The New Normal

Do you remember watching 9-11 unfold? I remember saying, when the second jet hit the second tower, "This is not an accident. We are under attack!" And then I remember thinking, "Nothing will ever be the same," meaning the way we go about our daily lives as been permanently changed.

The loss of life was and still is tragic. The victims are still dead. The families still mourn their loss. The way we go about our lives has changed. Suspicion and distrust remain. Inconveniences abound (think airports). Nevertheless, we go to work, school, shopping, vacations, church, etc., indicating that we have successfully adjusted to the "new normal" that followed 9-11.

And why wouldn't we?! After all, life has always been about adjusting to new normals. From the time we're born to the time we die, we are adjusting. We are born, we start eating solid food, we are potty-trained, we start school, we stop having recess, we graduate, we get a job, we change jobs, we move, we get married, we have kids, someone burglarizes our house, we buy a new car, we need surgery, we have to pay for our kids to go to college, the economy takes a nose dive, our kids get married, our siblings die, our parents die, we take a cruise, we have to learn new technology… Get the picture? We are in a constant state of adjusting.

So 9-11 brought in a new normal. There have been many others since then (What's your house worth compared to 5 or 10 years ago?). There will be more. We can handle it. After all, we were made in His image!

Sometimes Separation of Church and State Is Impossible

The following is a copy of a recent exchange of communication between our congressman and myself. What I wrote was not perfect or even eloquent but I want people to see where Congressman Dicks stands since so many people overlook his ungodliness because he is able to throw a lot of money into our local economy.

Dear Congressman Dicks,

Thank you for your reply. I especially appreciate the clarity of your own position. It can be seen that you approach the issue from the standpoint of your personal interpretation of the law. I realize many carry such a viewpoint but, as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I must give precedence to the supreme authority of what God says in the Bible regarding marriage. Every biblical reference to God's plan for marriage reveals it is between a man and a woman. We are in serious error when we reverse the proper course of interpreting man's law in light of God's word and counter it by interpreting God's word according to man's law. I believe our nation's founding fathers understood this and I pray our current leaders will return to it.

In Him,

Jim Gantenbein

On Mar 24, 2011, at 07:34 AM, Congressman Norm Dicks wrote:

Norm's Website - Constituent Services - Legislation - How Norm Voted - Email Norm

Dear Mr. Gantenbein:

Thank you for contacting me to comment on the Obama Administration's conclusion that the law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriages is unconstitutional and its decision to direct Justice Department lawyers to cease defending the law in the courts. I appreciate your interest in this issue.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed by Congress in 1996.  It prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and it allows individual states to refuse to recognize such marriages that have been performed in other states.  Section 3 of DOMA requires that marriage, for purposes of federal benefit programs, is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Since its passage there have been several challenges to the constitutionality of this law, based on two major legal arguments concerning the 10th and 14th Amendments.  The 10th Amendment declares that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State," and opponents have contended that Congress has no constitutional power to pass a law permitting states to deny full faith and credit to another state's legal determination of a marriage. A second argument, based on the 14th Amendment, contends that the law denies "equal protection under the law" to all Americans.

  On July 8, 2010, a U.S. District Court in Massachusetts found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in two cases brought by same-sex couples married in Massachusetts.  In one case, the court found that DOMA exceeded Congress's power under the Spending Clause and thus violated the 10th Amendment.  In the other case, the court held that Congress's goal of preserving the status quo did not bear a rational relationship to DOMA and thus, violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.  These decisions are similar to other rulings rendered in cases involving state-passed laws restricting same-sex marriage in Colorado, California and other states.

In February, the President and Attorney General Eric Holder issued a determination that the Justice Department would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. At this time it is unclear whether the Department will continue to defend DOMA's constitutionality against other challenges.  Based on the case law that is accruing and on my own views, I support the President's decision, and agree with the District Court's opinion that Section 3 is unconstitutional.

The House of Representatives may consider legislation this year that would assert the standing of the House to use taxpayer resources to respond to legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, and I expect to oppose such a bill if it is considered on the House floor. 

Thank you again for sharing your views on this timely and important matter. 

Sincerely,

NORM DICKS

Visit  Norm's website: http://www.house.gov/dicks/
Subscribe to Norm's Newsletter to receive periodic email updates from Congressman Norm Dicks.

The Mouse Has a New Horn

http://www.viddler.com/simple_on_site/dbf32668

Could be fun!

Intolerance vs Tolerance

in·tol·er·ance   [in-tol-er-uhns] –noun

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.

3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.

4. an intolerant act.

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010. 

What is so bad about intolerance and what is so great about tolerating everything? Besides, is there anyone in their right mind who would claim that anyone has ever existed who was intolerant about everything or who tolerated everything? To assert such a thing could only be done with eyes, mind, and memory permanently closed or totally missing.

By the way, the same dictionary used above gives the following definition for "tolerance":

tol·er·ance   [tol-er-uhns] –noun

1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.

It seems, however, that the current use in our society could be simply defined as follows.

Tolerance: Allowing as valid and acceptable for everyone.

Intolerance: Not allowing as valid and acceptable for everyone.

Question: Does the person who extols tolerance extend that philosophy to the philosophy of the person who does not?

See? There can not be absolute tolerance without also embracing intolerance which, in turns, invalidates tolerance.

Bottom Line: Society and its individual members use terms like "tolerance" and "intolerance" to promote their own agenda and stifle the agenda of those who disagree.

That is pure intolerance!

But I can tolerate it.

A Few Sources for Family Advent Devotionals

If you are looking for sources to help you observe advent with your family, here is a small variety of ideas that you can look into (Just copy and paste):
http://itsoktobeweird.blogspot.com/2007/12/fun-advent-family-devotions.html
http://www.cfumcga.com/advent.html
http://www.crosspoint.tv/nashville/happenings/nashville/2009/11-30/advent-devotional-pdf
http://www.supakoo.com/rick/AdventReadings.pdf

Scrooge McDuck's Sister

Most folks know who Scrooge McDuck is. He is Donald Duck's rich and sometimes miserly uncle. His creator, Carl Barks, died in 2000 at the age of 99 and many people eulogized him, recalling what a wonderful man and artist he was. His wife of forty years preceded him in death by about seven years. Most of the eulogies do not mention that Carl Barks had been married twice before and that his only surviving child, who happened to be born during his first marriage, is Dorothy Gibson. Barks was called the father of Scrooge McDuck so I guess Dorothy is Scrooge's sister.

Dorothy Gibson is about 86 years old, lives in a modest house in Bremerton, Washington, is an active member of Kitsap Lake Baptist Church, and I am very proud to be her pastor. The pride I have in that fact is not because I am friends with the daughter of the man who changed the image of Donald Duck and created numerous Disney characters. It is because I have the privilege of pastoring a very godly woman who, except when very ill, continues to help clean the church building, particularly the ladies bathroom. She does it because it needs to be done and she can do it.

All that may be changing, however. Recently, Dorothy contracted pneumonia and has not fully recovered. She has even stopped eating, in part because, "nothing appeals to me." Her health is otherwise very good and her mind is as sharp as ever (though she thinks she is becoming a bit forgetful). Her daughter and son-in-law do all they can to help her and encourage her to eat. We hope and pray that Dorothy will soon regain her appetite and energy. Earlier this year, my beloved Aunt Betty went to be with the Lord. The cause of her death was listed as "Failure to thrive." That means her health was good and all her organs were working, but she simply stopped prospering physically and passed away. I hope that is not what is taking place with Dorothy.

Eulogies are traditionally given after a person dies. The word comes from two Greek words that, when put together translated as "good words." It just seems a bit crazy that we wait until after a person has died before we speak a eulogy regarding them. I wanted you to know that whatever Carl Barks was, his daughter, Dorothy Gibson, was much more because she is, as King David was, a person after God's own heart.

Jim

I Feel Your Pain

Finally following the advice of friends who are also in the ministry, conference leaders, authors, and assorted others, I have begun to do something as part of my desire to improve my preaching. And to those of you who grimace, yawn, shake your head, have your eyes glaze over, or fall asleep I want you to know: "I feel your pain."

Yes, I have begun listening to recordings of my sermons. But take heart because your suffering may lead to better preaching and relief for future congregants.

Oh yes, one more thing: Thank you for your patience!