Buttigieg Defends Abortion by Suggesting the Bible Says ‘Life Begins with Breath’

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;" (Jeremiah 1:5).

I listened to an interview of Pete Buttigieg in which he was asked about the issue of abortion. He gave all the normal ditch and divert responsive that have become the stock and trade of pro abortion activists. However, the interviewer pressed him harder eliciting a response regarding the Pro-Life's claim that all human life is sacred.

Buttigieg's response was that Christians often have many views on the same Scripture passages and that there was no universal agreement among Christian's on the meaning of passages that related to abortion. He continued to say that the primary decider on abortion should be the woman involved.

In the past he demurred to the standard pro-abortion arguments of the past. It is a woman’s body and no one should be able to tell her what to do with it. It’s a decision between her and her doctor. A fetus is nothing more than a mass of tissue and blood like a cancer tumor. In the past he never sought to identify just when human life begins.

However, in a recent interview he seemed to have discovered a religious argument for then life begins. He quotes Genesis 2:7, “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” and then he boldly declares that a baby does not become a human until it takes it’s first independent breathe outside the womb. Before that moment it is just a well organized mass of cells and blood.  Couple this with the governor of Virginia advocate for post birth infanticide and I think we need to take a loom at what Buttigieg called the “cosmic question of how life begins.” I suggest that he means how and when a new life begins.  Some have gone so far as to suggest that if we do not see the breathing of life into Adam as analogous to when life begins for a baby then we are theologically looney. I suggest that people who see them as analogous neither know the Scripture or the power of God.

I have no intention of talking about the superficial how new life begins in the sense of the union of a man and a woman becoming one flesh and how that produces a new life. Though I must confess that simple answer is at the heart of the more detailed, technical and sterile answer.

I suppose if one wanted to be sarcastic I would answer that the same Bible that he quoted also says in Leviticus 17:11, ““For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” I would suppose that could mean that the embryo becomes a living being the moment blood begins to flow within it and a human is considered alive as long as the blood continues to flow through his/her veins. A really strong case can be made for this argument including both man’s physical and spiritual life.

However, I want to deal with his own argument that life begins at the moment a baby draws its first breath.

First, making the moment life begins in a baby analogous to when Adam became a living soul is simply absurd on its surface. Such a view fails to see the glaring differences with how Adam came to be and how babies come into being. The first thing I might say to him is what Jesus said to the Sadducees in Matthew 22:29, “You err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” as they tried to trap Jesus on the question of the resurrection (in which they did not believe) and equally difficult question.

I just said that the analogy of Adam’s becoming a living soul and the moment a baby becomes a living soul is in reality clear apples and oranges comparison. Apples and oranges both grow on trees and both are basically round in form. Adam once wasn’t living and became a living soul and the same can be said for babies but after that the analogy is inapplicable.

First they are different in how they came into being. Adam was created from the dust of the Earth and even the name God gave him means “red dirt,” i.e., clay. God literally fashioned Adam from the clay of a creek bed. In that state he was nothing more and nothing less that Michelangelo’s statue of David . . . an inanimate stature. With that assessment of Adam at this stage of his creation Buttigieg would probably agree.

God, having created Man out of the Earth, now placed his very own life within him by blowing into the nostrils of the inanimate man the breathe of life causing the statute to become a living soul “created” by God in His own image and after His own likeness. This very process makes humanity significantly distinctive from the rest of creation. No one from this point on in the history of mankind will come into being the way that Adam does . . . his coming into being is unique within creation.

Now, let us contrast the creation of Adam with the birth of a baby. Clearly Adam became a living being when God breathed life into him. Even in Buttigieg argument this is the case. Adam had no mother and he had no father and he could not breath on his own. It took an external living being, God, to place within him the breathe that gave him life.  Babies on the other hand are not created are conceived not created.

What does that mean? Isn’t creation and conception essentially the same thing? Well, no, no they are not. At no time in the process of making another human being is there an absence of living material. Adam was a miracle of God, babies, while we see them as miracles, are in reality  are the product of the natural order. God created Adam and then commanded him to “go forth and multiply.”  That means just as God created Adam after His own image and likeness man is to create posterity after his own image and likeness.

To carry this further let me suggest that Adam had to have the very breathe of God himself to become a living being made from the clay of the Earth to become a living being consisting of flesh, blood and bone. Babies on the other hand because they are conceived and not created only need the union of a egg and a sperm from a woman and a man to do the same. That egg and sperm when united bring together two sets of DNA . . . . . half of which come from the father and half from the mother.  This DNA is actually the record of the baby’s ancestry. It is this DNA that enables men and women to create a child with their likeness and in their own image making each child unique just as Adam was unique.

Keep in mind that Adam was inanimate until God gave him the breathe of life. Adam Had no Father and no mother to conceive him. Adam and Eve’s DNA was humanity’s first. Adam and Eve were created from an inanimate form to a living being. Babies however from their simplest state of egg and sperm are highly animate, especially the sperm element. At no point from conception to birth right on through until death is a human non-living.  So in abortion you are terminating a human life regardless of the stage of development.  My friend that is simply a biological fact of life.

But perhaps someone would argue that may be the case but that doesn’t mean that the baby is a “living soul.”  That is what Adam got from the breathe of God he became a lining soul and that animated him.  Let’s stipulate that in Adam’s creation that is the case. It had to be that way because Adam was created not birthed. 

One of the wonderful things about God creating man in his own image and after his own likeness and breathing into Adam the breathe of life is that it made all those present in every person born since Adam. The whole point of the description of how God created man was to point out that we, in may respects, are like God. He has shared with us something of His own creative self. In the same way that God made Adam a living soul we give our children not only their physical attributes but also their spiritual breath that makes them living soul.

This is why David would say, “Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” He didn’t mean that she somehow sinfully conceived him. Rather that through his conception he received from his parents their sinful nature. Perhaps DNA comes into play at this point as well. At conception he came to be as a living soul that unfortunately also shared in the sin of our first parents, Adam & Eve.  I suspect what is said about God and marriage could also be said about conception and birth, namely, “what God hath joined together let no man cut asunder.”

So, find another excuse if you can to perpetuate the lie of abortion. Me I am going to sand with old King David and say, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.”

Oh, and do take not that when the breathe of God leaves our body in any other way but to create another human we are said to be dead and that is evidence by the total absence of power in the physical body.  The great thing is that the only eternal part of us is “the breath of God” which made us a distinctive living soul does not cease to exists. The Apostle Paul assures us that we can be “fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord.” (2 Corinthians 5:8).

The Question Will Be, “Is it Biblical?”

I recently read a Blog by Tony Wolfe entitled,  Is the SBC Headed Back Toward Theological Liberalism? In that article Wolfe really doesn’t discuss the encroaching liberalism mentioned it the title of his article.

He begins with, “So you’re upset with the “liberal direction of the SBC?” as if I was actually entertaining such a concern. I have been out of the leadership loop of all state and national conventions to be able to access any liberal drift. I would not be surprised by such a drift. Baptist, because of the autonomy of the local church and the competency of the soul have moved back and forth between a “conservative” and a more “liberal” theology since 1612 but they have largely been centrist for most of those years. This is true for both theological positions and social actions.

At any rate Wolfe implies that the conventions are becoming more and more of the traditional immoral behaviors as OK. He mentions recent convention favorable resolutions dealing with race, namely, Critical Race Theory; sexual moralities, namely homosexuality and the roll of homosexuals in church leadership; and the “Me Too” movement.  

I too have concerns about the fact that in addressing those issues we seem to move away from what the Scripture says about these issues. My ministry has spanned the battle for the Bible era of the late 1970's and 1980's where artificial tests of orthodoxy were propounded thus excluding many great truly conservative scholars and pastors (thereby their churches) from the convention membership and leadership. But it did get us back to searching the Scriptures to “see if these things be so.” Unfortunately and needlessly a lot of relationships were irreparably broken.

I am concerned about the liberal approach of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (formerly the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs) on the issue of Church and State as well as other issues. However, the Southern Baptist Convention severed ties and funding to the Baptist Joint on Public Affairs in the 1980's so they don’t affect my thinking on SBC and other Baptist Conventions. I was disappointed that the BGCT. did not do the same. I did not like the direction the then BJCOPA was going on the “Separation of Church and State” issue.

Having thrown all that fat in the fire Wolfe then proceeds to suggest that it is lack of participation in the Conventions by the churches that make it. He rightly describes the organization of both the SBC and the BGCT. as being bottom up organization. However he failed to note that these Conventions only exist while they are in session at their annual meetings. Their respective Executive Committee act on their behalf between Conventions. The only avenue open to rebuking or applauding these committees and agencies is through the vote of the Convention messengers (not delegates) during the annual meeting. Wolfe’s answer is more churches sending more messengers to the conventions than presently attend. He then spends time talking about numbers.

He is right of course. More churches need to send not just their pastors but their full slate of messengers to meetings. Here is the fly in the ointment . . . . attending conventions in distant cities is expensive and most church would have to decide between the funding of their messengers or the implementation of ministry projects.

As long as I can remember, and that is a long time, attendance at the BGCT. and SBC annual meetings have represented a small percentage of the member churches. The exception was during the "Battle for the Bible" era when Paul Pressler and Page Patterson were leading a conservative resurgence movement to seize control of the SBC leadership at all institution levels. Attendance surged during those years to upward of 40K in attendance.

Prior to that movement the only person I ever saw who was able to push the program besides the various Convention committees and Boards was a preacher's wife name Jesse Sappington and they managed to get her sent to the Philippines by giving her husband an appointment. I cannot even begin to recall the number of floor motions that were either tabled by the chair, referred to committee by the chair, or just ruled out of order.

I say that to point out that we actually had two polity levels. Officially, there is the polity (structure) elaborated on in the article and to a lesser degree here. But, there was another, not as public but just as influential if not more so. Pastors who had been around any length of time knew about it and clearly understood it. It was a process whereby Convention business percolated all year long among pastors and denominational leaders and found its way to the Convention agenda. This generally culminated during the meeting of the annual pastors conference.

My point is that just getting more people to attend isn’t a foolproof solution to liberal drift.  Very often the churches and the convention were not operating on the same page and that's ok and maybe how it should be. It is a real challenge sometimes. So I want to address the three suggestions for remedying that Wolfe makes.

First he says every church, large and small should participate financially in the support of the various Conventions. In the case of the SBC that would be the Cooperative Program. The number of messengers at the BGCT. and the SBC are based upon such giving.  I have no issue here nor should any church. Every church should have skin in the game. However, having "skin in the game" does not mean a church, especially a small church, will have their voice be heard.

Second, he suggests that the church should budget and set aside funding for the maximum number messengers to which they are entitled. I again concur with this point. However, from my experience as a pastor of both small and large churches this is a large financial investment and when done in the 1980's took a significant bite out of our missions and evangelism budgets. The cost of hotels, meals, transportation can be rather hefty. These messengers must also be able to be away from their businesses and jobs on the dates of the Conventions. I believe Southern Baptist of Texas is correct in allowing a minimal number of messengers from churches affiliated but not financially contributing.

Third, he suggested sending a full slate of messengers to every annual meeting and preregister them on the annual meeting website. The larger the attendance, says Wolfe, the better the odds of the Convention leadership hearing what the member churches want and expect. He is correct in that assessment.

Truth is, I agree with all three of these items. However, while I agree with all three assertions I see significant problems with the "mass attendance" concept to finding the will of the member churches.

But as indicated above my heaviest personal involvement in these events on both the tracts I mentioned was 1970 through 2005. There is a built in self-preservation in the leaders of the conventions and its committees and agencies. There is a crusade mentality to those who wish to affect change. Liberal minded people tend to be aggressive across the board while Conservatives have tended to be less aggressive. The Conventions are not political bodies but political activity is built into its structure by the very fact that we vote on issues and as long as that is the case and as long as the institution sets the agenda people like Jesse Sappington will have to be creative to be heard.

I agree that “Until we have more voices speaking into the decision-making processes, we will not have accurate conversations about the decisions being made in our processes.”  I can vouch for the fact that what made the “Conservative Resurgence” or the “Fundamentalist Takeover” a success was the overwhelming numbers of people who showed up at the conventions. The 1985 Convention in Dallas makes that clear.

I was at Dallas in 1985 when 45,519 messengers registered compared to 8183 in 2019. I can tell you from personal experience that it does work but there were some negatives to having these pushes to get people to attend besides navigating a large crowd and shortage of bathrooms.

I’ll share a few: First and foremost there was wide spread vote corruption. I personally witnessed a number messengers vote multiple ballots for messengers not present at the meeting. In this case it was for the re-election of Charles Stanley as Convention President.

A second issue was that many of the messengers simply left after that vote. Attendance for the rest of that Convention was demonstrably reduced. People were not there to conduct the business of the convention. They were there to elect a slate of candidates. When that was done, they were gone.

A third tendency is that it gives itself to politically segregated groups. Instead of the family of faith resolving issues it becomes a Machiavellian exercise it political maneuvering and doing whatever it takes to win. I watched as men who had been friends for most of their lives, who had a strong faith in Christ and commitment to Scripture alienated from one another to the point of ostracizing and demonizing each other.

I remember sitting in the office of a friend of mine who at the time was pastor of a church in Knoxville, Tennessee and hearing him really denigrate Winfred Moore who lost the Convention Presidency to Charles Stanley in 1985. I finally interrupted him and asked, "Where did you hear all that." He replied that he heard it from some friend. I replied, "Well, all I can tell you is I have know Winfred Moore for many years and he has conducted revival services in our church and you are certainly not describing the man I know." You see, when feelings on an issue run high enough to marshal forces to get large numbers to attend for purposes of winning the day in a theological struggle you create a ecclesiastical political war in which uninformed people are moved by catch words and cliché phrases to view fellow believers as the enemy.

I suggest that as long as we have the system we have (it is about the only kind available to autonomous churches) apathy regarding annual meetings is going to be an issue. Instead of crusades to get large attendances at annual meetings perhaps a better solution is to require motions and resolutions that deal with moral, ethical and theological issues be introduce at one Convention then debated and voted on at the next. This gives notice and it also gives opportunity for local congregations to debate and formulate their position and determine their response.

Is the SBC headed toward theological liberalism? I don’t know. Impossible to say right now. I fear the publications like the Baptist Standard in Texas are trending toward a more politically correct stance. Of course I have already mentioned the BJCOPA has certainly moved to the left of center. But those are just well founded suspicions.

What I do know is that whatever the issues messengers, from wherever they come, should be shining the light of Scripture on every resolution, motion, proclamation and action by the various Conventions and their respective Boards and institutions as they make their decisions. That done it will not be a matter of is it Conservative or is it Liberal. The question will be, “Is it Biblical?” That is the only question that matters.

A Mean-Spirited Political Assassination Attempt

I listened to the introduction of the House Impeachment Managers and came away thinking of a phrase from Lincoln's Gettysburg address where he said, "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, . . . ." All the hyperbole and political maneuvering surrounding this insane impeachment will fade into the ether (Aristotle's empty space).

The whole impeachment falderal reminds of Shakespeare's words from Macbeth where he has Macbeth says,

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

We have wasted our precious national capital on a mean-spirited political assassination attempt of a sitting President. Oh, some will argue that the Constitution allows for this and I reply, "Indeed it does." However, just because I have the right and the power to do something does not mean it is the right thing for the powerful to do. It is all the result of ambitious people and I mean that in the worst possible sense.

People who asked to be leaders and to whom we granted the power to govern have lost sight of what their real purpose is and why we have anointed them. We expect them to take actions and pass laws that can be demonstrated to enhancing the people of the nation to pursue a life; to live as free as possible in community; and to do all of this with a sense of happiness in the lives.

Had these same people put any real effort in finding a way to work with this President for the public good they might have credibility. However, they have no (zero) credibility. They began looking to impeach the day he was elected and many refused to at5tend his inauguration. They have spent political coin and the national treasury from the day he was elected and continuing through this day in pursuing some grounds to remove him from the political landscape.

Why, you ask would they do something like this? Is it because he has created some nation changing Constitutional Crises? Then name it outright and in plain language . . . . just declare it. They do not name it because it is a bogus claim. He has done nothing but provide the citizens of this country an enhanced opportunity  to prosper.

The real motive was expressed weeks ago by Democrat Rep. Al Green (from my own state) who said in a moment of candor, "I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Daylight has shined through and landed directly on the motive for all this impeachment activity. The motive for this is clearly stated in real language and anyone who can hear it read or read it written can know why we are presently embroiled in a political civil war. It is because "He will get re-elected." In other words we cannot defeat him at the polls so we must find a way to "rid ourselves of this meddlesome priest" to paraphrase Shakespeare in again.
"Careless seems the great Avenger; history's pages but record

One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old systems and the Word; Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, — Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own" says James Russell Lowell in his poem "This Present Crises."

So now we have arrived as I write at the beginning of a Senate process to either validate and remove the President from office or to reject the arguments of the House of Representatives and allow him to continue to lead.  It appears that it will turn out that the effort to remove him will fall short but I suspect before that takes place more precious national capital and treasure.

Adam Schiff made a statement that absolutely floored me. As he declared his view as if it were proven fact that the President had used the powers of the presidency to, in his words, “cheat in an election.”  He went on to say that is “precisely this reason, the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won,”

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I hardly know where to begin.
First, there is not evidence that Russian influence effected the election one way or the other. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary that Russian influence affected anyone’s vote in 2016. Even the Mueller Reports after nearly two years of investigation found no such evidence. I have watched every session of the House hearings, read all the publicly available documents and listed to all the Senate proceedings on the matter and have heard nothing that incriminates the President or any of the President’s men.

What I have heard and seen is a lot of hyperbole and opinion offered as evidence. Hearsay and innuendo from second and third hand office gossip and offended professional diplomats who feel slighted. I have witnessed a process that is as anti-American as the Joseph McCarthy hearings. No due process, denial of right to confront one’s accuser, etc. The hearings themselves were mindful of the British Star Chamber of the 17th century or the Sondergericht created by Adolf Hitler in 1934.
Second from where do we draw assurance that Russian influence will not affect the outcome of the 2020 election. Since the Russians and others have long been trying to interfere with our elections where do we go to find evidence that their interference was significant in the outcome of any election. Who do we ask? What are the criteria?

In short what he is saying is that we cannot rely upon the electorate to decide whether or not the President should be re-elected. Apparently, we are not intellectually sophisticated enough to decide whether or not Trump should get a second term as President simply because we might have been duped by, again in his words, “the Russians.”

Does it even matter that they try to influence us. Our own politicians in their election campaigns make all kinds of false assertions and deceptions trying to influence our decisions. What difference does where the deception comes from make. Deception is deception. Our own political parties have been lying to us for years. Most American’s have held their noses every time they vote. People voted for Kennedy because he was “prettier” than Nixon and Jimmy Carter because he was Baptist.

I suppose he determined that our intellectual sophistication is to be called into question because we voted for Donald Trump the first time around. I further suppose that in his warped way of thinking that means we have already been duped by the Russians. So, because of Schiff’s intellectual superiority we must rely on him and his fellow Democrats to remove the risk of Russian interference by making it impossible for Trump to be on the ballot by impeaching him.

So let me see if I understand this correctly: We cannot allow the President to be on the 2020 ballot because the American people in their unsophisticated thinking are liable to succumb to Russian influence and re-elect him President. Instead we must allow a small group of Democrats to make it impossible to vote for him by impeaching and removing him from office thereby making him ineligible to hold any public office.

I also have to wonder, even if we remove the President from the 2020 ballot does that solve the problem that Schiff and the House Democrats suggest. How will we know if whoever gets elected weren’t really elected by the Russian interference. So we have solved nothing. We they People of the United States of America do not need a political party determining for us who should or should not hold the office of President.

I see that as nothing but a political assassination. André Gide once said, “Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it.”  That is still good advice. I am a Baptist and have been a Baptist pastor and theologian all my adult life I have heard it said, "When Baptists know, Baptists will do." I believe that is true for the people of America. When Americans know they will act.

But fundamental to even that is another saying that has circulated among Baptist since long before my birth 73 years ago and that is, "Tell the truth and trust the people." I do not believe we are being told the truth. I believe we are being feed a politically biased narrative designed to achieve a political goal. We do not need these ego centric politicians deciding who may or may not be President of the United States.

I suggest they get out on the stump, give us the most convincing version of what they believe the truth to be and we the people ill decide what to believe or reject. The old Baptist phrase, “Tell the Truth and trust the people.”  We’ll do the right thing. You can trust or collective judgment but I am not so sure we can trust the words of people with a political bias. In this case the Democrats have much to gain by removal of Donald Trump as President and we the people do not.

I have another analogy from the book Fifty Shades of Grey that comes to mind but I'll leave that to you to make.

How 'Bout Them Astros!

Just want to say a few things about the ASTRO baseball sign stealing scandal. My understanding is that baseball often refers to several different categories of rules.

For example there is a thing called the Rules of Every Game which set for the principles of gamesmanship. Things like "Do your best," "Don't cheat," and "Don't bet against your own team."

Then there are the Official Rules of Baseball. That's the rule book for what is and isn't allowed in the game which by the way does not forbid sign stealing.

Then there are ground rules that vary from one baseball park to another. Like a ball caught in wall Ivy is a "ground rules double."  Or a ball hits a roof while over the field of play at a stadium with a roof is a "ground rule double."

Baseball also have what are called rules of strategy. This includes things like when there are two outs, runners on second and third with first base open: walk the batter to set up a potential force out and prevent them from scoring.

Finally we have the rules of propriety. These are not specifically articulated anywhere that I can find but they involve not using profanity but are not specified allowing a great deal of discretion to an umpire. Each umpire has his own strike zone even though the rules state what it should be.

I mention all of these because I want to affirm that every single coach, manager and player are familiar with all of these sets of rules.

There is no wiggle room regarding whether or not players, coaches and managers know the rules. However, they also know that within the rules themselves there is a lot of wiggle room.
To Major League Baseball I say that regarding stealing signs you need to make the rule absolute. It should either be prohibited or permitted. It is the height of idiocy to declare stealing signs a rule violation and then give exceptions to that rule.  The principle is, We do not regulate what we prohibit.

Truth be told stealing signs would be a good strategy for the team at bat. You would know what the pitcher and fielders are trying to do. That's what you try to do to counter it and win.

Since there is no rule against stealing signs here what I come away with regarding stealing signs and the way the league deals with it. The trick to doing it well! If you do steal signs as a team don't telegraph to your opponent or a sports writer that your doing so.
So, if the team on defense is upset that you are stealing signs, perhaps they are also stealing signs between base runners, batters and the 1st. & 3rd. base coaches as well as the dugout.

I reiterate, stealing signs, whether between catchers and pitchers or base runners and coaches, is not a violation of any rule! It has been a practice in baseball since the sport started using signs. I have heard broadcasters speak of catchers and pitchers changing signs because the other team had figured out the ones they were using.

Apparently it is how you steal the sign that matters Using electronic devices to steal signs in an electronic age is prohibited. I remind you that you do not regulate what you prohibit. The very fact that there are rules governing sign stealing indicates that is not a matter of stealing signs but how you do it

Now here is my take on what the Astros and apparently the Red Sox's, Dodgers and Yankees have been doing. First, the Astros were able to steal signs using electronic devices in the process only at Minute Maid. Clearly a violation of the rule. (My suggestion is to have no electronic connection with the dugout period). This would be true for all teams. However, I should point out that it is possible to use electronic devices to steal signs in every ballpark.

Second, No team was cheated out of a championship or won a championship because the could steal signs in their home ballpark.  How can I say this you ask. Easy peasy,  most of the Astro wins those years was ON THE ROAD where they could not steal the signs. Every game but one in  the ALCS with the Yankees was won on the opponent's field. The Dodgers lost game 7 of the world series in their own stadium with their best pitcher, Alex Wood, on the mound.

Add to this the fact that regardless of whether or not you know what pitch is coming, the batter still had put the ball in play by hitting it   I do not question that some kind of rule was violate. It may be an idiot rule but it was a rule and as someone inanely has reminded us "The rules are the rules." Rules were being violated. Clearly they were (sort of a stupid rule for the 21st century which is all about electronics). The rules are the rules and they should have been followed.

Now what should have been done.

Personally the rule needs to be changed to allow stealing signs by any means or no stealing of signs by any means. Let's get rid of the ambiguity. However, since there was a rule about electronic devices and that rule was violated by coaches and player alike on numerous team there must be a penalty. But was year long suspensions followed by firings of coaches seem to fit the crime. I think note. Fines were in order but no more.

That brings me to Jim Grey,  a sportscaster currently with Showtime, Fox, and Westwood One Radio network, as a reporter, commentator, and interviewer and listed as one of the top ten worst sports announcers/interviewers in sports. This guy is appearing on FOX News and who knows how many other sports shows on television and radio crusading to have the Astros World Series Championship revoked and demand that the players return their championship rings under pain of permanent suspension of baseball. This nit-wit is trying to make this issue bigger than it is. It is a violation of a stupid rule . . . nothing more and nothing less. He and his ilk are the reason Pete Rose, perhaps the greatest player to ever play the game is person non-grata for betting on his own team to win.  These guys think the sign stealing, a baseball tradition, is a greater sin than gambling.

I agree with Logan Morrison, second baseman for the Milwaukee Brewers who said, "I know from first hand accounts that the Yankees, Dodgers, Astros, and Red Sox all have used film to pick signs,". . . . "Just want you guys to know the truth. I personally think it's a tool in a tool belt to pick signs, but if we are going to be punishing people for it. Don't half ass it."

Just an aside: This must all sound familiar to 93 year old Carl Erskine. When he heard about the Astros being penalized and the calls for them to forfeit their World Series Championship he said, “If they’re going to go back to 2017 with penalties for the Astros, then I want them to go all the way back to 1951 to help us.”  He laughed as he said, “You mean in this high-tech world they had to revert to that? . . . . In the commissioner’s mind, it’s probably a lot of garbage he wished had never happened.”  Not that Erskine and the Dodgers didn’t try things in their day.  Read about it in the Concord Monitor.

But That Is Not To Be . . . . Or Is It?

I was reading my Facebook time line the other day when I came across a post that one of my high school classmates had lost his wife. That really didn’t surprise me because we had spoken recently about her health and how she wasn’t getting better.  What really got my attention was the names of folks who were extending condolences and offering prayers. I took note that the classmates on that list formed a group who had lost their spouses.

It was then that I realized out of the Pasadena High School (TX) 1965 graduating class of 488 students 74 had already died. As I perused that Facebook thread I had a wave of sadness flow over me as a realized we were losing friends who were a part of our formative years at an ever increasing rate.

I realized that we are all mortal and we have all entered the final leg of our journey here on earth and have an appointment with death. I really am not trying to be morbid. The Bible says, “It is appointed unto man once to die.” (Hebrews 9:27).  I am trying to look reality in the face for a few minutes.

So, as I enter the final miles of my journey here on Earth I have given some thought to "What Next?" I mean what about death and dying as a Christian. I know that Jesus said, “I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Yet here I sit in the face of so powerful a statement of eternal life thinking about death.

It is clear from Jesus' words that for the Christian, life goes on eternally.  We know that when we lose someone we love who also loved and followed after Christ, we will see them once again. Yet still there is the pain of separation.  I have been married to the same woman for more than 53 years at this writing. I assure you we have literally become one flesh in every sense of the meaning of that phrase. I have spent a lifetime being a “we” and I am not sure how I will discover the “me” in our we.

By the way, the words of Jesus above are the reason you never hear me speaking of Loved ones who have entered eternity as being lost or dead. They are not lost because I know where they are and they are not dead they are just living out of sight until I join them. I like the term "passed" when speaking of what the uninitiated call death. They haven't died they have passed from the realm of the temporary to the land of the eternal. Just another digression to which my readers have become accustomed.

When I think of “death” I see only the death of the body in which I life. “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return" (Gen. 3:19).  So if the body dies and returns to the Earth from which it came what is Jesus speaking of when he says we have ‘everlasting life” that shall never die.

Do you remember in Genesis where the Scripture says, “And God breathed into his nostrils and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Death takes place when our person leaves it. The body receives it animation from the living spirit within us which is the breathe of God. So, what are we . . . we are a living soul and as long as we are functional in this world we live within a physical body.
So if when I die my body returns to the Earth from which it came what happens to me. Paul speaking for the believer in Christ says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord and Jesus told the believing thief who died along side him that was a place called Paradise.
I take great comfort in that.

However, for those of us who have found in our spouses our soul mates and truly become one flesh “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). As mentioned earlier my wife and I have spent 53 plus years becoming a “we” . . . . one flesh. For people like us (Susan and myself) we find it difficult our selves from each other. We truly have become one.  Someone said parting is so hard that they sometimes wished they had never loved.

Alfred Lord Tennyson was insightful when he said “It is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.” But that is precisely why our losses wound us. However, I would suggest to you that we are better off having had the opportunity to love than we are had we never loved. Not loving may leave us unscathed but we would never have known the intimacy of loving and being loved.

I have to confess that though we have had our share of struggles and challenges along the way but as we faced them together our live for each other became deeper and stronger. God has given us a good life.  In my heart and mind I literally hurt at the thought of death and the separation from those we love it brings even if it is only temporary. You see, for me, even with the struggle, life together has been heaven enough and I would be content to go on forever just as it is now.

But that is not to be . . . . or is it?

Because of this I have to remind myself that as Christian neither of us are a citizen of this world trying to get to heaven; we are  citizens of heaven making your way through this world.

This world is not my home I'm just a passing through
My treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue
The angels beckon me from heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore

Oh lord you know I have no friend like you
If heaven's not my home then lord what will I do
The angels beckon me from heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore

I have a loving mother just over in gloryland
And I don't expect to stop until I shake her hand
She's waiting now for me in heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore

Oh lord you know I have no friend like you
If heaven's not my home Then lord what will I do
The angels beckon me From heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home In this world anymore

As hard as it is to understand death is particularly “bearable” for the Christian. We know that death can only bring a temporary separation. For now, we are left behind. But one day, Christ will come, and we will be forever reunited with our people.

That’s why we don’t “grieve as those who have no hope.” In other words, Christians do not grieve like those who are not Christians. Because we serve a living God, we have hope. Because Jesus died, was buried, and rose again on the third day, we have hope . . . . . confidence that what God has said will come to pass.

Does time heal all wounds? No, but Christ does. I’m grateful today that though I will one day say farewell to or others will say it to me that farewell is really just, “Farewell for now.”  Add to that the fact there is a sense in which we will still be walking hand in hand together even though one has left. Paul once said, “behold I show you a mystery.” Well I want to share with you a mystery. As we walk with Jesus here on Earth and the other with Him on streets of gold we are both walking with Jesus and in him with each other. It is that mystery that I know they are not dead they are just not here.

Will we hurt and grieve. You betcha we will! Those who love deepest hurt the most. But we do not grieve as those who have no hope. Because He lives we shall also live. Time does not heal the broken heart but Jesus does bind up the wounds.

I have been asked at virtually every memorial service I have conducted questions like: Will we recognize each other in heaven? Will we have a body and if so what will it be like? What age will we be in heaven? I do have opinions about these and perhaps one day, if there is interest I'll share them.

Suffice it to say that when death opens the door to eternity and we step through we will be changed in a moment as in the twinkle of an eye and we will find ourselves in His presence and realize that we appear as He does. Clearly we will know each other but the relationship will be different and it will be eternal and it will be deeper and more significant than anything we shared here.  Anything else might well be just speculation. . . . . . Oh, keep in mind they are not lost when we know where they are.

Just a few thoughts about things to come. Things we will all experience if Jesus delays his coming.  It that case I'll meet you in the air.

Neither a Borrower Nor a Lender Be

I read something this morning that got me to thinking about my own practice at lending money or extending credit to family, friends and acquaintances. Seems a friend of mine extended credit to a friend of his who because of circumstances found himself unable to pay the debt.

My immediate thought was, if that were to happen to me what should I do? Notice I didn’t say what would I do but what I should do.  Debt creates an uneven relationship between two people. Essentially it makes one person a slave and the other person their master. God didn’t intend for us to live in that kind of unbalance with people, and the friction caused by such arrangements can actually damage and worse yet destroy relationships. If you really value your relationship with someone, forgiving their debt will help you preserve the core friendship that matters most. I might add, you do so quietly.

You have done nothing wrong by insisting on aa debt being paid but you have done better when extending forgiveness. With that said, I will now turn to my subject.

In Hamlet, the character Polonius counsels his son Laertes before he embarks on his visit to Paris saying, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend.” Good advice I'd say.

The meaning is pretty straight forward - do not lend or borrow money from a friend, because if you do so, you will run the risk of losing both your friend and your money.

In my first church as a pastor, Highland Park Baptist in Kilgore, Texas I had a deacon, M.A. Smith, who told me essentially the same thing and who showed me what I believe is a better way. Mr. Smith was without question the wealthiest man in our church but that was not always the case. He was one of those few people men of wealth who could honestly empathize with people who struggled financially.

I remember standing with him in a Drug store, I believe near the corner of Main and Hwy 259 on Valentine's Day. We had just returned from Grapeland where he had some gas wells. We had stopped to pick up a Valentine cards for our wives. While there he told me, "I was standing right here many years ago when I had the greatest day of my financial life. It was here, that for the first time in my life I realized I could tell the clerk 'how many without asking how much.'"  I would learn much more about his early struggles as my time in Kilgore passed.

But I digress. It was M.A. Smith who told me, "I never lend money to my friends. If they need it I will just gift it to them"  I asked him why and he explained, "Well, if I loan them something and they can't repay the feel guilty and I risk losing a friend and I run the risk of having ill feeling toward them and damaging a friendship."

I have thought about that over the years and I too have adopted that policy as my own and I recommend it. You will find over time it will stand you well and it will strengthen your friendships.

Mr. Smith went on to tell me that he expected his friends to let him know when they had needs going unmet but he also thought it was his responsibility to become aware of such needs. People are proud and proud people will not ask for help but that doesn't change the fact that there is a need I can meet.  I cannot tell you how many $1000's of dollars he brought over my time in Kilgore to me to give anonymously to people he knew were struggling. One more trait I discovered he did not distinguish between his friends and people who resented his wealth.

Remember, when Scripture tales about God loving a cheerful giver it is not talking just about giving to the church. M.A. Smith had discovered the real meaning of giving in this statement by Jesus, "When you have done it to these the least of my brothers you have done it unto me."  Jesus really nailed it when he said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” In fact he believed that God had given him the “Midas touch” for the express purpose of helping people in need and that if he quit giving his money away in ways that helped others he would himself soon find himself among the needy.  He often quoted to me the words of Moses in Duet. 8:18, “But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God; for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth.”

In short, I actually get more out of giving than the person I give to gets by being the recipient of my gift.  I have often wondered that when Jesus said, “the poor you have with you always” He wasn’t also saying, “you have plenty of opportunities to know the joy of giving and sharing.”

So let me summarize: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend” but cheerfully give to those in need.

1. There is nothing inherently wrong with borrowing or lending money. Although God appears to hate usury (interest and I’d say especially compounded interest). Sometimes in our financial dealings demand it. We need not lecture on how and why the situation needing a loan came about . . . we only need to know the need is there and it may be our only recourse.

2. When dealing with friends and relatives I suggest that if you want to be of help to them you should gift them not loan to them. Loans in reality only shift need from one pocket to the other.

3. We should always have our antennas up and working as to the needs our friends and family have. While there is no shame in sharing your need many, like myself, will never ask friends or family for help. I believe we must protect their pride/dignity or whatever you wish it. Personally, I don’t want to owe my friends and family and money or them me for the very reasons that Polonius gives.

I am thinking about Christmas . . . it is that time of year.

Today I was thinking about Christmas and how different it is from  those of my childhood. Christmas as a child was filled with anticipation and hopeful expectations. Christmas shopping when I was a kid was always an "almost didn't get it done thing."  My Dad was an independent garage man and the auto repair business was really slow during the Christmas season. People simply put off getting things done on their cars that weren't absolutely necessary. After all, they could use that money for Christmas expenses.

Neither my Dad or myself blamed them for that. However, it always meant that we had to wait until the last minute for Christmas preparation and gifts. I cannot remember a single Christmas when Dad and I were not shopping for Mom's Christmas present on December 24. Mom, like me had to share her birthday (Dec 30) with Christmas so when someone gave either of us a gift is was a 2fer.  But, I suppose the very fact that Dad and I were both shopping together for the most important woman in either of our lives was a Christmas gift in and of itself.

In addition we had a great family tradition that involved our extended family gathering wherever my grandparents and later just my grandmother lived. It was wonderful to be together as the Appleby Clan surrounded by aunts, uncles and cousins. I miss those days. Some of my fondest memories are from that time. I really do miss those days.

Over the years Christmas has changed for me. When I was the kid spoken of above it was to a large measure all about me and what I was going to get. As time past and I grew and matured the circle of Christmas joy increased. In 1966 Christmas added another person to the family. It was the same tradition except that the person I was shopping with was no longer my Dad but my wife. Yep we married on December 23 and went Christmas shopping on December 24th. But, other than that the Christmas celebrations pretty much stayed the same.

Within a few years, Christmas of 1969 to be precise, Christmas really took on a major change. Our marriage turned into a family and on Christmas 1969 there was three of us. That was the year when we (Susan and I) learned our place in the family pecking order. You see up until 1969 our families saw us as the focus of Christmas. Either they came to our house or we went to theirs but in every instance it was our young daughter, Tabetha, who was the focus of Christmas giving. To be sure we still got a gift but Tabetha was buried beneath the gifts.

Years came and went during which more children were added to our family. There was a son (Matthew) born in 1972, another daughter (Charity) in 1976 and another daughter (Anastacia) born in 1980. Wow, our own grand parents, siblings and children. It was a little like the days of my childhood.

Suffice it to say that in my nearly 73 years I have seen and experienced a lot of Christmas celebrations. Some were lean and some were fat but all were centered in the Christmas story as recorded in Luke's gospel.

That brings me to now. These days I celebrate Christmas from the perspective of a long life and the aging process. For Susan and myself Christmas has the same meaning as always but it is a radically different celebration. Retirement, health issues, and just the cost of living have all contributed. We no longer offer the lavish Christmas dinners, buy gifts as though they were going out of style, send the greeting cards to the hundreds of people who enriched our lives or attended a myriad of Christmas parties and celebrations.

Most of our Christmas is now spent quietly with each other. We don't need more things in our life. We have more now than we can keep up with. Many years ago when visiting in a nursing home an elderly lady took my hand and with teary eyes said to me, "All I want for Christmas is to be with my children and grandchildren. I want to hear their voices and the laughter and I want to just touch them." I realized then what I know now what it was about Christmas that I loved from those earliest days to today. It wasn't the gift, it was the one doing the giving, it was the shopping, it was who we shopped for, it wasn't the crowd, it was the people. That's it. Christmas was about the people in my life and like that long passed lady in the nursing home I want to spend it with people who are near and dear to my heart.

I want to see my children and grandchildren. I want to watch them run and play. I want to hear them shriek with joy and watch them eat. I want I want them to know that their presence brings me more joy and warms my heart. I want to touch them and feel the life the exude. That would be Christmas for me.  I also want them to know when the Christmas gathering is done and they all leave that is the loneliest day in my life. I go from a full heart to a feeling of emptiness. So don't show-up leaving. It only helps your conscience and hurts their heart.

But I know children are no different than  was I at their age. When I shopped with my Dad in paragraph one above it was important that I get my Mom something I believed she would see as wonderful, Of course I didn't realize then what I know now and that is it didn't matter what the gift was it blessed her.

However, I also know now what I didn't know then and that is over the year she garnered a lot of things she really didn't need and a few she didn't really want. So I have thought about the kinds of gifts we "Old Folks" would use and find helpful. I talked with people my age about this and a few people who are care givers and they shared their ideas about gifts for people like us.  Nearly everyone said, "Money would be nice."

Now understand, whatever you give we will love just because you gave it. So hear it is:
1. High on the list was anything that would provide financial relief. Rent may not be much but you'd be surprised what we old folks could do is we could just skip a rent payment. Another thought in this group of ideas would be utilities for a month of a year or a cable TV expense (Television is their companion most of the year).
2. A short trip somewhere like a bed and breakfast or even in your home for a few days. Send them on a cruise (call me on this one I can help).  Elderly folks rarely get away from the house except to visit the doctors. Some actually know their doctors better than they do their families. Why, they see them more frequently.
3. Gift cards to their local grocery store, fast food restaurant, or online store like Amazon.
4. Be creative, I'll bet you can come up with something special.

Finally, don't take it personal if they do not give you a gift in return. Remember, they are limited as to income, they find it harder to go to busy shops, have no idea what to buy.

I don't want a lot for Christmas

There is just one thing I need
I don't care about the presents
Underneath the Christmas tree
I just want you for my own
More than you could ever know
Make my wish come true oh
All I want for Christmas is you

I don't want a lot for Christmas
There is just one thing I need, and I
Don't care about the presents
Underneath the Christmas tree
I don't need to hang my stocking
There upon the fireplace
Santa Claus won't make me happy
With a toy on Christmas day

I just want you for my own
More than you could ever know
Make my wish come true
All I want for Christmas is you