It is a kind of pride to insist that none of our prayers should ever be petitions for our own needs: for this is another subtle way of trying to put ourselves on the same plane as God - acting as if we had no needs, as if we were not creatures, not dependent on Him and dependent, by His will, on material things too.

- Thomas Merton

Early on in my Christian life I had the mistaken idea that it was somehow presumptuous to pray for myself. I felt that this was somehow selfish, and that "God had more important things to worry about".

I heard other people who shared this philosophy. "I never pray for my own needs, only the needs of others," they would say.

That feels right, doesn't it? Isn't that the way we should be? Isn't that the more selfless approach to prayer that we should all strive for?

Well, no. No it's not. And, thankfully, I learned early on that I was wrong to not carry every burden, every request to God. Now, of course, I am not to pray only for my own needs. In fact, the amount of time I spend praying for myself should probably be just a small portion of my total prayer time. But I mustn't forget the reasons why I pray for myself. I am dust and ashes, weak and sin-susceptible and totally inadequate, on my own steam, of living a life that even approaches Godliness. My deepest need is for the Lord, in whose hands are held all the answers, all the power, all the rescue, and all the provision one could want in this life.

The minute I start treating God like he is an overworked genie in a bottle who has "much more important things to worry about than my requests" is the minute that I have brought God down to my level.

He's not stressed-out by my requests. His grace is more than sufficient for my every need, and I'm a fool if I don't run to him every single day and cast my every inadequacy at the feet of his majesty.

From the Associated Press

In mid-February, a Colombian patrol spotted the three Americans — Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell and Thomas Howes — bathing in the Apoporis River under guard, the first sight of the Americans since their surveillance plane crashed in 2003.

For four days, "We had eyes on them," Brownfield said.

But a rescue operation was deemed too risky and called off.

"The president's order was: rescue, yes, but without even a drop of blood," said a Colombian army general directly involved in the mission, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to disclose details.

Former hostage Ingrid Betancourt, reunited with her children after 6 years

The general said a disgruntled member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, had agreed to spearhead the operation. This turncoat, he said, was trusted by both the rebels' high command and by the leader of the 1st Front, which was holding the hostages.

"The FARC's communications are medieval," Padilla said. He said its command-and-control is so diminished that it sends important messages by courier. This breakdown in the chain of command has made it easier to flip disillusioned rebels to the government's side, and indeed, Padilla said more than one double agent was involved in this mission.

But the turncoat was the key. He convinced Gerardo Aguila Ramirez, alias Cesar, the commander of the 1st Front, that top commanders wanted the 15 hostages moved to a rallying point, the general directly involved in the operation told the AP.

The turncoat was upset with the FARC because his own commander had taken a house and farm away from him, the general said. This was payback.

U.S. spy satellites helped track the hostages on a monthlong journey that began May 31 and ended with Wednesday's rescue.

From mid-June on, Brownfield and a team of 100 people at the U.S. Embassy who had been dedicated to securing the American hostages' release worked closely with the Colombians running the operation.

"The truth of the matter is, we have actually come together in a way that we rarely have in the United States of America, except with longtime allies, principally NATO allies," Brownfield said of relations with Colombia's security forces, which have received more than $4 billion in military aid since 2000.

Several times, he said, the U.S. government had to make decisions — "at the highest levels" — about proceeding.

On Monday, President Alvaro Uribe gave the go-ahead, Padilla said.

On Tuesday, the two Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters left a military base in an Andean mountain valley, settling down for a nervous night in a wilderness clearing.

Aboard were four air force crewmen in civilian disguise, seven military intelligence agents and the guerrilla turncoat, military officials said. Two of the agents were dressed as rebels, and the rest wore white, as if representing some sort of humanitarian mission. All had taken a week and a half of acting lessons, Padilla said.

Shortly after midday on Wednesday, the helicopter touched down at the rendezvous point.

One of the agents, posing as a cameraman, recorded video as the guerrillas on the ground bound the hostages' hands on the crew's instructions, Padilla said. Tying up the hostages was part of the plan.

"These are 14 trained soldiers we're dealing with," Padilla said, referring to the captive Americans and 11 Colombian soldiers or police. "Nobody wanted to risk them trying to overpower the crew."

Once aloft, it was Cesar and his aide who were overpowered instead.

Go read the whole thing. Very cool.

The Washington Post says, "According to a new Pew survey, 21% of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit, 12% believe in heaven and 10% pray at least once a week. What do you make of this?"

Brian McLaren had an interesting response. I'll give you part of it here:

I love this question and the reality to which it points, namely, that people are complex and perpetually surprising. What the finding about atheists suggests to me is something that I came across many times in my work as a pastor: when people call themselves atheists, they often mean not that they don't believe in any god at all as the term would indicate, but they don't believe in a particular version or description of God.

If that's the case, then I'd say they're not really atheists at all, so there's no point in saying that 21 percent of atheists believe in God. Never mind the fact that by its very definition atheism denies the existence of God.

Strange. Very, very strange.

What's up with that? Seriously. We're genuinely curious.

There's been more than a few comments from quasi-anonymous commenters that are "religious" in tone but typically are only semi-coherent and bear no relation to the post they're left under.

Are you one person commenting under different names?
A group "targeting" Thinklings for some reason?

Can you explain yourself?

(I await the nonsensical "flee into the LIGHT" type bon mots . . .)

Jollyblogger with some great perspective:

Americans today are safer, more prosperous, and healthier than at any time in history. Yet the news media continues to stoke and promote our fears because fear and sensationalism garners viewers.

. . .

I think those who share my conservative Christian worldview, should be the least alarmed and the least sucked in to this stuff of anyone, yet we are often the ones who are the most sucked in. But, Jesus Himself said that the era that is bracketed by His first and second comings would be an era when wheat and tares grow up together. Believers and unbelievers will increase in number. Good and evil will increase. Disaster and restoration will grow together.

In his best selling book "The Reason for God," Tim Keler points out that both the religious and secular are increasingly alarmed at the growth of the other side. Keller points out that both have evidence on their side - secularism is increasing and so is belief. This is just one example of the working out of the parable of the wheats and tares in our day. But it is also illustrative of a couple of basic theological truths - fall and redemption. We live in a fallen world, thus the world will always have evil and disaster, both natural and man-made. But we live in a world where a redeemer has come, thus the world will always contain remarkable healing and beauty.

This means we can and should take appropriate action when disaster and evil show up. But we should never be alarmed or surprised them and we especially ought not to live in fear. And most importantly, we must not let the presense of disaster and evil obscure the beauty and grandeur that is life on this earth.

Unfortunately the news media is well equipped to bring you disaster and evil on a daily basis, and in regards to beauty and goodness, not so much.

Read the whole thing. it's good.

I grow increasingly tired of the alarms constantly ringing in our media culture. And not because I'm a fan of sticking my head in the sand. But because, as Jollyblogger points out, bad news and sensationalism sells. And, I'd add, the human race has misplaced confidence in and fear about the control we think we have over the course of history.

When it comes to the church, i thought the portion above on the wheat and tares was particularly good. Jesus' parable-warnings about the tares that would grow up in the church are an answer to the scary human tendency to generalize and lump, and also a calming influence on our other scary tendency to panic and run. We wonder why our churches aren't all they can be. We wonder why sometimes Christian people do bad things. There's a temptation to throw up hands and bail. But in reading the New Testament, another question presents itself to me. Why are we surprised? It's all laid out for us. Jesus told us what to expect. And in Acts, through the Epistles to the Apocalypse we see the infant church, in all her young glory and with all her faults, redeemed, rebuked, beloved, honored, changing into the image of Christ from glory to glory, moving toward the Harvest at the end of the age where God will carefully separate every tare from every wheat stalk, because He knows the ones that are His. In the meantime, imperfect and sinful believers march the awkward march of sanctification, and the tares march alongside, remarkably wheat-like in appearance but tragically unfruitful in reality. We march with a mission, to bring goodness, beauty, redemption, the Kingdom to a world in desperate need. That God would choose to use the likes of us for this is astonishing.

There is no greater privilege in my life than to be a part of the Body of Christ.

I believe in paradoxes. I have no problem with dialectical pairs revealing doctrinal truth (for example, security vs. perseverance, God as three distinct persons in one divine substance, and JESUS as God and man, to name a few).

With that said, Mark 9:24 has become one of my favorite New Testament passages:

Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!"

The paradox of simultaneous belief and unbelief reminds me that even my belief is a gift from God, and my unbelief is a reminder of my frail, fallen nature. Like Paul in Romans 7:21, "I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good."

JESUS, I believe in You and everything that You say and do. Please help my unbelief.

From the Anchoress, in her latest post entitled The Incarnation: Not For Wimps:

One of the wonderful things about Christianity is that Christ is patient. He also allows the questions. He even tolerates doubt, as we see in the story of Thomas, and in this great poem (also thanks to the July issue of Magnificat):

THOMAS

Here the blade was held to the flesh
Right here
and thrust
and there’s a keepsake
it cries in all the tongues of the fish
- a wound -

The face focused
forehead furled
blue light of dawn
reluctant and cold

Thomas’ index finger
miners lamp of touch
is guided from above
by the Master’s hand

so doubt is permitted
we are free to question
so Leonardo de Vinci’s
furrowed forehead
has value after all

- Zbigniew Herbert
(a leader of the anti-communist
movement in Poland)

I read this reminder last night.

"Love your enemies," Jesus said, widening the circle of prayer beyond anyone's comfort zone.

- Philip Yancey, Prayer, Does It Make Any Difference?

A few weeks ago I was on an Antonin Scalia kick. So I watched some interviews on line and read about him. Fascinating fella.

Today I decided it was time to get to know Clarence Thomas. Admittedly, I did't know much about him. This interview is fascinating. Read it to get to know more about his upbringing and how he thinks.

But here's what jumped out at me, probably because it's really been on my mind the last few days.

Thomas believes the real issue being fought over during his confirmation was all but unspoken. "The issue was abortion. That's the issue today," Thomas says. "That was the elephant in the room."

"In what sense?" Kroft asks.

That was it. That's the issue. That is the issue that people apparently are so upset about. That you determine the composition of your Supreme Court and your entire federal judiciary, it seems now," Thomas says.

"Your opponents were afraid that you might at some point rule against or help overturn Roe V. Wade?" Kroft asks.

"I have no idea what they thought. But they knew one thing. They weren't in charge of me. So, I wasn't gonna do their bidding," Thomas says.

Thomas believes the issue of abortion is not addressed in the Constitution and should be left to the states to decide. If that were to become the majority opinion on the court, abortion could be outlawed in 40 percent of the country.

Scalia and Roberts may or may not vote to overturn Roe V. Wade because not only are they originalists, but they are also firm believers in the concept of stare decisis, which means keeping with the precedent of prior Supreme Court decisions. In 2004, Scalia revealed that Thomas is not.

Scalia added that "if a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."

Stare decisis is a fancy Latin term that stands for a bedrock proposition of U.S. law: that the Supreme Court will uphold precedent and not disturb settled law without special justification.

Here's my reason for this post:

Abortion is evil, evil, evil, evil, evil.

Prepare yourself first, but then go look at this website - abort73.com - It's the best anti-abortion site I've ever seen.

And listen to Pastor John:


And then I ask myself, am I doing enough? I don't know. I doubt it. But I have come to this:

There's nothing wrong with being a single issue voter, if saving the lives of MILLIONS of children is the issue. I believe that we must vote for John McCain, and then put pressure on him to appoint Supreme Court Justices that might overturn Roe V. Wade. I know that's not popular to say. Liberals don't mind making that their litmus test, but conservatives seem to be too scared to.

I think maybe (myself included) that I may be too much like these people:

In a small church on the East Coast a pastor delivered a sermon on abortion and after the service a German man who had lived in Nazi Germany told of his experience:

I lived in Germany during the Nazi Holocaust. I considered myself a Christian. We heard stories of what was happening to the Jews, but we tried to distance ourselves from it, because, what could anyone do to stop it?

A railroad track ran behind our small church, and each Sunday morning we could hear the whistle in the distance and then the wheels coming over the tracks. We became disturbed when we heard the cries coming from the train as it passed by. We realized that it was carrying Jews like cattle in the cars!

Week after week the whistle would blow. We dreaded to hear the sound of those wheels because we knew that we would hear the cries of the jews en route to the death camp. Their screams torment us.

We knew the time the train was coming and when we heard the whistle blow we began singing hymns. By the time the train came past our church we were singing at the top of our voices. If we heard the screams, we sang more loudly and soon we heard them no more.

Years have passed and no one talks about it anymore. But I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. God forgive me; forgive all of us who called ourselves Chrsitians and yet did nothing... (From Hitler's Cross by Erwin Lutzer, Moody Press, 1995, pp.99-100)

Of course, the unborn don't scream, so all we have to do is fill our thoughts with other things so we don't have to think about the massacre that is occuring in slaughter houses disguised as clinics, instead of gas chambers disguised as showers.

God have mercy.

While he was working among the poor in Bolivia, [Henri] Nouwen took an evening off during Advent season to see a movie. "The movie was so filled with images of greed and lust, manipulation and exploitation, fearful and painful sensations, that it filled all the empty spaces that could have been blessed by the spirit of Advent."

- From Philip Yancey's Prayer, Does It Make Any Difference?

What shall we use to fill the empty spaces,
Where we used to talk?

- Pink Floyd, Empty Spaces

Recently, I updated my Facebook profile (yes, I'm very new-millennia, even though I'm older than dirt). I set a value to the "Favorite Music" field. I set it to "Silence". I couldn't think of anything else I'd rather listen to these days.

In past ages, more of people's time was filled with silence than it is now. Today, we are inundated with input. Media washes over us so much that many of us forget how deeply we are immersed in it.

I find myself getting antsy when I have nothing to do. When the input stream is turned off, I feel like something's missing. Years ago, I read the science fiction novel Islands In The Net. I don't remember much about it, other than one very telling scene. The novel is set in the near future, and everyone spends their day connected, at all times, to a world-wide network. It's amazing how close we are to that already. At one point the main characters enter an elevator that is lead-lined or something, and their connection with the network is severed. Just for a few moments.

And they panic.

When I first read that, probably fifteen years ago, it was a curiosity. Now it has the eery glow of something very familiar. Most of us are not accustomed to silence. If you're like me, there aren't nearly as many empty spaces in your life as there need to be.

I know I need the empty spaces. Because it's in the empty spaces that God's voice is most easily heard.

I need to learn to practice more diligently the ancient disciplines of silence, of stillness. Because if there was ever a time for me to be still and know He is God, it's right now.

Empty space. It's a good thing.

Primary Wonder
Denise Levertov, from Sands of the Well

Days pass when I forget the mystery
Problems insoluble and problems offering
their own ignored solutions
jostle for my attention, they crowd its antechamber
along with a host of diversion, my courtiers, wearing
their colored clothes; cap and bells.

And then
once more the quiet mystery is present to me, the
throng's chamber recedes; the mystery
that there is anything, anything at all, let alone
cosmos, joy, memory, everything,
rather than void; and that, O Lord,
Creator, Hallowed One, You still,
hour by hour sustain it.

(quoted in Philip Yancey's Prayer, Does It Make Any Difference?)

This write up lead me to wonder about the future of the Supreme Court based on the upcoming election. As a conservative, I obviously will be voting for John McCain.

I wonder, though, does anyone really want a court that is completely decided down ideological lines? It seems that to have nothing but conservative (or liberal) justices would mean having a court that's too blind to even consider the other side of the proverbial coin.

Consider what The Washington Post says about Justice Kennedy:

It is telling that Kennedy, currently the court's most influential justice, is never mentioned as a model by either McCain or Obama. Kennedy's iconoclastic views -- conservative on some constitutional questions, more liberal on others -- would not appeal to either candidate's base.

While I don't (and won't) always agree with Kennedy's decisions, what some see as waffling I see as being able to make decisions based on the merits of the case laid before him, not on an ideological cookie cutter in his back pocket.

In my last Supreme Court post, one commenter averred that some of the justices were merely "unelected dictators in robes." While that's obviously hyperbole, I'd agree that it's easy to think a justice has made a dictatorial decision if said decision did not go the way you thought it should.

However, one of the extraordinary aspects of the Supreme Court is that the justices are not elected. They don't have to kowtow to a political party. They can actually make decisions (like the child rape case) without having to assuage popular opinion a la McCain and Obama.

Maybe we need a court that looks and acts more like Justice Anthony Kennedy, and not like an elected official.

. . . in our College and Young Singles class. I'm really looking forward to it.

I hope church is great for you today.

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 2:42-47

In your opinion, what's the greatest love song of all time? For my money it's "Lady in Red" by Chris de Burg.

I've never seen you looking so lovely as you did tonight
I've never seen you shine so bright
I've never seen so many men ask you if you wanted to dance
They're looking for a little romance,
Given half a chance
I have never seen that dress you're wearing
Or the highlights in your head that catch your eyes
I have been blind
The lady in red is dancing with me cheek to cheek
There's nobody here, it's just you and me,
It's where I wanna be
But I hardly know this beauty by my side
I'll never for get, the way you look tonight
I've never seen you looking so gorgeous as you did tonight
I've never seen you shine so bright,
you were amazing
I've never seen so many people want to be there by your side
And when you turned to me and smiled,
It took my breath away
I have never had such a feeling
Such a feeling of complete and utter love,
As I do tonight
The way you look tonight
I never will forget, the way you look tonight
The lady in red
The lady in red
The lady in red
My lady in red (I love you.)

I'd have to give honorable mention to Elton John's "Something About The Way You Look Tonight" and U2's "All I Want Is You." Six Pence None The Richer's "Kiss Me" is pretty cool, too. I'm sure I could think of dozens of more honorable mentions, but I'd like to hear what you all think.

Some great observations about the best show on television, from C. Orthodoxy, are below.

As an aside, the best thing about Lost for me has never been the numbers, the puzzles, the hatches, the Others, or even the great interplay between fate and "coincidence". The beauty of the show has always been in the full-featured arcs of the main characters. The analysis below hits on some great transitions that the show has handled very skillfully.

*** Spoilers follow ***
Read the rest of this entry . . .

Here is a list of some things I've learned on this five year Adventure in Blogossey that I've been on with my Thinklings bros, plus some general things I've learned just by living.

This is kind of random and stream-of-conscienceishy. And it's not exhaustive, although you may be exhausted after slogging through it. Read the rest of this entry . . .

In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a couple of huge decisions in the past couple of days.

First off, the Supremes rejected the death penalty for child rapists -- a laudable decision. Although, superficially at least, the general population will undoubtedly see it as a poor, and even criminal, decision on the Court's part. Secondly, the Court struck down a District of Columbia ban on handguns, declaring for the first time in this nation's history an individual's right to own a handgun.

On the former decision, my understanding is that states (like Texas) planned to use the death penalty against the most heinous repeat offenders. However, the Court was right in declaring simply that "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," even when used on heinous repeat offenders. (Incidentally, the conservatives on the Court dissented from the majority. That's not surprising since, generally, most conservatives are for the death penalty and most liberals are against it.)

On the latter decision, the conservatives rightly carried the day declaring that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment ..." That's another succinct explanation of why the majority's decision was, in fact, the right decision.

While I'm not a "gun guy" or an "anti-gun guy," and probably never will be, I can understand the liberal idea of wanting a gunless utopia. While I understand it, I know it's not ever going to happen. Part of the culture we as Americans carry is a gun culture. America started out as a frontier where "riding shotgun" meant something completely different than it does today. For better or worse, those are our roots.

While both decisions were primarily decided down ideological lines, the Court made the right decision in both instances. So hooray for the branch of government that is so often shrouded in mystery and anonymity: the U.S. Supreme Court. You guys (and gal) got these two right, now let's take another look at the right to life ...

This brought a smile. I wonder if this meant more to some people than we can imagine.



Kinda goes along with the dance across the world guy, and also, in a way, this post.

[Hat tip, The Anchoress]

Have you ever experienced unexpected kindness from a stranger? If you have, tell us about it in the comments.

This one is a bit tougher than my other "Tell Me Something Good" posts (#1 and #2), but I'm hoping to hear some good stories.

I've got a good example, from this 2005 post recounting our Hurricane Rita evacuation adventure.

Just then we heard the voice of an angel. "Do you need help?" It was a local Brenham girl, who's name I never got. She had walked up to Andrew and Kyle. "Can I help you?"

I walked over. "Yes, please. Is there any gas in this town?"

"Yes. I just got some. There's a line, though."

I could have hugged her. Our angel led us through backstreets in Brenham to a gas station that had two lines of cars leading to it. It was on its last thousand gallons, but we got our gas. And that's when I knew we were going to make it to San Antonio.

Seriously, if you're feeling down, watch this video.



[Hat Tip: a bunch of blogs that I've seen this on]