The anniversary of Pearl Harbor prompted me to reflect on the quesion "Why were the leaders of that time caught off-guard by this event?' I believe that most people underestimated the power of ideology. They did not think that human beings are capable of great evil. The same answer can be given to the quesion "Why did the world not stand up to Nazi Germany sooner?" 

     The truth is, committment to ideology could cause people to justify horrible crimes against humanity. The Nazi vision of a perfect race justified the kidnapping of Nordic looking children from their parents. Catholic church leaders in Spain, those who were supposed to protect the weak, backed Franco's revolution, which displaced thousands of Spanish children. Conscience does serve to soften the power of ideology, however, conscience can be silenced by tyranny.

     True ideologues do not seek peace and the welfare of all people, but seek to fulfill their vision at all costs. There is a new ideology that is rising in our time. This ideology is called Politial Correctness. The vision of this ideology is a world where all people have the right to pursue whatever lifestyle they choose, without any judgment. This ideology would make itself palatable to God's people by emphasizing the all-encompassing grace of God, and leaving out the greatness of human sinfulness. The cost of victory for this ideology is the trampling of the human right to conscience. This ideology will silence the prophetic word, the word of God who has a design and goal for his creation, a design that is opposed by sinul humanity. It will enthrone the desires of men, persecuting those who get in the way of their desires. 

     How should we respond to the power of ideology? The answer is not to be defensive, soleley focusing on making sure our rights to speak our conscience is not violated. Jesus said that the gates of hell will not stand against the church. Also, Jesus' great commission tells the church to go and teach the nations what Jesus  has thought. The church seems to be portrayed as on the offensive, moving towards the world, not protecting itself from the world.

   How does the church go on the offensive? Christians should proclaim the beauty of God's standards as a man opening the eyes of the blind. Christians should proclaim how God's standards keeps us safe from suffering (usually) and causing others to suffer. Christians should proclaim that God's grace covers sin, and that the more sin is acknowledged (not minimized), the greater the Grace of God becomes. In all our dialogue in the marketplace of ideas, we must lift up Christ with gentleness and respect, not treating our detractors as enemies to be conquered, but people whose hearts need to be won. When Jesus is lifted up, he will draw people to himself.    

     Working with kids have given me insight concerning wisdom. I was working one morning and it was time for the girls to prepare going to school. I was observing one of the girls who kept on coming out of her room without permssion. For background, in a residential facility, everything is done in an orderly way. The one who runs the routine will choose which order the children will get dressed, have breakfast, etc. Meanwhile, all other children has to wait in their rooms. This prevents kids from getting in each other's way, which could result in a fight.

    I confronted her and she responded that she needed to talk to a certain staff. I pointed out to her that it is not an excuse to just come out, that she has to raise her hands and get staff's attention first. What made this girl think that she can get away with coming out of her room without permission? I believe it is because staff gives her the benefit of the doubt and never checks out her story. She is banking on the fact that if a staff calls her out, then she can come out, and other staff will let her go. By the way, she was lying, I checked and nobody called her out. It made me say to myself, "this girl knows how to play the system."  

    A good working definition of wisdom is "working the system for your own good". What is a wise action depends on its relationship to the system. In a world where gaining money is the most important, wise actions are actions that would gain you more money. In the bible, it says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. This is because the Lord is the ultimate source of blessing and curse. His blessing and curse is determined by how we stand in relation to his standard of good or bad. Therefore, wise actions are obedient to his commands, and foolish actions are disobedient to his commands.

     Many Christians judge movies only on the surface, judging the movies based on its having witches, vampires, werewolves, or having bad words or too much sex. With this criteria, "The Chronicles of Narnia" would be considered bad, even though it is written by a Christian and teaches the gospel- Aslan (Jesus) died, resurrected, and will win in the end, despite the struggle with the white witch. I am not saying that we should be willing to expose our minds to anything, but I suggest using movies to teach wisdom and foolishness to our children. Minds can be corrupted and that is why we need to talk to our children about what they put in their minds.

     The movie "Facing the Giants" is commended by most Christians because it glorifies Christ. However, there is something that bothers me about that movie. It is true that when we turn to Jesus, things will ultimately work out for our good, which is becoming more like Jesus. In this movie, the man got everything he wanted when he decided to trust that God will bless him where he is. It depicts God as a genie who will remove all the struggles in our lives if we turn to Jesus, even though the Christian life is a struggle for faith. Tyler Perry's movies are better at depicting this struggle. Look at the struggle for forgiveness in the movie "Diary of a Mad Black Woman".

     On the other hand "Harry Potter" a movie much maligned by some Christians for its occultic influences has some wisdom in it. As an aside, the books were good because J.K. Rowling is a great writer. I questioned at first whether her big books can keep my interest, but it did. It is safe to reveal that evil domination is defeated in the end. Another theme in this movie is the theme of love as greater than powerful magic. It was the love of Harry Potter's mother that saved him from death in the hands of the evil Voldermort. In the least, Harry Potter teaches that love conquers evil. 

     Whatever movie we focus on, parents could never forfeit their duty to communicate Godly wisdom and discernment to their children.      

     As we think about taxation, there are two extreme reactions that come to mind. One group welcomes it (even though others are affected negatively), thinking that they are "giving" to others when they give their money to the government to redistribute. The other group sees taxation as evil, the government redistributing money duly earned so that those who are not deserving can continue living irresponsibly.

     I propose a different attitude towards taxes. I believe that ideally, we are to take care of our families and our communities. This care is not meant to be impersonal. Caseworkers, representing the state, who come once a month to visit "orphaned" children could never be the ideal guardians for these children. Paid child-care workers and teachers, no matter how caring their hearts are, could never fill the role of a parent who is a stable presence in a child's life. Private citizens needs to take these "orphaned" children into their homes and give them the consistent care that would help them grow into loving and productive members of society. There are other areas where neighbors make decision that affect their neighbors, like in business (employers and employees) or in families (children and parents). Neighbors need to think about their neighbors when they make decisions. Ideally, the state should not be taking care of our responsibility as a society. 

     Unfortunately, because of the unwillingness or inability of private citizens to perform their duty towards their neighbors, the state, with its impersonal and inadequate service, must step in. It must take money from hard working people, some who also are having a hard time making ends meet, to provide services for others, some having legitimate needs and some who are taking advantage of the system. The government is a minister of God and taxation is a way that it executes its God-given role. Therefore, instead of railing against government taking our money and wasting it, or railing against it when our lives are not going well while praising it when our lives are going well, let us work with it in advancing the peace and prosperity of our cities. This is one way we honor authority.

     The state should also not have to take responsibility for our individual well-being. We are responsible for resisting substances that could damage our bodies, or for resisting activities that would destroy ourselves and our families. Let us be a society of individuals who have been given authority over creation, including our bodies. Creation is all our responsibily, not just the government's.  

     One passage in scriptures that have puzzled me is the one concerning a slave girl who was following Paul around proclaiming that Paul is proclaiming the way to be saved (some say that she actually said "a way to be saved" not "the way to be saved" and therefore not the Christian message, but notice that Paul did not immediately stop her, plus it is doubtful that the woman's message was that Paul's way of salvation is just one way among many, considering her zeal). Her message was Christian (Jesus is the only way to salvation) but the apostle Paul got annoyed, turned around, and drove out the demon from this slave girl.

     What puzzled me is that this girl seems to be a zealous follower of Paul, and therefore a follower of his message of salvation. Paul did not just tell this girl to keep quiet and stop distracting him, but he cast out a demon from her. It makes me ask the question, could there be among those who are proclaiming that Jesus saved them, those who are not really followers of Jesus? This question made me think of the altar calls that many pastors engage in, where they ask the those in the congregation to come forward if they want to pray to receive Jesus. Those who prayed the prayer, they would consider at that moment to be Christians. I have several problems with the identification of conversion with this crisis experience, where a person is brought to a point of praying to receive Jesus.

 1. When the Spirit came upon the apostles and they preached the Gospel that Jesus is the Messiah and he proved this by his resurrection, a community of believers was formed. Notice that those who believed the gospel became part of a community that proclaimed faith in Jesus and placed themselves under the apostles' teaching. They became disciples, individuals living the Christian life in community. 

2. Those who emphasize the crisis experience (many evangelicals) usually are suspicious of "Christians" in churches that don't have a focus on the crisis experience (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline protestant churches). As a chaplain, I've witnessed great faith in Jesus from those who don't focus on crisis experiences, like Assyrian Catholics. Their zeal for Jesus would put some evangelicals to shame, but to their loss, many evangelicals would suspect these Assyrian Catholics to not be real Christians. This is because they may not have prayed to receive Jesus in their hearts. This is a divisive attitude, when Christians should be united, at least in spirit.

3. On the other hand, there is a benefit of the doubt given to "Christians" who have prayed the prayer that is unwarranted.  Some of these "Christians" could be going to fortunetellers or calling God the universe, which indicates an unChristian worldview. Some of these "Christians" may not have a great understanding of the grace of God. This could be indicated by their alienation from people in their lives, or their penchant for pushing people away. A "Christianity" devoid of grace is nominal Christianity. To consider a hateful person a Christian brother because he prayed the prayer gives him a false assurance.

How can we preserve God's grace towards sinners while at the same time upholding God's truth. I believe we should see the Christian life as a journey with God, beginning at birth. What I mean is that God is molding a person, using a Christian upbringing and/or through life experiences, to be fit for his presence. The crisis experience would then not be the beginning of the journey but one of several points in the journey when a person becomes aware of God as he revealed himself in Jesus. Everyone in this journey is growing in apprehending the Christian worldview and the grace of God in their lives. The Christian's journey consists of a series of repentances, where a person's heart and mind are transformed, and his affection for God in Jesus is increased while other affections decrease. That growth is manifested in the person's thinking, his attitudes, and his actions. The person who is focused on his happiness becomes more focused on other people's happiness, for example. In this journey paradigm, we may give a person who claims to be a Christian the benefit of the doubt, and challenge him to grow in the knowledge of God and his grace. This is discipleship, spreading the knowledge of God and his grace as waters cover the seas. Evangelism is a form of discipleship also for Christians.  

The end of this journey is not the person's reaching a state of perfection but the apprehension of God's face in death or in Jesus' second coming. In the end of this journey, the Christian will hear God say "Well done good and faithful servant."  Soli Deo Gloria

     Recently, I had a change of heart about a certain issue. Parenting books I have been reading emphasized the importance of immediate obedience. I understand where they are coming from, that children need to learn obedience because they always have to obey authorities. However, I struggled with this idea because of images of a drill instructor barking orders at scared recruits. I saw that as disrespectful to children because we would not think of talking to adults this way.

     However, some event at my work made me realize the importance of the idea of immediate obedience. Here is what happened. Part of my work is taking kids to doctor's appointments. One day I took a kid to his Doctor's appointment and I told him to go see the doctor now. At that moment, that kid was listening to some music. The kid told me to wait. Since I was lenient about kids obeying immediately, I allowed this kid to keep listening to his music. The kid must have made the doctor wait for five minutes, and honestly the doctor was not completely ready either so I did not bother to really make this child hurry.

     Besides my leniency, what gave this kid the idea to make the doctor, who could have been really busy, wait for five minutes? I believe now that making others wait is a sign of selfishness and it needs to be addressed. Like this kid, we sometimes get so focused on our agenda that we do not honor the one asking help from us. Don't get me wrong, I still believe that we shoud not talk to kids in such a way that they are disrespected, in a way that we would never talk to adults. However, I believe strongly now that this behavior of making others wait, by ignoring or just continually saying "wait" needs to be addressed. We and our kids need to develop the virtue of cooperation, we need to develop the heart habit of wanting to be of assistance to others, whoever they are and within reason. What would a cooperative person do when asked to do something? He would either stop what he is doing and help with a cheerful disposition (not reluctantly), or ask if he could help later, and then accept a person's no, help is needed at the moment.

     Some may think that this is a mundane issue but understanding the virtue of cooperation will shed light on some issues we Christians deal with. There is a question I heard from a Christian radio station that I used to think about, whether Christians can work alongside atheists or not, for example, in building houses for the homeless. Some Christians see it as a good way to have conversations with atheists about Christianity. Some will say no, that it is not right to do anything with unbelievers. I have some thoughts in this matter.

1. I believe we sometimes overanalyze an issue. The bottom line is some people need houses and this is an opportunity to build houses for them. Helping people is a virtue and God definitely wants us to be virtuous. Jesus healed people just because he has compassion on them and we need to be compassionate too. Therefore, if a group of Christians want to build houses, then good for them, even if those with the equipment are atheists. God blessed the work of Joseph even though he is working for a gentile Pharaoh in helping the Egyptians through a time of famine. Anyway, in the workforce, we always work wih those who do not share our beliefs. Is cooperation a necessary virtue in the workplace? You bet, and God wants us to be cooperative too and have a good reputation.

2. The thought of helping people or working side by side with people for the sake of evangelism is not right. We should not help people and work with them for an ulterior motive. A good work ethic- doing good work for people for its own sake, is a virtue that we need to develop and virtue should be an end in itself. Jesus healed both those who believed in him and those who did not. Don't get me wrong, I believe it is important to share our faith. However, sharing the hope that is in us should be part of our conversations as we build relationships with people. Just as we may talk about our work, we should also be talking about why we work hard and why we help people. It is because God gave us a compassionate heart, the heart of Jesus.

3. Although it is good to help people, we should always remember that the only one who could really give us peace is the Lord Jesus Christ. Having houses for people may help them live better lives, but the life that would give peace is a life lived with Jesus. Whether we are involved with a diaconal Christian ministry or a secular service organization, we should do our best to be in relationship with people because it is in relationships, not in food distribution or work programs, that souls find healing. The healed soul is one that finds peace with God through Jesus. 

The bottom line is to love our neighbors by caring for them in anyway we have been given an opportunity to.  

     Although I have great respect for most Christian leaders, there is a statement they make that have bothered me. This statement is "Christianity is not a religion, its a relationship." I have reflected on why this bothered me and I have pinpointed the reasons.

1. The statement is simply inaccurate about its view of religion. Although "religion" is somewhat a nebulous term, it can be said that religion is man's way of connecting to a power/s that somehow influences his destiny. It is a natural response to the mystery of this power/s. Just as people fall in love, they formulate a religion. To judge it as bad would be tantamount to saying falling in love is bad. Some may avoid falling in love, but its part of a person's makeup to fall in love.

2. When some Christian leaders separate Christianity from the term religion, they are basically saying that Christianity is not about becoming good enough to become acceptable to God, but about having a relationship with Jesus. That may be true but there are several things wrong with that thought. It is true that religion could be works-centered, but religion does not have to be. As an example, the Hare Krishnas are an example of a religion focused on devotion to Krishna. Christianity is about devotion to Jesus. Christians are devotees of Jesus. Some Buddhists believe that only through the grace of Amida Buddha can a person find enlightenment (their goal is not being acceptable to "God" which points to the error of the thought that religion is about being acceptable to God). This belief is similar to the Christian belief that only through the grace of God in Jesus can a person be made acceptable to God. Some may argue that Christianity influenced this group of buddhists but that is debatable. A word about works-centeredness. For valid reasons, people are uneasy with the thought that a profession of faith is enough for "salvation" however that is conceived. That is why elaborate works systems (rituals and/or ethics) are added to the original confession of faith as a standard for "salvation". For example, Muslim scholars debate whether the confession "Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his prophet" is enough to make a person a Muslim, or are there works that accompany a good Muslim. 

3. There is a third reason that this well-meaning Christian leaders are probably not completely aware of. In their zeal to assure people that being a Christian is not about being religious, these Christian leaders have accommodated themselves to a bad attitude among many people in this culture. When some people hear religion, they hear "Priests" telling them what is right and wrong. Many people today are anti-authoritarian, whether that authority are church leaders or a set of convictions. This is shown by people avoiding the organized church or telling themselves that it is okay to believe whatever they want to believe. Some may have bad experiences with church, but I believe that some people just want to be able to do what they want to do, without the input of any authority or community. Their God is their desires. Therefore, I appeal to Christian leaders not to feed into the anti-authoritarian individualism that has pervaded society and respect the organized Church and the Church fathers who have contended for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  

     The story of a church picketing the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq made me think of the dilemma of law- it tries to build a peaceful society but it could not. This case has now reached the supreme court- hearings have been heard and a decision will be made next year. To be decided is if the church had the right of free speech to picket a funeral, or if they had to pay damages for harassment.

     The reason this made me think of the dilemma of law is the obvious insensitivity of this church, to disrupt a service to mourn the loss of a human being. Their defense is that they have the first amendment right to free speech. The letter of the law may be on their side but the law of sensitivity is definitely not on their side. This law of sensitivity is not something that can be legislated because it is a heart issue, but very important for the peace of a society. Insensitivity is a heart issue and this act would be considered insensitive by most people.

     I struggled with why there seems to be a negative attitude in the bible of living according to the law. It seems good to live according to law. The usual explanation is that nobody can follow the law completely, and any small violation leads to judgment. However, another explanation is that law does not necessarily make for a peaceful society. This case definitely shows that. The church that picketed was within the bounds of the existing laws, but their actions left more pain for the family of this deceased soldier. Lawful people is not what God wants but people who show the fruit of the spirit, which includes kindness. The act of this church did not seem kind, not only for what they proclaim but the circumstances in which they chose to express themselves.

     The reason that law could not make for a peaceful society is that it is objective, which it has to be for law to be fair and enforceable. It only deals with human behavior but not the human heart. Law may stop speeding but it does not stop reckless attitudes. However, there seems to be a movement towards making subjective laws. Subjctive law could be oppressive. One subjective law is the hate crimes act-adding consequences for crimes that are due to prejudice. The problem with hate crimes is that, except for a clear confession, no one really knows whether an act of road rage against a gay person is just that, a person upset about being cut off for example, or an act of someone who is prejudiced against gays. There may be some ativist lawyers who are ready to make any crime against gays a hate crime, a heart issue that the government has to enforce.

     The case of the church that pickets funerals with a provocative message (God is punishing America because of its tolerance of homosexualiy) may pave the way for another subjective law if the justices make a judgment concerning the message of this church. The justices may decide to ban "offensive" speech because it may incite others to crime. The bad thing about a ban on "offensive" speech is that what is offensive is subjective. Any speech that disagrees with a point of view can be considered "offensive." People would then be afraid to speak their minds, and this would be the end of free speech.

     Let us hope that the justices don't rule on the content of this church's message, despite its hatefulness. Let us hope that they make an objective ruling, maybe keeping protesters away from funerals a certain distance. A funeral should not be a place for protesting an ideological issue but a time to mourn the deceased. However, a people that could not accept dissent will descend into totalitarianism.  

     I have a vision of a future generation, men and women who are not sure what is true and false, who could not begin to grasp what is important in their world. They sit around trying to figure out what life is about, with discussions that do not produce answers. They have no will to fight for right because they are not certain about what is right and wrong. They have lost touch of a transcendent reality, therefore there is no faith to be found. 

     Many wll blame the dilemma of this generation on postmodernism, which I will define (this is not comprehensive) as the attitude of suspicion towards metanarratives. An example of postmodern iconoclasm is the movie Shrek. They made the savior figure, brave prince charming, into a bumbling villain and having the ogre, who used his wits, become the one to save the princess who can hold her own in a fight. The story of a helpless princess being saved by a brave prince is lambasted in this movie.

     In a way, the postmodernists have a point. Ideologies have told us what will make us happy, but they end up not delivering. Marxists say that if wealth is given to all the people collectively, then the class war will be over and we will be a better society. The fall of communism belies that claim. Advertisers tell us that buying certain products will make us more popular and attractive. Despite the images, Nike shoes won't make anybody better basketball players. Comfort may help performance but it will not increase skill. Postmodern thought reminds us that under the sun, absolutist claims must be questioned.

    However, the problem with most postmodern thought is its denial of the voice of God. God has spoken and has told us what will make us happy as individuals and as a society. That is the voice we must listen to and all other voices must humble themselves and refrain from dogmatism. God's voice is transcendent and he sees all of reality. All we see are phenomenon and our theories try to make sense of those phenomenon (e.g. evlutionary theory tries to explain how humans came to be). How do we know the voice of God? Through the Bible, which is the story of God and his actions in history on behalf of his people. Many see the bible as just another voice under the sun, something bound by human existence. I see the bible's fulfilled prophecies as evidence of a voice beyond the voice of the men who wrote its words. Jesus, the one who died and rose again, saw the scriptures as the voice of his father, the creator and sustainer of the universe.      

     Another problem with most postmodern thought is its disrespect towards tradition. Some denominations are questioning whether the historical church's position concerning homosexual pratice is wrong. Although it is possible that older generations are wrong, it must be remembered that they are unanimous in their condemnation of homosexual practice  and they have also reflected on the same scriptures that we have. Some denominations are willing to throw away that clear witness of history for the purpose of making the church acceptable to a certain segment of humanity. The result is a church that just echoes what the sinful world wants to hear. No wonder those who are looking for transcedence are losing interest. Another result is a church that does not reflect the humility of the Lord who humbled himsef before his father, being born as a man and giving himself for many.

     If we are to be effective in guiding the future generation, we need to recover a committment to listening to the clear voice of God and the humility towards our ancestors who imparted to us their wisdom. Although the world has changed in some ways, the heart issues remain the same. All generations of the church have reflected on the question of how to live faithfully in this world. It behooves us to listen to them. When our children asks us questions like- why do I need to wait for marriage to have sex, why should I be nice to this person, etc., we need to be able to stand up and say this is what God says will give you peace and our ancestors have found this to be true. Although the world may say that there are many legitimate voices, let us tell our children that God has spoken and his voice stands above all voices.    

     Proposition 8 has been reversed! Prop 8 was a measure in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This proposition was approved by the people of California in a referendum. This measure would have effectively banned gay marriages and place a clear limit on marriage.

     Some conservatives accused this judge of judicial activism, which is another way of saying disrespect towards the intent of the constitution (law). A judicial activist would make his interpretations of the law without regard for the intent of the law, but through the lens of his ideology. In the case of Prop 8, the judge is biased towards the homosexual lifestyle, therefore he overturned the will of the people of California.

     In one sense, those who are unhappy about this judge's decision is correct. I believe that the intent of this country's founders was to have a government by the people. The forefathers held to the principle of democracy. To overturn the people's decision means to go against the principle of democracy.

     On the other hand, it can be argued that the forefathers wanted to safeguard life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To violate the right to the pursuit of happiness is against the principles of the forefathers also. The forefathers wanted rule by the majority but protection of the rights of the minority. It can be argued that Prop 8 does violate the right to the pursuit of happiness, in this case the rights of homosexuals to have their union with the one they love and want to spend their lives with recognized by the state. The forefathers would probably be against gay marriage but we don't know that with certainty. The forefathers did not envision this issue coming up, therefore it is up to the present generation to decide this issue. 

     This referendum should have been challenged immediately and not allowed on the ballot if gay marriage is an inherent right (an issue that could open up a can of worms), a question that should have been settled first. By putting it on the ballot, it becomes an issue for the people to decide and the people decided to limit marriage to monogamous adult heterosexuals. The principle of rule by the majority is a clearer principle than the principle of the right to the pursuit of happiness and should be respected.

     Is a definition of what the state would recognize as marriage necessary? To have a legal basis for judgments on inheritance or justice issues when a union breaks up, a limitation of what the state recognizes as marriage is necessary. For example, think of a polygamist (polygamy would also be covered by this referendum) who dies and did not have a will. He has children by his "wives". If there is a dispute on inheritance, who will get his property? If only the first marriage is recognized, then the decision is clear, although not emotionally easy. The children by the first wife gets his property, not the other "wives" or their children.

     Following the principles or the intent behind the law is not always a black and white issue.  Does the right to bear arms give people a right in this country to have an arms race- some people having RPGs or AK47's? Some may say that weaponry could prevent an oppressive government and protect homes, and that is why the forefathers safeguarded the right to bear arms. However, the forefathers did not foresee the weapons of today, therefore, the right to bear arms have to be rethought in this generation.

     What then should the criteria for a judge be? Remember that those for Prop 84 and those against Prop 8 can co-opt the constitution. What then should we really be looking for in our judges? We should be looking for judges who advocate for justice and mercy, things that God values. They must apply the law equally, not favoring the rich, the poor, or those who share their lifestyle. They must apply the law in such a way as not to destroy the guilty, and with compassion for the victim.

     Now that President Obama has declared the end of "formal" (it is not really over) combat operations in Iraq, many of us ask the question "Was it worth it?" Was all the bloodshed, the lives of our soldiers and the lives of the Iraquis killed in the midst of combat, worth it? This question will initiate lots of debate. One side will say that it is worth it because a dictator who killed many has been overthrown. The other side will say it is not worth it because there were no weapons of mass destruction found.

     Perhaps, it is more fruitful to ask the question, was America's motives right for going to war? In the end, we could not completely control the results of our decisions. However, we can examine our hearts to see if our heart is in line with the heart of the loving God who is sovereign over creation. We are all guided by our hearts, our values and concerns. Some in the administration may have been driven with compassion for the oppressed, which is in line with God's heart. Some in the administration may have been motivated by protecting American interests in oil. Some really believed that there were weapons of mass destruction. Motivations, good and bad, coalesced and created the fervor for war. When many people are involved, there will also be multiple motivations. That is why scriptures command us to pray for our leaders. We pray that the motives behind their actions may spring from a heart whose concern is in line with God's concerns. As an aside, some may say that war is always wrong, but I believe that violence is sometimes necessary.

     After high school, I joined the Marine Corps. As I look back, I see that my motivation was to be able to say that I went through the hardest boot camp, and behind it was a heart obsessed with making myself look tough. I could evaluate this decision as wrong because it is not in line with God's heart. However, it is also in the Marine Corps that I became closer to Jesus, which is of infinite worth and God's desire for all. Therefore, I could look back and say that joining the Marine Corps was worth it. I was motivated for wrong reasons, but God made it result in good.

     The soldiers who gave up their lives could be seen as victims of bad motivations from our leaders. However, because of the sacrifice of our soldiers, some Iraquis can now live without the threat of being gassed. Some Iraquis can now sleep at night knowing that the government will not barge in their door and take their loved ones. I know there were bad results, including more persecution of Christians. The persecution may be intended to eliminate the light of Jesus from Iraq, but God is sovereign and he can make this persecution result in the light of Jesus even shining brighter in Iraq.