Serendipity

My "Trip" to Peru

2009-10-18T21:37:00.002-05:00

OK, I just got back yesterday from a trip to Peru with Compassion International. Compassion is beginning to team up with churches and wanted to have some ministers go and see what the programs look like on the ground in the countries where Compassion works. I was vry fortunate to go on this trip to Lima, Peru from Monday to Saturday(or in my case, Tues-Sat You will learn why in a second.) There are really two main parts of my trip that I want to blog about. I wanted to do them separately, because neither one is connected to the other. Sandwiching one of the most amazing weeks of my life was one of the most frustrating travel experiences of my life. I want to talk about the travel first, because that is simply factual and not the result of introspection. In all honestly, a trip that may be as life-changing as this one was is not ready to be constrained to words yet. My travel experience in no way affected the impact of the trip on me. I just think the story is worth telling.

I got to the ATL airport on Monday in plenty of time to make my 12:30 departure time on that morning. I knew that my turnaround in Houston was short, but I thought that I would certainly make my 3:55 flight to Peru with the rest of the team. Due to weather in both Atlanta and Houston, the flight wsa delayed by 2 1/2 hours. I knew by the time we took off that I would miss the flght, but all I could do was go on. I arrive on the ground in Houston at 4:30 CT, having missed my 3:55 flight. I went straight to the Continental desk to see what my options were. Turns out that someone in ATL had booked me on a straight flight from ATL to Lima getting there about the same time as the other flight. The problem was that no one had bothered to tell me about it. Ironically enough, the 3:55 flight was still on the runway in Houston and was an hour late leaving, so I guess we all did make it to the airport at the same time. Since there is only one fight from Houston to Peru a day, I had no choice but to get a hotel in Houston and wait until Tuesday to fly down. I missed an entire day in Peru, but I did roll in at 10:30 Tuesday to be greeted by the trip director Ronnie Brown. A local pastor has bought his van and we had to push it to get the van started. Seriously, was there no transportation on this trip I didn't an adverse effect on?

So that was my getting there story. Surely, I thought that would be the end,but it turned out to be only half the story( and even the more boring). We were scheduled to leave Peru Friday night at 11:45. I knew that the turnaround time was very short and that I had to clear customs, get my bag, recheck it, go through security, AND change concourses. That was enough in the hour and a half I had, but we didn't even leave Lima until 12:30 a.m. Saturday morning. I had a half an hour when we touched down in Houston. I was busting it to get through Customs, when the homeland security officer asked me to step aside after he scanned my passport. With no apparent concern for my connecting flight, I was taken to a large room full of chairs and made to sit while a HSA officer worked with my passport and case. After a while, the agent(who was very nice, but still not concerned about my connection) came out and asked me to come into the office to answer some questions. She wanted to know what my parents names were and my SS#. As frustrated as I was, I simply asked her why I was being detained and she told that they were verifying my identity. I was sent back out to the big room and every so often the officer came back out to ask me a question, such as my place of birth or marital status. After 45 minutes, they finally agreed with me that I was who I said I was and I was released. Apparently, someone else with my name is somewhat suspicious and I paid the price.

Needless to say, my connecting flight home was long gone and I was 0 for 2 on connecting flights on this trip. I retrieved my bag and headed over to have it inspected. In Continental's defense, they were aware of the situation and had already rebooked me so that they handed me a new boarding pass when I picked up the bag. I was then subjected to the most thorough baggage check that I have ever seen. Everything in my carry on and regular was examined. Following that fun, I then had to go through security again, which was incredibly redundant. I did make the next flight out of Houston, but boy did my day get extended.

So, there is my travel story. Both legs made for excitement, but I did make it home. It sure made for an adventure, but wait until I post about the time in Peru. Let me just say that I would go through what I experienced again in a heartbeat to have the time that I did in Peru. I am just not ready to try and put that part into words just yet.

2009-10-01T18:07:00.002-05:00

This is funny. Who knew even Sesame Street would get in on the healthcare debate? Actually, it was a spoof from Conan, but it is still quite amusing.

If My People

2009-09-15T21:24:00.002-05:00

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14

I have been thinking about this verse a lot today. It is resonating with me more in the last little while than it has before. Our country is very much at a crossroads. Many of us have grown used to living in a country that allows us to live pretty much as we want, but that is very much in danger as things are rapidly changing. People that have never been politically active are standing up to demand their freedom, pushed to the edge and feeling the need and urgency to do something. What is it that we have allowed to bring us to this point?

I was reminded today by a radio commentator that I greatly respect that we have allowed the government to be overrun by corruption. And before you read partisanship into that statement, it is rampant on BOTH sides of the aisle. Morals are thrown out, money and power is the ultimate goal. The government is crumbling from within and taking the country in its wake.

If any change is going to happen at all, corruption has to be rooted out. The idea that was floated by the radio host is to try and find 56 men that will stand up and help "re-found" the United States. That is same number of men that signed the Declaration of Independence. Surely, out of 535 reps and all the other people in D.C., 56 people are willing to put their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" up for the world to see. They have to come forward.

Here is what is so beautiful. If these people are willing to forsake(confess) the things that they have done that are wrong, willing to root out the massive corruption in the government, then there can be hope. We CANNOT forget grace and redemption. There can be a second chance, but the past must be renounced and adherence to the virtues that founded America must be embraced. There is no other way to do this.

So that brings me back to the verse. God called His people to "humble themselves." Our leaders need to be reminded of what they should be doing. God called us to pray and seek His face. We need to seek His leadership for our country. We are also called to "turn from our wicked ways." Until corruption is eliminated from the personal and public lives of our leaders, we have no hope. But, when it is, through God's mercy, we can have direction and a hope for this nation.

Which One Is It?

2009-08-23T19:24:00.001-05:00

I was flabbergasted last week to hear that President Obama had convened a conference call with various religious leaders to help get traction on his push for healthcare overhaul. I certainly don't mind that the president wants to involve religious leaders in his policies, but the event itself was opportunistic at best. Here is a link to a write-up of the event and some of the the things that PBO said.

PBO stated that some people, who he claims are propagandizing lies about his healthcare overhaul are "bearing false witness." Now, I know what he meant, but when is the last time that you actually said that someone bore false witness when you meant they lied? Really? That sounds a little like a contrived catchphrase, that was intended to hit that audience. A little too over the top for me.

PBO also stated that we have a "moral obligation" to insure that everyone has healthcare. Without spending time arguing the obvious fact that everyone already has access to health care in this country, I want to talk about the President's attempt to take on this mantle on as a moral leader. This is the same man who told Rick Warren, at the Saddleback event, that defining when a life began was "above his paygrade," yet voted against a bill in the Illinois senate that would protect babies born from a failed abortion attempt. Apparently, he knew then whether or not it was a life.

PBO also rescinded the Mexico City Policy, which kept foreign organizations that receive federal money (aka US tax money) from performing abortions. PBO doesn't have any problem allowing the US tax payers from having their money sent ( whether or not they find it abhorent) to fund abortions.

Finally, I have hard time following the moral leadership of a man that conspiciously failed to meet with religious leaders on the National Day of Prayer, a major event among the religious community in America. PBO did find time to meet with the LGBT pride groups and assure them that he was working hard on their behalf. The president himself said that you can judge him by the people that he associates himself with. In my eyes, his omission of the National Day of Prayer was a major mistake.

I have said all that to say this. I have seen mostly inconsistency in the message that the White House projects toward any sort of moral leadership on any issue. From my perspective, this meeting with the religious leaders is nothing more than an opportunistic chance to gather some help for his much(and rightly)-maligned health care overhaul plan. It concerns me that there are people that won't see that event for what it was.

Christians, Wake Up!!

2009-07-31T11:26:00.003-05:00

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
-Thomas Jefferson

I have been struggling with an attitude that I am seeing more prevalently among my church friends and the church at large. I am sensing a slide into the fatalistic attitude of thinking that since God is control(which I firmly believe that He is), we don't need to worry about what is going on in our country. I have heard them say "Well, it's all in His hands, so I am just not going to worry about it." I cannot accept that that is a correct way to view our roles as citizens. I know that my allegiance is to a God that is bigger than any country, leader or movement, but time and time again, God has used individuals to shape His plan throughout history and I firmly believe that He wants to do the same today.

I think back to the story of Mordechai and Esther in the Bible. Mordechai learned of a plot to kill the jews and He came to Esther, because she had access to the king. He told her that perhaps she was born for such a time as this. (Could this be a reminder?)Esther determined in her heart that she would go see the king, even if it cost her life. I cannot imagine what would have happened if she had simply said, "Well, God is in control, so I will just ignore it and hope that somebodyelse does something about it." God could certainly had accomplished His will another way, but that was the way He had chosen.

Folks, we are losing our freedoms right and left. If you don't think so, look at this overview of the health plan(HR 3200). First, it forces us onto the gov't health plan, where our medical service is controlled completely by the gov't. That is scary enough for many reasons, but this plan also includes gov't sanctioned abortion and health care rationing. That means that your and my tax money will be going to help fund the ending of life. I cannot live with that. In my opinion, that should be enough to stand against this plan.

Look back to the cap and trade bill that the house snuck through late on a Friday afternoon when nobody was watching. Not only will that take money out of our pockets by increasing our energy expenses, it will make America less competitive on the global market and weaken us, both economically and militarily. This bill is a disaster for any country that loves freedom.

These may seem like relatively minor "freedoms' to give up and maybe you don't care. You think " I can live with that." Let me remind you that this is how liberty is lost. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." Now is when we must stand up. If we don't, we may not have a voice later to speak out. Today, Hugo Chavez is stating that there can be no freedom of speech in Venezuela. You're thinking "Yeah, but that's those crazy Latin American countries." Remember, that not too long ago, Chavez praised what Obama had done to that point and joked with Castro, that they may end up on Obama's right. Don't think it can't happen here. We would lose our right to speak out against what we disbelieve and what we do believe.

And do not fool yourself into thinking that we couldn't lose our freedom to worship, one of America's hallmarks and something most of us, take for granted. The progressive movement, which is largely in power right now is tied closely to the idea of evolution, as they believe that man evolves and so does his form of gov't. The Constitution, that gives us our right to worship freely, is seen by progressives as an outdated document that needs to be scrapped. The very idea of the evolution of man is predicated on the idea of no God. Progressives have to hold tightly to that idea to succeed. The Founders rightly stated that we get our rights from God and we just loan them to the gov't. If the progressives can destroy the belief in God, then our rights can only come from the gov't, and we are enslaved. Keep in mind that attacks on the church have happened, but they are going to be seen more and more. Do you remember hearing about this? A measure was introduced the New Hampshire house to give the gov't oversight of the church's budget. It failed, but it will be back. And we will see them with more frequency and more intensity. The idea of a "crisis" is one of the ways that will be used to steal our freedom.

Martin Luther King, Jr once said "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." I am aware that hell is only reserved for those who do not accept Christ as their one and only Savior, but his quote rings true in that God has called us to be watchmen, not only over his Body, the church, but the world He has placed us in. He has given us an amazing and wonderful country to live in and enjoy great freedom. But that freedom comes with great responsibility. We must be vigilant to attempts to usurp our God-given rights. They are being threatened today and we CANNOT remain neutral. For the sake of those that come after us and for the rest of the world, we may have been put here for "such a time as this."

I implore you to stand up and make your voice be heard. We cannot be loud enough. The time is drawing near.

Is This What We Have To Look Forward To?

2009-07-27T22:21:00.002-05:00

We need to wake up and see what is going on. We may be headed to this if we don't do anything.

How Much Is A Life Worth?

2009-07-22T21:13:00.003-05:00

To say that I am deeply concerned about Obama's healthcare proposal may be an understatement. As I understand the proposal, Obama wants to start a gov't backed plan to compete against the private insurers. My first thought is that the gov't should never be involved in what the private market can handle. The numbers being thrown about with 50 million uninsured is wildly overstated. The correct number is probably about 10 million when you take out the non-citizens and 18-30 years olds that opt not to have coverage. That's really only about 3% of the population. Yes, the health care in America can be better, but gov't is not the answer.

Assuming that the plan goes through, the gov't will have endless funding(thanks to us, the tax payers) and should have no problem putting the private insurers out of business. Or, as the media will report, "the private sector has failed." The ensuing "crisis" will them lead us to a single-payer system.

What happens then scares the mess out of me. What was once the best healthcare in the world will be another gov't run program. I challenge anyone to name one government program that is run well and not on the edge of collapse. It can't be done. Bloated gov't bureaucrats will start thinking in terms of finances and how to save costs, not what is best for the patient or preserving quality of life. Healthcare rationing is the obvious result.

This leads me to the question that haunts me in all of this. How do they draw the line at who will receive healthcare? At what point does it cease being cost-effective for the government to take care of someone? Who has the moral authority to make that decision? Is it when a person can no longer contribute to the collective or costs more to keep alive than the benefit they bring to the society? These are questions we should not be asking.

Here is where I radically differ from the progressives and their ideas on society. I am unashamedly a Christian. I know that I am made in the image of God. Every person is made in that image and their life is given sanctity. We are given our rights by God, not the gov't. This is why I am completely against abortion and rationing. We have no right to terminate an innocent life, at either end of the spectrum. This sounds harsher than it will be presented, but the result is the same.

I am praying that these things never come to pass. It will be a horrible day in the history of the greatest country in the world when a group of politicians try to put a value on my or anyone else's life. My value does NOT come from what I can for the collective, but the fact that I am made in God's image. My life's trajectory comes from that value.

Fun Way To Watch The News

2009-07-21T17:24:00.000-05:00

Check this out. This is pretty impressive.

My Thoughts On "Atlas Shrugged"

2009-06-29T19:44:00.003-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, I finished reading Atlas Shrugged. I have waited until I had some time to let it rattle around in my head (and it did not lack for room) and form some cohesive thoughts. With a book as epic and philosophical as this, I am probably going to do it injustice by trying to discuss it in a few paragraphs.But I will try.

Let me start by saying that I was totally overwhelmed by this book in many ways. For those of you that are unfamiliar with this story, Ayn Rand illuminated her thoughts on what she called objectivism vs. socialism. It is set in novel form and tells the story of a group of heroes that fight for the rights of individuals in a society that is being perverted by leaders that lead from the ideals of a socialist form of government. Rand does a superb job of showing the fallacies and inconsistencies of the progressive mindset. I gave up trying to count how many times I thought that she must have read the statements from the current administration and plugged them into the words from the leaders of the government in her book. It was eerily prophetic at the very least.

The basic premise of objectivism is that the individual is beholden to no one but himself and should not look out for any interest but his own. The objectivist does nothing that does not benefit himself. At a cursory glance, this seems to be a very selfish ideal, however, when it is played out in society, a person that embraces this ideal is interested in increasing his standard of life, which has reciprocal effects on society as a whole. The role of government is to get out of the way of the individual and let them succeed. One of my favorite parts of the book occurs when the heroine, Dagny is talking to a man and he is complaining about the state of Colorado, where all the industry seems to be thriving. He can't figure out what good Colorado's government is since they hardly do anything. I laughed aloud at the irony. The founding fathers would have loved that type of government.

Toward the end of this book, the main hero, John Galt, delivers a massive speech outlining the power of the individual and the fallacies of the collective, as espoused by the other side. It was here that I finally broke with Rand's philosophy. Galt stated that two things have held back the individual. One was people that continually suppressed others to gain their own power and talked about how men were beholden to give up themselves for the betterment of society. I agreed with Rand. It was the second group of surpressors that frustrated me. Rand placed the blame on religion. She stated that man has been using religion to enslave other men to think that they had no right to live for themselves and were to be enslaved to the religious leaders to tell them how to live.

I think that Rand had a very stunted view of religion. Rand stated that the religious leaders would use the idea of original sin to convince people that they were bad and that they had to work to be better. Rand believed that man was not bound by original sin and she hated the idea. Rand is missing the fact of salvation. Because of what Christ did at the cross, man does not have to be under the threat of sin. He has been freed to pursue what God has called him to do. This point shows that Rand has a very uninformed view of religion, as understood in the Scriptures.

I believe the founding fathers would have agreed with this. As our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the founders believed that our rights were given to us by God and then we were to act on them. They were serving the society as a whole by creating a country that allowed men to be free. They saw that they were to use their freedom to allow man to thrive.

All in all, I am very glad that I read the book. Rand did a superb job of showing how socialism can only collapse on itself. She helped me to see the end game of that type of thinking and it is a total degredation of mankind. She also enforced the idea that man will thrive in freedom, both political and economic. This is a timely book. May its lessons permeate the thinking of our country in this timeless of aimlessness from decision makers

Five Thousand Year Leap-Principles 17, 18 and 19

2009-06-22T20:36:00.002-05:00

OK, I finally finished "Atlas Shrugged," so I am returning to "The 5000 Year Leap." I hope to finish this off shortly, although it has been a fascinating read. I will post my thought on AS, as I have many, but I wanted to let them simmer. When you read a tome like that, there is a lot to digest. I didn't want to rush my thoughts, although it is fairly obvious to the most casual observer that "rushing to blog" is not a malady from which I suffer (I keed, I keed)

Principle 17: A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power.

This was a great chapter in that it explained the genius of the founders in how they related the three equal branches of government, as noted in the last chapter. The author thought it interesting to point out that many of the founders wanted to keep each branch's power so separate that no branch could do anything. Instead, they had to have some some system of allowing the branches to work together, lest nothing could get done. The branches had to have a method of restraints against the other branches, but still had to be dependent on the other branches for the government to be operational.

The main reasoning behind the "checks and balances" was to avoid the accumulation of too much power by any one branch. The founders were well aware from their dealings with the king of England that too much power invested in one individual is not a good thing. They also knew that the nature of power is to, more often than not, reach for more power and they wanted a means of restraining each branch's power.

The beauty of this system is that it provides a peaceful means of repair when one group gets out of line. Instead of a full-blown revolution or violence, the power can be transferred through non-violent means, which is always preferable.

Principle 18: The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of the government are set forth in a written Constitution.

This idea is fairly simple and finds its roots in the Anglo-Saxon common law of England. The assemblies ruled by the common knowledge of the law, but found it destroyed when the Norman invaded. They had not taken the time to codify it. The American Constitution and the state constitutions that preceded it were some of the first in modern history to be written down.

The author takes time to note that Thomas Hooker, a minister in Connecticut, helped to initiate one of the first written constitutions in 1639 in his home state, not long after the Mayflower Compact in 1620. Although not very well known, Hooker deserves his place among the fathers of our democracy.

One final thought on this idea was that the founders were convinced that many voices writing the Constitution were better than one . Although it severely dragged out the time for the drafting, the American Constitution was no doubt a stronger and better thought out document.

Principle 19: Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained in the people.

This principle is more important than it is usually given credit for, as it is a major sticking point between the progressives and the founders. The founders rightly allowed for the fact that the nature of government is to grow and so determined to limit the power of the federal, or common, government, while at the same not allowing the federal government to weaken such that is was useless(....although, in my mind, it is an interesting thought.)

The author also took time to note that at first the states were reluctant to ratify the new Constitution, fearing the encroachment of the federal government. It was these fears, that led to introduction of the bill of rights, giving power to the individuals and keeping it from the federal government.

One final thought that I found fascinating was the fact that the author believes (and I greatly concur) that the founders would vehemently disagree with the 17th amendment, which allows for senators to be elected by popular vote. Before that amendment, senators were appointed by their state legislatures and were beholden to them. If a bill was in congress that threatened states's rights, they had representation to counter that bill. By allowing the senators election by popular vote, the senators became beholden to the same issues that surrounded the representatives and getting(and staying) in power. This was done in 1913, and is very much a progressive idea, as it took power away from the state and consolidated it in Washington, D.C., allowing the federal goverment to continue to nibble away at states' sovereignty.

Mice Beware!

2009-05-22T16:44:00.005-05:00

Last weekend, Carmen brought home a new cat. For those of you that read my blog regularly, you know that we lost Gorbachev a couple of months ago. We have been waiting until we move, but caved in and brought this guy home. His name is Rasputin (note the russian theme).

He seems to be a decent cat, as far as cats go, but I have been waiting on making a call on him. He seems to be pretty nice and actually enjoys being around people. So far, so good.

This morning he won my approval when Carmen called me in to look in the room that he stayed in last night. There was dead mouse on the floor. Given that we live near the woods, I am not shocked or suprised by mice. I just don't want them running around the house. A cat that will take care of mice and lizards is all right in my book. Rasputin has begun to earn his keep.

He seems to be pretty laid back. Notice his casual demeanor as he sleeps:

And he doesn't seem too worried about the dogs. Today he took over Anna's bed: (she was not happy about it)

And so life goes on at the Copeland household. Animals everywhere.

The 5000 Year Leap-Principles 14, 15 and 16

2009-05-22T15:07:00.002-05:00

Good Stuff in these three principles. The author discusses some of the basic rights that humans should enjoy to the reasoning behind the creation of the separation of powers.

Principle 14: Life and Liberty are secure only so long as the right to property is secure.

This was a great chapter and as I was reading, I kept seeing so many discussions from "Atlas Shrugged" in here. I guess I shouldn't be amazed that the concepts of natural law and freedom pervade all types of liberty.

The author begins with the basic premise that man was given dominion over the earth by God to subdue it. It follows logically that man cannot subdue unless he has control. Control requires that man has exclusive rights to what he is subduing, hence, private property rights are necessitated.

The author also points our that four things would happen without the right of property ownership:

1. People would lose their stuff after they improved to anybody else.
2. A person would lose the fruits of his labor.
3. Bands and gangs would go about taking as they wanted.
4. Everything would be on a meager level as there would be always be the threat of attack from accumulating anything.

It is also pointed out that Locke maintained that a threat to property rights is essentially a threat the essence of life itself. If a person puts effort into an activity, then the they own the right to that property, whether it is physical or intellectual. This is a major theme in "Atlas Shrugged."

The author also stated that it is the job of the government to protect this right and that it was not until 1936 that the Supreme Court perverted (my words) the general welfare clause of the Constitution to advocate the redistribution of wealth obtained by the government. Notice that this came swiftly on the heels of the progressive movement.

Principle 15: The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.

The author starts off by mentioning that impact that Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations had on the founding fathers. His principles for an economic system fit right in line with the philosophies of the founding fathers.

The author also mentions four rules that are inherent in the free-market system: 1. The freedom to try; 2. The Freedom to buy; 3. The Freedom to sell; and 4. The Freedom to fail. I quickly noted that the current and previous administration have taken away the fourth right from several larger companies and have handicapped the economic recovery.

There is considerable discussion of the role of Adam Smith and then his disappearance thanks to the adherents of Karl Marx and the fact that modern academia has passionately embraced Marx at the expense of Smith. The author points out that he has seen a ressurgence in interest for Smith, but based on the direction of our current administration, I find that very hard to believe.

Principle 16: The government should be separated into three branches- Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

This chapter was primarily a historical discussion of the three branch system of government that we currently use. The author begins by discussing the Greek philosopher, Polybius. Polybius ended up being taken taken to Rome when Greece was captured by Rome. Through his years there, he became enamoured with the Roman government and traveled throughout the Roman empire. He first postulated the idea of three equal branches of government: an executive monarch, a senate and a popular assembly.

Once the Romans adopted an emporer, Polybius' ideas disappeared, until they were rediscovered by Charles de Montisquieu, an 18th century French Baron. The founders were deeply influenced by Montisquieu's improvements on Polybius's ideas. Montisquieu postulated that the executive branch should have one ruler instead of multiple executives. The founders took his ideas and even improved on those.

There is also a discussion of John Adam's role in bringing about the three separate branches of government. Adams stood alone in his own state Constitutional Conventions and even that of the USA in calling for the three separate branches. I think it is obvious that he was proven right, and even some of his own contemporaries eventually agreed with him. Although it is not well-remembered ,the current system of "separate but equal" branches is almost single-handedly attributable to John Adams.

The 5000 Year Leap-Principles 11, 12 and 13

2009-05-11T19:31:00.003-05:00

Ok, as I mentioned earlier, I am working diligently to get through "Atlas Shrugged." It is so briliant and so timely. However, I felt a need to read some more in "The 5000 Year Leap." Here is a brief summary(mingled with some interesting and witty social commentary from myself) of the 11th, 12th and 13th principles.

Principle 11: The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrnnical.

This chapter is fairly self-explanatory. The founders believed that rights given to people were derived not from the government, but from God, therefore, when any government had become tyrranical or oppresive to the majority, they had the right to throw off that government. They were then tasked with the job of forming a new government. It should be noted, that the author quoted from Locke's Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, which the founders relied on heavily. It should also be pointed out, as Locke did, that the power to revolt does not lie with a minority, but only the majority.

Principle 12: The United States of America shall be a republic.

The first thing most of us think about when seeing this principle is the pledge that we say (used to say) and quoting "and to the republic for which it stands." The author explains in this chapter exactly what type of government the founders were creating. There has been a lot of misuse of the term "republic" and the term " democracy." They are often used interchangeably, when they are not the same. A democracy is a government that is ruled by the people. They have to make decisions as a whole, and this often leads to mob rule (or mobocracy) or tyranny. The authors notes that the early Greek city-states tried this model and most disintegrated into tryanny.

A republic is one in which there are elected representatives that act of behalf of the people and whose power is derived from these people. The american system is a republic and logically so. A true democracy can only work in a small area and for a limited amount of people. America was a young and growing nation and a republic could be expanded to fit the growth of the country.

The author also spends some time discussing the erosion of the word "democracy" in the early 1900's. A group known a Intercollegiate Socialist Society (one of the early progressive groups in America) began to use the word democracy to refer to socialism. The group later changed it's name to "The League for Industrial Democracy." Obviously, they were not using the term "democracy" to apply to the classical sense, but sufficiently watered it down enough to diffuse its meaning.

Woodrow Wilson was surrounded by a number of the early leaders of this group and heavily influenced by their philosophy. One would think that a simple glance at the multitude of failed nations espousing socialist philosophy would have been enough to see that this system cannot sustain itself. These leaders went on to take powerful leadership positions throughout the nations and have set precedents that have continued to this day. Their influence has greatly weakened the country and the dedication that many have had to the vision of the founders.

Principle 13: A Constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailities of their rulers.

This idea is a major crux in the difference between progressives and conservatives. Progressives will often preach that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago by mainly farmers, while the times have changed. I vehemently disagree with this statement. While the statement may be factually true, it is meant to imply that the Constitution should change with the times.

The founders wrote the Constitution to deal with one issue that never changes, the human condition. The founders understood that power corrupts and that men have the tendency to continue to collect power. The Constitution was derived to restrain that tendency and place no absolute power in the hands of any one group or individual. The government must be controlled or it will become tyrranical. This is just another example of the brilliance of those "farmers" and their keen ability to understand the human condition.

The Non-Political Political Pageant

2009-04-20T21:38:00.002-05:00

I ran across this article that I found on the foxnews website. Apparently, during the Miss USA pageant, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked a question by Perez Hilton concerning gay marriage and she did not give the pre-approved answer.

The funny (read : sad, pathetic) part of the story is certainly not that Prejean stated her mind on that subject. It's that there is a furor at all. Here is why this really disappoints me:

1. If, as the head of the pageant stated, this is to be a non-political event, do they have judges that are controversial, and allow them to ask a question that is obviously a political flashpoint? Her answer either way would have created controversy, which leads me to my second point.

2. The only reason there is a "controversy," is because it is a trumped up one by the media. If she had spoken in favor of gay marriage, I am certain there would have been no story. The only controversy is that the media is outraged that there are people that do not agree with them or the viewpoints they espouse.

3. If, as Keith Lewis(the pageant head), stated, this event is to be a non-political event, did he feel the need to express his opinion on the subject and that he did not like her opinion? The correct answer for him would have been that they encourage their contestants to form their own opinions and then speak their minds, being true to their convictions. His opinion is of absolutely no relevance to this story.

4. I have known enough pageants contestants in my life to have heard the same story at every pageant I have ever seen. The say the standard lines about wanting women to be intelligent, beautiful, independent women that have opinions on subjects. Why else would they ask them about world peace so much? Why is it, that as soon as someone has an opinion that they don't like, they create a controversy.

The controversy is not in Prejean's remarks. The controversy should be in the fact that their should never have been a "controversy" in the first place.

I have to say that I am very impressed with Prejean's stand and glad to see that she has not stepped down from her remarks. Isn't this the kind of woman that the pageants claim to want to produce? Or is that just rhetoric while they produce a mainstream media friendly winner that goes along with what she thinks people want her to be?

The 5000 Year Leap-Principles 9 and 10

2009-04-16T18:40:00.002-05:00

A friend of mine from college emailed me last week and reminded me that I needed to get off my duff and keep blogging on what I am learning in this book. (my words, not his) Unfotunately, I have also started reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and have become completely engrossed in that book. That book is blowing my mind. It was published in 1957, but could be ripped out of todays' headlines. I will blog about that later.

Back to The 5000 Year Leap. Here is principle 9:

To protect man's rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law.

This principle is a derivative of the idea/truth that God has endowed each human with certain rights. Because God has given each person these rights, He also revealed divine law, which is used to protect, promote and preserve these rights.

A good basis for these laws is found in the 10 commandments. In these commandments, one can see that they are determined to assist man in relating to God, his fellow humans (community) and himself. Although this is not the extent of what God revealed in regards to divine law, it is a good basis and relatively easy to see how having laws derived from these principles ensures that the rights given by God cannot be usurped or tread upon by other people.

The author also expounds on how humans are given unalienable duties that correspond to their unalienable rights. In order for the rights to be preserved, man must act in certain ways. The author calls these public duties and private duties, with public duties being enforceable by law and the latter not being enforceable and up to the integrity of the indiviual.

Principle 10 is as follows:

The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.

The author begins the chapter by recounting the words of Algernon Sidney, who was beheaded by King Charles II for stating that kings did not have a divine right to rule and that the right to rule was vested with the people.

The author also quotes John Locke, in stating that the right to rule emanates from the people and that anyone that does not use the correct methods to come into power does not have the right to be obeyed. The founders deeply believed this same idea. They believed that rulers were the servants of the people and that the people had the right to elect or remove a leader. They believed that God did not give any man the right to rule over others unless that power was given to him by the people. This idea was reflected in the Constitution of 1787 and multiple state Constitutions.

5000 Year Leap-Principles 7 and 8

2009-03-23T19:29:00.002-05:00

OK, here is where we get to the part about what the government can and can't do, according to the founding fathers. It hurts me to see that these concepts are either not understood, or more likely, completely ignored by so many of the past administrations:

Principle 7 states that "The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things."

It is obvious that this concept is the exact opposite of the beliefs at the core of socialism and what we are witnessing with non-existant shame in D.C.

In a nutshell, the founders believed that the the government had no rights which people themselves did not have, since the people could not give what they did not have. One way to say this is that, since I do not have the legal right to go and take from someone (in the interest of "fairness") to give to someone else, the government does not posses that right either. However, the founders believed that we are given, by God, the right to protect ourselves and our property, therefore it is logical that that right can be entrusted to the government to ensure that each person is protected so that they can live their lives.

Benjamin Franklin spent a great deal of time in Europe and had more than a few scathing things to say about the European governmental system. He particularly mentioned England's "provision for the poor" as it took from the wealthy and gave to the poor. First of all, England did it against the will of the people it took from. While every founder believed highly in charity, it should only be done voluntarily (ed. note...I predict the definition of that word will be highly misconstrued over the next few years.) Franklin also specifically mentioned that the treatment of the poor caused them to stay in that class and did not entice them to better themselves, which ultimately robbed them of more than any money could give. Franklin was known to believe that poverty should be a place that no man would want to exist in, which would entice him to work to leave it.

Principle 8 states that "men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Simply stated, man is given a number of rights that are not given by the state, monarch, or ruling government, They are bequeathed by God and not to the taken by the state. These rights are to be distinguished from vested rights, those given by the state, such as the right to hunt during a specific time of year.

It was widely believed, as noted in Blackstone's legal work, and a majority of state constitutions, that people were given these rights (which are significantly more than the three listed in the Declaration of Independence)by God and that the government was bound to protect them. It should be noted that man could forfeit these rights by choice, such as comitting a crime, but only then could they be taken from him.

I think it is pretty easy to see that since the founders believed that the we are given rights by God, the first line of attack against those rights is to remove God. Without the fundamental authority of God as the backbone of our government, the state is free to enact measures that secure the power for greedy and unscrupulous leaders. The current attack on religious freedom, as well as the lessening of the teaching of the founders' deeply held religious convictions, have paved the way to the chaos that we are currently witnessing in our society. As John Adams said, our Constitution was meant for a religious and God-fearing people.

Tribute To a Mean Little Cat that Managed to Sneak In My Heart

2009-03-15T21:42:00.007-05:00

This is a blog that I never really expected to have to write. In fact, let me just start by saying that it really stinks that I am writing it all. Sometimes life just throws you a curve ball and you are not at all prepared for it.

Carmen and I said goodbye to our cat the weekend before last. We let him out Saturday night and he never came back. Carmen went out looking for him on Monday afternoon and found some evidence that suggested a struggle in the woods not too far behind our house. Based on what some neighbors told us, we are pretty certain that a coyote may have gotten him.

Up until this week, I have always enjoyed having a little fun with the cat. He was always good for a story since he was known to be a little antagonistic. He was not really the friendliest cat that I have ever seen, but he was ours. This was the first pet that Carmen and I got, right after we found out that she was going to have her kidney transplant. We watched him grow from the scrawniest looking little kitten ( as seen in the above picture) into a large Maine Coon. We called him Gorbachev because he had that black spot on his head. He was a fiesty little guy.

What has been most surprising to me was the fact that I had grown sort of fond of having him around. He had become part of the rhythym of life at the Copeland house, along with our two dogs. He was known to hold his own when the dogs got too close.

I am really irked by the injustice of the whole thing. Gorbs was just out wandering around our property minding his own business when he was attacked. Although I am sad, I am glad for the 6 or so years that Gorbs got to enjoy life. He loved skulking around the back yard and terrorizing baby birds and mice. He loved to rip the wrapping paper when Carmen was trying to wrap a present and he loved to sit on the railing of the back deck and survey his kingdom. He tolerated me, but he absolutely loved Carmen. He had it as good as a cat could want.

Gorbs, we're gonna miss you,buddy. Somehow you managed to worm your little way into my heart. I hate that it ended this way.

Let me state that I am putting every and all coyotes on alert that there will be retribution. Just being a coyote is evidence enough. Each of you better run looking behind you, dragging your sorry tails with you.

5000 Year Leap-Principles 5 and 6

2009-03-08T19:31:00.002-05:00

The fifth principle states:

All things were created by God, therefore upon Him, all mankind are equally dependent, and to Him, they are equally responsible.

This principle follows right on the heels of the preceding principles, that we are beholden to God and answerable to Him and His law. The founding fathers were great admirers of John Locke, the philosopher, who reasoned that it is obvious that there is a Creator and therefore His law is pre-eminent. Locke deduced that, since creation, has an order, there must a Creator that is greater than His creation and the fulfillment of all the good traits that man is known to exhibit.

The founding fathers believed that since God has created natural laws to govern the universe, He also created laws that determine how man is to relate to other men, hence the establishment of the law. It is interesting to note that the founders were inherently distrustful of anyone that did not declare belief in God, as they thought that the atheists had not used their mental capacities to their full extent, which would lead to belief in God. Witnesses that declared themselves to be atheists were often excused as witnesses in court.

The 6th principle states that:

All men are created equal.

The founders believed that every person had an equal standing before God, therefore they were created equal. This implied that every person had an equal standing before the law and an equality of rights to pursue their life.

It should be noted (and will be further expounded upon with principle 7) that equal rights does not imply that people are equal in every way. The author quotes John Adams' dismissal of Rousseau's idea that all men are born with equal gifts, talents, social status, etc. It can be easily be seen that people are different in multiple ways simply by observation. Some people are short, others tall. Some have red hair, some are blond. It is just as obvious that some people are more gifted in certain areas than others. To assert otherwise is to believe a fallacy.

Regardless of the differences in people, each person should be given an equal standing before the law and equal opportunity to pursue their life.

It should also be said that America has not been perfect in administering this equal standing as it has grown through many experiences with gender and racial equality fights, but is closer today(in those respects) to the founders' ideals.

The author also tells the story of Eldridge Cleaver, a militant communist Black Panther in 60's that reversed his ideological stance when he lived among the communist nations of the time and saw that true equality was found in liberty and not through government sanctioned "equality." When cleaver returned to the U.S., he had to pay for crimes he had commited, but stated that he "would rather be in jail in America than free anywhere else."

5000 Year Leap-Principle 4

2009-02-25T13:12:00.002-05:00

I finished the fourth principle in the "5000 Year Leap" yesterday and it goes hand in hand with the first three. It is this:

Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.

As the majority of the founding fathers were very religious in their own right, it should come as no shock to see that that those beliefs played heavily into their thoughts about having a free nation and how it could exist given human nature. They were wise enough to understand that no one particular denomination could have sway over the role of religion, so they basically agreed to five points that were common throughout Christianity to underpin the value of religion that was needed:

1. A creator exists and should be recognized and worshiped by mankind.
2. There is a moral code that has been revealed and distinguishes right from wrong.
3. Mankind will be held responsible for his actions.
4. There is life beyond this one.
5. There is judgement in the next life for man's actions in this life.

These 5 concepts were taught in schools and considered vital in training people in a moral code that the founders believed was essential to maintaining liberty.

It should also be noted that the founding fathers were very clear in noting that there needed to exist a "wall of separation" between the federal government and religion. Since this phrase has been so twisted and abused, it is hardly understood today. This meant that the federal government had no right to establish any type of national religion. In effect, the federal government was to treat all religions equally. In no way whatsoever did it mean that the federal government was absent of religion.

The Consitution left the religion concept to the states. But, given recent Supreme Court rulings and misunderstandings of the Constitution, people now believe it means that any form government should be absent of religion. That is a completely foreign concept to what the founders intended. Religion was to play a role in the everday lives of the citizens and hence, it would be an intricate part of the affairs of the state.

A Day In Macon

2009-02-21T18:09:00.004-05:00

Today, I am taking a break from my deep political posting to cover a lighter side of my life.....what I did today. We had one of those fun days that come along occasionally.

I got up this morning and exercised, being the disciplined person that I am (that was for my wife, because she has some weird love/hate relationship with the fact that I like a schedule). I then pulled out my new 2000 psi pressure washer and climbed onto the roof to get the pollen off the side of my house. Our house has yellow siding, so green pollen is very obvious. And, of course, using the pressure is always a good time.

After the house was squeaky clean, we met our friends, Russ and Vicky, for a brunch at a new restaurant in town, J. Christopher's. We were trying to figure out the over/under on when it will close since Carmen and I ate there. It has been an eerily similar strings of corollaries as to the establishments that we frequent and that close down in Macon. J. Christopher's has no idea what just happened today.

We then went down to Central City Park to the Friends of the Library booksale. I am an avid reader, as is Carmen, and my personal stack of books to read grew from its present stack of about 25 books to about 30.

Today was day three of the sale, so it was pretty picked over, but we found a few keepers. I was disappointed that I did not find my first edition "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe." I know that I can't afford the $10,000 tag on ebay, so I keep my eyes open until I find it at some unassuming book sale.

We then parted ways with our friends, who had an important basketball game to watch ( ed. note....no basketball is worth watching. We are way more fun.). We took the puppies to the Ocmulgee park and river walk for a fun outing. We walked for a while and even took pictures with the Otis Redding(who was from Macon) statue. That is Anna, the lab, in the picture with me. This was before she succombed to her overpowering Labrador traits and threw herself into the Ocmulgee River and got all muddy when we tried to let her get a drink.

All in all, a great day. I got to be with my beautiful wife and enjoy one of the nicer parts of Macon. Good times!

5000 Year Leap-Principles 2 and 3

2009-02-19T18:04:00.003-05:00

Ok, so I have taken a few days to get to the next few principles that the founding father believed as they set our nation in motion. It was a very busy week in ATL, and I could never find the time to read the book, let alone blog. I did cover principle 1 in my previous post, so here is a summation on principles 2 and 3.

Principle 2: A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.

I think that this point is self-evident to some people. Whenever freedom exists, there remains on its recipients a duty to be bound to a moral code or that freedom is lost. That is exactly what the founding fathers believed. In order for people to rule themselves in a system where the power was derived from the bottom up( viz., the people elect the rulers and give them the power), they had to be morally strong. If not, they would denigrate into anarchy and lawlessness.

One of the things that the author stated that I found most interesting was that the founding fathers had a great deal of belief that education in that moral code was the only way to raise up virtuous leaders to continue in freedom. Thomas Paine noted, that in 1775, there was great debate as to whether the colonies were virtuous enough to govern themselves. That subsequently led to a moral resurgence among the colonies as they sought out "public virtue," where the people look past their own interests to see that they need to exhibit concern and action for the larger community.

Three of the areas that the founding fathers believed would continue traning in virture were the family, the schools and the church. I quickly noted that each of these area is heavily under attack by secular areas of society. The basic role of the family is being threatened in every way possible by insistence on acceptance of perversions of what it should be. Schools are, at best, becoming secularized and at worst, places of indoctrintation by teachers or groups that use their platform as a bully pulpit. Churches, one of the last and great bastions of morality in America( at least, they should be) are harassed, threatened and beatean down by groups such as the ACLU, that like to wave the scare tactic of loss of tax-free status to keep them out of the public arena. That would be a foreign thought to our founding fathers, as many of them had either Bible degrees, or were, in fact, ministers themselves. They saw it was their sacred duty to help the founding of America.

Principle 3: The most promising method of securing a virtuous and morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders.

This one may be even more obvious than the one before it, at least to those with common sense. It is incumbent on the morally sound population to elect leaders that embrace that same moral code and will rule with those principles in mind.

I found it interesting to note that the author spent a great deal of time in this chapter talking about Ben Franklin and how he traveled Europe watching the administration of the government posts. He correctly noted that the "aristocracy" there were awarded positions of honor because of station in life or their wealth. Thomas Jefferson called for a different aristocracy in America that was based on a person's talent and virtue, and nothing else.

Franklin also spent a great deal of time at the Constitutional Convention calling for the limitation of salaries for those in public. Franklin argued that substantial pay would bring out ambitious, unvirtuous men, whereas limited pay would place the motivations for the job on duty to society and seeing the role as a place of honor, not of gain.

There was one very timely quote by Franklin that I want to repeat here. He was discussing the rule by the person that took office for the power or money. He said that " these, too, will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation; for their vanquished competitors , of the same spirit , and from the same motives, will perpetually be endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people."

That certainly sounds like a accurate description of the left and vitriol that was spewed toward President Bush over the last 8 years. Human nature doesn't change much. The founding fathers had great insight into those areas. That is one more reason why their genius is evident in the American government.

5000 Year Leap

2009-02-15T20:45:00.004-05:00

I am becoming increasingly concerned about the direction that the USA is taking. As I watch decisions that are being made, I see a nation that is a long way away from its original design. But, just to be clear, this didn't start with the current administration. This movement away from the the founding fathers' plan has been going on as long as there has been the tension between the forces of smaller government and centralized government. Each of the administrations over the last 20 years are complicit in where we find oursleves.

Given the fragility of our Constitution these days, I have determined that I need to understand better what the genius of the founding fathers was in creating our nation. I would like to think that I learned all about this in public school, but as I read, I continually find out that there was a large amount of pertinent information that I was not taught that has influenced out nation's birth and helped shape it to become the greatest nation in the world. It saddens me to realize how little we have been told.

I have started reading a book entitled "5000 Year Leap." This book outlines 28 principles that influenced the founding fathers as they designed our Constitution. As I read, I am going to blog the ideas that I learn. I am hoping that these ideas will challenge people to think about what the intentions of the founders were and how those intentions stack up against where we find ourselves as a nation today. Please feel free to send this information on and talk with people you know about this. We need to be reminded of our heritage.

The first principle is this: The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.

Cicero, the Roman philospher and lawyer, postulated that true freedom and just rule was derived only from natural law, that is law that is based on God's law. Only law and government that is patterned from the law that God set forth will bring true justice and happiness to the people that are governed by it. The founding fathers all put a high premuim on Cicero's writings. They began from the presupposition that God's law is the only basis for the rule of man. It was this concept that framed the idealogy that shaped the birth of our nation.

Spendulus and the Need to Get It Now

2009-02-09T22:31:00.003-05:00

I caught a little bit of the president's prime-time speech tonight. I am becoming concerned at the speed at which this bill is being pushed through. We are being told that this has to be done right now in order to save the economy, but the American people are not being given time to digest the biggest spending bill in the history of the US. Just the fact that we are watching this sail through the Congress and being told that it cannot wait should put up a huge red flag. Something of this magnitude needs time to be reviewed. It seems that even a recent Fox news poll shows that a majority of the American people are skeptical of this bill and what it will do to the economy.

Notice that I said "to" and not "for" the economy. I remain a true believer in capitalism. The free market is set up to incentivize companies to succeed. That being said, there is always a risk of failure. It will hurt, but if the government would leave the market alone, we will recover from this depression. I am afraid that, in the long run, this bill will do a lot more harm than good. Recently, a group of economists from UCLA published their findings that FDR's New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression by 7 years. If they had left the economy alone, it would have recovered much faster. It seems that, while the rest of the world suffered a depression during that time, only in America was it "great."

It appears that we have not learned from history.

Cre:ate Day 3(full day, that is)

2009-02-04T18:48:00.002-05:00

Wow, what an amazing day. I am not sure I will be able to adequately describe the many things that I have experienced today. I will give it a shot, but these are only words, they ultimately fail in comparison to the experiences of today.

A couple of the guys from the group 10th Ave. North led us in a time worship this morning and then Randy Elrod gave a pretty amazing talk on "The Curse of the Blessings of God." In a nutshell, Randy has always been a guy that has what I call the King Midas touch, where just about everything he touched turned(as he admitted himself). Over the last few years, he has struggled through some issues that he has walked through. The points he made were great, but I think most attendees would agree that Randy's honesty and vulnerability led us to a great place today.

After lunch, Ken Davis spoke to us. Ken is a professional communicator/comedian. As he did last year, he made us laugh like crazy and then be challenged by his point that the hope is never dead where the love of Christ is present. Absolutely outstanding.

Later, Ian Morgan Cron spoke on the power of the eucharist. Keep in mind that I have been proudly non-liturgical for all my life, but I am seeing God open my eyes to the beauty that is contained in some of the liturgical elements. Cron led us in a celebration of the eucharist and it was one of the most moving and beautiful times of worship that I have participated in. I so wish that Carmen could have been here to experience it with me. I know that I will not be able to relay to her or anyone what it was like. I am really impressed with Cron. I got to speak with him for a few minutes and it was a very encouraging time. He is a very smart, articulate, and talented artist/pastor that has impacted this conference greatly.

Tonight, we are headed to Saffire, here at the Factory, for dinner. It is sponsored by Brentwood-Benson and some of their artists are going to be there. I am looking forward to seeing Travis Cottrell tonight.

In summary, the day was full of experiences that lose some value by my attempt to capture them in words, but it was (and is still) an outstanding day.

Cre:ate 09

2009-02-03T18:52:00.004-05:00

Ok, so I am in Nashville this week at the best conference for worship leaders around, Randy Elrod's Cre:ate conference. As usual the conference is off to a great start. It's also fun that this is my third year, so I know a number of the folks that are here. I was bummed at how many people that have been here both of the other years I have are not here this year.

Last night, we kicked off the conference with a meet and greet at the O'More Mansion. Not much to say about that. The place was tiny and way packed, so I hung by the door until we went to dinner. You couldn't move in that place. We ate dinner at Sol, a gourmet Mexican restaraunt off of downtown Franklin. It was excellent and that is probably the best guacamole I have ever eaten ( nd I do not like Guac.) We went back to the Factory, where the main sessions are being held, and heard the Adam Nitti band. These guys were absolutely astounding. Adam is a bass player and blew me away. Each one of the players were amazing. They played all instrumental jazz and I am completely understating it to say that it was the best thing i have ever heard or seen at this conference.

This morning we were led in worship by Carl Cartee. I did not know much about him, but he has written some excellent worship songs that I want to incorporate into our church body. We then heard from Iam Morgan Cron, an anglican priest and the author of Chasing Francis, a book I just finished that is very basic primer on the life of St. Francis. Kron's premise is that, just as Francis helped bridge the gap between the Medieval period and the modern period (with the beginning of the Renaissance), his concepts can be utilized by the church to reach out to the post-modern era. Incredible stuff and a great time with Cron.

After a great lunch at the Boxwood Bistro, we head Stephen Guthrie, a theology professor at Belmont, speak on the integration of worship and the spoken word. Well done by Guthrie.

Tonight, we are headed over to the Harpeth Community Church, where we are going to have dinner and then be led in worship by Michael W. Smith. That is going to be a great time.

That is day one. It was packed full of stuff and really just whets the appetite for the rest of the week. I will post some more over the course of the week.

Update: We had a great time with MWS. It was really cool to see him in a non-concert setting, where he was just talking and making it up as he went along. The highlight was definitely singing "Agnus Dei" with the guy that wrote. It was a great time of worship.