I was thinking today about Thomas Kinkade and the fact that I don't seem to despise him nearly as much as many of my friends do, and about art in general, about which we've discussed some thoughts before in the past.

And I was pondering one of my favorite paintings, by Norman Rockwell:

Here is a blurb about this painting:

Some of Rockwell’s most powerful creations came out of his years with "Look." One such piece was inspired by the unjust murders of three civil rights workers near Philadelphia, Mississippi. The painting, “Southern Justice,” was done in 1965 and depicts the horror endured by three young men, two white and one black [James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwermer], who had come to Mississippi in the fight for equality. One man is seen lying dead in the foreground; the next is standing in the glow of the attacker’s torch while defending the third man, who appears near death.

Though this painting is not very "Kinkadian", the question for me is whether the sentiment it expresses is Biblical, and whether it's a skillful work, worth thinking about.   I think so, for two reasons.

First, its goal (as a work of art) is to promote racial equality (Rockwell left the Saturday Evening Post after working for them for 47 years, because they told him "never to show coloured people except as servants".  Rockwell's decision fits with the Bible's portrayal as all the world of ONE race and endowed by the Creator with unalienable human rights, contrary to the racism inherent from the theory of evolution.  And it fits with the mission of "seeking justice" and "defending the fatherless" that God has commissioned His people to engage in.  Our primary task is "making disciples" of Jesus - fishing for men in light of the extremely high stakes of eternity.  But meanwhile we are the salt of the earth, and without a doubt this influence cannot ignore our host country's political structure.

Second, I find so much beauty in the portrayal of the standing man holding up the other man.  I remember standing in front of this painting in the Norman Rockwell museum being literally stunned by the force of the standing man's gaze (he has piercing blue eyes, which are hard to see in the online pictures).  The look in his eye says, "Go ahead.  Shoot me.  But I will not run away - I will not cease from helping this black man who is my friend."  This "rugged individualism" is not really "American" in origin, although it is one of the most beautiful things that the American culture has preserved for the world.  (...though particular strengths are often tied to related excesses/sins...)   Instead, this insistence on doing what is right even when it is unpopular or "goes against what society considers right" is Biblical  (contrast with the atheist/agnostic's relativistic/cultural view of morality if you have some time).

I find myself empathizing strongly with the standing guy.  Of all ways to die, how wonderful it would be to die while helping someone else, seeking justice and the glory of God and others' salvation, in an ending which the world might consider "tragic" but which God remembers with approval.  (Indeed God Himself experienced this... He died on our behalf while saving us from our sins...  He voluntarily submitted to death at our hands, so that He could save those of us who believe in Him...)  Truly "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."

Yet it is amazing to realize that I can glorify God even in the mundane, everyday moments of life... choosing to die to self and obey God's direction...  and amazing that God will not forget even the slightest act.  Not just the moment of our death, but literally everything is significant and will be scrutinized on that Day.

Soli Deo Gloria - To God alone be glory.   May God be exalted in my life.

(I know it's unfashionable to find politics interesting... I apologize in advance to my friends who would rather hear anecdotes and cuddly life stories.)

When does a "rebel government" become the government to support, as a Christian?  Two case studies to ponder - the American War of Independence, and the various "militias" and "gangs" "ruling" certain parts of the world.?  Where is the line between "protection money" and "patriotism"?

Secondly, if you consider yourself politically liberal, don't watch this video... you might experience cognitive "ouch" that is severe enough to be hazardous to your health.

But I watched it and survived.     There were some thought-provoking elements, such as his pinpointing postmodern "don't judge (anything/anyone/ever)" as the key theme of contemporary liberalism, and his connecting it to various cultural elements.   I also appreciated his attempt to "look at the world through liberal eyes" and showing that the main value in the liberal worldview is "peace".   Peace, at any cost.   This does seem to fit with what I've seen in my liberal friends.

I guess I sheepishly would like to hear some liberals' perspectives on his speech... though not for the sake of the cognitive pain the liberals would have to endure in the watching, but to hear "their side of the story" - is he right?  or if not, where does he go wrong in describing the liberal mindset?

This is a very thought-provoking article...

If war was declared next week and a special emergency call was put out for volunteers, would I join?  (in the light of the issues discussed in the above article, and after consideration of God's leading...)

Would you?

I'm sure some have you have already seen this documentary about global warming (hint: the hype may well be based on faulty science).

But if you haven't, it's worth taking two hours to listen to and think about (especially if you can do something else during that time - dishes, laundry, whatever... multitasking to 'redeem the time...' 

Here's a powerful quote from near the end:
"I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern envionmental movement is this romantisation of peasant life, and the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world.

The envionmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries.

I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human.  Like, Ok, you don't have to think humans are better than whales, or better than owls, or whatever... if you don't want to, right.

But surely it is not a good idea to think of humans as being scum.  ..That it's ok to have hundreds of millions of them go blind or die or whatever.   I just can't relate to that."

Patrick Moore - cofounder of Greenpeace

Interesting - a Democratic politician who decides not to issue an apology she doesn't believe in... deciding to keep the same course rather than flip-flopping.

"Even though American atheists might have trouble winning elections, Americans are fairly tolerant of us unbelievers. My many good friends in Texas who are professed Christians do not even try to convert me. This might be taken as evidence that they don't really mind if I spend eternity in Hell, but I prefer to think (and Baptists and Presbyterians have admitted it to me) that they are not all that certain about Hell and Heaven. I have often heard the remark (once from an American priest) that it is not so important what one believes; the important thing is how we treat each other. Of course, I applaud this sentiment, but imagine trying to explain "not important what one believes" to Luther or Calvin or St Paul. Remarks like this show a massive retreat of Christianity from the ground it once occupied, a retreat that can be attributed to no new revelation, but only to a loss of certitude."

-- Stephen Weinberg, atheist, physicist, recipient of the Nobel Prize and US National Medal of Science, etc.

He's right, imho...

Compare the above with this quote from someone who thought that "what one believes" is very important indeed:

Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life....

  ...unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

...Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."

The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.' Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?"

Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

George Bush, an accidental, bumbling genius?   Interesting perspective in this article, no matter what you think of Bush...

Is it necessary for a Christian politician to keep his beliefs "private" and never let them influence his policymaking?   Or ought he to try to set up a theocracy?  Or something in between?  Or is "Christian politician" actually an oxymoron?

I think it should be "something in between", though that is of course a non-trivial fine line to walk in practice.  But it is an absolutely essential area to understand.  The secular folk insist that Christians are no different from Muslims and want to impose a theocracy on the rest of the world.  We Christians have to be ready at an instant's notice to show to inquirers what the Bible really says about how Christians should get involved in politics.   In certain parts of the world it is much more difficult already (and some day we may face the exact same situations) - for example Nigeria's Muslim north and Christian south.  Here the police/government and the religious beliefs are harder to separate.

Here's a very cool seven-part article that I came across today that carefully and practically expounds the place of the church and the state from the Biblical/Christian viewpoint - http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/pacifism1.htm.

Also, here's a neat article about Europe and current trends, called Why Europe Abandoned Israel.  As you know I enjoy reading/pondering "big-picture" analyses like these, though of course only if they are based on true historical details.

If you only have time to read one link, read the one by Arlandson about the church and the state!

The only good creationist is...  

                     ...one who keeps his mouth shut.

Ha ha ha.

"Ignore it and it'll go away"?    Or "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"?

This is an interesting discussion.

Is there a middle way?