Well, I finally found time to take a quick glance at the websites of most of our esteemed 2008 presidential candidates tonight. It seems you can get a pretty good idea of where someone stands on an issue simply by how they title it in their "Issues" section. Here are my thoughts, for anyone who might dare to care...

Barack Obama: Definitely a liberal, but I appreciate that he seems to have his head on his shoulders. I'd definitely take him over a Hillary or Edwards. I thought it was telling that his home page didn't feature a picture of him front and center.

Hillary Clinton: The fact that she actually had "Global Warming" in the title of one of her issues entries pretty much sealed the deal for me. Also, running as "A Champion for Women" made me wonder how I'd feel if Barack ran on the platform of his skin color. It's simply distasteful.

John Edwards: His Plan to Build One America would probably fly better in a Marxist state than in the US. Not interested.

Mitt Romney: Definitely came across well on his "strength" platform...Oops! I'll finish my thoughts later.

Why did Naaman bathe in the Jordan? Because that was the only way he could possibly be healed of his leprosy? Did he ever have a choice in the matter? Was he exceptionally clever, that he discovered the Jordan's secret cleansing power? Was he driven to bathe in that muddy river by a fateful chain of events set in motion before the foundation of the world? Or, was he simply convinced that this was his only hope of ever being healed? Once healed, could he decide to go ahead and be a leper again?

(If you aren't familiar with the story of Naaman the Aramean [Syrian], check it out in 2 Kings chapter 5.)

As I was reading Gilbert K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy, it suddenly dawned on me what a wonderful type Naaman's experience is of God's salvation through Christ. In fact, in Luke 4, as Jesus rebukes his home village's inhabitants for not accepting Him as the Messiah foretold in Isaiah 61, He compares them to all the other lepers in Naaman's day. Thus, a directly analogous relationship can be established, not just by fancy, but by sound Scriptural enquiry, between salvation and the healing of this "bad" man.

For Naaman was, without a doubt, never depicted as a wonderful person. Aram had indeed been given success by God, and Naaman was the vehicle of that success. However, God's purpose in this was to chastise Israel for their continuing unfaithfulness, not because of the amazing righteousness of the Arameans. In fact, Naaman discovers Elisha only because he had a little Israelite girl among his slaves. As further evidence for his imperfection, he rejects God's healing through Elisha's word the first time, and gets angry about the whole thing. I'm not trying to say that Naaman was an exceptionally bad man, but I do want to make it clear that he was not an exceptionally good one.

What is my intent in this discussion? I believe that Naaman provides a wonderful evidence against that hideous heresy of extreme Calvinism that denies free will to man created in the image of God. One of the principal reasons given that free will must not be, is that it necessarily detracts from the infinite glory, authority and especially sovereignty that should rightfully be ascribed to our God.

To the contrary, I believe that only our God is sovereign enough to imbue man with the ability to make a real, valid choice. Baal or the Fates could create robots, then give them the illusion of free will, but only Yahweh could and would dare to make a little image of Himself, able to make causative decisions independent of a predetermined chain of events.

And certainly, in the story of Naaman, as in my own experience of God's saving grace, the healing was never due to anything particular to Naaman, except that he bathed in the Jordan. Likewise, there has never been anything particularly salvageable about me, except that I am found beneath the awful, cleansing torrent of Calvary. And just as no one would, even for a second, ascribe credit for Naaman's healing to his prowess, cunning, manly courage, righteousness, or anything else, so I hope that none would ever chalk my salvation up to anything good in me, for I know that nothing good dwells in me.

Nevertheless, I would contend two things: one, that Naaman would not have been healed short of his immersion in the Nile; and two, that Naaman did not have to bathe in the Nile - he chose to do it. In fact, Naaman at first did not choose to do it, and he continued as a leper. Silly Naaman. Likewise, though I never could have a restored relationship with God except through Christ, I did not have to come to Christ. I therefore thoroughly reject the predeterminist fatalism of extreme Calvinism.

Lastly, to soothe the concern of my Calvinist and Reformed (which mean essentially the same thing) brothers and sisters, all this does not mean that one can back out of salvation. That Naaman had a choice in the matter of his healing does not mean that he became leprous again the moment he got out of the river, or that he could make himself leprous by uttering precise invectives against the Jordan river. So neither can I decide to pluck myself out of His hand. In fact, the two issues are connected in different ways, and less connected at that, than it seems like most theologians will admit. That we have free will in the matter does not mean that we make our salvation, and thus does not mean that we can un-make it, nor that we can't.

Anyhow, I know that Calvinism vs. Arminianism has been hashed out plenty enough times over the last 2k years, but I have yet to hear Naaman brought into the mix, so I figured I'd better write it down before the thought flew off and left me.

The bottom line is, I love God, and I love His people, whether they are right or wrong, and, of course, whether I am right or wrong. Love is certainly the greatest of the virtues, yet the fierceness of the love that Jesus is putting in me for all people demands that I rejoice in the truth, and so these issues carry a certain importance, and have their place in my life, and in my love.

I will forever be amazed by the gospel's permeation of the world around us. God truly is crying out to us from every nook and cranny of the universe, begging our attention. I just finished watching a silly, sometimes vulgar movie with my parents, entitled "Mother" (Debbie Reynolds, Albert Brooks). As the main character in this movie, a writer, struggles to understand his mother's persistent non-support of anything he is or does, he becomes increasingly convinced that she hates him. At the climax of the tale he discovers that his mother was a writer in her youth, but had to give it up to be a "good" mother. As he imagines the pain this must have caused her, he comes face to face with the source of her resentment, and says an immensely insightful thing: she is a failure.

On this surface, this may seem a terrible thing to say, but it is really very healthy. In recognizing that his mother is a failure, the character also recognizes that she is not a monster. She was never intentionally malicious, just fumblingly benign. She never wanted to hurt them, she just did a bad job of helping them. And in the light of this new discovery, he first offers, then receives, grace.

Of course God's grace goes even farther than this, loving us while we were His enemies, but there still exists the motion from viewing someone as enemy to viewing them as, however bad a friend they may be, a friend.

And it makes me thankful for the God who takes initiative...who didn't wait for me to come around, but aggressively pursued my friendship. He is the God who loves. He is the God of action. He is the God of grace.

I love Him.

Wow. Maybe someday I'll actually update this regularly. I don't suppose anybody actually reads it, so it's not about that. But writing sure is a great release for the soul.

A lot has happened since February. Most notably, I proposed to Jenny, and she said yes. We're getting married on September 23, and boy am I excited! The biggest preparation issue I have in front of me is finding a house or something of the sort to rent before then. It's been a blessing to me to see how many people want to offer help in some form or another.

I'm working at Fry's Electronics now, in their service department. I get to work on computers all day, and they give me money for it. The novelty has, of course, worn off, but it's still better than some other options into which I'd checked. There certainly are a lot of varying worldviews floating around at my work. From Universalism to Romanism, New Thought to Islam, it's all I can do to figure out where everyone around me is at. The common denominator seems to be that the worldview tends to serve the believer, and they're in it for the results, the religion, etc. Jesus is such a Friend to me, and so in control of my life, that it's really hard for me to imagine living their way, and it makes me really sad.

I'm rediscovering the joy of reading. I've just finished a book which, while full of great stuff, just didn't drive me to read it more and more. I'm discovering I'm actually decently thirsty for some juicy reading, and as soon as I finish my latest Michael Card book, I'm going to soak up some Chesterton and Moreland.

I do believe this is the funniest thing I've ever seen in my entire life! Well, except for what would happen if Microsoft redesigned the iPod...or Jared doing a Jerry Falwell impersonation while singing "Amazing Grace" and simultaneously dancing like a ballerina.

It's especially fun for a techie like me, and boy are they right on with their take of our modern society!

Actually, this whole controversy really cracks me up. Various distros of Linux have had the triangles for quite some time...Google has had the desktop search stuff going for a long time, and the sidebar for two or three years, with gadgets. Mozilla's FireFox browser is lightyears ahead of Internet Explorer (as someone said: "IE7, the new 7th generation browser in a world of 8th generation browsers"). Mozilla's Thunderbird is now developing a nifty little calendar plugin. Moving on from superficial stuff to how the stinking computer actually works, Windows Vista is making a move toward UNIX, which switch Mac made awhile ago...but Linux has been built on UNIX from day one!

My point is not that Windows is innovative - nobody should be saying that anymore...but the Open Source community IS innovative! The biggest reason I would consider NOT switching to Vista is simply that all the new features are available to me by installing various Open Source solutions to XP.

And y'know, the biggest advantages Windows has on Mac are:
1. Big market that will go with them no matter what, without thinking.
2. Like, every application, game, whatever, you could ever want, runs on Windows, but not on Mac.

Mac has the same things up on Linux. That's why I have Windows and Linux, and skip past Mac. That way the practical and idealistic sides of me both have their little playground, and I don't get caught somewhere in the middle.