The Blarney Stone

2008-03-21T16:04:00.002-06:00

Last of "Mere Christianity"

2007-08-07T13:29:00.000-06:00

Dear readers,

You may (or may not) be disappointed to learn that I'm tired of copying C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" onto this blog, so I'm done doing so. If you're interested in reading more of his book, I'd suggest checking it out from the library if you don't already own it.

So...now that this blog is being pulled out of stagnation (or should I just say, away from copying others' works?), what should we discuss in depth? How about the concept of temptation and "the devil made me do it"? Here's a question: does our flesh tempt us to sin, or does Satan?

Chapter 5: We Have Cause to be Uneasy, Book I: Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe, from "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

2007-08-07T07:52:00.001-06:00

I ended my last chapter with the idea that in the Moral Law somebody or something from beyond the material universe was actually getting at us. And I expect when I reached that point some of you felt a certain annoyance. You may even have thought that I had played a trick on you—that I had been carefully wrapping up to look like philosophy what turns out to be one more “religious jaw.” You may have felt you were ready to listen to me as long as you thought I had anything new to say; but if it turns out to be only religion, well, the world has tried that and you cannot put the clock back. If anyone is feeling that way I should like to say three things to him.

First, as to putting the clock back. Would you think I was joking if I said that you can put a clock back, and that if the clock is wrong it is often a very sensible thing to do? But I would rather get away from that whole idea of clocks. We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. We have all see this when doing arithmetic. When I have started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this and go back and start over again, the faster I shall get on. There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.

Then, secondly, this has not yet turned exactly into a “religious jaw.” We have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the God of that particular religion called Christianity. We have only got as far as a Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law. We are not taking anything from the Bible or the Churches, we are trying to see what we can find out about this Somebody on our own steam. And I want to make it quite clear that what we find out on our own steam is something that gives us a shock. We have two bits of evidence about the Somebody. One is the universe He has made. If we used that as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude that He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place). The other bit of evidence is that Moral Law which He has put into our minds. And this is a better bit of evidence than the other, because it is inside information. You find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built. Now, from this second bit of evidence we conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested in right conduct—in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty and truthfulness. In that sense we should agree with the account given by Christianity and some other religions, that God is “good.” But do not let us go too fast here. The Moral Law does not give us any grounds for thinking that God is “good” in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic. There is nothing indulgent about the Moral Law. It is as hard as nails. It tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do. If God is like the Moral Law, then He is not soft. It is no use, at this stage, saying what you mean by a “good” God is a God who can forgive. You are going too quickly. Only a Person can forgive. And we have not yet got as far as a personal God—only as far as a power, behind the Moral Law, and more like a mind than it is like anything else. But it may still be very unlike a Person. If it is pure impersonal mind, there may be no sense in asking it to make allowances for you or let you off, just as there is no sense in asking the multiplication table to let you off when you do your sums wrong. You are bound to get the wrong answer. And it is no use either saying that if there is a God of that sort—and impersonal absolute goodness—then you do not like Him and are not going to bother about Him. For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and really agrees with His disapproval of human greed and trickery and exploitation. You may want Him to make an exception in your own case, to let you off this one time; but you know at bottom that unless the power behind the world really and unalterably detests that sort of behaviour, then He cannot be good. On the other hand, we know that if there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do. That is the terrible fix we are in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again. We cannot do without it, and we cannot do with it. God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again. They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger—according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way.

Now my third point. When I chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I was not trying to play any kind of trick on you. I had a different reason. My reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced the sort of facts I have been describing. Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realised that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power—it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor. When you have realised that our position is nearly desperate you will begin to understand what the Christians are talking about. They offer an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. They offer an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind at the back of the Moral Law and yet also a Person. They tell you how the demands of this law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf, how God Himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God. It is an old story and if you want to go into it you will no doubt consult people who have more authority to talk about it than I have. All I am doing is to ask people to face the facts—to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts. I wish it was possible to say something more agreeable. But I must say what I think true. Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth—only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair. Most of us have got over the pre-war wishful thinking about international politics. It is time we did the same about religion.

Chapter 4: What Lies Behind the Law, Book I: Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe, from "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

2007-07-09T06:59:00.000-06:00

Let us sum up what we have reached so far. In the case of stones and trees and things of that sort, what we call the Laws of Nature may not be anything except a way of speaking. When you say that nature is governed by certain laws, this may only mean that nature does, in fact, behave in a certain way. The so-called laws may not be anything real - anything above and beyond the actual facts which we observe. But in the case of Man, we saw that this will not do. The Law of Human Nature, or of Right and Wrong, must be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour. In this case, besides the actual facts, you have something else - a real law which we did not invent and which we know we ought to obey.

I now want to consider what this tells us about the universe we live in. Ever since men were able to think, they have been wondering what this universe really is and how it came to be there. And, very roughly, two views have been held. First, there is what is called the materialist view. People who take that view think that matter and space just happened to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us. The other view is the religious view.* According to it, what is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know. That is to say, it is conscious, and has purposes, and refers one thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like itself - I mean, like itself to the extent of having minds. Please do not think that one of these views was held a long time ago and that the other has gradually taken its place. Wherever there have been thinking men both views turn up. And note this too. You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, "I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science - and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes - something of a different kind - this is not a scientific question. If there is "Something Behind," then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?

Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe - no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions? In the only case where you can expect to get an answer, the answer turns out to be Yes; and in the other cases, where you do not get an answer, you see why you do not. Suppose someone asked me, when I see a man in a blue uniform going down the street leaving little paper packets at each house, why I suppose that they contain letters? I should reply, "Because whenever he leaves a similar little packet for me I find it does contain a letter." And if he then objected, "But you've never seen all these letters which you think the other people are getting," I should say, "Of course not, and I shouldn't expect to, because they're not addressed to me. I'm explaining the packets I'm not allowed to open by the ones I am allowed to open." It is the same about this question. The only packet I am allowed to open is Man. When I do, especially when I open that particular man called Myself, I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way. I do not, of course, think that if I could get inside a stone or a tree I should find exactly the same thing, just as I do not think all the other people in the street get the same letters as I do. I should expect, for instance, to find that the stone had to obey the law of gravity - that whereas the sender of the letters merely tells me to obey the law of my human nature. He compels the stone to obey the laws of its stony nature. but I should expect to find that there was, so to speak, a sender of letters in both cases, a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide.

Do not think I am going faster than I really am. I am not yet within a hundred miles of the God of Christian theology. All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know—because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions. But, of course, it need not be very like a mind, still less like a person. In the next chapter we shall see if we can find out anything more about it. But one word of warning. There has been a great deal of soft soap talked about God for the last hundred years. That is not what I am offering. You can cut all that out.

*NOTE: In order to keep this section short enough when it was given on the air, I mentioned only the Materialist view and the Religious view. But to be complete I ought to mention the In-between view called Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. The wittiest expositions of it come in the works of Bernard Shaw, but the most profound ones in those of Bergson. People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then "a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection" is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind "strives" or has "purposes"? This seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children. The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you. All the thrills of religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?

Chapter 3: The Reality of the Law, Book I: Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe, from "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

2007-06-27T10:22:00.001-06:00

I now go back to what I said at the end of the first chapter, that there were two odd things about the human race. First, that they were haunted by the idea of a sort of behaviour they ought to practise, what you might call fair play, or decency, or morality, or the Law of Nature. Second, that they did not in fact do so. Now some of you may wonder why I called this odd. It may seem to you the most natural thing in the world. In particular, you may have thought I was rather hard on the human race. After all, you may say, what I call breaking the Law of Right and Wrong or of Nature, only means that people are not perfect. And why on earth should I expect them to be? That would be a good answer if what I was trying to do was to fix the exact amount of blame which is due to us for not behaving as we expect others to behave. But that is not my job at all. I am not concerned at present with blame; I am trying to find out truth. And from that point of view the very idea of something being imperfect, of its not being what it ought to be, has certain consequences.

If you take a thing like a stone or a tree, it is what it is and there seems no sense in saying it ought to have been otherwise. Of course you may say a stone is "the wrong shape" if you want to use it for a rockery, or that a tree is a bad tree because it does not give you as much shade as you expected. But all you mean is that the stone or tree does not happen to be convenient for some purpose of your own. You are no, except as a joke, blaming them for that. You really know, that, given the weather and the soil, the tree could not have been any different. What we, from our point of view, call a "bad" tree is obeying the laws of its nature just as much as a "good" one.

Now have you noticed what follows? It follows that what we usually call the laws of nature - the way weather works on a tree for example - may not really be laws in the strict sense, but only in a manner of speaking. When you say that falling stones always obey the law of gravitation, is not this much the same as saying that the law only means "what stones always do"? You do not really think that when a stone is let go, it suddenly remembers that it is under orders to fall to the ground. You only mean that, in fact, it does fall. In other words, you cannot be sure that there is anything over and above the facts themselves, any law about what ought to happen, as distinct from what does happen. The laws of nature, as applied to stones or trees, may only mean "what Nature, in fact, does." But if you turn to the Law of Human Nature, the Law of Decent Behaviour, it is a different matter. That law certainly does not mean "what human beings, in fact, do"; for as I said before, many of them do not obey this law at all, and none of them obey it completely. The law of gravity tells you what stones do if you drop them; but the Law of Human Nature tells you what human beings ought to do and do not. In other words, when you are dealing with humans, something else comes in above and beyond the actual facts. You have the facts (how men do behave) and you also have something else (how they ought to behave). In the rest of the universe there need not be anything but the facts. Electrons and molecules behave in a certain way, and certain results follow, and that may be the whole story.* But men behave in a certain way and that is not the whole story, for all the time you know that they ought to behave differently.

Now this is really so peculiar that one is tempted to try to explain it away. For instance, we might try to make out that when you say a man ought not to act as he does, you only mean the same as when you say that a stone is the wrong shape; namely, that what he is doing happens to be inconvenient to you. But that is simply untrue. A man occupying the corner seat in the train because he got there first, and a man who slipped into it while my back was turned and removed my bag, are both equally inconvenient. But I blame the second man and do not blame the first. I am not angry - except perhaps for a moment before I come to my senses - with a man who trips me up by accident; I am angry with a man who tries to trip me up even if he does not succeed. Yet the first has hurt me and the second has not. Sometimes the behaviour which I call bad is not inconvenient to me at all, but the very opposite. In war, each side may find a traitor on the other side very useful. But though they use him and pay him they regard him as human vermin. So you cannot say that what we call decent behaviour in others is simply the behaviour that happens to be useful to us. And as for decent behaviour in ourselves, I suppose it is pretty obvious that it does not mean the behaviour that pays. It means things like being content with thirty shillings when you might have got three pounds, doing school work honestly when it would be easy to cheat, leaving a girl alone when you would like to make love to her, staying in dangerous places when you could go somewhere safer, keeping promises you would rather not keep, and telling the truth even when it makes you look a fool.

Some people say that though decent conduct does not mean what pays each particular person at a particular moment, still, it means what pays the human race as a whole; and that consequently there is no mystery about it. Human beings, after all, have some sense; they see that you cannot have real safety or happiness except in a society where every one plays fair, and it is because they see this that they try to behave decently. Now, of course, it is perfectly true that safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes, and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other. It is one of the most important truths in the world. But as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong it just misses the point. If we ask: "Why ought I to be unselfish?" and you reply "Because it is good for society," we may then ask, "Why should I care what's good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?" and then you will have to say, "Because you ought to be unselfish" - which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true, but you are not getting any further. If a man asked what was the point of playing football, it would not be much good saying "in order to score goals," for trying to score goals is the game itself, not the reason for the game, and you would really only be saying that football was football - which is true, but not worth saying. In the same way, if a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, "in order to benefit society," for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for "society" after all only means "other people"), is one of the things decent behaviour consists in; all you are really saying is that decent behaviour is decent behaviour. You would have said just as much if you had stopped at the statement, "Men ought to be unselfish."

And that is where I do stop. Men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair. Not that men are unselfish, nor that they like being unselfish, but that they ought to be. The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behaviour in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave. On the other hand, it is not a mere fancy, for we cannot get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if we did. And it is not simply a statement about how we should like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behaviour we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behaviour we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing - a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behaviour is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behaviour, and yet quite definitely real - a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us.

*I do not think it is the whole story, as you will see later. I mean that, as far as the argument has gone up to date, it may be.

Note to readers

2007-06-18T20:59:00.000-06:00

You may or may not have read the two chapters I have already copied from C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". I'd like to point out that I am indeed copying from his book and intend to do so for quite a while. If you have objections or are horribly bored, feel free to go to my other blog, known as An Amateur Christian Journalist's Insights. However, this is an important book that I believe everyone needs to read... Your thoughts on the content of the book are welcome, although I cannot speak for C.S. (or, Jack, as he liked to be called). Discussion is still good!!! (Goodness! After copying his work, I'm beginning to write a little like him!)

Chapter 2: Some Objections, Book I: Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe, from "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

2007-06-18T20:51:00.001-06:00

If they are the foundation, I had better stop to make that foundation firm before I go on. Some of the letters I have had show that a good many people find it difficult to understand just what this Law of Human Nature, or Moral Law, or Rule of Decent Behaviour is.

For example, some people wrote to me saying, "Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?" Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct - by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry from help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires - on a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, "Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up," cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.

Here is a third way of seeing it. If the Moral Law was one of our instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which was always what we call "good," always in agreement with the rule of right behaviour. But you cannot. There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes tell us to encourage. It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses - say mother love or patriotism - are good, and others, like sex or the fighting instinct, are bad. All we mean is that the occasions on which the fighting instinct or the sexual desire need to be restrained are rather more frequent than those for restraining mother love or patriotism. But there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct. There are also occasions on which a mother's love for her own children or a man's love for his own country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness towards other people's children or countries. Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the "right" notes and the "wrong" ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or any set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.

By the way, this point is of great practical consequence. The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials "for the sake of humanity," and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man.

Other people wrote to me saying, "Isn't what you call the Moral Law just a social convention, something that is put into us by education?" I think there is a misunderstanding here. The people who ask that question are usually taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, than that thing must be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not so. We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up alone on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked? I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different - we learn to keep to the left of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule to keep to the right - and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The question is to which class the Law of Human Nature belongs.

There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great - not nearly so great as most people imagine - and you can recognise the same law running through them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If not set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers - people who understood morality better than their neighbours did. Very well then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something - some Real Morality - for them to be true about. The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said "New York" each meant merely "The town I am imagining in my own head," how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all. In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behaviour meant simply "whatever each nation happens to approve," there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had ever been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world could ever grow morally better or morally worse.

I conclude then, that though the differences between people's ideas of Decent Behaviour often make you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behaviour at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really prove just the opposite. But one word before I end. I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did - if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.

Chapter 1: The Law of Human Nature, Book I: Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe, from "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

2007-06-14T09:09:00.000-06:00

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?" - "That's my seat, I was there first" - "Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm" - "Why should you shove in first?" - "Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine" - "Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk about the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really mean the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law - with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to - whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong - in other words, if there is no Law of Nature - what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money - the one you have almost forgotten - came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done - well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it - and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses are long as your arm. the question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much - we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so - that we cannot bear to fact the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

Preface from "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

2007-06-12T13:21:00.001-06:00

The contents of this book were first given on the air, and then published in three separate parts as The Case for Christianity (1943), Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality (1945). In the printed versions I made a few additions to what I had said at the microphone, but otherwise left the text much as it had been. A "talk" on the radio should, I think, be as like real talk as possible, and should not sound like an essay being read aloud. In my talks I had therefore used all the contractions and colloquialisms I ordinarily use in conversation. In the printed version I reproduced this, putting don't and we've for do not and we have. And wherever, in the talks, I had made the importance of a word clear by the emphasis of my voice, I printed it in italics. I am now inclined to think that this was a mistake - an undesirable hybrid between the art of speaking and the art of writing. A talker ought to use variations of voice for emphasis because his medium naturally lends itself to that method: but a writer ought not to use italics for the same purpose. He has his own, different, means of bringing out the key words and ought to use them. In this edition I have expanded the contractions and replaced most of the italics by recasting the sentences in which they occurred: but without altering, I hope, the "popular" or "familiar" tone which I had all along intended. I have also added and deleted where I thought I understood any part of my subject better now than ten years ago or where I knew that the original version had been misunderstood by others.

The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian "denominations". You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. This omission is intentional (even in the list I have just given the order is alphabetical). There is no mystery about my own position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially "high," nor especially "low," nor especially anything else. But in this book I am not trying to convert anyone to my own position. Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. I had more than one reason for thinking this. In the first place, the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history which ought never to be treated except by real experts. I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others. And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son. Finally, I got the impression that far more, and more talented, authors were already engaged in such controversial matters than in the defense of what Baxter calls "mere" Christianity. That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest. And to it I naturally went.

So far as I know, these were my only motives, and I should be very glad if people would not draw fanciful inferences from my silence on certain disputed matters.

For example, such silence need not mean that I myself am sitting on the fence. Sometimes I am. There are questions at issue between Christians to which I do not think I have the answer. There are some to which I may never know the answer: if I asked them, even in a better world, I might (for all I know) be answered as a far greater questioner was answered: "What is that to thee? Follow thou Me." But there are other questions as to which I am definitely on one side of the fence, and yet say nothing. For I was not writing to expound something I could call "my religion," but to expound "mere" Christianity, which is what it is and was what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ. But surely my reason for not doing so is obvious? To say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions. And there is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this. The Roman Catholic beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour that attaches to all sincere religious belief, but (very naturally) with the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake. It is very difficult so to dissent from them that you will not appear to them a cad as well as a heretic. And contrariwise, the opposed Protestant beliefs on this subject call forth feelings which go down to the very roots of all Monotheism whatever. To radical Protestants it seems that the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is imperiled: that Polytheism is risen again. Hence it is hard so to dissent from them that you will not appear something worse than a heretic - an idolater, a Pagan. If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about "mere" Christianity - if any topic makes utterly unprofitable reading for those who do not yet believe that the Virgin's son is God - surely this is it.

Oddly enough, you cannot even conclude, from my silence on disputed points, either that I think them important or that I think them unimportant. For this is itself one of the disputed points. One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements. When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point "really matters" and the other replies: "Matter? Why, it's absolutely essential."

All this is said simply in order to make clear what kind of book I was trying to write; not in the least to conceal or evade responsibility for my own beliefs. About those, as I said before, there is no secret. To quote Uncle Toby: "They are written in the Common-Prayer Book."

The danger clearly was that I should put forward as common Christianity anything that was peculiar to the Church of England or (worse still) to myself. I tried to guard against this by sending the original script of what is now Book II to four clergymen (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) and asking for their criticism. The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed. I did not have the remaining books similarly "vetted" because in them, though differences might arise among Christians, these would be differences between individuals or schools of thought, not between denominations.

So far as I can judge from reviews and from the numerous letters written to me, the book, however faulty in other respects, did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or "mere" Christianity. In that way it may be possibly be of some help in silencing the view that, if we omit the disputed points, we shall have left only a vague and bloodless H.C.F. The H.C.F. turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all. If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited. Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.

So much for my omissions on doctrine. In Book III, which deals with morals, I have also passed over some things in silence, but for a different reason. Ever since I served as an infantryman in the first world war I have had a great dislike of people who, themselves in ease and safety, issue exhortations to men in the front line. As a result I have a reluctance to say much about temptations to which I myself am not exposed. No man, I suppose, is tempted to every sin. It so happens that the impulse which makes men gamble has been left out of my make-up; and, no doubt, I pay for this by lacking some good impulse of which it is the excess or perversion. I therefore did not feel myself qualified to give advice about permissable and impermissable gambling: if there is any permissable, for I do not claim to know even that. I have also said nothing about birth-control. I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest. I did not think it my place to take a firm line about pains, dangers and expenses from which I am protected; having no pastoral office which obliged me to do so.

Far deeper objections may be felt - and have been expressed - against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?" or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, and some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We imply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question if its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or a moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions - as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and panelling. In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of servie?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?"

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

Pray for Ezekiel

2007-06-06T06:50:00.000-06:00

Here's an article from The Gazette on February 14th, 2006. I'll let you read it and then explain about the main person, Ezekiel...

MORE THAN A BASKET

Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Feb 14, 2006 by MILO F. BRYANT Gazette Sports columnist

Don't tell me that two points in a blowout victory are insignificant.

I won't believe it, especially when a father sits at a scorer's table with tears rolling over his cheeks because of those two points.

Last March, Ezekiel Wetlesen had emergency surgery to remove a walnut-sized cancerous tumor from his brain.

So when he put two points on the board for Evangelical Christian Academy in a late January victory, the gymnasium erupted.

Some people yelled. Some clapped and laughed out loud. Others smiled. And, like the father at the scorer's table, some cried.

"It was a great feeling," Eagles senior guard Justin Beers said. "The crowd was just so loud when he scored. It was amazing."

Fellow senior guard Josh Morin was on the bench when Wetlesen scored his first points of the season. Morin, like his teammates, stood up, all of them cheering.

"I looked at the scorer's table," Morin said. "Mr. Wetlesen was doing the scorebook, and he started crying."

Ezekiel Wetlesen doesn't want to be seen as special.

That's too bad, because he is.

Wetlesen doesn't want to be anything more than another member of the team.

That's too bad, too.

Wetlesen stands 6-foot-4. His head is shaven on one part and splotches of wispy hair spring from another. Yet, he still manages to look unassuming.

Wetlesen tolerates chemotherapy treatments, but nevertheless finds the energy to practice and play basketball.

Patients must be clear of the cancerous cells for five years before being deemed cured.

Wetlesen is trying, doing everything he can to lead the life of a normal high school senior.

"For the most part, I can tell the story of what happened," Wetlesen said in a staccato, one syllable at a time style. After a lengthy pause, he finished. "... in how I can think, in how I can say it, in broken sentences."

Wetlesen pauses a lot these days. He thinks a lot more, too, not because he wants to, but because he has to. The cancer did that to him. It robbed him of his short-term memory. It robbed him of some of his long-term memory, too.

Wetlesen shook his head and shrugged his shoulders when asked what he remembered about his shot against Calhan.

On March 28, Wetlesen woke from a nap. He was sick to his stomach and had blurred vision. Both his head and back ached, and his speech was slurred. His mom, Eloise, rushed him to the hospital where doctors found a bleeding tumor near his left temple.

Three days and many tests later, Wetlesen had a seizure and required emergency surgery.

Wetlesen is David's and Eloise's third oldest child.

Recently, David sat in a room across the hall from where his son was practicing. David is an Air Force lieutenant colonel and the soldier in him came out. He tried to keep his body upright and strong as he recalled his son's experiences. The father in David, however, was unmistakable as his voice started to quiver and he forcefully squeezed his hands.

"You're taken totally by surprise," David said before explaining the total confidence he had in the doctors. "But, you know, you have got to make decisions and say, 'Do the tests. Do the operation.' You're just hoping you get him through that and see what the prognosis is.

"You make life as normal as possible for him and give hope."

Ironically, that's what Ezekiel is doing. Just by practicing and playing, he's giving others hope and inspiration.

Ezekiel's cancer was certain death 10 years ago. But, because of advancements in research, Ezekiel could eventually land his dream job -- a high school math teacher.

For now, Ezekiel will tolerate many more months of chemotherapy - - his MRIs have been clear for nine months. Fifty-one clear months to go.

More importantly, Ezekiel will continue to practice as much as he can. He'll continue to play as much as he can. He'll inspire his teammates as much as he said they inspire him.

He'll continue proving the significance of two points.

--

Ezekiel and his whole family go to our former church, Forestgate. We knew them before they found out that Zeke had cancer, and we took care of the four youngest kids (there are ten in all) while he was having his surgery. The best way to describe him is as a friendly giant - 6', 4" is not exactly short, but he loves his littlest brother, Othniel, and he's very shy.

This article from The Gazette was published in 2006, but since then, Zeke has gotten worse instead of better. We are still praying for a miracle, though...I'm asking that you would do the same, too.

Here's an update from his father, sent yesterday:

All,

We have had a busy month with friends and family. Ezekiel has been able to participate in quite a bit of the activities.

On 11 May, Gabriel, Susan, Cheyenne and JD flew in...for a couple of weeks. Gabriel's commander put him on administrative hold so that he could spend time with Ezekiel. We enjoyed the time with them tremendously. Unfortunately, they had to return to Texas before Michael's graduation.

The MRI on 14 May showed a further spread of the tumor cells into the brain stem. Ezekiel met with Dr Foreman on 16 May for another Avastin treatment. Since the travel to Denver (3 hours round trip) is exhausting for Ezekiel, Dr Foreman suggested we arrange for the next treatment...on 31 May.

Ezekiel attended Hayley's (not Hawley, my typo) graduation on 25 May at ECA. At the ceremony, the endowment for the Ezekiel Award for Excellence in Christian Witness and Teaching was announced. It is part of the Leonard Evangelical Christian Academy Foundation. Below is more about the award:

Ezekiel Peter Wetlesen, a 2006 graduate of ECA, had the life goals of pursuing a teaching degree in mathematics and then returning to ECA to teach. Due to a brain tumor, Ezekiel was not able to pursue those goals. Therefore, he decided to establish an endowment to encourage and retain excellent teachers of effective Christian witness to teach in Christian schools. Ezekiel’s desire is that proceeds from the endowment provide stipends to award winners to augment their salary for the next year of teaching in a Christian school. This would encourage these teachers and enable them to continue teaching in Christian schools due to reduced financial concerns.

On May 27, Ezekiel attended Hayley's recital and 18th birthday reception. Lily, Eloise's sister, arrived from Minnesota for a week.

On May 29, Eloise and I drove Ezekiel up to the Academy so that he could watch Michael's graduation parade. We were thrilled by the CV-22 fly-over at the beginning of the parade. Late that night we all attended Michael's commissioning by Dad and pinning on by Mom and Dad.

Hayley and a friend from church stayed with Ezekiel the next day while 15 family and friends wore specially made gold T-shirts at the Stadium while Michael received his diploma and then watched the Thunderbirds put on an air show. Ezekiel was able to see and hear Michael over the internet.

On 31 May, Ezekiel received another Avastin treatment....

We continue to see the progressing effects of the tumor cells. Ezekiel is in good spirits, but sleeps a lot and need assistance moving around.

He looks forward to more visits from family and friends.

Please pray for his continued comfort during the weeks ahead.

In Him,

Dave

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:03 PM
Subject: Update on Ezekiel

All,

We have been having problems with our internet service, so some of you may not have received earlier updates. Therefore, the 11 April update is below.

On Wed, 2 May, Ezekiel's doctor recommended that he not go through another round of chemo because he didn't think Ezekiel's body could tolerate it. He felt Ezekiel was worse since the 25 April visit. Ezekiel received an Avastin treatment and has rebounded a bit. He continues to struggle with walking and has no use of his right arm. We will have another MRI taken on 14 May and see Dr Foreman in Denver on 16 May for the results and another Avastin treatment.

Ezekiel and Hawley (Ezekiel's girlfriend) attend Prom at a French restaurant in downtown...on Friday, 20 April. Ezekiel's brothers and sisters converted our mini-van into a limo and I was the chauffer. Hawley was crowned queen.

My company is allowing me to work from home so that I can help Eloise with Ezekiel around the house.

Thank you for your prayers, thoughts and support,

In Him,

Dave

--

Dear All, (11 April Update on Ezekiel)

As Ezekiel's British-born oncologist said today after reviewing the MRI, "it looks fine." Of course, we asked him to define "fine." Both he and the radiologist felt that the tumor cells had diminished somewhat and overall this month's scan was better than last month's. This is the best news we've had since January. This treatment seems to be effective in delaying the spread of the tumor cells. Ezekiel started chemo again tonight. Over the next 8 weeks, we will repeat the 2 weeks of chemo and 2 weeks of Avastin twice before another MRI in early June.

Please keep praying.

Ezekiel still struggles with walking, talking and using his right hand. He receives physical therapy each week and we take him for short walks.

In Him,

Dave

Growing pains

2007-06-03T18:15:00.000-06:00

Does it seem like the world is crashing down on you? Do you want to escape from decisions you know you have to make? Does it feel like you're growing up too fast? That's where I am. I suppose that it's a growing experience in and of itself, but it's rough.

That said, I'm not complaining. I know that God uses everything for His purposes, and that His purposes are good. It seems like I'm just too thick-headed to hear what He is trying to say...or maybe I just don't want to hear what He's trying to say. Oy.

Reading through books yesterday afternoon and trying to just STOP (our pastor has been talking about the Sabbath for the last three weeks...we STOPPED to the point of turning off our phones! Oy...), I came to a question that I'd love to have a discussion with all you readers about: Has God created us to be broken? It seems sometimes like life is all about pain. As The Dread Pirate Roberts said in The Princess Bride, "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

So are we made to be broken, or is it perhaps because of our stupid mistakes (because we have free will) that we are hurt? Does God say, "Well, I didn't want you to get hurt, but you chose to"? I mean, I know He uses all things for His glory, but...

Ugh. I think I've run out of whatever eloquence I might have had. Sorry, all. Hope you had a great weekend!

Thursday, 31 May 07

2007-05-31T10:04:00.000-06:00

Well, today is Thursday. That means yesterday was Wednesday and tomorrow is Friday. Brilliant deductions, eh? But seriously, that means it's almost the weekend, which I can't wait for. I'm rather tired of school...

I'm working on the rough draft for a term paper on the nursing shortage in the United States right now. The term paper is for a class on how to write these papers because one of our friends is going off to college this fall and needs to know how to write them, and another friend is a teacher at CTU, so they made this thing happen. Mom and Dad decided that our friends needed more students and we needed to learn how to write term papers, so here I am...But that was probably more of an explaination than you needed.

This afternoon, at 3, I go to work at Wendy's again. It will be my second day at this job. If any of you are ever in my neck of the woods on Monday, Thursday or Friday afternoon, around 3-7, come by Wendy's!!! Unfortunately, you don't get a discount for knowing me, but I'd be ever so happy to see you...

I've been thinking a lot lately. Unfortunately, most of my thoughts disappear like a vapor before I'm able to write them down and/or share them with you, my dear reader. I pray that all is going well with you, wherever you are in this world.

God bless!

I have a job...

2007-05-25T21:03:00.000-06:00

Well, yeah...the title says it all. I got a job at Wendy's. It didn't work out at all like I expected it to. I didn't have any control over the situation (well, it felt that way).

You know what? God is really teaching me a lot. Wendy's was the lowest on my list of places to work at, yet they wanted me the most.

Wednesday, when I took in my applications to Subway, Papa Murphy's and Wendy's, the lady (part of management...I'm not sure of her position) took one look at my resume and asked if I could come in that afternoon. I told her that I could, thinking that Mom would be thrilled. Turns out that it wasn't highest on Mom's list of places for me to work either, and she had something planned for that afternoon that I didn't know about, so I had to turn around and tell the lady that I couldn't do it. Oy.

We scheduled an interview for yesterday (Thursday) at 3:00 pm. I actually got there on time (always a lovely thing when interviewing) and sat down with this guy that really didn't look much older than me. He asked me the normal informative questions as well as the normal weird ones (The last time you were in a situation where you were dealing with an irate person, what did you do? When have you done a project with no adult supervision? How did you do it? How do you react to people who complain? etc...). He told me that the lady who I had talked to on Wednesday had some more questions, and could I please come in the next day (today, or Friday).

I happily agreed, thinking that they might want to hire me. The funny thing was, this guy told me to bring my black shoes, black pants, social security number (I found out today that they wanted the SS CARD...) and driving permit, telling me that it was going to be an orientation thing. Silly me...I thought it was like the second part of the interview, with more hands-on questions and the rest that the lady hadn't covered...

Okay, all this to say that I was hired, even though I didn't know it. I was dumb enough not to ask, and they didn't think to even tell me. But you know what? I really think it was God's plan for me-I wouldn't have chosen this place unless it was the last possible option, so He made His will clear-exactly what I was praying for!

Isn't it funny how God works? He really has a sense of humor, even when dealing with people like me, who would give grey hairs to the most patient of teachers. What a truly amazing, great, loving, merciful God we serve!

My co-workers are going to be a little interesting, but there will be time enough to learn what they're like.

In the meantime, I need to finish Biology, Driver's Ed, Logic, a research paper and Geography and help Mom sketch out our next school year. I'm also thinking about starting a piano studio, but thinking never got anything done, so I'm going to start "officially" teaching my little brothers on Tuesday or Wednesday, I think. *Brain goes into overload* God is also teaching me a lot about relationships. I never knew how bad I was at them until I found that I really cared about certain ones-the ones I tend to be the worst at. Hmmmm...what a concept! Another humbling experience.

Signing very exhaustedly out but trusting our amazing God still,
Allegra

Job hunting

2007-05-23T13:32:00.000-06:00

Wow! I just got done working out and giving applications to various companies (namely Subway, Papa Murphy's and Wendy's). I never knew it was so hard! Everyone who is hunting for a job, I really admire you. If you haven't found a job yet, keep it up!!! Wendy's wanted to do an interview with me this afternoon at 2:15 (yeah...I walked in there, handed my application to the lady--she looked at it and then asked if I could come in this afternoon), but Mom couldn't take me over there, and I'm *this* close to having my license, but I don't yet. Grr...So tomorrow will hopefully be the day. Quite honestly, I don't care to work at Wendy's, but it's worth a try to go interview anyway. Any hints on how to do interviews? If anyone is looking for a job right now, I'd say the most successful strategy is to fill out as many applications as possible online and in paper form, then hand the paper to the manager if possible. Be nice and look nice, too...

2007-05-20T19:47:00.000-06:00

This is a fascinating survey that was conducted by The Rebelution, called the Modesty Survey. I started reading it a few days ago, just skimming through stuff, and came back to it today to an open question about what guys would say to sisters in Christ about modesty. WOW! I was quite impressed.

Guys, you have no idea how much what you think affects us girls! I can safely speak for one girl when I say that I'm so impressed by your desire to do right. As a result, I will try even harder to do right, too, knowing that others care enough to do the same.

You don't have to read ALL the responses (there sure were quite a lot!), but I wanted to show you what made an impact on me. I want to tell my Christian brothers that you are greatly appreciated as well, when you try to remain pure. Quite honestly, I cringe every time I see a girl that is really immodest, because it hurts me to think what it does to you. Keep up the good fight, though! Your future wives will be so honored.

=-=

Open Question

If you could say one thing to your sisters in Christ about modesty, what would it be?

Age 24

Sisters in Christ, you really have no concept of the struggles that guys face on a daily basis. Please, please, please take a higher standard in the ways you dress. True, we men are responsible for our thoughts and actions before the Lord, but it is such a blessing when we know that we can spend time with our sisters in Christ, enjoying their fellowship without having to constantly be on guard against ungodly thoughts brought about by the inappropriate ways they sometimes dress. In 1 Corinthians 12 the apostle Paul presents believers as the members of one body - we have to work together. Every Christian has a special role to play in the body of Christ. That goal is to bring glory to the Savior through an obedient, unified body of believers - please don't hurt that unity by dressing in ways that may tempt your brothers in Christ to stumble. --

Age 23

There is one that is more in love with you than any man can ever be. You are incredibly valuable to Him, and you never need question His commitment to Him. He thinks you're beautiful in the morning without your makeup, and He'll think you're just as beautiful when you're 80. He is Christ. In you should treat Him with the loyalty and respect of a Husband. There is no need to attract a man to you - Christ will lead the right man to you. And when someone that loves you as much as Christ arranges a marriage, you may rest assured it will be far better than anything you could have done. You are His - be content there. --

Age 20

If I could only persuade you of one thing, it would be that God's ways are best. Our heavenly Father has our welfare in mind, and His commandments are not burdensome. Obedience is rarely easy (we men have our own battles to fight), but it is always blessed. I am convinced that a young woman who submits her heart to God in this area will experience blessing as a result. After reading this survey, some may decide to pursue modesty quite grudgingly, in order to avoid causing their brothers to stumble, but viewing it as a great personal sacrifice nonetheless. I can only hope that this is not how it is perceived by most of you. I hope you understand the value and significance of true modesty. And I hope you will not trade that blessing for a mess of pottage. --

Age 18

Sisters in Christ, we men in society have miserably failed at appreciating true womanhood. On behalf of every man out there who has painted a distorted picture in your life of what a real woman is, especially along the lines of modesty, I apologize deeply. There are many Godly men out there, as I'm sure this survey will prove, that are dying to give you their utmost respect when you choose to follow God's leading in this area of modesty in your life. We back you up all the way and want to do anything we can to help you. And we ask that you do all you can to help us as we struggle through this world of sin together. --

Age 13

Modest girls are always more pretty to me than immodest girls. An immodest girl might be really pretty but her actions are ugly and they cancel out her natural beauty, making her ugly. A modest girl is pretty not only in looks but in actions and deeds and that is the type of girl I like to be around. --

Age 17

It means SO MUCH! It's not just that we respect you more, there is even an attraction to girls who dress modestly. I don't want to marry someone who is dressed immodestly all the time. I want to marry someone who I've noticed dresses modestly and has a concern for modesty. Don't ever think that it goes unnoticed. Guys notice, and guys are so grateful. --

Age 18

Most of the time, intention is what counts. If you are trying to get away with as little as possible, even if you somehow manage to abide by all the suggestions of this survey, you will most likely still create a stumbling block. However, a girl that does not think a lot about which articles of cloths are most modest will still end up being less suggestive and, most likely, entirely modest if she has an attitude of modesty and tries to conduct herself with Christian grace and femininity. --

Age 16

As a Christian guy, modesty is SO attractive. I don't mean attractive in a lustful way, but that to see a girl living out God's standards in her life really is beautiful. And you have no idea just how much you would be helping your Christian brothers by being modest. We're not trying to blame you for our impurity, that's between us and God, but you can do so much to encourage and help us in our battle by being modest. --

Age 16

Please don’t take modesty lightly. As your brother in Christ I value the relationship that I will have with my wife someday. When I am tempted because of you I lose a part of myself that I am trying to save for her. When I’m tempted because of you I become that much more accepting of the perversions in the world. When you remain pure and modest, my life is made so much easier. Instead of watching to ensure that I don’t sin I can focus on you as a person and fellow follower of Christ. I appreciate modesty more than you’ll ever know. Please, show respect of yourself and of me and be modest. --

Age 17

That they have absolutely no idea of how important it is to us. There are enough attacks the devil launches at us in the area of lust as it is without having to, as often in my experience, stare at the floor the duration of Sunday School. --

Age 17

Dearest sister: God made you a thing of beauty. A thing to be admired and respected. When you dress or act in a way that draws attention to your body, you make it easy for the guys around you to reduce you to the level of a disgusting toy - using you to mentally satisfy their fantasies. They stop thinking about your Godly qualities and immerse themselves in sinful thought. By dressing and acting modestly, you draw attention to your face instead of your body. Your body may be alluring, but your face - those deep, mysterious eyes and smiling mouth - is infinitely more beautiful than any amount of revealing dress. Would you rather be the tool by which guys satisfy themselves or the beautiful thing God created you to be, pure for your husband? My flesh prefers the former, but my heart pleads for the latter. --

Age 15

This really is a hard challenge that we all must overcome and I would appreciate if our sisters in Christ were the one group of girls that we could count on to help us with this challenge. --

Age 19

A girl's dress proclaims her priorities and values louder than if she got on a chair and screamed them to the world. When critically examining a woman's get-up, I consider the following: Could she get down on the floor and play with a group of toddlers without losing several articles of clothing? Could she get away from a threatening situation without spraining an ankle? Could she prepare and maintain a house and its members easily? Could she be the Proverbs 31 woman dressed like that? --

Age 17

Girls, you are so much more beautiful than the other girls in the world because you are modest. Your purity is beautiful and I find you attractive because you guard it. --

Age 17

Embrace it. Even though it always seems like guys only "want one thing," I, being a guy myself, can speak for most guys when I say that deep down inside most guys really just want a girl that has the confidence to not cheapen herself by dressing immodestly. It is time for both guys and girls to rise above the age-old stereotypes thrown at us by the media, adults, and each other, and take modesty to heart! --

Age 19

Your heart is what matters, not your outward beauty. Don't assume that you have to be a magazine cover girl to get married to a good guy, because first of all, those pictures are not real, they are edited, and second, you really don't want guys that only care about your outward beauty. --

Age 18

For those of you trying to be modest, thank you, thank you, thank you! I certainly notice it and am grateful for it. For those of you who aren't sure about modesty, it is hard enough for us guys as it is; please don't make it harder. --

Age 15

Keep persevering! Your efforts are appreciated and noticed, even though you may not be able to see that. It serves us guys tremendously, not only in not being tempted each time we look at you, but also knowing that you care and that your heart attitude is to serve. Thank you for guarding the guys! --

Age 21

Thank you to all my sisters who seek to please God with modest clothing and behavior. You really show love and care for others when you dress modestly and do not flirt. There are some especially modest, attractive women in my church who realize that their brothers need help in this area. We men don't appreciate and thank you sisters enough for the thoughtfulness and work you put into dressing modestly. Please keep it up. Not only is your modesty helpful in keeping your brothers from sin, but it is also an attractive quality in a future wife (Prov 31:30). --

Age 27

Most young women don't understand that men find women who are modest and graceful and feminine very attractive and that you don't have to dress provocatively to get the attention of good men, just of bad men. --

Age 14

Number one, pay attention to what you are wearing. Something you have on may seem fine to you, but that's because you're a girl and you were created much, much differently than a guy. And two, listen to a guy if he tells you what is modest and what is not. Once again, his opinion may be completely different, but he's right when it comes to modesty. He's the one immodest clothing affects. --

Age 24

That it is not just what they wear, but the attitude in which they wear it. If a lady dresses modestly but is flirtatious or hard-hearted, she is still displaying immodesty. Modesty deals more with what is in their heart; if their heart is perfect toward God, He will change their clothing habits to glorify Him. --

Age 29

I have heard so many girls say that they never knew that guys were so affected by what they wear. It is kind of mind-boggling, since I also hear girls talking about how uncomfortable various pieces of clothing are. I can only assume that they wear them to attract guys. Finally, thank you for even reading this survey and thinking about your dress, your brothers, and your own sin, that we may love and serve Christ together, for His glory! --

Age 40-49

Even though we as men need (and are commanded) to be pure in our thought life, it is a tremendous help to have our sisters help us in this matter, instead of being a temptation. --

Age 24

Two things: 1. Understand that your heart is more important than what you wear. Strive for holiness in the grace of God. But also understand that what you wear reflects your heart. Make it a goal to be Christlike in heart and behavior, including what you wear. 2. Please don't be fooled by the culture around you. Just because the mall sells certain kinds of clothes or makeup, that doesn't make it okay to wear it. And the same goes for men. We must constantly seek to live by the Bible, not by the world. And there are many ways to do that. Just make sure that you intentionally decide, not just go with what's "cute." --

Age 19

When a girl dresses modestly, it helps to cut down on temptation drastically. Physical purity for guys is just as hard as emotional purity is for girls. Modesty actually makes a girl more beautiful because it shows where her heart is before God. --

Age 19

You have no idea how much it means to me as a guy when I see girls who are doing their best to be modest. These are girls that I feel completely comfortable being friends with, and by their actions they demand my respect. Modesty will win you the friendship of guys who will care about you as a person and will see you as a sister in Christ before they see you as anything else, and modesty will protect you from guys who only care about your looks and who see you only as a potential girlfriend. --

Age 18

Modesty is not about discovering the right rules and following them, although guidelines and standards are very useful. Modesty is about being so satisfied, fulfilled, and secure in your relationship with God that you do not feel the need to display yourself immodestly. That security is where the beauty of the heart comes from, and that security is what will catch the right guy's attention. --

Age 26

There is a truth which can be expressed a number of ways: 'When one sense dies the others become more sensitive.' 'The stars can only be seen when the sky is dark.' 'The softly spoken secret can only be heard when the shouting stops.' When you dress modestly, it helps us guys avoid certain temptations and thoughts, but also 1 Peter 3:3-5 comes to mind: "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful." Modesty quiets down the loud voice of the outer attraction and allows the quieter but truer voice of a woman's inner beauty to come forward. It's that inner quality which is vital for a true and full attraction. It is honourable, selfless and beautiful to dress modestly. The very fact that a girl would dress that way out of consideration for guys is actually attractive. In the end we might fall into lust over girls dressed immodestly who show us their bodies, but what we truly want is a respectful, hard-working, loving girl, and as for physical attraction, we want allurement and sensuality. The sexuality is real, but rather than offering sexuality as the appetizer, we'd rather have it as dessert. We would like it served up with care and thought. After all, having dessert first spoils your appetite for anything else. Finally, I want to thank you for your consideration in all this. We get so much thrown in our face in the world, that it is wonderful to be amongst the body of Christ and be able to find a haven there. We know the pressures that are on you to look a certain way, and that you'd sacrifice personal image in the eyes of the world to honour God and bless us is a precious gift. --

Age 18

Honestly, a girl that dresses modestly yet attractively will catch my eye far more (or at least in far more of a positive manner) than will a girl that feels the need to expose parts of her just to get attention. When it seems like you're alone, just remember that there are guys out there that care, and that will thank you someday for the stand you have taken. May God bless you as you seek to glorify Him each day . . . . --

Age 21

As Christian girls, I'm sure that there is a lot of pressure from the world that in order to look attractive you have to dress immodestly. I would just like to say that as a guy, I find it far more attractive to see a girl, modestly dressed because that is making a very positive statement about her character. Guys who think that you have to dress immodestly to look good, are guys who probably aren't interested in anything besides your looks. So I would like the girls to know that modesty is very attractive and more than that, it is a way to bring glory to God through your appearance. --

Age 28

Modesty is not a set of rules; it is an attitude of the heart that comes from seeing, loving and trusting Christ. Modesty is that attitude of heart that behaves in such a way as to reflect the humility of the Son of God by not attracting inordinate attention to oneself. Modesty and humility are intimately tied. Trying to be modest without being humble is just pretense; trying to be humble without seeing and falling down before Jesus is foolishness. The way to modesty is through the cross. Dressing a certain way may appear modest, but do nothing to the heart. The modesty of heart that manifests in the way one acts and dresses is that which glorifies God, and shows His glory through you. --

Age 17

It's apreciated more than you know. You have no idea how much I appreciate my sisters in Christ who dress modestly, because I can be around them without having to struggle to keep my thoughts pure. And I find girls who dress modestly more attractive than those who dress immodestly. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you are. It might be a cliche, but real beauty IS on the inside. --

Age 16

Please don't feel like you need to dress immodestly to get our attention. Christian guys notice girls that dress modestly and are (should be) drawn to them and are prone to like them over girls that show their bodies to a million guys. You don't need to show off your body to be liked or loved by a guy! --

Age 15

Be modest. I like a girl that will be modest even though all her friends won't be. I also find it easier to talk to a girl that isn't revealing herself. --

Age 16

The female body is a powerful gift, intended for one man. Just as you wouldn't give your most prized possession to everyone on the street, so you shouldn't share the secrets of your body with any man other than your husband. Modesty will attract a man who is suitable to be your husband. Just as moths flock to a candle flame, so guys will flock to an immodest girl. But are you going to be satisfied with a moth when you can have a butterfly? --

Age 26

Modesty is extremely attractive in a pure and holy way. Beauty is fleeting. Inner purity is gorgeous! Guard your intimacy with God. If you can't do something in the Holy of holies, don't do it at all. Eternity is a long time. Spend it with Jesus. Start now, if you haven't already. If you're intimate with God it shows. Intimacy with God is the most attractive thing in a woman. Purity and holiness is beautiful. Impurity taints a womans outer beauty. Purposefully or willingly sinning is not forgivable. Don't play with that. Eternity is a long time. Get plugged in to a local healthy growing church, if you're not yet. Fall deeply and madly in love with your Maker. Love God. Love people. Devour the Word of God. Hunger and thirst for righteousness, and you will be filled. (Matthew 5) Those who do righteousness are righteous.(1 John 3:7) Those who do righteousness are born of God. (1 John 2:29) Prayer is for intimacy with God. Intimacy with God is the very essence and breath of life. --

Age 20

Modesty affects guys so much. Making sure to be modest can help guys' thought lives so much and the ones who are trying to keep their thoughts pure will appreciate it immensely. I am always impressed with girls that make a point of dressing modestly and am terribly grateful to them, but always disappointed with girls who dress immodestly. One more thing: dressing immodestly may attract guys, but dressing modestly will attract the kinds of guys you probably want to attract, both as friends and as potential husbands, because they are attracted by the high quality of your character that you show by dressing modestly. --

Age 29 God gave you girls huge power over us men as we are wired to respond to a woman's body when it's revealed or hinted at. It's part of God's perfect plan for marriage and yet it's another thing that Satan has twisted and is using against us to make us think that we are not living up to God's standards, since it is like a re-fall every time one of those thoughts crosses our minds, no matter how small it is or how quickly we dismiss it. We know it's not all your responsibility, but you can help. --

Age 16

It really is important! It's often difficult for you to understand our (guys') minds, as it is often hard for us to understand yours. Guys struggle with things most girls wouldn't think of, and it is such a gift to you and us that we have a survey such as this to help each other. Above all, be loving to your Christian brothers in how you present yourselves and how you relate to us. --

Age 18

It's totally worth it. Although it might seem like the immodest girls get all the initial attention, if a guy wants a long term relationship with you because of your immodesty, he's probably not the kind of guy a Christian girl should be with. Immodesty is a stumbling block even to your guy friends, and no real good is really going to come out of it. --

Age 22

Dear Sister, You are beautiful to God, and that makes you beautiful to me. I know that isn't what the worldly media is telling you. No doubt you often get the feeling that we men only care about women's bodies. That is probably true of many men, but not true of a godly man. As a child of God, I realize that there are things about you that are much more valuable than your body. I am learning to appreciate your heart,your love and concern for others, your dedication to our Lord, and your desire to please Him. Those things are far more important than the shape of your body. However, while I believe that, it isn't always easy to live it. Part of the reason for this is the fact that many women make their physical appearance their focus ans so they expose themselves to get attention. Please don't do that. You don't have to be immodest to be attractive and beautiful. I don't want you to think that I blame you for my failures. If I lust after a woman's exposed body, that is completely my fault. She didn't force me to lust. However, it is her fault that she exposed herself to me and gave me something to lust after. I know you probably don't hear it much, but we, your brother's in Christ, are blessed and very grateful when you help us in this area by being modest in the way you dress as well as the way you act. You are wonderful and beautiful creations of God and you don't have to expose yourselves to prove it. Thank you for being a godly and virtuous woman. Your Brother in Christ --

Age 19

I think, based on what some girls have told me, that a lot of girls are so concerned about the way they dress because they compare themselves to other girls, not as much because they are concerned about looking attractive to the boys. If this is true, please stop judging each other and encouraging each other to buy more clothes and to spend so much time and money on influencing your appearances. Character, personality, and self-confidence in one's worth are so much more important for being an exemplary Christian, and they are also very attractive to Christian guys. Girls, thank you for taking an interest in this survey. --

Age 27

Girls, however you dress, you give guys an impression. When you dress immodestly, you present the image that you care little about yourself, and the only assets you have are the physical ones you are showing. When you dress modestly, you may not attract the attention of every guy who walks by, but you will most certainly attract the attention of the sort of guy you want, one who will respect you and like you for who you are, not what you are. --

Age 19

We love you! We want to protect your dignity. Therefore, we want you to care about your own honor. Please honor us also by protecting us from the shame of lust. I know of no temptation that is more common in America than that of lust. And if even Christian girls don't care how their dress affects their brothers, then what will become of us? And what's the point of trying to honor our sisters if they dishonor themselves before our very eyes? --

Age 15

Guys DO appreciate it! even though it seems like they always go for the "sexy" girls, Guys really do respect and honor girls who have the willpower to keep themselves pure and looking pure. --

Age 20

As a young man, I have grown to appreciate and respect greatly girls who present themselves physically in a pure and Christ-centered way. Whether in dress or an attitude of modesty, God will honor and reward you for your goal and efforts to keep him as the center of your life in clothing and the way that you interact with those of the opposite gender. --

Age 16 Seek a better character, not a better countenance. If you have a godly character, you will be far more attractive to me and any other guy who is doing his best to stay pure in mind and body than if you are focusing on your physical appearance. This isn't to say that you can't make yourself attractive, just don't idolize your vanity table and cosmetics. Focus on pleasing Christ, and the right kind of guy will notice you. --

Age 14

Keep going, no matter how hard it gets, keep at it, for not only are you helping your fellow brothers stay clean for their wives, but you are keeping yourself pure for your husband. It may seem like guys don't notice or appreciate, but they do, in ways you don't see. --

Age 20

You can dress modestly and look fantastic, in fact better, than if you dress immodestly. I notice girls who dress modestly! --

Age 30-34

If a girl would think in terms of a man being someone's husband, perhaps that would help her not want to draw the eyes of another woman's husband and a little girl's dad. She would see that she can actually give a man a moment's relief from his constant fight for faithfulness to God and to his future wife. A moment to lower his guard and catch his breath again is really refreshing. --

=-=

Note: I did not include all the responses in here...it would just be too long!

Please pray for me

2007-05-18T12:57:00.000-06:00

Dear faithful friends and readers, Please pray for me. I've been having a rough week (it's probably called recovery from last week), and it doesn't show signs of getting better. Please pray for God's strength for me, for a peace that passes understanding, and stronger trust in Him. Thanks so much! I promise I will update in greater detail...later... God bless!

Craziness!

2007-05-09T19:32:00.000-06:00

Hi...my name is Bob...wait. I forgot what my name is. Okay, well, things are crazy here. Monday morning, our grandmother flew in from AZ, and we got a little boy (our pastor's 1-year old son) that evening for a whole week.

It's so much fun, but also totally crazy. I'm not used to having a baby in the house again (though it really is wonderful), and we have had to readjust our schedules to work around Grandma and the baby. Suffice it to say that I've not gotten much schoolwork done, and my brain is like mush...I'm not even in charge! Don't know how Mom does it.

If you'd pray for us - for general sanity, for Grandma's health (she's been having some breathing problems), and anything else you think of, that would be wonderful. Oh...and if having two extra members wasn't enough business...we're having an end-of-year party for our debate club tomorrow night, going to Elitches on Friday, and going to a ball on Saturday. THEN, we're celebrating Mother's Day and the baby's birthday on Sunday. Eep! Wow...

Hope all is going well wherever you are. Sorry I haven't updated in a while. My totally awesome friend and I are collaborating on putting together a super-cool article. It promises to be a lot of fun to write and read! :)

God bless!

Spring

2007-05-01T07:27:00.000-06:00

I've been working on putting together something coherent that all my wonderful readers would enjoy, and Chris’ comment about posting something interesting again has finally pushed me to doing it. You shall see if Chris’ comment is appreciated or not... *insert creepy music* :P

So...

I love spring. The beauty of the newly-blossoming trees (well, when they’re not covered in snow), the fragrance of growing things (when it isn’t causing my allergies to go berserk), and the promise of the end of school (that DOES help...) all combine to make me glad to be alive.

It’s 70 degrees this evening. The sun is probably an hour from setting, and there is barely any wind stirring the trees and my hair. The neighborhood dogs are barking at something as usual, but two meadowlarks conversing on either side of our property make the warmth and stillness truly spring-like. Motorcycles traveling down the road are yet another reminder that it’s now warm enough to do things that winter weather prevents us from doing.

If Lydia were writing right now instead of me, you’d be able to feel what she’s feeling. But I’ll do my best to share the peace, contentment, and yet deep longing for something more. First, let me share with you the peace and contentment that comes from realizing that the God I serve is more powerful than we can even begin to realize.

The song, “How Great Thou Art,” was written by Stuart K. Hine, and came from a Swedish folk melody. It is one of my most favorite hymns, and I think it says best what I’m trying to convey:

O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder
Consider all the worlds thy hands have made,
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy pow’r tho’out the universe displayed.

Then sings my soul,
My Savior God, to thee:
How great thou art,
How great thou art!
Then sings my soul,
My Savior God, to thee:
How great thou art,
How great thou art!

When thro’ the woods and forest glades I wander
And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees,
When I look down from lofty mountain grandeur,
And hear the brook and feel the gentle breeze;

Then sings my soul,
My Savior God, to thee:
How great thou art,
How great thou art!
Then sings my soul,
My Savior God, to thee:
How great thou art,
How great thou art!

And when I think that God, his son not sparing,
Sent him to die, I scarce can take it in,
That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.

Then sings my soul,
My Savior God, to thee:
How great thou art,
How great thou art!
Then sings my soul,
My Savior God, to thee:
How great thou art,
How great thou art!

When Christ shall come with shout of acclamation
And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart!
Then I shall bow in humble adoration,
And there proclaim, my God, how great thou art.

Job also put it in a way that helps one understand God’s majesty:

“The dead are in deep anguish, those beneath the waters and all that live in them. Death is naked before God; Destruction lies uncovered. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it. He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness. The pillars of heaven quake, aghast at his rebuke. By his power he churned up the sea; by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces. By his breath the skies became fair; his hand pierced the gliding serpent. And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?” (Job 26:5-14)

The atmosphere of a spring evening outdoors is one of utter peace and contentment, yet it is hard (for me at least) to remain focused simply on the here and now. I generally begin longing for the future: When the fruit trees all produce fruit; when flowers blossom; when we can swim in the horse trough that is a working substitute for a plastic pool in our yard; and yes, even for the time when we have to mow again. Spring is beautiful, but it is not the “ultimate season”—it is simply pointing us toward the future.

I have been challenged recently to think about two things (one is related to this topic of spring, while the other could be...): First, living for today versus living for tomorrow. When you hear someone talk about living for today, it usually sounds secular. I say that because secularists, the people who believe there is no God, have no reason to live beyond the day. The saying “let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die,” applies to them.

Christians are the ones who live for the future, for a greater glory. They are held to a standard by which they know they will be judged. They are hopefully storing up for themselves treasure in heaven rather than treasure on earth.

Is it possible, then, that Christians should also live for the current day, live life to its fullest? (You might be saying, “well, if you put it that way, yes!”) Okay, I am trying to put it in a favorable light because I do believe so. I believe that Christian teenagers, who are constantly looking at the future and wishing they were there instead, should realize that life right now is where they are being molded into the adults they will be for the rest of their lives.

I say “they”...I mean “we”...

Yes, while it is important for us to store up our treasure in heaven, it is also important to live the life we have RIGHT NOW to the fullest instead of always longing for the future. Dreaming about our wedding day instead of building the character that we need as a spouse will not do. Planning for how we will take out a loan (not like any of us do THAT...) instead of learning how to manage our money does nothing.

The second thing I’ve been learning about (and maybe this does have more to do with spring than I give it credit for) has been the concept of worshipping, honoring and glorifying God even when I don’t feel like it. As a girl, I’m very “in touch” with my emotions, meaning that when I feel like praising God, I REALLY feel like praising Him. But when I don’t feel like it, I don’t praise Him. This is wrong.

You see, God created man to glorify Him. Westminster’s Shorter Catechism asks: “What is the chief end of man?” The answer: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” God created us to glorify Him, and it really doesn’t matter how we feel on the subject.

While it is wonderful to feel in awe of God, there are times when we don’t feel like praising Him. We’d rather read a book or go sob in our corner. If we can praise Him even at those times, we are truly worshipping Him. We are actually sacrificing something and really honoring Him when we praise Him during those times.

So now you know what I’ve been thinking about lately. What are your thoughts on seasons, living for the moment, worshipping God or anything else?

Homeschool Day at Elitches!

2007-04-24T11:18:00.000-06:00

Everyone that is homeschooled and lives in Colorado, here's a cool idea: go to Elitches on May 11th! It is (I believe) $19 per person - a good deal. PLUS, there will be other homeschoolers there. We are planning on going to celebrate Esther's 13th birthday. Yippee!

Laziness!

2007-04-23T08:42:00.001-06:00

I'm lazy. But if you'd like to read about how Regionals went for us, go to my other blog, Amateur Journalism. Hope all is well with you!

Another rant on humanness

2007-04-03T20:35:00.000-06:00

I was going to post this on my sister's blog as a comment to her post from 1.4.07 , but it got too long...check out the original post first, the comments made in response to it, and then this post will make more sense.

First, a little background of my own, though:

We're dealing with an interesting issue right now. It's not horribly awful or anything, but it's something new that is kind of scaring us. A friend, who I had never been very close to because our personalities just didn't get along very well, decided she liked the guy that I had basically adopted as my brother. You've got to realize how protective we are of our brothers...it's a bad spot for her to be in...PLUS, she initiated the "relationship". I'm not saying he doesn't deserve some of the blame for this silly relationship (it really is - one just wants a girlfriend, I think, and the other is trying to get back at her "former boyfriend" and get the "satisfaction" that she thinks comes from "having" a guy). But she shouldn't have initiated.

--

I totally agree with you about the reasons girls initiate versus why guys initiate. To be quite honest, sometimes it seems scary how "slow" guys are (no, I'm not trying to beat up on everyone--it's just a common complaint among women that guys are slow), yet they are in some ways much more observant than the girls. Girls tend to get carried away in the rush of the moment, in the emotional side of things (no, duh!), but guys are smarter.

Girls care so much about relationships (that's pretty much all they talk about), yet guys are the ones who do the best in them. Ugh. Like Mark, I'm being random, but I hope these make sense.

As a girl, I'm tempted to initiate. But what happens when you initiate one relationship and then another one comes along that the guy initiated? Which one would be more likely to succeed?

Guys may be slow, but they know what they're doing. Besides, a girl may be "ready" for a relationship (in maturity...maybe...), but maybe the guy isn't! Maybe the girl thinks she's old enough to have a sharing, caring relationship (for lack of a better term), but maybe the guy wants to complete college, for example. For Pete's sake, cut the guy some slack!

This is a common mistake among girls, of thinking that now is the only chance they have to "nab" the guy of their dreams. If now is the only chance, what about God? Isn't He in control any more?

The best relationship is centered on Christ--both by each individual and THROUGH the relationship. Centered on Christ for the girl means first and foremost being patient and trusting Him. It means trusting that His timing is perfect and that we really can't rush Him. What a concept...

Another point about "nabbing" the guy of the girl's dreams: if he really is the guy of her dreams, wouldn't HE rush in on his noble steed and rescue her from a lifetime doomed to loneliness? Yeah, guys have to be the initiators. Otherwise the girl ends up thinking she "caught" him (although I don't know how that works...), and he thinks she was too easy to get.

Dad has told me over and over that guys like a challenge. Girls that ask a guy out are not presenting a challenge. They're (please excuse me if I'm being too coarse or explicit) basically playing the role of a hooker. Guys like that...for a night...but it grows old VERY quickly.

I don't claim to know the minds of guys, but I do know that girls need to keep themselves pure and mysterious. Guys like challenge and mystery. If a girl is willing to wait and pose that challenge to a guy, the true man of her dreams will indeed rise to the occasion and win her heart.

Wow...that was a rant...sorry!

Poem and today's sermon

2007-04-01T14:03:00.000-06:00

I enjoy Elisabeth Elliot. She was the widow of Jim Elliot (think Through Gates of Splendor or The End of the Spear) and has since remarried twice. Her second husband died of cancer, and her current one is doing quite well and doesn't show signs of keeling over. Her books such as "Passion and Purity," "Keep A Quiet Heart," and others are simply wonderful.

This poem from one of her books is one that I really enjoy and have tucked away quite visibly in my journal:

If thou but suffer God to guide thee,
And hope in Him thro’ all thy ways,
He’ll give thee strength, what-e’er betide thee,
And bear thee thro the evil days;
Who trust in God’s unchanging love
Builds on the rock that naught can move.

Obey, thou restless heart, be still
And wait in cheerful hope, content
To take what-e’er His gracious will,
His all discerning love, hath sent;
Nor doubt our inmost wants are known
To Him who chose us for His own.

Sing, pray, and swerve not from His ways;
But do thine own part faithfully.
Trust His rich promises of grace,
So shall they be fulfilled in thee.
God never yet forsook in need
The soul that trusted Him indeed. Amen.

~Georg Neumark (Catherine Winkworth, Translator) Inter-Varsity Hymnal

Today's sermon was on Matthew 27, which talks about Jesus' crucifixion. Although a sad story, it's familiar, and our pastor's twist on it was new and interesting. He talked about Matthew's focus throughout this book of the Bible, how he focuses on Jesus' not coming to create a kingdom on earth but in heaven.

He then said that we are all looking for a hero that will make us happy, someone that will love us, that will be our hero. All of us have been made to realize that there's a true hero out there. Some of us find the true Hero, while others enthrone the wrong ones.

Okay, my eloquence (or whatever it's called...) has run out. I hope you are having a restful Sunday and a great weekend!

Change is in the air

2007-03-30T21:46:00.000-06:00

I am going from having all my deep, philosophical thoughts being on An Amateur Journalist's Insights to them all being here, thanks to Mark. We shall see how it works...

But first to copy one of my rants from over there:

Think of your most favorite person in the whole world. Maybe it’s someone you have a crush on, maybe it’s someone you look up to for counsel. Maybe it’s someone who’s always there to listen to you. Whoever it is, they have qualities that you admire, right?

Before this turns into a cross-examination (in case you don’t know, that’s debate lingo...), let me explain why I ask. There was a time in my life when I just appreciated people for who they were. If they had qualities that I admired, I loved them for those qualities, but when they disappointed me, well, I was disappointed with them. To an extent, that’s still the case, but I’ve made a realization in the past few months, really: any good qualities I see in my most favorite person are given from God, who is the epitome of that character.

For example, good looks. Looks are cool, but they aren’t everything. If the person you hold dear is good-looking, realizing that God gave them those looks and that He is abundantly better-looking than they are helps keep things in perspective. If the person you hold dear is strong and brave, realizing that God is eons more so again helps keep things in perspective.

I say this because, as I’ve explained before, I tend to obsess. Obsession is okay (in moderation...if there is such a thing...), but placing the person you think so much about before God is not a good idea. He will take them away if they’re blocking you from Him. In order to keep from worshipping that special person, realize that every good quality you could wish for in a guy or gal is already inherent (oy...debate lingo is hard to avoid...) in your Heavenly Father.

It’s really incredible to realize that even though He has given us this desire to be loved, He loves us more than our future spouse ever can. Even though He has given girls the desire to be protected, He protects us already. Even though He has given guys the desire to be affirmed, He already affirms them. I say “even though,” but really it should be “because”.

He has given us these desires, which to some extent are satisfied (?) in marriage, but ultimately, He is the only One who will satisfy, and you don’t even have to be married to realize it.

Maybe you’re wondering what set off this rant. If you can hear the music on here, it’s called “Every Time I Look at You”. It’s a horribly mushy song, but I love it! The words are as follows:

I used to think that I was strong/ I realize now I was wrong/ 'Cause every time I see your face/ My mind becomes an empty space/ And with you lying next to me / Feels like I can hardly breathe

I close my eyes/ The moment I surrender to you/ Let love be blind/ Innocent and tenderly true / So lead me through tonight / But please turn out the light / 'Cause I'm lost every time I look at you

And in the morning when you go/ Wake me gently so I'll know/ That loving you was not a dream/ And whisper softly what it means to be with me/ Then every moment we're apart/ Will be a lifetime to my heart

I close my eyes/ The moment I surrender to you/ Let love be blind/ Innocent and tenderly true/ So lead me through tonight/ But please, please turn out the light/ 'Cause I'm lost every time I look at you/ Lost. Every time I look at you

Romance is great. But there’s already Someone out there who is offering you all the love you need. Will you accept it? Will you be satisfied with what He has to offer?

Psalm 37: 4

Delight yourself also in the Lord,

And He shall give you the desires of your heart.

*Note: Although the words aren't that wonderful, the music itself is simply beautiful. I love it!

Keeping Current

2007-03-14T16:36:00.001-06:00

I'm trying to keep both blogs going, so here's my post that you can find over at Amateur Journalism, too.

This is truly called a rant. If you don’t want to read my thoughts, please skip this post. Many others are happy and more cheerful.

Why is it that we as humans get so wrapped up in this world? I mean, even as Christians, it’s so hard to let go of anything special here on earth. Special people become too special, that nice house that you just moved into becomes your addiction, and both usually have to go away because God is jealous.

My sister has described me as obsessive-compulsive, and she’s probably right. No, I’m not taking drugs (although I probably need to…that’s another story for another day), but I do obsess a lot. The everyday interactions with people are bad enough, but what do you do when something in particular catches your attention and you can’t stop thinking about it? What then?

These are the times that try men’s souls…or a woman’s soul…I’m a Christian teenager, so I’m supposed to have all the answers, right? Hah! Far from it. I wander the halls these days, moping, getting frustrated with myself because I know I shouldn’t be moping, shouldn’t be unhappy. But I am.

I don’t have all the answers, and I’m still working on this one, but I believe that this unhappiness and misery is just another way of God calling us. He shows us how miserable this world is and calls us to Himself. Darn it, I wish I would learn another way than through pain, though!

Zephaniah 3:17 comes to mind:

The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing.

Psalm 37, perhaps one of my favorite Psalms, also calls:

Psalm 37:3-7a

Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.

Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.

Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him and he will do this:

He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.

Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him;

Then, of course, particularly poignant right now is

Philippians 4:11

Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content

I Timothy 6:8

And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content.

An Update

2007-03-13T16:31:00.001-06:00

I really should be doing something more productive than sitting here at the computer typing in this entry. But I don't feel like it. And I'm homeschooled. So make me do anything else. :P Okay, I'm experimenting with this blog, trying out the new Blogger stuff, etc. Pink seems to work for this particular blog, so I'm probably going to leave it that way for a while. Unless anyone has an objection. Well, my brilliance has run out, so I shall leave you all now. I hope you're having a good day, wherever you are, whatever you're doing! God bless! P.S. Chris, now you can be happy. :D

Visit My Quiz!!!

2006-03-01T20:54:00.000-07:00

I have made a quiz, and I think you'll like it. So please go there!!! Here's the hyperlink: http://www03.quizyourfriends.com/yourquiz.php?quizname=060301225136-654331&&a=01

A Speech On Country Living

2005-11-28T14:26:00.000-07:00

To all my faithful readers, and first-time ones as well: I wrote this speech for a round robin event down in Pueblo. We are having another one this Friday in Parker, but I'm not presenting this...the IE stuff is already really full. However, I would like to give this another time in the near future, so if you have any comments, I would be overjoyed to hear them. Thanks!

Life In The Country by Allegra Tschappler

The farmer’s son was returning from the market with the crate of chickens his father had entrusted to him, when all of a sudden the box fell and broke open. Chickens scurried off in different directions, but the determined boy walked all over the neighborhood scooping up the wayward birds and returning them to the repaired crate. Hoping he had found them all, the boy reluctantly returned home, expecting the worst. “Pa, the chickens got loose,” the boy confessed sadly, “but I managed to find all twelve of them.” The country is the best place to live because of its serene beauty and unique opportunities to do exciting things you never would in the town. To really understand, you need to know more about the beauty of the country, the fun of having farm animals and wild animals, and the things you can do with a lot of land. The country is a beautiful place. Have you ever driven along a lonely dirt road and seen cattle grazing? It is truly a peaceful sight. Or you can sit on your front porch in the cool evening breeze and watch a truly spectacular sunset. No houses block your view, and you feel all alone, yet strangely sheltered. There is a delightful feeling of contentment when you reach the country. There is no hustle and bustle as you walk among the prairie grasses or the freshly-fallen snow. A sort of quiet easily steals your soul. But quiet isn’t the only feeling you have when you go out into the country. There is also a lot of excitement on Saturdays. The volunteer firemen get out their uniforms and polish up the trucks; the farmers go to the feed stores to get their weekly supply of grain and hay; people in the parking lots of the stores sell little kittens for ten dollars each. Some folks have old cars that they get out, shine up and drive around. Others start up their motorcycles and go careening through the streets. Some simply sit on their front porches and watch the excitement as their majestic American flag waves in the breeze. In addition to the country simply being beautiful, it provides opportunity to have animals. For example, whenever it rains heavily for several days, amphibians are close at hand. Last year, it was tadpoles in our water reserve tank. We weren’t using it, so the frogs came and laid eggs in it. We caught the tadpoles by climbing down in the tank with a ladder, and after we put them in jars, we sold several. The ones we didn’t sell, we raised for our own. Unfortunately, most of the frogs died after they had developed because we didn’t know how to take care of them. We’ve also had the chance to learn how to raise, feed and butcher rabbits. It was always hard butchering the soft, furry rabbits, but the stew they made was absolutely delicious. But if you think all we ever do is kill animals, think again. We’ve found lizards hiding under rocks. These long, snake-like fellows are a lot of fun to hold, but they prefer the rocks to our hands. Other times we’ve found fully-developed frogs. We would take them inside to show to Mommy, and then let them go again (mostly because of her encouragement—we really wanted to keep them as pets). The most common reptile around our place that we are able to catch is the horned lizard. This last year, we probably found about twenty or more baby ones. They are so tiny, you could probably hold five in your hand quite comfortably. We’ve also been able to raise a baby ground squirrel. Our cat cornered him outside one afternoon, and we caught him and put him in a terrarium. He was so fun to watch, especially when he burrowed. He had the most amazing tunnels, and you could see them through the glass. He would hide down there when our cat became interested in his container and wait for her to leave. They usually played hide and go seek for quite a while until our cat got frustrated and left. When he was old enough, we let him go back into the wild. Besides wild animals, we’ve had a quite a few farm animals such as goats, cows, chickens, rabbits and even guinea birds. Have you ever wondered how people could butcher chickens? It is a bloody and long process, and it’s sad to see a favorite animal die. Fortunately for us, we don’t typically become emotionally attached to any of our chickens, and the mean ones aren’t hard to kill. Once we raised a batch of chickens (12 or so), with four rooster chicks. When they grew up, they competed for the hens attention and tried to show who was king of the pen. One, who had probably won every battle for dominance, was particularly mean. I think he lived just to make humans miserable. Whenever we would go out to throw scraps for them, he would try to peck us on our legs. We learned to carry a bucket of scraps and a big stick. Unfortunately, on a visit out there, Mom hadn’t learned the big stick rule of thumb, so she got pecked rather hard. A few days later, we wondered where the rooster had gone, but we really enjoyed the fried chicken on Sunday... Another time we had a bull named Joey. Now, Joey really liked attention. He would scratch himself on our water faucets, turning them on, and letting them run until we were out of water. When we were out of water one afternoon, I went out back to check and see if one of the faucets was on. It was, so I turned it off. Unfortunately, Joey wanted to play. He cornered me and tried to butt me. I got between his head and back to hide from him. He kept trying to get his head aimed at me, and I kept staying at his flank so that we were circling each other for a good ten minutes. Finally, I just took off and outran him. After that, I always went out with a stick...just like with the rooster. I’m not the only one who has had an interesting experience with our bull. One evening, when we kids were in bed, Mom was working on laundry, and Dad was repairing the fence. The door was open to let in the fresh summer evening country air, and Mom was in the laundry room. She heard some stomping noises and assumed it was Dad. Thinking he was mad, she headed into the dining room to appease him. As she came into the room, she saw a tail sticking out from under the table! Joey had decided to pay us a courtesy call! Mom was scared spitless, but Joey, realizing that she knew he existed, sauntered out of the house and went for a walk. Other tame animals, such as goats, have been quite a lot of fun. Our neighbors had two goats they wanted to sell, and I wanted to try milking, so I bought them. When we thought we were ready to handle a baby goat, we bred Peppermint, the female, with a buck in the next county. It was exciting waiting for the new little creature to arrive. One night, we went to a co-op talent show, and when we got home, we went straight to bed. The next morning, Dad told me to go outside and look at Peppermint. There she was, with a brand spanking-new little daughter, who we named Frieda. We started milking Peppermint, and I enjoyed getting to know how to do it. Unfortunately, we didn’t do the milk right, and it tasted sour every time we tried it. So we let Peppermint dry up, and haven’t tried it since. But it’s great to be able to do things like that. To be able to catch frogs from a pond or a hole, milk a goat, raise chickens and bulls and have the memories of such a wonderful life are all things that come from living in the country. Although it is difficult to mow a great deal of land and fix and paint fences, having a lot of land is a really cool thing. For one thing, you are able to have animals like goats, chickens and bulls. You can also walk around for P.E. You can enjoy the beauty of the mountains, snow, grass and trees while you exercise your legs and mind. Not only can you exercise, but if you save long enough, you can buy a dirtbike to ride through the open fields. That way you don’t have to pay a lot of money to go ride a racetrack, and you can practice jumps without everyone seeing you mess up. We have a dirtbike, so trust me, I know from experience what it’s like to mess up. One time, my little brother, Sam, was out puttering around on the dirtbike and went around a corner. Problem is, he didn’t make the corner, and ended up going through the barbed wire between our property and our neighbor’s land. Dad had to go ask our neighbor for our dirtbike back, and Sam has scars to this day as a reminder that those dirtbikes need to be driven with care. Mom had to learn that fact the hard way as well as Sam, but in a more extreme way. We had just gotten the dirtbike and were learning how to stay upright, how to go fast enough to put our feet up, and even how to do jumps after a week or so. Mom decided that it looked pretty cool, so while we were taking a break, she decided to take it for a spin. Boy, did she take it for a spin! She took our biggest jump, and landed on her shoulder, breaking her collar bone. The awesome thing is, even though she really hurt herself and felt rather foolish for being the first to REALLY hurt herself on the dirtbike, the little kids thought she was the most awesome mom anyone could have because she was so daring. We agree with them, but that’s for another speech. So you see, living in the country is beautiful, it gives you the chance to have animals, and you can even have dirtbike tracks around the back of the property. Remember that story at the beginning of this speech about the boy and the chickens? Let’s find out what the dad had to say about his son’s dropping the crate and then finding all twelve of them to return home: “Pa, the chickens go loose,” the boy confessed sadly, “but I managed to find all twelve of them.” “Well, you did real good, son,” the farmer beamed with much apparent pleasure. “You left with seven.” Now you can hopefully understand a little more the reason for my bias about living in the country. Not only is it extremely exciting, but it is also breathtakingly beautiful. You should come out to our house in Falcon, Colorado, and see for yourself.

Volume 5-Our World: The White House and CIA Investigations

2005-10-27T20:08:00.000-06:00

The White House and CIA Investigations

The White House is waiting for the results of a CIA leak investigation that has been going on for two years. This odd turn of events, which barely made any headlines two years ago, has been the downfall of Mr. Lewis Libby, chief of staff for vice-president Cheney.

The story began two years ago when Robert Novak wrote an article on Joe Wilson, former U.S. diplomat. A week before the article was published, Mr. Wilson made public claims against the Bush administration. He accused the pre-war intelligence of twisting facts to support a war against Iraq.

Mr. Novak’s article, published on July 14, 2003, explored the CIA’s decision to send Mr. Wilson to Africa to check out the claims made by the Bush administration officials. Halfway through this article by Mr. Novak, he noted that Mr. Wilson, “never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.” When asked where he got his information about Mrs. Plame, Mr. Novak said that “two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.”

This leaking of information caused Mrs. Plame to lose her job, which received an angry response from Mr. Wilson. He argued that whoever had leaked the information was trying to get Mrs. Plame fired to pay him back for what he had declared the week before. Novak protested innocence in the case and attempted to defend the administration, saying that he never got a call from the administration leaking the information, and that he didn’t know Mrs. Plame was an undercover agent. He said that he wrote the article before asking Mr. Wilson for comments on his wife, which Mr. Wilson refused to do.

Since Novak was cleared of the charges, the prosecutors attempted to find the two sources who had leaked the information to Mr. Novak. Two of the Washington journalists, Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper refused to reveal their sources and fought all the way to the Supreme Court, where they lost.

Mr. Cooper, being threatened with charges of contempt of court, revealed that Mr. Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s top political counselor, was one of his sources. He said that Mr. Rove had told him that Mr. Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent involved with weapons of mass destruction, although never giving her name or status as undercover agent. After getting that information from Mr. Rove, he asked for confirmation from Mr. Lewis Libby, who gave it.

Ms. Miller, who had never written anything about Mrs. Plame, was sent to jail for 85 days because she had refused to reveal her sources, which was considered contempt of court. Mr. Libby, who turned out to be her source, told her it was okay to reveal him, so she testified and then was released. The information he had given her? That Mrs. Valerie Plame, “may have worked on unconventional weapons at the CIA.”

The prosecutor, Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald, in investigating the case, zeroed in on Mr. Libby and Rove. Mr. Rove has been spared from charges of perjury for not telling the jury about his conversation with Matt Cooper, but Libby was indicted and could be convicted of making false statements as well because of the contradictions between his and other reporter’s testimonies. If this does happen, he could face up to 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines. This is a hefty price to pay, which shows how important this issue is.

In light of the recent Harriet Miers stepdown, the CIA issue, and Iraq war deaths, the whole White House is dealing with a lot right now. Please say a prayer for our leaders. They have a big responsibility, but God is the one who directs their paths.

Volume 4-Our World: Earthquake In Pakistan

2005-10-15T17:25:00.000-06:00

Earthquake in Pakistan

On Saturday, October 8, 2005, a 7.8 earthquake hit close to Muzaffarabad, Pakistan. The U.N. estimates that 30,000 people died (after the final count is in, we’ll have a more accurate number). Tens of thousands were injured and about 2 million are estimated to be homeless. Early Thursday, a 5.6 magnitude aftershock ripped through parts of Pakistan. Earthquake specialists have said that these aftershocks could continue for several more months. Searchers said today that they will continue searching for survivors. Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan of the Pakistani military explained: “The effort to pull people out of the debris is continuing. Today, our focus is to move to far-off areas, whether by helicopters, on animals or through roads. If there are injured, they will be brought back for medical treatment.” There is still lots of hope for finding other survivors and lots of them. In the meantime, the volunteers have been holding mass burials and setting up tent camps for the found survivors. The latter is very urgent, as the Himalayan rains are soon to hit. There is much aid to these poor people who have lost everything. Substantial amounts of aid are reported to have arrived and are hard at work. Helicopters are busily rescuing people from villages as well. Doctors in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, have been amputating quite a few limbs. Unfortunately, it will probably continue. Fortunately, many evacuees have been rescued, and will continue to be. There is discouragement as to how many helicopters are going out to the villages and rescuing the injured, but the hospitals are doing all they can right now. Many are going to have a hard time reconstructing after this devastation, especially since electricity, water, telephones and hospitals were damaged. Thankfully, they have been restored to large cities. Still, there are two million people estimated to be homeless right now. In spite of the gloomy statistics, there is a miracle to be found in all this. On Friday, October 14, 2005, a little eighteen month-old girl was rescued from the rubble of her home six days after the quake occurred. Her two brothers and mother had died, but she was found by the rescue team under a door which protected her from the rubble. When she was discovered, she was unconscious, but upon being given first aid and regaining consciousness, she clung to one of the doctors in the team and wouldn’t stop crying. The team walked seven miles to the village, where they were directed by some villagers to the little girl’s home where they found her. She and her father, Mohammed Afzal survived the devastation and are now safe. Mr. Jan Egeland, the UN’s top relief coordinator, has asked that people give more to the cause. Their goal of getting 272 million for relief has not yet been reached. They are only at 50 million. If they don’t get enough, he explained what he thought would be the likely outcome: “If we don’t work together, we will become a disaster within a disaster. It will take billions of dollars to rebuild…To reconstruct, this will take five to ten years.” The country would like about two million blankets and 100,000 large tents before winter sets in. With all the natural disasters, a question comes to mind: “Are we living in the End Times?” What is going on? Some day we will know for sure, but for now we must remain strong in our faith in Christ. As Christians, we should pray for the souls of the lost in Pakistan as well as giving money if we have the resources and the ability. May God bless your efforts, and may your prayers be effective!

Focus--Feature Articles

2005-10-10T17:17:00.000-06:00

TABOR and How It Affects You

TABOR has been in effect for thirteen years. Do you know how it affects you and the people around you? TABOR is perhaps the best thing that has happened to us, as a state, financially, in the past ten years. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights is a really good thing, because it limits government spending and gives us more power. Unfortunately, it is being threatened by Referenda C and D. If it is put on “time out”, it may never be allowed to come out of the corner after the experimental five years for Refs C and D are up. TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, was put into effect in 1992. The whole purpose it has served has been to restrain the government concerning the finances of Colorado. TABOR restrains the government spending so that the people of Colorado can have their say in what happens to their tax money. It limits taxes and makes the government return any money made in surplus revenue above the limit TABOR has set. That means less money is taken away from us, and sometimes we even get tax returns! If that’s not enough, we are also given the right to vote on tax increases and government debt. If we decide that the government should spend its money on something else, so be it! The government does not run itself-the people run the government. It’s called a republic-a nation created by the people for the people. Now, why all the fuss about TABOR and Referenda C and D? Referenda C and D are threatening to destroy TABOR by making it ineffective. It will still exist, but the government will have been able to sidestep it this way and that. Supporters of Referenda C and D say that TABOR will simply be put on a “time out”, but those who know anything about government will see that TABOR will be effectively eliminated for all intensive purposes. Now, if you understand why TABOR is so great, you will see that Referenda C and D are not so great. We want to have power over government spending. Remember: this is a republic, which means it is a country created by the people, for the people.

The Health Racket

2005-10-07T12:33:00.000-06:00

Another way to become healthy, besides exercising, is to find and use good recipes like the following:

Apple Bread

Ingredients: 3 cups whole wheat pastry flour 1-1/2 teaspoons cinnamon 1 teaspoon baking soda1 teaspoon salt 1 teaspoon baking powder 3 eggs 1-1/2 cups Sucanat, or packed brown sugar 1/2 cup oil 1 Tablespoon vanilla 2 cups diced apple (without skins) 1/2 cup chopped walnuts 1 teaspoon flour Mix flour, cinnamon, soda, salt, and baking powder together. Beat eggs and add Sucanat or brown sugar and oil. Add vanilla and dry ingredients. Stir in apples. Mix walnuts in a teaspoon of flour and add to batter. Pour into 2 greased loaf pans. Bake at 350 degrees for 1 hour. Makes: 2 loaves If you have any good, healthy recipes that you would like to share with others, please give a copy of it to me, along with your name, and I will happily put it in this newsletter.

The President's Challenge

2005-10-03T19:28:00.000-06:00

The whole purpose of this department is to give you the most up-to-date information about health ideas, fitness routines, healthy recipes and more. If you have any ideas you'd like to share, please let me know, and I'll try to get it in here. Have you decided that you need to get in shape? Perhaps you want to lift those 50-pound feedbags, but just can't make it. Perhaps you're just trying to lift your little brother, who just happens to be a little more than you can handle. Whatever you're trying to do, my suggestion is that you go to The President's Challenge. The website is http://www.presidentschallenge.org/. I have been trying this out, and it seems to be working...of course, one can't tell after only a few days. Anyhow, please visit this website and tell me what you think.

Ideas for the Credo Chronicler Departments

2005-09-29T12:25:00.000-06:00

Hi! I just wanted to show you what is in the works right now: Departments for the Credo Chronicler: A Sneak Peak Feature articles Student Life? Needs snappy name-Susanna Weekly Edition Student pictures Students of the month Birthday Favorite subject in school Accomplishments Favorite activities Favorite foods Favorite music Favorite movies Favorite books Gossip Teachers-The Apple Needs snappier name-rotation Monthly Edition Teacher quiz-info. given about teacher, without name given…people have to guess who it is. Strange facts about them Birthday Favorite music Most defining moment in life Favorite subject in school Favorite color Favorite food Favorite books Favorite movies Most daring act every performed Information for teachers Information about classes teachers teaching Snob’s Corner-Arts and Entertainment-William Weekly Edition Book reviews Movie reviews Music reviews Health-The Fit and the Fabulous, The Gym Rewritten Needs snappy name-Allegra Weekly Edition Sports Fitness P.E. Health If you have any ideas for "snappy" or "snappier" names, feel more than free to let me know! Bits ‘n’ Pieces-Joanna Weekly Edition Editorial Announcements Calendar

Geometry Make-Up Class

2005-09-24T17:35:00.000-06:00

Thursday, September 29, 2005 Geometry Make-Up Class “(P AND Q) OR (P AND R) ├ P AND (Q OR R)1 (1) (P AND Q) OR (P AND R) (ASSUMED)2 (2) P AND Q (ASSUMED)2 (3) P (2, &E)2 (4) Q (2, &E)2 (5) Q OR R (4, orI)2 (6) P AND (Q OR R) (3,5,&I)7 (7) P AND R (ASSUMED)7 (8) P (7, &E)7 (9) R (7, &E)7 (10) Q OR R (9, orI)7 (11) P AND (Q OR R) (8,10, &I)1 (12) P AND (Q OR R) (1,2,6,7,11,orE)” “Hello, Houston! We have a problem! It seems the aliens we have encountered speak in proofs. Can you interpret? I repeat, can you interpret?”-Lydia Tschappler in an urgent call to earth from Mars. Does the first paragraph look readable to you? To an unpracticed mind (which would include the Honors Geometry class before September 22, 2005), it certainly looks like a foreign language, and is definitely from outer space (or so many of us think)! To learn this new language, we had a crash course on Thursday, September 22 so we could interpret what our geometry book had to say. Needless to say, crash courses often cause a great deal of smoke to emanate from our ears, as was the case during the make-up class. Mrs. Lin, the teacher of the influential Honors Geometry class, went for a vacation to Hawaii (we think she went to Mars to get the info. for the lessons) the week before, so we missed a day (gasp!) of crucial training for this course. Since Mrs. Lin had just come back from Mars, we had to go to her house for the make-up class, as she had not acclimated well to the atmosphere at Credo the previous day. Everyone in the Honors class came to the Geometry Make-Up class because we really wanted to decode what the aliens had to say. Of course, SOME of us just wanted to get a good grade, but we won’t mention any names. Matthew Hall, Caleb Khazoyan, Jessica Lin, Susanna and Joanna Griffith, Lydia and Allegra Tschappler are all part of the Honors Geometry Class. We all arrived at the Lin home at 5:00 pm, except for Jessica, who was already at home. As we were walking down the stairs, the Math Counts class was swiftly leaving the classroom. Our teacher, alias: Jenna Lin, very patiently showed us how to use these proofs to show what on earth (or elsewhere) the aliens were talking about. She also let us correct the quizzes she had given earlier, as we wanted to have a better background before tackling the alien language.After Mrs. Lin had handed out quizzes to check, we started asking questions about the problems we had struggled with or asked questions about why we missed certain problems, which Mrs. Lin answered very effectively.Then Mrs. Lin taught us proofs such as Or Introduction (orI), Modus Ponendo Ponens (MPP), Modus Tolendo Tolens (MTT) and Reduction ad Absurdum (RAA). See, doesn’t that look like Alien? Unfortunately, it’s Latin, which some of us are attempting to learn so we can understand the aliens from Saturn. Since we are students of Latin as well as students of Proofs, our homework was to go home and figure out what the words in the proofs were. It seems we have stumbled across a rare breed of aliens that speak a mixture of Latin and Proof. It will take a great deal of work to decode what these creatures are saying, but I’m sure it will be very rewarding!

Obadiah Perspective On Bombings In Iraq

2005-09-19T19:23:00.000-06:00

Four days after al-Qaida declared war on the Shiites, more than 250 people have been killed. The latest bombing occurred the evening of Saturday, September 17, 2005 at a market outside Baghdad. The car in which the bomb was planted was sitting in front of some fruit and vegetable stands when it blew up, killing 30 people and wounding about 38. Al-Qaida declared war on the Shiites last Wednesday because of the disagreement about the new constitution to be put in effect on October 20, 2005. The Shiites want the new constitution, while the Shunis (of which al-Qaida is part) are strongly against the future constitution of Iraq. Much killing has occurred since September 14, 2005, when the American forces withdrew, and these events have shown how President Bush’s idea of having the American troops over in Iraq wasn’t too horrible or devastating for the people that are now being killed for the hundreds. For more on this article, visit BBC News and AP.

Jeremiah Perspective On Iraq Bombing

2005-09-15T12:30:00.000-06:00

Before I begin writing, perhaps you should know what the Jeremiah perspective is. In summary, it is the perspective of a Christian journalist writing to other Christians in the world. Jeremiah was a prophet who addressed the nation of Israel, and I’m a journalist, intending to address the whole world of believers. On Saturday evening, a market on the outskirts of Baghdad in the tiny town of Nahrawan was violently startled by a car explosion in the middle of the activity. The car was parked in front of some fruit and vegetable stands when it exploded, killing 30 people and horribly wounding 38 others. The bomb was just another example of the killings that have been going on since Wednesday, when al-Qaida declared war on the Shiites. The al-Qaida genuinely don’t like the Shiites since the Shiites support the new constitution which will be coming into effect on October 15. The Shunis (of which al-Qaida are a part) absolutely don’t want the constitution, and therefore want to kill them. Over 250 people have died since Wednesday when al-Qaida declared war on the Shiites. Many deaths have been the result of bombs, suicide or otherwise. AP News and World Magazine says that the Saturday evening bomb was a suicide bomb, while BBC News says it was not. We’re not sure who to believe, but it is certain that the bomb did explode and killed 30 people. This is a tragic example of the wickedness and cruelty in this world, but more so of the intolerance of the Muslim extremists. Once one really understands the situation the people over in Iraq are in, it should make us thank God for what religious freedom we have here in America! You are welcome to visit Credo's website to learn more about the academy and see an example of what we are planning to do this year in our journalism class.

You're welcome to comment

2005-09-10T15:30:00.000-06:00

If you found anything worth commenting on in the first post, you are more than welcome to. I need all the help I can get making this accurate. Thanks! Allegra

Assignment: Find article about Roberts and find the news values we discussed in class

2005-09-10T14:58:00.000-06:00

Article: Roberts confirmation hearing set for Monday Tue Sep 6, 2005 01:38 PM ET Top News By Thomas Ferraro WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Chief Justice-nominee John Roberts' Senate confirmation hearing will begin on Monday, Senate leaders said, with Democrats vowing to take as long as necessary to question the 50-year-old conservative who could lead the nation's highest court for decades. At the White House, President George W. Bush said the field was "wide open" for his other pick for the U.S. Supreme Court but that this pending nominee was unlikely to be in place when the high court opens its new session October 3. Bush also dampened Democratic hopes they would know who the second nominee was before they vote on Roberts, a federal appeals court judge the past two years. "I want the Senate to focus not on who the next nominee is going to be but the nominee I've got up there now," Bush said. Roberts' hearings were to have begun on Tuesday but were sidelined by the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In announcing the rescheduled hearing to begin at noon EDT September 12, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed confidence Roberts would win Senate confirmation by the time the high court begins its new term. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, promised bipartisan cooperation but said there was no guarantee on when a Senate vote would take place. Bush originally nominated Roberts to fill the lifetime post of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative who had been a swing vote on the sharply divided court. Bush on Monday nominated Robert to replace Rehnquist, a strong conservative who died Saturday after a long bout with cancer. "There are no commitments of a date certain to vote on the nomination, so everyone should understand that," said Reid, flanked by fellow Senate leaders. At the White House Bush noted O'Connor, who will not step down until her replacement is confirmed, would still be on the nine-member court when the session begins. "The list is wide open, which should create some good speculation here in Washington," Bush added. "And make sure you notice when I said that I looked right at Al Gonzales." Gonzales, the attorney general, has been among those considered potential picks for the Supreme Court even though some of Bush's fellow conservatives complain his longtime friend may not be not be conservative enough. The Senate Judiciary Committee will spend four or five days on the nomination of Roberts, who despite concerns expressed by some liberal groups, appears to enjoy broad support in the Republican-led Senate. "While we mourn the chief's passing, we look forward with confidence at the president's new nominee for chief justice," said Frist, a Tennessee Republican. Several Senate Democrats have spoken glowingly of Roberts, who served in two Republican administrations and received the American Bar Association's highest rating for a seat on the Supreme Court. But a number of Democrats and other groups have questioned his record on civil rights and women's rights, based largely on a review of tens of thousands of pages of documents from his work as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration two decades ago. Democrats have said they will withhold final judgment until he answers what promises to be tough questioning at his confirmation hearing. "I'm very happy that (in) my Democratic caucus -- no one has made a commitment how they're going to vote," Reid said. "And I think that's appropriate because these hearings, as far as I'm concerned, are very important." (Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria) © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. Homework: The news values I'm looking for in this article are: Timeliness Impact/Significance Conflict Proximity Human Interest Objectivity Timeliness was well done on the part of the writer, because Robert's hearing, originally set for the day Mr. Thomas Ferraro wrote the article, was moved forward to this coming Monday because of the death of Chief Justice Renquist. I would have to say that timeliness was very well done. Impact is strong because the chief justice really impacts the nation. What I mean by that is, he helps make decisions that will influence issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. Really, I have to class the above issues together! Mr. Robert's position on these issues will influence the nation, hopefully in a positive way. Conflict always exists between the two parties, Republican and Democrat. The article mentions that the Democrats are going to take as long as possible to question him. Some Democrats are not going to fight, but many are. They don't like the look of Robert's past cases. Luckily, there is not too much conflict. Proximity is an issue as well. True, the man is not going to be judging here in the state of Colorado, but he's going to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Seeing as how we live in the U.S., it is in proximity, geographically to us. I have a hard time deciding if it's in social proximity with us, because this whole thing is a government thing, while we are just "normal" citizens, not working in the government. Human Interest has me rather stumped. I should have asked what Human Interest really means, but didn't think of it in class. Okay, I'll try to be eloquent, since I do own the Blarney Stone Blog! This is of interest to the humans in America because it will affect their nation. They should be cheering on Roberts and Bush, and thanking those Democrats who are kind enough to go in unbiased as much as possible. Objectivity is not really an issue here, because all the author is doing is telling us what is going on, and whether or not he said so, we should be praying for the confirmation hearing.