What will you take a bullet for?

I was recently at a men's retreat for my church, and one of the speakers was a man named Dan Allender. Excellent input. I continue to ponder his words (3 weeks later), which, to me, is the ultimate test of the impact of any message.

One of the things that stuck, and is getting pondered, was the title question for this entry: what will you take a bullet for?

Further amplification would be to ask yourself what stance/position/value/thing are you willing to uphold to the point of death? Sadly, for many, I fear the answer is "nothing". I think this comes from an absence of introspection, and an abundance of distraction. I would encourage us all to ponder this question, and get to the core of who we are.

How would I answer?
My first, reflex response was: my family - wife and three (soon to be four) kids.
Next came "oops! What about my Christian faith?" How easily we take what we view as secure for granted.

Sidenote: I am a fan of a Canadian singer, Steve Bell. Kind of Dan Fogelberg-meets-Bruce Cockburn music. Very good, thoughtful music. On his website, in the "Conversation" section, mention was made of his criticism of the war in Iraq. I was a bit dismayed, but not surprised - a Canadian artist slamming the U.S.? Shocking! So many view the U.S. through socio-economic glasses (Brittney, WalMart, etc.), and miss the true core of who we are, and why we do what we do. We are a Judeo-Christian Democracy. Study those words, and it will explain America's core.

But it got me thinking more about the "bullet" question: is the war on terror a "bullet" issue? Yes.
Why? Firstly, it touched upon the first two of my responses above, but it also goes to who we are as Americans. Read the Gettysburg Address, maybe for the first time. It is still true about us. We are reluctant warriors (Yes, we really are reluctant. We ultimately want to be left alone to make money and buy things, and let you do the same), but we are unrelenting when provoked. We will stop you from trying to harm us, or die trying.

We are William Wallace. We are James T. Kirk. We are Patrick Henry. We are Ward Cleaver.
Lest you laugh at the last entry, think a minute: who doubts that Ward Cleaver wouldn't have protected his family and country to the point of death?

In closing, I thought it good to go ahead and post the text of the Gettysburg Adress. Read it. It may explain alot.

The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

John Kerry is George Foreman!

It's struck me that John Kerry could very well be compared to George Foreman. Not George Foreman, the loveable purveyor of Lean, Mean Grilling Machines, but George Forman, stunned victim of a master strategist, Mohammed Ali.

If you havent seen "When We Were Kings", go rent it or buy it at Amazon. GREAT movie! It's a documentary on the fight between Ali and Foreman where Ali shocked the world by beating the superior physical specimen of Foreman. A facinating story with, I think, pertinent application for the current presidential race.

As I write this, the Kerry campaign is in meltdown mode. No bounce from the Dem convention. The Swiftboat Vets shredding the ability to rely on Vietnam as the foundation for credibility. Finally, a Republican convention pitch-perfect that seems to be giving W a double-digit lead. What happened? Kerry was ahead! W is an idiot empty-suit Hitler wanna-be who doesn't deserve to shine Kerry's medals!

Hmmmm.

This is where I go back to Foreman. Ali was a brilliant strategist, Foreman knew he would win. Fatal mistake.

The first thing Ali did was size-up his opponent. He knew George Foreman. Knew his strengths, weaknesses, and how he, Ali, compared. Second, he endeared himself to the people of Zaire, while Foreman seemingly hit all the wrong notes at the wrong time. Result: Ali had the crowd on his side. Finally, Ali developed a strategy to beat Foreman. Not a strategy to win a fight, but to beat Foreman. Foreman went out to pummel his opponent, just like Ali knew he would.

Bottom line: Rope-a-dope. Go watch the movie.

How does this relate to Bush and Kerry?
Bush is striking me as a master strategist, and Kerry is looking like someone who has no idea how to compete with someone who won't play by the rules you want them to.

Tactical advantage. Keep your opponent off-balance. Patience, Grasshopper, patience.

Bush has not personally responded to the wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth criticisms of Moore/Move-on/etc. He crafted a convention that communicated quiet, strong, determined triumphalism. We are left with the impression of someone who is doing the right thing and will continue to do so reguardless of the difficulties. VERY American. We like that.

Kerry howls at every barb, much less punch. Takes everything personally, and constantly criticizes. Bottom line: whiney bad-mouther. VERY elitist. We don't like that.

What is the president doing? Very carefully, determinedly, surgically squirting gasonline on Kerry's hot head, knowing combustion is coming any minute.

The moment when this all came into focus for me may seem trivial, but I think it sums things up perfectly.
It was the pre-acceptance speech film. Specifically, the last sequence in Yankee stadium. The culmination of this whole image-piece to introduce President Bush is what? Throwing out the first pitch at a game. How is this gasonline on the hothead? Let's compare: right before the Democratic convention, John Kerry goes and throws out the first pitch at a Sox game. Bad move. First, this close to an election, the crowd is polarized. Boos will be heard (and reported, thanks to the blogosphere). Second, Kerry throws like a wus. EVERYONE in the stadium knows it. EVERYONE who sees the clip knows it. Kerry should have known it and figured out something else to do for a photo-op. Third, he stands IN FRONT of the mound (wus), and, inevitably, he bounces the pitch to the plate (double-wus). Thus, a try for some good PR ends up with Kerry being laughed at (the head is heating up...). So, what does W do? Takes a moment at the convention (one of the most watched moments, I might add) to remind everyone that he can go out to Yankee stadium, right after 9-11, with body-armor on, take the mound (even emphasizes this point), and throw a strike to the catcher. Take that, ketchup boy!

That whoosh you heard was the sound of combustion.

George Bush is a poker player, and a good one. Poker is all about strategy. Use the cards you got, whatever they are, to beat your opponent, whatever they got. Also, it doesn't matter who wins the early hands, only who walks away with the winnings at the end of the night.

Be looking for the Kerry Lean, Mean Searing Machine coming to an infomercial near you.

Why "Defiant Lamb"?

It's the title of a song by an artist of immense talent, and whom God has decided to keep under the radar for most people.

His name is Bob Bennett, and you should check out his website: http://www.bob-bennett.com
You can even download a free song of his! Well worth the visit.

What is a defiant lamb? Buy Bob's most recent CD, and find out for yourself! I guess I would describe it as our state as fallen humans desperately in need of a shepherd, and foolishly demanding our own way. Life would be so much simpler if we just lived in obedience to the Shepherd. Simpler. Not easier. Just simpler.

As far as my description of the site goes, I should probably clarify what I mean by looking for the fingerprint of God in our lives.

I believe this world functions on two levels: the natural and supernatural. The natural is the stuff right in front of our eyes: what we see, hear, touch, etc. All very explainable, mostly understandable. The supernatural is the stuff behind the scenes: a myriad of activity we only get glimpses of sometimes in mostly oblique ways. I believe God is active and interested on an intimate level with our lives, and leaves bits and pieces of evidence of His supernatural workings within the natural world. Very rarely is this spectacular (I have had two instances of what I would call spectacular interventions of God in my life, and both could still be explained away if you wanted to). Mostly, it is revealed upon reflection.

Still, it's wonderful stuff that I will take joy in the opportunity to relate as it seems appropriate.

For now, this is enough.

Welcome to my blog!

I have finally jumped into the blogging world. Yes, I'm up too late. No, I don't have much to say yet. More to come later...maybe even an explanation of the name of this thing!

Until then...