Blood of the Martyrs.

If you've been following this story, you'll know that the Taliban have killed another hostage. Al-Jazeera, of course, has video of the hostages.

The breaking news is being covered by the blogs, but I do have some thoughts about this horrible situation.

The first is that in all the reporting of this story, I had to go online to learn that the hostages are Christians, primarily nurses and teachers. I've seen three stories from the AP in our local paper in the last few days, and not one of them mentioned this fact.

Second, let no one doubt what kind of people we are dealing with. Though the liberals would like you to believe otherwise, we are at war with an ideology. They pick their targets according to their beliefs, and they stick at nothing. I don't condemn all Muslims because of the actions of these thugs, but don't believe that they have hijacked a religion. If that is the case, then Muslims everywhere should stand up and loudly condemn such actions. They don't; and the ones that do give half-hearted attempts at best.

Third, pray for the hostages. Most of the ones remaining are women; pray that they will remain strong, setting an example of their faith, and pray that they will be rescued or set free; if not, pray that God will receive them into His arms with love and honor.

Update: Reuters reported a rescue operation, then withdrew the story. The Afghan army has been dropping warning leaflets, but South Korea and the US have ruled out military action. As of yet, the hostages are still alive, though the final deadline has passed.

Keep praying. Maybe someone will do more than drop leaflets.

More info: Predictably, the US media report the Taliban's side of the story.

A Question of Liberty.

This article appeared Monday at Christianity Today. The author poses this question near the end:

This hits on what I think is the biggest question for western Christians
right now: Should Christians in democracies work to make governmental actions
reflect biblical priorities? If God loves human "freedom," should we then get
the government to act for "freedom" worldwide? If God loves the poor, should we
get the government to enact polices aimed at reducing (or eliminating)
poverty?

The answer is that we should be preaching the Gospel. The Bible does not speak of human freedom in terms of individual liberty and democratic government. The freedom spoken of in the Bible refers to the freedom Christ's sacrifice has given us over sin. That is, if we accept God's gift of salvation through Christ, we are free from the bonds of sin and death forever. We should keep this in mind when we discuss spreading liberty throughout the world. Does the President understand this?

I honestly don't know, but his critics apparently think he doesn't. Dreher, Sullivan, and Douthat point out that that just because God wants us to be free does not mean we should impose our form of government on other countries. Yet they also seem to think that Mr. Bush is implying that the spread of liberty is inevitable. There is evidence to suggest that they are right, but that idea is troubling to me. The inclination of man is toward tyranny. Our Founding Fathers understood this, as did Tocqueville; he detailed several ways in which government in America was designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Our Constitution ensures that power is not concentrated in one part of the government, nor is it concentrated in either the Federal Government or the States. Tocqueville also points out that given a choice between tyranny and democracy, people will naturally choose democracy, since democracy better protects individual liberty.

Mr. Bush's critics also point out that our form of democracy may not be suited to all cultures. True, especially in the case of Iraq, but Arab culture is no stranger to self-government, and I don't see that we have imposed our form of democracy on them. We merely insisted that their new form of government be established with the consent of all the Iraqi people. I'll not address justification for the invasion in this post; I'm for it, and I think we should finish the job but I'll not go into detail now.

I think it is admirable to encourage democracy and liberty wherever it struggles to take hold, but Christians should not lose sight of the liberty offered by God. Changing governments is good; changing hearts is better.

Required Reading.

Since graduating from college, I've become more interested in politics and government. I realized that I didn't have a good idea of what our government is and where it came from. I had read the Constitution of course, and I understood the basics of how our government functions (i.e. how laws get passed), but as I entered fully into adult independence, I realized that my ideas about government had been wrong. I decided to read some books that I should have read before.

One of these is Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. This book should be required reading for all Americans, whether in high school, college, or whenever. Everyone should have a copy of this on his bookshelf. Writing in the 19th century, Tocqueville presents a vivid description of how our democracy functions, how it formed, and its strengths and weaknesses. Tocqueville's style is remarkably clear and straightforward, well within the comprehension of high school students.

This book is a revelation to me, because I can see just how far our government has strayed from its original conception. Many of the weaknesses of the republic that Tocqueville described have become prevalent, and the strengths have been eroded by well-meaning progressives. As more people look to the federal government to solve the problems of our society, they undermine the very freedom that they claim to espouse.

Read the Declaration of Independence to understand the principles of our democracy; read the constitution to understand its structure. Then read Tocqueville. You won't be disappointed.

A New Identity.

I just finished reading The Bourne Identity today. Some of you may not know (I didn't) that the movie with Matt Damon was based on a novel that was written twenty years before the movie was made. I enjoyed both the movie and the novel, but I couldn't help but notice the dramatic differences between the two which reflected the twenty-year gap.

Both agree that the main character of Jason Bourne is a super-secret agent of the US government suffering from amnesia. He is pulled from the sea by a fishing boat in the Mediterranean, riddled with bullet wounds and carrying a bank account number in his hip. His love interest is named Marie, and she helps him recover his lost identity while trying to avoid men that are trying to kill him for what he knows.

This is where the book and the movie diverge. In the movie, Bourne's antagonists are the government agency he worked for and their team of assassins. They believe Bourne has gone crazy. The boss of Treadstone even calls him a 'malfunctioning machine.' In the novel, the government agency plays a smaller part, and in the end tries to help save Bourne's life. The real antagonist is an assassin named Carlos, a terrorist trained by the Soviets.

This divergence is interesting to me, especially since the two versions are twenty years apart. In 1980, the government was not trusted, but was not generally regarded as an evil thing, and patriotism was more popular. The movie reflects the more prevalent anti-American attitude today (especially in Hollywood), where the US government is seen as wicked and secretive. If you're curious, I much prefer the novel's viewpoint.

I enjoyed the book, and would recommend both it and the movie to those who like spy thrillers. I'm planning on reading and watching the sequels. It will be interesting to see if they exhibit the same differences.

To Write, or not to Write.

That is the question that I am preoccupying myself with lately. I don't mean this blog; it will continue as long as you, dear reader, visit this site. I have had an idea in my head for the past couple of years about a story, and I'm trying to decide if I should attempt to write it down.

It started out as a concept for a Neverwinter Nights adventure module, and I've even written some notes about characters and plot, and started construction on the module. The project stalled, and has not been worked on since, but the story still flits around my head. It strikes me as a good story, and if you'll permit me, I'll share a brief synopsis with you.

It is a fantasy story, set in a world of my own design. this world is gradually becoming what I can only describe as 'real' -- that is, magic is ceasing to function, the pantheon of fantasy gods has been replaced by monotheism, and the fantastical monsters like goblins and trolls are no more. In this setting I trace the story of the final adventure of a knight, the leader of an ancient Order, respected by all in the kingdom. The knight is an orc, the last of a rare breed of good, honorable creatures. We find him in his middle years, preoccupied with memories of past adventures and consumed by current duties. The discovery of a remnant of his people sends him on a quest to explore the very nature of the world he lives in, and pits him against agents of the old gods at war with the new god. At the end, he is presented with a choice - to let the world continue as it is, or to restore the fantasy of old. In the game module, this choice is up to the player, so I will not reveal here the choice as I would make it, on the chance that I ever do finish the module.

But the story won't go away. As you know, I am a Christian, and I believe much could be said with this story. I am intimidated though, by the fact that I've never been good at fiction: my one example is a fan fiction story about Star Wars. I'm not a trained writer, though many of you have had kind things to say about my writing. Well, dear reader, I await your input. Should I, or should I not?

The World in my Pocket.

Some of you have commented positively on the pictures I have posted here. I would very much like to take the credit for them, but unfortunately the continuance of peaceful relations at home compel me to give credit where it is due. My wife Alicia took almost all of these pictures here with our simple Sony digital. If you like them, you can find more examples at her photo blog, The World in my Pocket. Visit and leave her a comment or two, if you would be so kind.

Ego forbids me from relinquishing all the glory, so I will say that some of them are mine, but though I can't remember which ones, they are assuredly any of lesser quality.

They Shall Become One Flesh.

My wife and I saw these trees while on vacation at Turkey Run State Park. It is an oak and a beech growing so closely together that they are growing into one another. I think it makes a striking metaphor for marriage, in that you have two different bodies, anchored at the same point, one stout and strong, the other tall and graceful. They are obviously different, yet at the roots they appear the same, each one sharing a part of the other. Though they share the same space, they are not in competition for resources; both are tall and healthy. You look at them and get the impression that they would never separate, even if they could.

The beech tree is marked with the signs and symbols of passing hikers, covered in initials of people professing their love for one another. Like a woman, she wears the light of love openly, while her companion the oak resists all such displays. Yet like a faithful husband, his trunk is straight, never far from the slender body beside him; it is he who provides the support, and his roots wrap around hers, protecting her and strengthening her.

My wife and I often talk about the state of marriage in the world today, and I've blogged about it before here as well. We stood silent and looked at these trees for a long time, amazed at the way God displays himself in his creations, and provides us lessons for our lives.