This finished product turned out, in many ways, very differently than I had intended.  Originally, I had set out to write of my hardships during the past year (of which I've had my share, although I've had much more than my fair share of blessings, too) and how the next year would surely be better because, well, it just had to be.  Better luck and better things would come my way.  This is a recurring theme commonly expounded among most of the “New Year’s Resolutions” I’ve read.  I meant to write about how much I was looking forward to 2007 as a year free of all of those complications, but the idea changed drastically since it was first conceived a week or so ago.

I just finished reading Johnny Cash’s The Man in White, a fictional account of the conversion of the Apostle Paul.  Paul, of course, was the former zealous Pharisee who ruthlessly and mercilessly persecuted the earliest Christians before being met with a vision of Jesus Christ along the road to Damascus, an experience which transformed him into one of the Lord’s most significant and effectual Apostles.  Cash writes in his introduction that his motivation for writing the novel stems from the connection he feels with Paul because of the Apostle’s struggle with a “thorn in the flesh.”  The story of Paul’s dramatic turnaround and redemption strikes a universal chord, especially with those of us who were formerly hostile to the Christian worldview, because if we’re truly honest with ourselves, most of us can identify with his defiance.  In his epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul wrote that he had repeatedly pleaded with Jesus to remove the “thorn” from his side, but that the Lord had told him that Christ’s strength was “made perfect” in Paul’s weakness (2 Cor 12:9).  Paul understood that the love of God was real and that love is the most powerful force the universe has ever known, and although he may not have fully understood at the time what Jesus meant, he accepted it as truth.  Most of us know about Johnny Cash’s drug addiction, the “thorn” with which he himself struggled for much of his life, because it was something about which he was always open and honest.  He was likewise forthright about several other “thorns”:  his brother’s death at a young age, and his own health problems stemming from diabetes and a neurological disorder.  Cash understood that trying to conceal his own shortcomings would obscure from the view of others the favorable effects of grace on his own life; he understood that in hiding our pain we disallow ourselves from fully benefiting from grace.  John Carter Cash wrote of his father that “he accepted [his thorns] as his personal burden, something to rise above, something to sharpen his courage, to define purpose, and to help him remember to stay grateful for his blessings.”  It would be nearly impossible to say it more eloquently than that.  More and more, I recognize the myriad ways in which the things that cause me pain actually help me in the long run.  I’m realizing that the old saying is not just a benign platitude:  there actually exist silver linings to all dark clouds.

I am indeed confident that 2007 will be my best year yet, but not necessarily for any lack of hardship (for that’s virtually inevitable).  No, this next year of my life promises to be the best because of the lessons I’ve learned, the faith I’ve nurtured, and the strength I’ve gained through that faith, all of which have come as a result of the experiences gained through the hard times I've experienced over the past year, the “thorns in my flesh.”  These are thorns which in many ways I cherish, and wear like a badge, because that which does not break us only serves to temper our spirit.  Jesus never promised us a rose garden.  He never said that things would suddenly be easy after you make the choice to accept Him into your life.  He did promise, though, that He would be with us always, until the end of the world (Mt 28:20), lending His strength to us that we might carry on, and never be truly broken.  Let us not pray for an uncomplicated and trouble-free life; let us instead pray for the will to grow through times of privation, the wisdom to learn from misfortune, and the audacity to overcome adversity.

Pain is momentary, but grace is eternal.

May your new year be blessed with clear vision, courage and resolve.

The celebration of Christmas is the celebration of the Incarnation:  the birth of Jesus Christ, the human manifestation of the living God.  But when reflecting on this incredible event, I all too often fail to realize its full significance.  Certainly, it was critically important for God to become human so that He might fulfill prophecy and die for the atonement of the sins of his people.  But in doing so, God did not simply make His presence known to us in a tangible form; He entered a human body so that He might experience what it is to be fully human. 

St. John of the Cross, a 16th-century Christian mystic, once elucidated the nativity story thusly in a romance on the Gospel verse, “In principio erat Verbum” (“In the beginning was the Word”):

But God there in the manger
cried and moaned;
and these tears were jewels
the bride brought to the wedding.
The Mother gazed in sheer wonder
on such an exchange:
in God, man's weeping,
and in man, gladness,
to the one and the other
things usually so strange.

When God was born to human parents, He gave himself into our care as a helpless infant.  This year marked the births of several children among friends of mine, and I have a new appreciation for the utter vulnerability of infants, even having spent only relatively minimal amounts of time with them.  In the Christ child, God made Himself altogether subject to the care of lowly human beings, and He sacrificed and limited His power that He might truly know the meaning of “pain,” “sorrow,” “discomfort,” “hunger,” “exhaustion” and a host of other feelings.  In a move that would surely insult the more self-righteous among us, God chose shepherds, the lowest of the low in that society, to be the heralds of His glorious birth.

Just as God gave Himself into our care as a human child, He also allowed those who wanted him dead to do to Him as they chose.  He assumed a human body and in doing so, experienced not only every bit of pain but all of the temptation that the rest of us often fall victim to.  But Jesus Christ was not brought down by the things of this world as we so commonly are; Jesus rejected Satan even when he offered Christ the world on a platter.  Satan further offered Jesus a chance to be saved from death on the cross, but again He refused.  The Lord’s destiny was to be killed, and with full knowledge of the fate that awaited Him, He willingly submitted to it.  Pause a moment and let that sink in, and it should give you pause.  When He set foot among men, God—the omnipotent and omniscient—submitted to all of the suffering and humiliation which He fully knew lay before Him.  Indeed, humility is to me the most remarkable aspect of Jesus’ character.  Perhaps even more astonishing is the stark disparity between Jesus’ meekness and our own foolish and unwarranted pride.  It’s no coincidence, too, that our arrogance is the one and only thing that will always prevent us from accepting the free gift of salvation that Jesus offers to each of us.  I can speak from experience here because conceit caused me to turn my back on the Lord for seven long and lonely years of my life.

The earthly life of Jesus was marked by dissent and struggle.  He always stood at odds with the powers at be, from the moment of His birth when King Herod plotted to kill Him by systematically murdering all of Bethlehem’s male children until He was unjustly put to death at the hands of the chief priests and the teachers of the Law.  Jesus came to bring a sword (Mt. 10:34), not to acquiesce to the wicked status quo of the era.

This coming year, will we choose to remain comfortable?  Or will we choose to endure some discomfort for the greater good?  Will we decide to pick up our own crosses and be willing to assume our share of the burden and make a positive difference?  In Christ, God came to live among us and in doing so He scattered the darkness of our world.  Will we pursue the task presented in the benediction given by Jesus during his last moments on earth and allow ourselves to become lights for the world, or will we let our truth be snuffed out by the wind of complacency?

  This Christmas, though we mustn’t neglect to reflect on the suffering Jesus Christ went through in service to us, let us take care to not gloss over the gift of joy that was given us in the Christ child.  Let us instead recall St. John of the Cross’s words and remember that great exchange between heaven and earth:  in the personage of Jesus, God learned our pain that he might teach us the very meaning of joy.  Friends, I’m praying that each and every one of you experience nothing but joy and happiness during the coming new year... and it doesn’t matter whether you believe in the power of prayer, because I’m certain of it.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, among other things, states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  I interpret this to mean that our government should be forbidden from establishing an official state church.  In more recent times, though, the Supreme Court has upheld an alternative idea:  namely, that the First Amendment forbids any kind of public expression of one's religion.  Presumably, doing so might offend others.  This is most obvious, it seems, in the month or so leading up to Christmas... sorry, I guess I should be politically correct and say "the holidays," instead of using the name of a specific religious holiday.  I realized some time ago that my idea of "tolerance" is vastly different than the more modern and "P.C." flavor that we usually see.

Why is it that my Constitutionally-protected right to freely exercise my religion of choice is automatically seen by many as an attempt to infringe upon their rights or to "force my beliefs" upon them?  Why have many in this nation become so acutely sensitive that the very sight of a "symbol of Christmas"—such as a Christmas tree or even the colors red and green—are seen as some sort of affront to free thought and free expression?  I'm not offended in the least when a Jewish friend sends me a Hanukkah card, or when an atheist friend wishes me a "happy holiday" (or even a "merry 'x'-mas" for that matter).  Should I be?  If I follow the example of those who mistakenly think that the Constitution ordains a "separation of church and state," certainly.  That phrase is all too often mistakenly attributed to the Constitution although it doesn't appear in that document at all.  In fact, Thomas Jefferson was the first to use the term, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists written years later (Jan. 1, 1802).  In that letter, it is clear that he intended the term in a completely different context than many use it today.  The call to remove all signs of religion from the public forum is diametrically opposed to the obligation that Jefferson clearly thought he held to his constituents:  to protect the rights of people to practice their religion in any way they wish, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others to be safe and enjoy their own freedoms.

It seems, then, that many [ostensibly] "englightened" or "modern" thinkers have as a prerequisite to their brand of "tolerance" the absence of dissenting opinions.  The simple act of labeling myself a Christian—and therefore implying that I think Christianity is the "right" religion—is construed by many as "bigotry" or "intolerance."  But isn't tolerance predicated on the exchange of opposing ideas?  Tolerance involves the way you conduct the discussion, not refusing to acknowledge your differences in the first place.  In an extremely insightful column written by Greg Koukl last week, The Intolerance of Tolerance, he explained that idea much more capably and coherently than I could ever hope to.

The Telegraph reported today that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)had downgraded previous estimates of the impact that humans have on global warming, while insisting that they "are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming" (story here, hat tip Drudge).  Rising of the sea level is one of the most important threats attributed to climate change, and the upper estimate has now been reduced by half, from 34 to 17 inches.  Also via Drudge, The Independent reported that, interestingly enough, cow 'emissions' are more damaging to our planet than CO₂ from cars.

On Friday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who is leading the fight against the media's misrepresentation of the global warming issue, announced the release of the Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming, which collects his speeches and related press releases, and in doing so offers a quick reference to disproving many of the claims that global warming alarmists would like you to believe are cold hard facts.  Pay special attention to the section regarding Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth... it seems as if Gore is trying to dispose of an very "inconvenient truth" of his own:  scientists are far from reaching a consensus about the facts surrounding global warming.  In addition to the aforementioned EPW Skeptic's Guide, here are a few other informative resources:

• "Don't Believe the Hype: Al Gore is wrong. There's no 'consensus' on global warming." (Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT)
• "Open Kyoto to debate: Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming"
• "Inhofe correct on global warming" (Prof. David Deming, geophysicist, University of Oklahoma)
• "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998" and "British report the last hurrah of warmaholics" (Prof. Bob Carter, geologist and paleoclimate researcher at James Cook University, Queensland, AU)

I'll wrap up with a quote from Bob Carter, taken from the last article in the list above: