doing what was best for the people as a whole by lobbying for deflation.

In addition, Hayes attempted to reform corruption among the nation’s civil service workers. These federal employees were often appointed on the basis of their political status rather than on their competence. Often, these worker neglected their duties for political or personal gain. One major instance involved the New York Custom House, which collected seventy percent of the nation’s revenue. Hayes noted that the customhouse, run by Chester Arthur, was not being conducted by sound business principles, but rather as a “center of partisan political management.” With difficulty, Hayes managed to replace Arthur with a more business-minded successor. Although a later president would ultimately pass the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883, Hayes’ victory was an important step along the road of reform.

In the year of 1878, the Democratic Congress began attaching legislation called “riders” to important fiscal bills. They hoped that this would enable them to repeal federal election enforcement laws which they believed would lead to an 1880 Democratic presidential victory. Using this tactic, they also sought to destroy the veto power of the president. The outraged Hayes reacted by vetoing the entire legislation and calling the riders “unconstitutional and revolutionary.” In a forceful message, Hayes stated that he had a duty to protect the voting rights of all citizens, and mustered a great deal of public support to his cause. Eventually the Democrats, unable to override the president’s vetoes, passed the money bills without the riders and lost the 1880 election. A firm nationalist, Hayes fought efforts to limit the powers of the federal government and of the presidency. Hayes declined to seek another term in office, leaving politics after his presidency.

A short Response to Progressivism June 30, 2009

In many ways, the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s benefited America. It preserved beautiful national forests, allowed women to vote, reformed imigrant and worker abuse, and made it difficult for companies to monopolize industries. Yet some question its ultimate effect. It increased the powers of the government, which led to more bureaucracy and less freedom. Second, most progressives believed that the nature of individual was good and was always improving, resulting in more direct democracy for voters. They also believed that progress was inevitable, giving rise to an increase of evolutionary thinking. Believing that man’s inherent goodness was hindered only by things such as ignorance, poverty, and inequality, progressives overlooked many other problems and solutions. These faulty premises led to flawed responses, and changed America’s thinking forever. It is now up to us as citizens to wholeheartedly adopt the good intentions of the progressive movement while discarding its detremental side effects.

Something has got to Give June 30, 2009

If you reject Christianity, there is something else that you end up asserting by default.

Koukl, Greg

History of the Doctrine of the Trinity June 22, 2009

Dry, Dusty Theology??? Who really cares about the history of the Trinity. History shapes our thoughts, showing us the errors and examples of the past. It shed light on this difficult doctrine for me, and I hope that you are edified by it too.

Due to the difficulty that man has in understanding that God is one God, but he possesses three persons, many have tried to undermine the doctrine of the Trinity throughout history. Since the Jews emphasized the unity of God, this carried over into the early Christian Church. Thus, many failed to recognize the presence of the Trinity, because they did not understand it. Instead of realizing that God holds many mysteries for man, they became willing to sacrifice truth in order to circumscribe God into thier own, fallible understanding.

Tertullian and Origen were among the first to recognize the doctrine, but they taught that Christ was subordinate to the Father in order to preserve what they thought to be the unity of God. The Arians went a step farther by saying that the Father created the Son, who in turn created the Holy Spirit. Monarchism stretched the truth even farther by creating two branches of thought: Dynamic Monarchism and Modalistic Monarchism. While the former proclaimed that Jesus was a man and that the Holy Spirit was a power of God, the latter asserted that God transformed himself into one of the three Persons, depending on the role he had to perform. Conversely, many early theologians such as John Acunages fell into the snare of Tritheism.

For this reason, the Church formulated the Docrine of the Trinity during the fourth century. The Counsel of Nicea (A.D. 325) declared that the Son was not subordinate to the Father while the Counsel of Constantinople (A.D. 381) maintained that the Holy Spirit was equal to the Father and the Son. In the East, John of Damascus wrote to assert the equality of the three Persons and in the West, Augustine wrote the De Trinitate which expressed the most complete and correct statement of the Doctrine during that time in history.

After the Reformation, different denominations of Protestants twisted the doctrine of the Trinity so that they could fully understand it. Arminians, Eqiscopius, Curcellaeus and Limborgh all revived the doctrine of subordination by ascribing more order, dignity, and power to the Father. Unfortunately, many fell into the snare of Modalistic Monarchism—calling it Modalism.

For instance, Hegel referred to the “Father as God in himself, the Son as God objectifying himself, and the Holy Spirit as God returning unto himself.” Schleiermacher employed Modalsim by stating that the Persons of God were simply aspects of God—the Father is the Unity of all things, the Son is God “coming to conscious personality of man,” and the Holy Spirit is God’s relationship with the church. Repeating and going beyond the mistakes of Arianism, the Socinians stated that Christ was a mere man, and that the Holy Spirit was only a power. The Socinians eventually became the Unitarians and liberal theologians of today, who let secular reasoning trample their “Christian heritage.”

Although the Doctrine of the Trinity endured serious misunderstanding throughout Christian History, several faithful men and women clung to the truth as they studied the Bible and prayed for answers to their questions. Most Catholics upheld the correct doctrine of the Trinity, and Dante mentions the “three in one” several times in his Divine Comedy. Most Protestant Denominations, including the reformed denominations, also maintain this Doctrine correctly today. These are the people who, although they strive to fully understand the Trinity, realize that they cannot comprehend all of God’s mysteries. Not willing to sacrifice truth for human comprehension, they continue to study and search for Scripture proofs for this doctrine.