Ecclesiastes

I think the Book of Ecclesiastes is (1) a jewel among the books of the canon; (2) a shocking and politically incorrect book; and (3) largely misunderstood by the evangelical world.

1500 years before any evangelical scholars were born, before Dallas Theological Seminary was founded, the book of Ecclesiastes was included in the canon of Scripture. Modern theologians thus must deal with this difficult book--a book that, if we were honest, some of us might wish were not in the Bible! It is a book written by a man whose sole virtue is astounding honesty. But a man who has little or no relationship with God, at least at the time of his writing.

Traditionally, we believe this book to be written by Solomon. I think this likely, but it really doesn't matter. It is certainly written by someone in the line of David who ruled and had great wealth. But the important point is that this is a book written by someone who is desperate, depressed, frustrated, resigned, and slightly suicidal.

I think that evangelical Christianity, in its discomfort with this book and its haste to make it respectable, rushes to read into it some deep spiritual message from the author. The problem is that the author has no deep, spiritual message. All he has to offer is the perspective of a man divorced from his spiritual relationship with God--a message of despair, resignation, and death. We look at his occasional references to God with the hope that somewhere around chapter 3 or so, he "got saved" or something. I think this is not the case. Rather, I believe this guy was far from God all the way through the book. Even at the end, in the last chapter, when he concludes that we should fear God and obey his commandments, it's not the advice of a spiritual man who has found happiness, but rather of an unspiritual man who is resigned to the inscrutability of God. He has the honesty to record for us that his futile attempts at happiness--through wealth, women, wine, ambition, wisdom, etc.--have come to naught. But that doesn't make him spiritual. Rather, his descriptions of God are cold and contemptuous.

The Teacher (as he calls himself) is openly contemptuous of fools. Still, he notes that some fools have achieved a sort of happiness in life, largely because they are ignorant. In 3:13 he notes that some people can find satisfaction, but he concludes "this is a gift from God"--a gift that obviously the Teacher himself does not enjoy, primarily because he is smart enough to see the vanity in it. (See chapter 1.)

Chapter 3 ends with the Teacher saying things that scandalizes us Christians! How dare he say that men are like animals, that no one can be sure of what happens after the grave! WHY IS THIS BOOK IN THE CANON?!!

Ha! Why indeed? Chapter 4 almost endorses suicide. The Teacher continues in his depressed rant. In chapter 5, he bemoans injustice but offers no solution. In 5:8 we expect him to say, "If you see injustice, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!" But no, he simply explains it away as part of the corrupted nature of mankind. He condemns wealth and its futility, and he again exalts the commoner who can somehow find satisfaction--the satisfaction of the ignorant. A satisfaction that the Teacher obviously does not share.

Chapter 6 offers no solace but only more lamentation that the Teacher does not enjoy the wealth and prosperity he has. Chapter 7--one of my favorites--offers a naked honesty by our frustrated Teacher. Notice once again his description of God--as if God is aloof, inscrutable, capricious. This is not the loving, personal God that David writes of, or that the New Testament describes as "Abba! Father!". Rather, the Teacher's God is cold, unpredictable, detached. In our haste to find some evangelical meaning to this book, we try to make a short-cut and convince ourselves that the writer--somewhere along the line--got religion, and we desperately point to his references to God as the proof. I think this is erroneous. The writer's God is conceptual, not personal, and the Teacher views God as inevitable, tyrannical, irresistible, but not loving, not a God who saves. This is the view of a depressed agnostic.

Chapter 8 borders on incoherence. I picture myself standing before King Solomon in his latter days and listening to him rant the words of this chapter while his ministers lower their eyes and hope that he will shut up. In verse 15 once again, he praises those who are stupid enough to enjoy their lives. You can see his envy of the ignorant. Instead, his "wisdom"--his intellectual ability to see the futility of life on earth--has left him depressed and resigned.

Chapter 9 makes clear the writer's understanding of God: aloof, detached, and capricious. Rather than being a God of Justice and Righteousness, he is instead a God that dispatches blessing and cursing, life and death merely on his divine whim. So I ask again--is this writer of Scripture a spiritual man? Is his representation of God accurate? Of course not! This book is written by a man far from God. But stay tuned...there is a point to all this!

Chapter 10--another chapter of ranting by a king at his wit's end. Chapter 11 gives us deep, meaningful advice indeed: work hard, because you can't possibly predict whether it will pay off. Enjoy your youth and good days, because it's gonna be hell soon enough. Are these the words of a spiritual man? It reads like a suicide note.

Finally we get to chapter 12. The Teacher laments that he's losing his teeth, his vigor, his sexual drive, his sight, and eventually his life. Thankfully for us evangelicals, the writer throws out a desperate conclusion: fear God and obey his commandments. We like to believe that Solomon got religion at last! We cling to verse 13, hoping somehow that it provides a fit ending to this embarrassing rant.

But what we have failed (in general) to see is this: this book is written from start to finish by an unspiritual man. He may be saved, or he may not. That is irrelevant. But he is writing from the perspective of a man living in the devil's world. He's intelligent, and he's honest. In excess, we might say. He's intelligent enough to realize that most people live in total ignorance of the truth of their own mortality. He's honest enough to tell us loud and clear: "I've tried it all and it's all crap." Even his understanding of God is tainted by his depression. The "God" of Ecclesiastes is not the God of the rest of the Bible. From Genesis through Revelation, we see an integrated, beautiful, terrifying, gracious, loving, righteous, incomparable, merciful triune God. We see a God whose perfect character could be propitiated only by the substitutionary, efficacious death of the God-Man on the Cross. We see a God who knew the end from the beginning and who sought out those who could be saved. We see a God who is intimately involved in every detail of life--a God who is powerful, surprising, but consistent in his judgments. This is not the Teacher's God. When the writer of Ecclesiastes writes about "God", it's almost as if he's writing instead about "Fate": cold, unpredictable, detached, purposeless.

Evangelical tradition has hastened to interpret this book in the best light possible...and thereby has lost its real worth. Ecclesiastes is a valuable part of the Canon of Scripture precisely because it gives us the perspective of the lost! It is a book that is intended to be read so that we can see the futility of life unattached to God. There is NO spiritual wisdom in this book....except insofar as we can move on from it and discover that the world view of the writer is horrifying and misguided! The purpose of Ecclesiastes is to motivate us to read the rest of Scripture so that we can lay aside the depression and despair of the unbeliever and turn to the real God of the Bible and his plan of salvation in Christ! Don't try to make the writer into a spiritual giant who "gets religion". Instead, see him for what he is: the voice of the unredeemed, the spiritually dead. Then, move on to the Gospel of John and see the utter, fundamental difference!

God is NOT aloof, capricious, detached, and uninterested. He loves you, as he loved the writer of Ecclesiastes who had lost himself in sin and self-absorption. Our God created you for a purpose and has in mind an exciting, eternal relationship with you. He is SO involved that he formulated a shocking solution for your sinfulness: that he himself would become a human being and die in your place to make you righteous!! He is so vitally interested in you that he brought upon himself unfathomable pain and suffering to save you. This is the beautiful conclusion that you come to when you set down the depression of Ecclesiastes, reject the human viewpoint it voices, and embrace the gospel of peace of the rest of the Bible. Enjoy!

Labyrinth

Played a really fun game of Labyrinth tonight—a new wargame that simulates the Global War on Terror at the strategic level. Peter played the Jihadists, and I had the US. For the first two years after 9/11, things were bleak. Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines were hatching plots and hurting American prestige. Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban, and they were recruiting cells of jihadists in Central Asia, Russia, and Pakistan. They even took a shot at getting hold of Soviet nuclear weapons (but the plot failed, thankfully).

I countered by using persistent diplomacy to get Pakistan to ally with me, whereupon I sent some troops to help them disrupt the growing number of jihadists there. Then, in 2002, I launched the invasion of Afghanistan and forced a regime change there. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda was recruiting cells in Italy, Great Britain, Iraq, and elsewhere, and the world community was increasingly at odds with the US over how to deal with the terror threat. More and more countries were advocating a soft posture, while the US and Israel (and Russia) were hard on terror.

Finally, I decided to make a major change in strategy. I conducted a reassessment and changed the US posture to soft, bringing my administration’s anti-terror policy in line with the rest of the world. The response was overwhelmingly positive, boosting my influence in the Muslim world.

In 2003, I pushed hard to press my advantage and managed to complete the operation in Afghanistan, establishing good governance there. Next, I coaxed Pakistan into democracy, and then the Gulf States after that! Democracy was busting out all over, and the jihadists were reeling. For my final one-two punch, I hammered away at jihadist funding. Al-Azhar, the Islamist University in Cairo, came out with a fatwa denigrating Al-Qaeda, which quickly dried up funding for the jihadists. By the end of the war, they had no means to recruit. They had staged a comeback in Central Asia and were moving toward declaring a major jihad there to re-establish Islamic rule after being chased out of Afghanistan. But I countered with some back-door diplomacy and coaxed Central Asia into a position of neutrality, dooming the Islamists’ ambitions there.

Very fun game. I think my best move was reassessing strategy and shifting to a soft posture, which in turn led to diplomatic gains in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Must play this one again and again. Excellent game design!

Hitdorf

Peter came over--haven't seen him in ages--and we played Combat Commander: Europe. He chose the Hitdorf scenario, and he got the Americans. Previously, we played that one twice. The first time, he had the Americans and foolishly advanced on the Monastery too early. He took it, and then I counterattacked with my German reinforcements and slammed him. In our second game, I played the Americans and avoided that mistake, concentrating on the center. In tonight's game, Peter did the same, executing a skillful advance in the center against my beleaguered defenders early in the fight.

My typical tactic is to concentrate my fires on squads that have poor leadership, and I managed to knock off a couple. When things got hot and heavy in the center, my main squad advanced out of their protective buildings and ambushed a key American unit, killing it. That felt good, but shortly thereafter, the Americans started to overwhelm me. I couldn't get my guys back to cover soon enough, and they were shot to pieces. The last squad made it into a pillbox but got close assaulted and killed. By the end of the fight, the Americans had captured the center completely. I still had a strong platoon on the hill near the monastery, but Peter's masterful use of artillery and smoke had depleted my ranks and limited my firepower. I advanced along the ridge to my right, but his artillery and fires killed my squad leader, dooming that advance.

In the end, the battle was a draw. A lot of little things contributed to that outcome. At one point, I routed his guys that were hung up in a wire obstacle near his side of the board, eliminating them. He did the same to two of my units near the monastery. Then, one of the units that Peter had eliminated reappeared as walking wounded...right on his side of the battlefield when it was my turn. I played a move card and claimed DOUBLE victory points, because one of the open objectives allowed me to do that. Then, when the battle ended and I thought I had won, Peter revealed his secret objective, which gave an extra VP for objective 2..making the game a draw. It was one hell of a fight. I actually feel that Peter out-fought me. His use of artillery and his relentless attack were punishing. The two things I did right: I fought an aggressive defense in the center, and my guys near the monastery killed a bunch of Americans and forced the enemy to attend to them with artillery.

Looking forward to the next one.

Waterloo

The Battle of Waterloo

I solitaired the battle of Waterloo using VP Games’ Napoleon 20 system. On the afternoon of June 16, the French began the battle already in contact with the Prussian I and II Corps at Ligny. I decided to shift the II French Corps east to assist in the attack. To screen the Anglo-Dutch in front of Quatre-Bras, I marched I Corps north along the road from Gosselies and sent III Cavalry on a flanking march that put them on the rough terrain just west of the town.

Meanwhile, I decided to commit the Imperial Guard against the Prussians at Ligny. In fact, I pressed the attack hard, committing all available forces in the hope of ejecting the enemy from Ligny and surrounding the Prussian I Corps. The Prussians committed their reserves in both battles and managed to withdraw in good order, though remaining in contact as I advanced aggressively.

The Allied morale, already lowered by their commitment of reserves, sank lower. The Prussians engaged the advancing French line, pushing the II and III Corps back but choosing not to advance and maintain contact. Meanwhile, the French cavalry in Ligny held the town, forcing the Prussian III Corps to withdraw.

In the west, the Anglo-Dutch, satisfied that the French main effort was to the east, occupied Quatre-Bras, while the Reserve Corps countermarched to maneuver the French cavalry away from the town. The French disengaged.

Thus, as the day waned, French morale remains intact, and the Allied lines are still in good order.

Wow! As evening approached, I decided to press the attack against the Prussians while slowing reinforcing against the Anglo-Dutch. I committed the Imperial Guard again, and the resulting battles were bloodbaths. The Imperial Guard and French II Corps were broken, as were the Prussian I and II Corps. The shocked French survivors advanced, and there is now a huge hole in the Allied line…but at what a cost!

The Anglo-Dutch held Quatre-Bras with the I Corps in the town, and the Reserve Corps holding the high ground to the west. The Prussians attacked the French Cavalry that were engaging them, and the French disengaged. Night falls.

The French VI Corps received conflicting orders, with the result that it did not move. III Cavalry Corps moved into Nivelles. The French III and IV Corps advanced in an attempt to surround the remaining Prussian corps. Meanwhile, the French I Corps remained to the south of Quatre-Bras.

The Imperial Guard rallied at Fleurus.

The Prussians withdrew to the north, but the French IV Corps maintained contact with them. The Prussian II Corps rallied at Mont St. Guibert. The Uxbridge Cavalry Corps entered from the west and engaged the French cavalry in Nivelles. The Prussian IV Corps entered near Hamme.

The French force-marched. I and III Corps attacked the Anglo-Dutch at Quatre-Bras as the I Cavalry swung north to cut off any retreat. Meanwhile, VI Corps conducted a diversionary attack against the Reserve Corps. To the east the French IV Corps, along with the I and II Cavalry surrounded the Prussian III Corps and attacked it. The Imperial Guard force-marched four miles and is following the attack against the Prussians.

The Uxbridge Cavalry tried to countercharge the French III Cavalry at Nivelles but was repulsed and routed all the way back to Hougemont. The Prussian III Corps committed its reserves in a desperate defense against the French and managed to survive yet again, withdrawing in good order. The French attack against Quatre-Bras was handily repulsed, and the French VI Corps was routed and broken by the Anglo-Dutch Reserve Corps.

The Allied cause is looking good. The Prussians pushed back against the French cavalry in the east as the II Corps reached the front lines and joined the III Corps. Still, the French cavalry were able to avoid any losses and maneuvered in such a way as to imperil the Prussian II Corps again. Meanwhile, the Prussian IV Corps is moving to cover Wavre. In the west, the Anglo-Dutch II Corps appeared and attacked the French cavalry in Nivelles, forcing them to withdraw to the south. The Uxbridge Cavalry recovered.

At mid-day on the 17^th of June, Napoleon decided to hammer at the enemy again. He committed the Imperial Guard against the Prussian II Corps, and the resulting battle was another bloodbath—both the Prussians and the French IV Corps were broken. In the west, the French ejected the Anglo-Dutch out of Quatre-Bras but were able to advance into the town with a weak cavalry unit, due to the presence of the enemy Reserve Corps. The French are running out of units.

The Anglo-Dutch counterattacked against Quatre-Bras, and the French cavalry disengaged, leaving the town vacant as the two armies faced off. The British II Corp chased the French cavalry facing them off the wooded ridge west of the town, and the Uxbridge Cavalry raced toward the fight along the main road from Waterloo.

In the east the Prussian III Corps withdrew to Mont St. Gibert, keeping out of range of the French Imperial Guard. The IV Corps marched to try to join them. It doesn’t seem likely, however, that the French will make much more headway toward Wavre.

French morale is very low. In the east, the Imperial Guard trudged north with the two French cavalry corps covering the movement. In the west, the French infantry advanced into Quatre-Bras and engaged the Anglo-Dutch I Corps, pushing them back. But when the two French cavalry corps conducted a diversionary attack on the Reserve Corps, the enemy committed their reserves and broke both cavalry corps, ending the battle.

I flubbed the attack with the French. They have to press the attack, but in this battle, three exchanges sapped French strength. I should have selected a main effort and moved it quickly against either the Prussians or Anglo-Dutch. Instead, I attacked both simultaneously. I do feel that luck went against the French—not only the exchanges, but also the Prussians kept surviving their hazardous retreats. I tended to be pretty liberal with my use of morale points, and in the end it caught up with me.

The Eschatology of Philemon

We don't often associate Paul's letter to Philemon with eschatology, but I've come to see a potent lesson about it in this very short letter. Paul wrote to Philemon--a wealthy Christian probably based in Colossae--in order to urge him to be merciful and kind to his former slave, Onesimus, whom Paul was returning to his master.

Paul appeals to the Christian virtue in Philemon, reminding him that Onesimus is not just his slave anymore, but his brother in Christ. He praises the slave's usefulness to Paul while the apostle was in prison and asks that Philemon charge Paul with any expenses Onesimus might have caused him. It's a beautiful letter, not least because Paul is not only seeking to develop Philemon's character, but also that of Onesimus. Imagine the trepidation the slave would have felt at the prospect of returning to Philemon, whom he presumably deserted (perhaps even stealing from him)! Yet, Paul convinces him to return home and face the music--like a good Christian.

One interesting aspect to the letter is the complete absence of commentary by Paul concerning the institution of slavery. A common condition within the Roman Empire, slavery was certainly not anything shocking, as we would consider it today. Paul does not protest the practice, condemn anyone who engaged in it, or call for political movements to eradicate it. Instead, he solves the inherent problems of slavery by appealing TO CHRISTIANS and sees the virtue of the mature believer as the solution.

This, to me, has eschatological implications. The postmillennial and amillennial positions suffer from a proclivity for Christian social action. Liberation theology and its tangential ideologies (including socialism) plague our world today. Too many who label themselves Christians view our belief as essentially a call for equality, freedom, peace, and universal brotherhood. They see the proper role of the Christian as one that aims at solving social problems--fixing the devil's world. This is decidedly NOT the point of Christianity.

Biblical Christianity is all about Jesus Christ--his Person, his work at the Cross. It is about propagating the message of God's gracious program of salvation to the world. It is about leading people to a saving knowledge of Christ, and then discipling them to become mature, virtuous believers. Does Biblical Christianity care about world problems? Most certainly. But it seeks temporary solutions through the cultivation of character and virtue IN CHRISTIANS, not in the unbelieving world.

Premillennialism correctly interprets prophecy by anticipating the return of Jesus Christ, who will reign on the earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Postmillennialism and amillennialism pervert and dismiss these prophecies by insisting that Christ will fix the devil's world through the agency of the Church. Thus--he will NOT return to rule, and we are already in the Millennium...or there will be no Millennium at all.

All three schools of interpretation claim to be faithful to Paul's writings. But what did Paul really think and preach? Did he insist that Philemon abandon the practice of slavery? By no means. Instead, knowing that such issues cannot be solved sufficiently in our age, he focused on the personal behavior of the individual believer. That is clearly a premillennial position!

Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit

I love the beautiful integrity, the depth, and richness of the Bible. I had such an enjoyable evening searching and searching into the Scriptures.

After over three decades of teaching the Bible, one of my favorite adventures is to wrestle with a passage that troubles me or confuses me. I've been taking on the Synoptic Gospels' accounts of Jesus' teaching about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and it has led me on such a rewarding journey as I study the words of my majestic King!

The passages in question: Matthew 12:22-32 and the parallel Mark 3:22-30. In response to Jesus casting out a demon, thus enabling a blind and mute man to both see and speak (typological connection to Israel...), the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Greek: GRAMMATEUS) concluded officially that Jesus cast out demons because he himself was possessed by Beelzebuul. In other words, Jesus was possessed by Satan.

Jesus refutes this idiotic claim by first revealing the inherent logical fallacy: "A house divided cannot stand..." But then he goes on to state categorically that although all manner of sin and blasphemies will be forgiven, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come. It is an eternal sin.

What a remarkable and powerful statement! Unfortunately, Christian theologians and Bible teachers (myself included) have obsessed about this statement, mainly because we secretly wish he hadn't said it! It bothers us, because it appears to interfere with our much-vaunted doctrines of expiation, unlimited atonement, and our other clever soteriological calculations! In our attempts to EXPLAIN this statement, we come close to instead DISMISSING it, because it makes us uncomfortable.

So here's what I've learned after 30+ years of Bible study: when a passage troubles you, rejoice! Because you're about to experience the awesome power of God's Word! You'd better get used to it: our God is unfathomably deep, and his message to us is beautiful, terrible, joyous, gracious and frequently ironic. What then is this passage about?

To find out, we should rely on probably the very best and first principle of good hermeneutics: let the Bible explain the Bible. Specifically, we must remember that the Gospels are in essence Old Testament books, in that (1) the Law of Moses was still in effect; and (2) Jesus dealt primarily with Israel during his life. It is to Israel that he speaks. He is constantly challenging their knowledge of and obedience to the Old Testament.

Hence, when Jesus speaks so dramatically about the Holy Spirit--and specifically about Israel's blasphemy against him--we should look in the Old Testament for parallels. In the book of Isaiah, we find exactly that. Read the exciting chapter of Isaiah 63. What a thrilling depiction of Israel's Savior! Drenched in the blood of his enemies, he arrives. What is the theme of his message and of Isaiah's remonstrance? Several key points are made: (1) the Savior had to work alone because no one (i.e., Israel) was there to help him; (2) he was obsessed with helping his beloved people; (3) through this and many other instances God has demonstrated his abiding love for Israel; (4) GOD HIMSELF is their Savior!; (5) GOD HIMSELF feels distress when they are in distress and therefore works to save them.

Now look at their response in verse 10: they rebelled against his Holy Spirit. The emphasis throughout this passage is God's extraordinary efforts to save Israel. In contrast to his faithfulness, they rebel against his Holy Spirit--the agent who energizes the plan of salvation. The parallel to Matthew 12/Mark 3 is inescapable. But let's go deeper.

One of the most remarkable things that Jesus says in this passage is that blasphemy against the Son of Man (i.e., himself) will be forgiven! If the apostles had merely concocted the gospel accounts in order to propagate some "Jesus cult", they would not have written this. But their accounts are true records of what our majestic King actually said: that blasphemy against the God-Man would be forgiven! Why?

For the answer, go to Philippians 2:5-11. This passage--a beautiful and poetic piece that has inspired many songs--is the basis for the doctrine of Kenosis. Kenosis derives from a Greek word meaning "to empty". In verse 7, Paul states that Jesus, literally, "emptied" himself--i.e., he sovereignly chose to forgo the prerogatives associated with his divinity. This is right in line with his remarkable statement that blasphemy against the Son of Man would be forgiven. What a surprising and powerful statement of God's grace!!

Think about this: if Christ had instead insisted that BLASPHEMY against his person would NOT be forgiven, how then will he make his way to the Cross? His purpose in coming to this planet was to die the substitutionary death on the Cross. Inflicting such an unthinkable torture and crime on the body of the God-Man was a far worse crime than speaking against him. Hence, his gracious statement that blasphemy against him will be forgiven points the way to the Cross. Our Lord is AWESOME!

What are we left with? Linking Isaiah 63, Matthew 12/Mark 3, and Philippians 2, we have a thrilling picture of our God who goes to unfathomable lengths to save us. He must work alone, because none of us have been faithful or able to help ourselves. In the end, in order to accomplish our salvation, he goes to the most extraordinary measure of all: he sends the God-Man to earth! And when Jesus accepts this task, he does the unthinkable: he empties himself of his divine prerogatives, so as to make himself accessible to us and to Israel. In this condition, he makes his way to the Cross and wins the great strategic victory over sin and Satan on our behalf. On his tortured path to that horrible nightmare he chose to face, he graciously forgave us even for the blasphemies that we leveled at him.

But in the end he warns us and Israel: If you persist even after all this to deny the divine program that has been offered to you through the agency and energy of the Holy Spirit, you are facing eternal perdition. This passage tells us that Jesus is so gracious that he will forgive even our personal sins against him. But in the end, we are free to choose for or against God's program of salvation. If, like Israel in Isaiah 63, we rebel against his Holy Spirit, then we make God our enemy.

Rather than seeing this passage as some troubling piece that has to be explained away in order to tidy up our carefully prepared theology, we should instead see it in the greater context of God's incredible love for Israel. The part of this passage that should amaze us is not the warning about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Instead, when you lie in your bed tonight, meditate on this: that man's blasphemy against the Son of Man will be forgiven! That's grace!

Quran Burning

The proposed Quran burning by the Florida church leaves me with decidedly mixed feelings. It is a complicated issue for me, because I view it from several different angles: as a Christian, as a nationalist, as an American ideologue, and both from an individual perspective and a civilizational perspective. With a few other tangential, emotional issues, too.

As a Christian I feel it is my obligation to reach out in love to all unbelievers with the good news about Jesus Christ. I Peter 3:15 urges us to engage the unbelieving world with gentleness and respect and a clear conscience. Burning someone's holy book is hardly respectful and gentle. It is provocative and mean-spirited...thus a violation of God's command.

I'm also a nationalist. I love my country--its history, its successes, its unique place in the world. I tend to be chauvinistic about America (please look the word up--it has nothing to do with the feminist debate...). From this perspective, I don't like Islam. I've never respected Islamic culture, since long before 9/11, but since then I'm very angry and suspicious toward Muslims. I think their religion is nonsense, and that it leads to violence wherever it is prominent. And I think that one of the most dangerous things you can do as a country is pussyfoot with Muslims. It only encourages them toward violence. Since 9/11 Muslims have flocked to this country to enjoy and abuse our hard-won freedoms, and they expect to be coddled as they hide behind our Bill of Rights. From this perspective, I feel it is important to burn those Qurans, because Muslims must be taught (collectively, as a culture) that freedom doesn't mean special treatment. It means freedom--to live, to speak, to work, to enjoy the fruits of your labor, AND to be subjected to criticism. Muslims in this country tend to wear their cultural snobbery on their sleeves, daring anyone to criticize them, their beliefs, or their bearded holy men. As of today, they have even gone so far as to threaten attack if we don't let them build their victory mosque in NYC. When someone threatens us like this, it is urgent that we IMMEDIATELY strike back and cross the line they draw in the sand. We MUST show them that they can and will suffer insult when appropriate. Burn those Qurans!

From the perspective of an American ideologue, I don't favor burning the Qurans. The Bill of Rights protects both freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and so it is technically okay to burn the books. But the cultural ideology behind the Bill of Rights is one of peace and respect. The point of the Bill of Rights is to create a violence-free society of free men and women. Burning each others' holy books is at cross-purposes with that cultural ideal, and it is certain that if we burn the Qurans, the "Islam and Christianity are Equivalent" Myth will kick in, and people will start burning Bibles. When we have a choice, as we do here, it is most often the better choice to opt for peace, respect, and gentleness.

When I think of Muslims as individuals, I can see them with sympathy and kindness. When I think of them collectively as a culture, I loathe them. Islam, for most of its existence, has been a cancer in human history. I find little of redeeming value in its constantly shifting morals. I hate the way they bump their heads. I despise the elevation of Mohammed into some sort of holy man. In reality he was a violent idol-worshipper who chose his favorite idol (named Allah), and decided to promote it to the "only true god." I hate the way the culture abuses women. And I don't want to ally with any culture that is anti-Semitic, because that's a violation of the Abrahamic covenant. Collectively, I feel that Islam needs to be subdued and exposed for all its many crimes.

Other thoughts about the proposed Quran-burning. I don't like stupidity--especially public stupidity--in Christianity, because it makes us all look bad. The pastor comes across like a moronic bigot, which I don't like. On the other hand, the public reaction against him and his little flock also makes me mad. My own president has surrendered completely to the Muslims and is the captain of Mohammed's cheerleading team. This is in keeping with his dismissive view of American sovereignty. Rather than defending our borders--one of his most basic constitutional duties--he spends his time and my tax money suing Arizona. He got elected by assuring us all that his middle name is as American as Chevrolet, but it seems that Hussein spends most of his time promoting Islamo-fascism at every opportunity. That makes me want to burn a Quran.

One final thought on all this. We should burn the Quran because it's the most boring, tedious book ever written. Have you ever read it? Drink coffee first.

So my conclusion? Don't burn the Qurans. The Scriptures assure us that God will take care of that at the end of the millennial reign of Christ. Whenever we can, we should restrain our own violent tendencies (I have plenty of them) and opt for peace. I don't like it, but there it is.