Heartwarming Story: Haircuts for Hugs

     Here's a story that you probably haven't heard.  It's one of those that will appear for a 24-36 hour news cycle and be gone.  But The Blaze did it justice and featured it on its news site.  And I figured we could all use a good, positive story.

     Anthony “Joe the Barber” Cymerys has been a fixture every Wednesday for years at Bushnell Park, in Hartford, CT, where he cuts hair and his friends hand out food to the needy.  But shortly after Cymerys set up shop this week, he said, health officials and police confronted him and his friends and told them they had to leave because they didn’t have permits.  But here are the details that add to this story:  Anthony is 82-years-old and has been giving his free haircuts for 25 years! In fact, it was just a year ago that the City honored him for his humanitarian work and he was presented a citation by the Mayor's office.
     But unnamed local residents expressed concerns about the “safety and sanitation” of Cymerys’ free haircuts to homeless people and his friends’ food distribution. They also noted that Cymerys is not a licensed barber.  That's all it took for City health officials to run him out of the park.   Of course, I'm sure these "well-meaning" citizens had no intention of paying themselves so that the homeless could get a haircut or a hot meal.
     But for once, there is a happy ending to the heavy-handedness of over-reaching government officials.  Mayor Pedro Segarra granted Cymerys a special dispensation in light of his years of charitable work.   What's more, the city will help Cymerys obtain a state barber’s license if he likes.
     Anthony learned how to cut hair while he was growing up, and although he isn't a certified barber, he says he always takes health precautions including soaking his trimmers in alcohol.  “Twenty-five years I’ve been giving haircuts, and no one died on me.”   He began giving free haircuts to the homeless in the city around 1988, when he was volunteering at a shelter. He said he met a heroin addict named Arnold who needed a haircut, so he offered his services.

     “I said, ‘Geez, Arnold. Not only are you a bum, you look like a bum. How about I bring in my clippers?’” Cymerys recalled.  A retired businessman, Anthony said his father cut his hair as a child, and he took it up.   “It’s all about inspiring people to do things for the least of our brothers,” he said.
     And that is one of the hallmarks of this country's legacy ....  Inspiring each other to help those in need.  It happens far more often than is reported.  Individuals helping individuals out of the goodness of their hearts and from their own storehouses of wealth; no matter how large or small their bank accounts.  Anthony saw a need and filled it.  He didn't wait for a government agency to take it from one person to give to another.  He lives out the one commandment that our Lord urged above all others, Love your neighbor as yourself.   Well done, Anthony!  Your citation from the city of Hartford is nothing compared to your rewards in Heaven!

1 Timothy 1:5   "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."
   
   

Two Speeches; Two Reactions

     This is the season of high school graduations, and most of them are forgettable .... long lines of graduates crossing the stage and boring speeches by school administrators and class officers that will soon be forgotten.  But two of those speeches are likely to have long-lasting ramifications.
      Speech #1:   Roy Costner IV, valedictorian of Liberty High School (how appropriate!) in South Carolina, stunned the audience when he began his speech, as follows:

     
"I want to thank those that we look up to, they have helped carve and mold us into the young adults that we are today. I’m so glad that both of my parents led me to the Lord at a young age,” he said. “And I think most of you will understand when I say –  Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name.  Thy kingdom come ....."  Well, I think you know how the speech continues.

Speech #2:  Remington Reimer, valedictorian of Joshua, Texas (again befitting this story!) also gave a speech that caused quite a reaction.  Here is a portion of his speech:

"We are all fortunate to live in a country where we can express our beliefs, where our mics won’t be turned off, as I have been threatened to be if I veer away from the school-censored speech I have just finished. Just as Jesus spoke out against the authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who tried to silence him, I will not have my freedom of speech taken away from me. And I urge you all to do the same. Do not let anyone take away your religious or Constitutional rights from you."

    Two very brave young men, who experienced very different results when they took a stand for their beliefs.  In the case of Roy, he enjoyed thunderous applause as he began the Lord's Prayer, and if you watch the video of his speech, you can even see smiles and consenting nods from the school officials sitting behind him.  In fact, the school has no plans to punish the former student for his actions.  That won't stop atheist action groups from filing suit, of course, but Mr. Costner wasn't afraid to challenge them.

     Neither was Remington, but, alas, he didn't receive such a positive response.  As soon as he uttered the above words, his microphone was cut off and his speech ended.  In this instance, it wasn't the invocation of his faith that was objected to; in fact, that part of his speech had been pre-approved.  It was when he veered from his prepared remarks and cited the Constitution and his right to free speech.
     While you may think cutting off his mic was over the top, there is more to this story.  His father, Todd, is a doctorate-level physics and math teacher at the same high school his son attends.  And Remington will be a freshman at the Naval Academy come fall.  Apparently, the principal of the high school, the day after the silenced speech, allegedly threatened to write a personal letter to the Naval Academy and strip Remington of all honors related to character.
     Of course, the principal denies the charge, and the Reimer family is not happy that the situation has escalated to this level.  They feel that if a disclaimer that was left out of the graduation program had been included, it might have alleviated the discord: “the content of each student speaker’s message is the private expression of the individual student and does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position or expression of the District.”  But would it have?
     Both of these incidents are a reflection of the rigid policies and regulations that threaten our society.  While Americans are becoming more aware of the threat against our faith and are willing to stand up against authoritarian policies, it is also becoming quite apparent that our Constitutional rights are being dismissed and reduced.  By refusing to remain silent, we invite both censorship and suppression.
     You have to decide for yourself if you think these young men were wrong in varying their speeches according to school policy; or if those very policies go against our personal liberties and deserve to be challenged.  I tend to agree with Remington's father, who said, “One of the lessons we have learned in all of this is: Well-intentioned people who don’t know policy/the Constitution can often implement rules/laws that infringe upon the rights of others. This is a microcosm of what is happening in our nation at large.”

1 Peter 3:15-16    "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

Daniel 4:30

"... Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty power and for the honor of my majesty?"

     I am in the midst of a deep study of the Book of Daniel, and this arrogant statement by King Nebuchadnezzar hit home.  As I was studying Scripture, I couldn't help but make the connection to my personal life and the condition of our nation.  

     If you will remember, the king had suffered a very disturbing dream, in which he saw a mighty tree, one "that grew and became strong ... it could be seen to the ends of all the earth ... its fruit was abundant, and the beasts of the field found shade under it and the birds found shelter in its branches ... all flesh was fed from it."  I can certainly see a picture of the United States of America in this description of power and authority.  

     We grew from a small nation to one whose influence reaches to the ends of the earth.  We have prospered and our yield has included not only economic success, but freedom and liberty.  Other nations have benefitted from our protection and we have been a sanctuary and refuge for millions who have come to our shores.  We have a right to be proud of our accomplishments!

     But we must not forget that, as in the rest of King Nebuchadnezzar's dream, we risk losing our blessings and advantages if we forget that all we have gained is due to God's benevolence and authority.  When we, as an individual or as a nation, give ourselves all the glory, we lose that dependence upon the God of the Universe.  We no longer seek His counsel or listen for His voice.  We open ourselves to the temptations and desires of the flesh, which are so easily directed by the Enemy.

     In Nebuchadnezzar's case, he spent the next seven years insane; living as a beast of the fields.  The important thing to remember is that at the end of that period of discipline, the king "praised and extolled and honored the King of Heaven, all of whose works are Truth, and His ways justice.  And those who walk in pride He is able to put down."  [Emphasis is mine].  The result was that God restored his kingdom to him.  But it took a long period of punishment to correct his disobedience.

     I am in no way making the definitive claim that the United States is Babylon (although I wouldn't disagree with that characterization; but that's a discussion for another day).  The point I want to make is that I must be careful to give God the glory in my life and not fall prey to our culture's egotistical and self-absorbed mentality.  When we turn our focus away from our Creator and begin to believe the lie that we are masters of our fortune and fate, then the consequences are as old as the Garden of Eden.

     My prayer is that I will be humble and obedient in my faith, and that this nation will turn from its idolatrous and self-serving ways and recognize the majesty of El Elyon.

      

     

Lungs For A Little Girl: A Picture Of Our Future?

     This last week, we all watched with anticipation, the battle between the government's Department of Health and Human Services, and the family of a 10-year-old little girl who were racing against time to save her life.  You know the story --- Sarah Murnaghan, who suffers from cystic fibrosis, was only weeks away from death and was being denied a lung transplant that could potentially save her life, because she didn't meet the age requirement of 12 to receive adult donor lungs.

     The controversy developed when Sarah's family challenged the transplant policy that made children under 12 wait for pediatric lungs to become available or be offered lungs donated by adults only after adolescents and adults on the waiting list had been considered. The problem was that pediatric lungs are rarely donated, and Sarah's condition was deteriorating rapidly.
     The contractor that supplies the lung donations, United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), balked at overruling the "Under 12 rule", which gives transplant priority to patients aged 12 and older over younger patients, regardless of condition.  Sarah's doctors felt she was a candidate for adult lungs, which are available in larger numbers.  When UNOS refused to consider Sarah's dire situation, or the opinions of her doctors at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, her family took her case to the Department of Health and Human Services.
     The Secretary of DHHS, Kathleen Sebelius, refused to intervene in the lawsuit brought by Sarah's parents, saying that medical experts should make transplant decisions. But guess which medical experts she wants to make these life-and-death decisions?  Not the patient's doctors, but the "medical panels" of the government institutions.  It's not as if Sarah's parents wanted to push her to the top of the list over other suffering adults; they just wanted their daughter to have a chance to receive lungs based on her condition and the availability.

     Thankfully, more compassionate hearts came into play.  Federal Judge Michael Baylson ordered Sibelius to lift the Under 12 rule for Sarah, and allow her to be given priority over older patients based on the severity of their condition, though only for ten days.  The family didn't have long to wait, and by mid-week Sarah had received her lung transplant and underwent successful surgery.  She has a long recovery ahead of her, but that word, "recovery", wasn't even a possibility before the judge's ruling.
     I understand that there are many sides to this controversy.  There must be regulations in place to keep corruption and money from interfering with the process.  But here's my concerns and fears:  the human factor is often ignored in these cases.  Rules must be followed, but when we have a chance to save a life -- without endangering another -- why wouldn't we be inclined to do that?
     Perhaps because we have created such huge bureaucratic, rule-making systems that no longer come in contact with the humans they are supposedly servicing.  In Sarah's case, the executive committee of the Transplant Network held an emergency meeting regarding her circumstances, but resisted making emergency rule changes for children under 12 who are waiting on lungs, instead creating a special appeal and review system to hear such cases.  They had the capability of giving Sarah the immediate help she needed, but chose to create another burdensome system!
     Of course, we now have bioethicists who have become part of the decision-making process, as well.  They are supposed to provide moral discernment as it relates to medical policy, practice, and research.  But where were they when Sarah needed them?  Most likely caught up in the red tape of some committee!
     Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, of the NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, had this to say, "In general, the optimum road to a transplant is still to let the system decide who will do best with scarce, lifesaving organs. And it’s important that people understand that money, visibility, being photogenic … are factors that have to be kept to a minimum if we’re going to get the best use out of the scarce supply of donated cadaver organs."  In other words, folks, organ donations are going to be scarce in the future, and we can't let your personal story influence "the system".  You need to remain a number in the network, where some faceless panel or committee can decide whether you live or die.
     I understand that we can't save everyone; that every life is precious and worthy of consideration.  But when we have the chance to bend a rule that doesn't exclude someone else from the medical help they need, why would we subject a fellow human being to a needless death?  Have we become a society where convenience and procedural correctness trumps our humanness and empathy for our fellow man?  How many more Sarah's are in our future?  How long before each of us is faced with this bureaucratic indifference?

Matthew 7:12    "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them ..."




   

Are You Ready For Epidermal Technology?

     Ready to take a trip into the latest technology craze?  Apparently Motorola is working on an electronic, or digital, tattoo that would house all your computer passwords .... you no longer need to memorize all those different protection codes.  Your body is now all you need to authenticate and gain access to any of your various software or applications.

     You may have seen additional press on these digital tattoos and digestible pills (nano technology) in relation to health care issues.  You know, all your medical records in one tiny tattoo or pill that can be read by any doctor or medical conglomeration in order to determine treatment and services.
     And as Motorola describes this new "epidermal technology", it is really all for your benefit.  Slashgear.com, a website that features all the latest gadget and tech obsessions, reports "The tattoo is made up of various sensors and gauges, such as for tracking strain in multiple directions (how the user is flexing), EEG and EMG (electrical impulses in the skeletal structure or nerves), ECG (heart activity), and temperature, as well as light and other factors. In total, it’s a mini-lab for your arm, the side of your head, or anywhere else on the body."  Just what I want!  How about you?
     Plus, now you can store all the access information to your computer files on this same tattoo, and your life is pretty much scannable.  According to Motorola, you get powered up from an external electricity source, using the embedded wireless power coil. It’s a similar system to the wireless phone charging Nokia and others have implemented in recent handsets, and it powers the tattoo’s transmitter. That’s all layered onto a sheet of water-soluble plastic that gets laminated to the skin; in fact, it can even be disguised with a regular temporary tattoo pattern, opening the door to potential branding and such.  (And other nefarious purposes).
     Further studies using the technology have found that they can also track muscle movements around speech.  When applied to the throat, the tattoo can potentially be turned into half of a wireless hands-free kit.  So let me think about this .... does anyone else see the potential for eavesdropping on every conversation we have?  Wouldn't the NSA love for this to become mainstream?

     As if that's not enough, these tattoos can even track brain signals with enough accuracy to control a computer, which might mean simply thinking about making a call and having your nearby smartphone place it.  Similar sensors have been used to fly remote-control planes and drones, something that Motorola's partner, a company called mc10, is working on replicating with its more compact tattoos.
     Just who is mc10?  Well, their company motto is We decided it was time humans stop conforming to electronics. So we’re making electronics conform to us.  They also proclaim that it is their "mission to extend human capabilities by making high-performance electronics virtually invisible, conformal, and wearable."  How about integrated?  The company is also working with the US army on embedded electronics in battlefield clothing, which could collect energy and convert it into electricity to power the gadgets soldiers carry.  How long until this technology is embedded into the soldier's skin?  How long until you would have electronically controlled robot soldiers?  This sounds suspiciously like Ray Kurzweil's theory of Singularity.  If you haven't read my post on this scary subject, I suggest you do.  I think you will see the similarity with these new innovations.
     Ultimately, I believe we can see the direction that technology is headed.  It seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of such electronic gear as the digital tattoo is to further break down the boundary between users and their devices .... until we become one.  It is essentially changing the essence of what it means to be a human being; a creation of Jehovah God.  We are dangerously close to altering or adding to our genetic makeup, and I don't have to tell you that this will be used for evil purposes.  Please warn your children who have become addicted to the latest and the greatest in electronic gadgets.  New technology is not always a change for the better.

Revelation 13:8     "And all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb who was slain."
     

Soldiers = Leaders

     I take it as a positive sign that members of our military are returning home from a decade-plus of war and continuing to serve our country in the halls of Congress.  I'm not talking about the 4-star Generals who serve as policy wonks; who have been bought off and have compromised their loyalty to the country in return for posh positions and pushing a progressive agenda.
     I'm talking about battle-hardened soldiers, who have been knee-deep in the ugliness of war and have proven themselves trustworthy and able to make the difficult decisions that saved lives.  These men have dealt with the black and white issues of death vs. survival, right vs. wrong, and moral vs. corrupt.  They entered the military knowing they owed their allegiance to the Constitution and the American people --- something that cannot be said of many politicians.  I am hopeful that these young men who went to war in response to an attack on the country they love, will now fight to preserve and protect her heritage of personal freedom.

     Our nation has a long history of soldiers that transform to statesmen.  Not all of them have made commendable leaders, and I will let you decide which ones put their country first.  Among those who served this nation in the military are George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush.  While I cannot say that I agree with all the decisions and policies of these Presidents, I do believe their experiences gave them valuable leadership skills.  Whether they all used those abilities to conserve American liberty is debatable.
     According to an article on Breitbart.com, "after the 2012 election, Congress is now comprised of the fewest number of veterans since World War II.  Just 19% of our elected leaders in Congress have served in the military. This is down from nearly 80% in 1977."  So what effect has that statistic had on the government of this country?
     I believe that a leadership position in the military is vastly different than that performed in Washington D.C.  Again, I'm not talking about arm-chair Generals who run the war from a conference room at the Pentagon.  I'm talking about the officers in the field who earned the trust of their troops and who performed their duties with one goal in mind:  to win and to do it honorably.  Honesty and honor ... that is what is missing in the leadership in D.C.
     Our soldiers stand up and take responsibility for their actions and work together for the good of their unit.  Instead, we see Congress passing the blame, looking out for #1, and selling out their constituents for more power and kickbacks.  The result is an increasing number of Americans who feel apathetic about even exercising their right to vote.  What difference will it make?  I have to admit that I and my friends have felt this same despondency.  We have wondered, Is our voice being heard?
     But there seems to be a breath of fresh air rising from the ranks of our returning veterans.  Nine Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were elected to Congress in 2012, with more stepping up to run for upcoming Senate races.  They come from the ranks of the Air Force, Army, Marines and Navy SEALS.  Instead of focusing on a party platform, they seem to be serving for the same reason they joined the military in the first place:  to strengthen and fortify America's standards and values, and to uphold the Constitution.  This will benefit all of us, regardless of what party you identify with.
     We need to pray for these men and women.  Like all who serve in Washington, they will face temptations, and be forced to make moral and ethical decisions.   But we can ask God to place those in positions of authority that will first, glorify Him; and second, exhibit trustworthiness in continuing the blessings upon this great nation of ours.

Isaiah 30:21    "And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, “This is the way, walk in it,” when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left."
   

In The Blink of An Eye ...

     You know that my tin foil hat is always only an arm-length away, right?  And if you've read enough of my posts, then you know that I find it uncommonly coincidental that the movie industry seems to forecast what the government has in its planning stages long before the framework becomes reality.
     Such is the case of the mildly successful movie, Minority Report, starring Tom Cruise.  Supposedly, one of the themes of the sci-fi movie was the role of preventive government in protecting its citizenry, as exemplified by the ever-present eye-flashers that identify everyone who walks through a public plaza; targeting ads at them and feeding the police information about their every move.  Now who would ever have a problem with that?
     Well, apparently parents of elementary students in Polk County, Florida, did when they found out that their children’s irises had been scanned without permission as part of a new security program.  Several schools, ranging from high school to grade school took part in a program called Eye-Swipe Nano, in which officials from Stanley Convergent Security Solutions took iris scans of students between May 20 and 22.  But here's the problem .... the letter allowing parents to opt out wasn't sent until May 24th.  Some lame excuse about a secretary's medical emergency causing the delay isn't cutting it with parents.  One parent took to Facebook, posting: ‘This is stolen information, and we cannot retrieve it.’
     School Board members praised the program, calling it just another layer of security for the students.  And supposedly, the pilot program has been suspended and all records and scans from the program have been destroyed.  Yeah, riiiight!
     But lest you think that this is some new untested technology that is still on the horizon, you might be interested to know that it's nearly standard practice in other parts of the world.  According to an article on TheVerge.com, hundreds of millions of people in India have been iris-printed, along with thousands of Iraqi civilians and anyone who goes through customs regularly in Dubai. It's the gold standard of a modern ID program, easier than fingerprinting and more stable than facial recognition. All you have to do is look at the camera and open your eyes. And unlike in retinal scans, the scanner doesn't need to be up close. It's just a photograph, taken in infrared, which in theory could work if taken from across the room.  ((That makes me feel secure about my privacy!)
     And it only makes sense that with all the talk in the halls of Congress of "a national ID program", that this type of technology is a shoe-in for keeping track of our every move, a la Minority Report.  It goes without saying that civil libertarians are not happy.     

     "The concern is that biometrics will be used for the mass tracking of individuals," according to Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union. "If that kind of ID system becomes routine and widespread, it turns us into a kind of checkpoint society." Even in India, the system is still only used at police stations and government offices, but once the print is connected to a universal ID, it's easy to imagine iris scans becoming as commonplace as pulling out a driver's license.
     Who among us can't imagine the misuse of such a universal ID program in the hands of an oppressive regime?  This technology has progressed from military use (to track "friendlies" in Iraq) to local law enforcement in India and Mexico, and has now appeared in our school systems.  How long before it is mandated for every citizen?  Perhaps this information is part of what will be housed at that big data bank in Utah; you know .... the one that the government insists is benign (wink, wink).  Sorry for the sick humor; I simply couldn't resist.  Keep your eyes wide open on this one, folks!

Mark 8:25      "Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly."

   

A Different Kind of Prepping

     Maybe you've noticed it, too.  In 2008, the term "Prepper" was fairly new in our lexicon; and to be honest, it didn't exactly have a favorable connotation.  More than likely, if you considered yourself one, it meant that you were part of a fringe group of fruitcakes who hoarded buckets of beans and rice, balls of string, and stacks of toilet paper.  The rest of the world thought you were paranoid and delusional.  It was OK for Bear Grylls to eat insects and imagine being stranded in a desolate location, but most Americans were living comfortable, affluent lives and saw no need to take such drastic steps.

     By the year 2010, "Prepper" had become more mainstream, with literally millions of Americans coming on board our "crazy train".  Businesses that catered to "emergency" stockpiles of food flourished, and "sustainable living" became a worthwhile goal.  We returned to traditions and skills of the past, with women (like me) learning to can food, make soap, and garden.  The failing economy had a lot to do with convincing our neighbors that it might not be a bad idea to plan for a "rainy day".  And the increasing instability in our nation and the world told us that our laissez-faire attitude about our future needed to change.  It was becoming important for us to prepare to protect our families; not only for financial hard times, but for personal safety, as well.  The label "Prepper" was becoming both credible and necessary.
     But now, as we near the mid-point of 2013, you've either made the transition to a "prepper" mindset, or you haven't.  If the state of the world and the nightly news hasn't convinced you of the need to prepare your family for a decisively different destiny, then I'm afraid there is no reaching you, and no amount of persuasion is going to convince you of your vulnerability.  I'm pretty sure that all those who have the aptitude to see our situation clearly are members of our "Prepper Nation".
     However, as of late, I am seeing a new dimension of prepping on the rise.  Instead of material and instructional preparation, there is a growing movement of "spiritual" prepping.  Maybe it is a natural consequence of having all your ducks in a row when it comes to your food, supplies and personal protection.  Perhaps that frees your mind to begin considering your soul.  Most likely, the process is different for different people, but I am witnessing an increase in people who realize that they now want to be prepared to meet whatever we might face spiritually.
     People I would have only known in a social manner or setting are now engaging PLW and myself in deep discussions on spiritual preparation.   They are reading their Bibles and know what time it is.  They are worried about their children and grandchildren, and their ability to withstand the enemy that is coming against them.  We are hearing testimonies of "messages from God" and an overwhelming awareness on the part of these individuals that they need to be ready, willing and equipped for spiritual battle.  That is the definition of Preparation.  And this is the area in which I urge all who consider themselves "Preppers" to concentrate their energies.  You've secured your food supply, your skills and your safety.  Please make sure you strengthen and fortify your faith!
     You have accumulated all these things and abilities to ensure that your family will be sheltered from the coming storm.  But what is the point of gathering all this food and tools, if you are going to leave your spiritual pantry empty?  If you have not considered their spiritual well-being, you have left them vulnerable and defenseless.  Provide them with the ultimate security.  Become a "Spiritual Prepper."

Psalm 23:5    "You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows."

The Face of Courage

     This weekend, PLW and I kind of escaped from reality and spent the last 48 hours visiting friends on their remote ranch .... no TV, cell phones or internet .... just fellowship in God's creation; enjoying long walks, sitting by their pool, and lots of in-depth discussion about our faith and the Truth being revealed to us.  It was refreshing, inspirational, and a great way to decompress.
     So when we arrived home late yesterday afternoon, I find that our country (and the world) are on fire from the revelations of one man; the incredibly brave "whistleblower" at the National Security Agency.  I am incredibly blown away by the courage and the farsightedness of this 29-year-old government contract worker.   With considerable vision and preparedness, Edward Snowden knew that he had to sacrifice his own personal safety on the chance that the American people would respond to the frightening implications that he was about to reveal.   

     Through his extensive access to NSA tactics and techniques he was able to see an increasing pattern of State surveillance of private citizens, and the scope of the intrusion into our privacy horrified him.
     He didn't sell State secrets to the highest bidder, nor did he set out to endanger anyone personally.  His motives were about the principles of freedom:  "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."
     When asked by the UK Guardian why he decided to take this bold step, he responded, "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things … I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."  And so he has essentially given up his own freedom to try and compel us to save ours.  What will we, the American people, do with the information he has provided?  Will he have jeopardized his own safety and that of his family and friends for nothing?  Will this story fade from the news cycles in three or four days; or will there be a sustained outcry against our loss of privacy?  "I really want the focus to be on these documents [not me] and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in." He added: "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."
      For now, he sits alone in a hotel room in Hong Kong, waiting for that knock on the door.  How will the long arm of the United States choose to punish him for delivering the truth?  They can threaten to prosecute him via the Espionage Act, or the Chinese government could simply work "a deal" with our State Department.  Whatever method they choose, Snowden does not expect due process, only decisive action.  "They say it is better to kick someone out of a plane than let these people have a day in court. It is an authoritarian mindset in general."
     I know that the talking heads and the government will demonize this man.  He will be called a traitor, unAmerican, and worse.  But I can't imagine the courage it took for him to come to this decision; knowing that he may never see his family or home again.   Furthermore, I cannot imagine taking this step without seeking the counsel of the Holy Spirit and asking for spiritual protection.  Throughout his interview with The Guardian, there is no mention of God or faith, and I would think he would profess a relationship with Jesus, if it existed.  But I feel, without a doubt, that God is using this man to reveal the dangerous place in which this country finds itself.  Man's personal freedom is at stake; our God-given freedoms of thought, ideas and speech.  These are not granted by my government, nor do they need to be observed or overseen.  The only one I want to have access to my private thoughts and ideas is my Creator.
     I will be anxious to see how this plays out, as more articles and interviews from Snowden become available.  From my vantage point, he played it smart by being open, honest and choosing to reveal his identity instead of hiding behind a cloak of secrecy.  What the world chooses to do with the information he has provided is anyone's guess at this moment in time.  But I believe that our very existence as a free people is at stake.  Did Edward Snowden ultimately do the right thing?  Were his actions in time and will they save our precious freedoms?
     PLW put it in visual perspective for me:  It's as if we find ourselves in a sudden and threatening lightening storm.  We are in the middle of working on an important project on our computer and we realize that this storm is getting worse, and we are worried about losing this aspect of the project.  We decide to shut down the computer and initiate the steps to do so.  But while the operating system is going through it's time-consuming process of logging out, asking us if we want to save our document, taking us to the screen where we click on "shut down", there is a lightning strike just too darn close for comfort.  We decide we can't wait any longer for the computer system to work out its process, or take the chance that our computer is going to get fried by the next bolt of lightning.  So we pull the plug, losing the immediate file, in the hopes of saving the entire hard drive.
     That's what Edward Snowden has done for us.  He realized that this storm is coming faster than anyone expected, and there isn't time for the "political process" to play itself out.  So he made the gutsy call to "pull the plug", so to speak; to sacrifice his own personal welfare in the hopes that we will save and protect our foundation of personal privacy and freedoms.  The questions remain .... do we recognize what is at stake, and will we pick up his mantle?  I pray that his sacrifice is not in vain.

Colossians 2:8     "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."
   

Matthew 25:46

And these will go away into eternal punishment, 

but the righteous into eternal life.

     I am sure to ruffle a few feathers today with my choice of Scripture, but I strongly feel that this has been a discussion avoided for far too long.  There is a virulent deception that has crept into our culture and the modern Church, and it must be confronted.  

     The notion of "Universalism", I believe, is the result of our obsession with political correctness.  In case you're unfamiliar with the term, Universalism, in short, is the belief that everyone will be saved.  There are many people today who hold to universal salvation and believe that all people eventually end up in heaven.  It's not just the unchurched or the unbelievers who need to see the hope in this eventuality, but many people in the church .... who should know their Scripture .... just can't quite conceive of their loving, grace-filled, merciful God passing such a horrific judgment on humanity.

     For these people (which includes many Pastors!) it is simply this over-emphasis on the love and compassion of God—and the neglect of the righteousness and justice of God—that leads them to believe God will have mercy on every living soul. But the Scriptures do teach that some people will spend eternity in hell.

     It is a popular myth among many people that all roads—all religions and beliefs—lead to heaven, or that God is so full of love and mercy that He will allow all people into heaven. God is certainly full of love and mercy; it was these qualities that led Him to send His Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to die on the cross for us. Jesus Christ is the exclusive door that leads to an eternity in heaven.  And that sentiment alone, will cause many debates and much ridicule in today's Emerging Church movement.

     But Acts 4:12 says, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). In John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” If we choose to reject God’s Son, we do not meet the requirements for salvation (John 3:16, 18, 36).  It is very clear from these passages what it means to be a Christian --- there are no exceptions and no "escape clauses".

     For me, these verses make it quite it clear that Universalism and Universal Salvation are unbiblical beliefs. Universalism directly contradicts what Scripture teaches.  There will be those who accuse me of being intolerant and “exclusive."  It is to be expected in these times.  But I would like to point out that the Scripture I chose for today are the words of Christ Himself.  I did not develop these ideas on my own; and I know this stance is quite unpopular among many of my fellow Christians.  In fact, this thought process has expanded to include the position that hell, itself, doesn't exist!  I once attended a church where the Senior Pastor admitted that he doubted the existence of hell.  

     But whether it is the secular world, or the misguided Church, I believe that people choose to reject Jesus's message of different destinations for the saved and unsaved because they do not want to face up to their sin and admit that they need the Lord to save them. To say that those who reject God’s provision of salvation through His Son will be saved is to belittle the holiness and justice of God and negate the need of Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf.  Unfortunately, there are far too many people who have not given sufficient thought to what happens the moment after they die.  For starters, I would recommend they read the entire Chapter of Matthew 25.  Listen to what Jesus says!