"True Believers"

I don’t think that partisan politics do much to advance the kingdom of God; in fact I know politics are much more likely to be divisive than unifying. It’s for this reason that I make great efforts to keep my political ideologies separate from my witness of faith.

I know that no matter what I consider myself politically, whether Conservative Republican, Liberal Democrat or somewhere in between, I can be assured, Jesus wouldn’t have anything to do with any of it.

I would be blind, however, if I hadn’t noticed that in this modern era there is an intersection between politics and faith. It is not usually positive, in fact it is typically a lightning rod for those seeking an “us and them” wedge issue.

As I watched the news recently (Yes, I am a self avowed news junkie) one of the stories that piqued my interest was of a woman at an event for presidential candidate, Governor Rick Perry. The woman was goading her young son to ask Governor Perry a series of questions about evolution, the age of the earth and global warming.

I was particularly struck by one question the woman fed to her son. She said, “Ask him why he doesn’t believe in science”.

“Why he doesn’t believe in science?” As a person who is very interested in the branch of theology known as apologetics I was profoundly troubled by this question. Well, not so much by the question it’s self, but by the larger implications behind the question. What the woman was implying was that she did “believe” in science.

The woman’s question made me think of a book I read by M.I.T. educated author, Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Dr. Schroeder points out correctly “the trouble with the debate between science and religion is that most people have about an eighth grade education of science and an even lower level of knowledge pertaining to religion”.

See this woman was trying to use science to slam the candidate for his religious views, but she was among the many that Schroeder writes about. The woman doesn’t really know science or religion. This woman, and millions of others like her, armed merely with broad and unspecific science claims they’ve heard regurgitated by others, “believe” in science. For them, it has become a religion; they don’t simply believe science they believe in science…a true position of faith.

I think a deeper understanding of, or at least a clear distinction between, what science is and what it isn’t, will show the folly of this woman’s proclamation of such strong faith in science.

A visit to the University of California, Berkeley’s science web site brings some clarity to this issue. Among the things they state about science is this maxim:

"All scientific theories (from evolutionary theory to atomic theory) are works in progress. As new evidence is discovered and new ideas are developed, our understanding of how the world works changes and so too do scientific theories."

The site goes on to say:

"It's important to keep in mind that elaboration, modification, expansion or rejection of scientific theories is a normal part of the process of science."

This is science: ever changing, trial and error. Science can give us insight into the world around us and it can open our eyes to fascinating and marvelous new worlds but, be forewarned, the scientific understanding of those new worlds we find so intriguing today may be vastly different in thirty years. In fact, historically speaking, it would not be uncommon at all for science to say “oops!!! Never mind, it wasn’t really a world after all.

In my next blog (or two) I will take a look at how scientific thought has changed over the years. We will discover that while science should be studied and can certainly provide world changing advances in myriad fields from medicine to space exploration, it is a process of discovery, adaptation, modification and change. We will also look at why some seek to turn science into a series of tidy little truth statements that pit “us” against “them” for political reasons.

VIDEO: No, Mr. President by John Piper

Made off, really??

Everybody's heard of Bernie Madoff. He recently received 150 years in prison for operating the largest ponzi scheme in American history. He has become the symbol for evil and a scapegoat for all economic frustration, anger, and misery. Apparently, this is not the best economic climate during which to get busted swindling billions of dollars of savings from the hands of investors.

Someone's got to pay for such misery, right? Since we can't do public lynchings, it appears that 150 yrs. in prison will have to do. Don't get me wrong, the man needs to do some heavy prison time....... for a thief. Bernie Madoff did not kill anyone. There were no assaults, no rapes. No children were sexually abused during the swindling. Call me crazy, but it appears that Bernie Madoff's sentence should have been that of the common convicted murderer's, and our murderers should be receiving Bernie's sentence. (As for the rapists and pedophiles, they're not even in prison long enough to decorate and call it home.) If you're strange like me and watch alot of Forensic Files and First 48, then you know what I mean. Ten to twenty years in prison for murder is all too common. Serving a full sentence, however, is uncommon. A murderer has taken the life of another human being and that can never be replaced.

Bernie Madoff stole money. Period.

So why can someone who stole life in cold blood receive 15 yrs. in prison, and a man who stole billions of dollars from investors receive 150 yrs. in the slammer?

Because people love their money. Unfortunately, some of Madoff's victims loved their money so much that they felt that they could not continue living without it.

We do not hear widespread public outrage and mass media coverage over weak sentences given to murderers ~ unless, of course, there is a political, racial, freakshowish, or otherwise outside motivated element driving the story. Unlike a doll sold resembling Bernie Madoff, there is no unquenchable market for a "Rapist and Pedophile Doll" sporting a red cape, pitchfork, and horns in which we can smash into smithereens.

No, but with Bernie there was. Please do not get me wrong, I do not feel sorry for the man and I won't be protesting outside the jail with signs saying "Free Bernie". What I am sorry about is the message that is conveyed by this decision. And the message is this: money is more valuable than life; it is better to kill someone than to steal their money. Our justice system sends the message. Our news coverage sends the message. Our public hysteria (or lack there of) sends the message. Murders make us sad. But money makes us crazy.

God tells us not to rely upon earthly riches, but to store up eternal riches in heaven. Madoff's actions were horrible. Had he relied on true riches, he would not have stolen from the life savings of others. Had many of the victims relied on God's provision, they would not have depended on their money to save their lives. And had us, as a society, checked our hearts instead of our pocketbooks, we would have thought clearly enough to judge a man according to his crimes. There is nothing more precious than life. Life is so precious that Jesus gave His so that we could live forever with Him. There is no greater expression of love than Jesus' gift of eternal life. And, as far as the law of the land is concerned, there should be no greater crime than to take the life of another.

~ Lester

American Deaths: Abortion Statistics vs. War Statistics

TOTAL AMERICAN DEATHS:

Abortion (every year) ~ approx. 1,500,000 = approx. 50,000,000 since Roe vs. Wade
War (throughout American history) ~ approx.. 1,333,506

War/ Approx. Total Fatalities (combat and non-combat)
Gulf War 299
Vietnam War 58,151
Korean War 54,246
World War ii 407,316
World War i 116,708
Civil War 625,000
Revolutionary War 25,324
Iraq War (to present) 4,300
Afganistan (to present) 677
Philipine-American War 4,196
Spanish-American War 2,446
Mexican-American War 13,283
War of 1812 20,000
Seminole Wars (i, ii, and iii) 1,560
Total 1,333,506


The number of aborted children in America every year exceeds the number of Americans who have ever died as a result of war thoughout American history.

~ Lester

Abortion: Eugenic's Other Holocaust

Of all the social issues, I am the most passionate about abortion. With 1.5 million lives being aborted every year in America and approx. 50 million since 1973, I would consider it odd for one not to have a strong opinion on such an issue. Imagine for every two babies born in the U.S., another dies in an abortion. Well, statistics show that is exactly what is happening. However, abortion is not just an American problem ~ 42 million abortions take place worldwide every year. But for this post, I will focus on abortion in the United States.

Many arguments are proposed when countering abortion opposition. Revolved around "women's rights" and "women's choice" is the argument that if abortion is illegal than there will be no protection for women's health. However, if we look at the statistics, it is apparent that it is not women's health that they are trying to protect. Using one of the more liberal studies I found, only 3% of abortions are due to the protection of the mother's health (though many "protections" are debatable). Another 1% are the result of rape or incest, and yet another 1% are the result of fetal abnormalities (note that 90% of Downs Syndrome babies are aborted). That leaves 95% of abortions in the United States as nothing more than a means of birth control. Moreover, even by today's methods, abortion is a risky and unhealthy procedure. It is not uncommon for post-abortive women to have problems such as infertility, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages when a pregnancy is desired. Miscarriages happen at a rate of 35% in women who have had an abortion, and they are 5x more likely to experience an ectopic pregnancy than a woman who has not had an abortion. Furthermore, an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute published research by Dr. Janet Daling showing that there is a 50% increase of breast cancer in women under 45 years old who have had an abortion. Clearly, these are not health benefits for any woman.

Another pro-abortion proposition states that an embryo or fetus is not really a baby, but a clump of cells, uncharacteristic of a human. But like in all species, humans go through stages of development, inside and outside the womb, until death. This is the natural progression of life. Left to develop, a human baby will be born to a woman. She will not give birth to a calf, fawn or rock. 18 days after conception, the child has a heartbeat. At 6 weeks, brain waves can be measured. At 8 weeks, the stomach, kidneys, and liver are functioning and the baby has formed unique fingerprints. And at 9 weeks, the fetus can feel pain. 700,000 babies are aborted each year that have developed beyond 9 weeks.

Now that we have established that an abortion is rarely a life-saving measure, is anything but healthy(for any party), and that an embryo contains everything necessary for all stages of human development, abortion is truly a matter of women's choice and women's rights. Women have the legal choice and have the legal right ~ although abortion is anything but liberating. It is elevating one's rights at the expense of another. It is killing the weak to promote the strong. It is murdering the inconvenient for the sake of self-betterment. It is valuing one's life above another. It is eugenics.

Planned Parenthood prides itself on its "efforts" to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs, including the spread of HIV, by the distribution and promotion of birth control. But with teen birth rates up for the second year in a row and 26% of young women between the ages of 14-19 years old infected with an STD (48% among young black women), I think it's safe to say that Planned Parenthood has not been successful in its "efforts". What Planned Parenthood has been successful at, however, is reducing the number of live births, especially within the African American and Hispanic communities. With African Americans making up 32% of abortions, but only 13% of the population, statistics are showing that more African Americans are dying each year than are being born ~ with crime, abortion, and natural causes all factored into the death rate. And with most facilities centered in inner cities, Planned Parenthood is the number one provider of abortions in America. So how did this happen?

Planned Parenthood grew out of the eugenics movement and was founded by a woman named Margaret Sanger. Sanger was born in New York in 1879 and died in a nursing home in 1966. She was born into a large family, to an Irish father and a Catholic mother. Her childhood was extremely influential in constructing her adult worldview, and the actions that manifested from that view. She believed the quality of members of a family were dependent upon the quantity. She believed that the "unfit" produced more children than the "fit"~ thus, perpetuating "unwanted" and "undesirable" traits and straining economic conditions. In The Pivot of Civilization, Margaret Sanger wrote: "Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly... funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born". Likewise, in Woman and the New Race written by Margaret Sanger, she wrote: "The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it". Her view of Catholics and marriage were similarly offensive. She saw a correlation between the religious and large families, and believed the sacredness of marriage promoted the procreation of "undesirables". In David Kennedy's Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger, Kennedy addresses Sanger's expressed belief that a woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow and, in Sanger's own words, that "the marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order".

Margaret Sanger was a member of the Socialist Party, the American Eugenics Society (1926-1973), and the English Eugenics Society (changed to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1973). She was a leading advocate for birth control, opening her first clinic in 1916, which was shut down shortly thereafter. In 1917, she became editor for the Birth Control Review, a publication that featured many articles on eugenics, such as "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" included in the August 1928 edition. In the April 1932 publication, Sanger spoke of her "Plan for Peace" in which she expressed belief that couples should be required to submit an application to have a child ~ the proposed American Baby Code.

In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League (ABCL). In 1939, ABCL merged with similar interest groups and formed the Birth Control Federation of America. By 1942, amidst mass slaughters in Germany, Margaret Sanger decided it wise to take the advice of a friend and colleague to drop the "Birth Control" from the Birth Control Federation of America and replace it with the more embracing title of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

I think it is important to mention the significance the Nazi regime had on the American people in relation to the eugenics movement and those sympathetic to Sanger's agenda. In pre-Hitler years, eugenics did not carry the negative connotations it did later on, so conscious race building was more easily implemented by force and the threat of public and moral opposition was not as strong. Yet when the Nazi's eugenic horrors surfaced, the American people were not so taken with eugenics, and the movement realized that its focus had to rely on "voluntary unconscious selection" through deception and manipulation.

When Planned Parenthood was still the Birth Control Federation of America, most of its functions were already in place. It appears the change was in name only. When the Birth Control Federation of America was formed, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble (of Proctor and Gamble) was appointed as BCFA regional director of the South. Sanger was familiar with Gamble because he had served in her American Birth Control League. Aware of the obstacles in persuading the "unfit" to control their birth rates, Gamble drafted the Negro Project in November 1939. The Project proposed the placing of black leaders, such as ministers, in positions as to influence the black population. According to documents from the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College in Massachusetts and pointed out in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Rights: A Social History of Birth Control in America, Margaret Sanger wrote a letter to Dr. Gamble in December 1939 concerning her thoughts and intentions on the Negro Project. In the letter, Sanger writes: "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal... We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man that can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members". After soliciting black ministers, it appears the strategy worked. By 1949, virtually all black leaders ~ social, religious, professional, and academic ~ had endorsed Planned Parenthood.

Today Planned Parenthood has 129 affiliates, operates 875 centers, and serves 5 million women a year in the United States. Planned Parenthood promotes all forms of birth control, but I believe the invention of the modern day birth control pill was a pivoting point in cultural history. Since the invention of the modern-day birth control pill by Carl Djerassi in the 1950's (with widespread public access in the 1960's), many cultural attitudes have undeniably changed in the U.S. I do not believe that I would be going out on a limb to suggest that the birth control pill not only made its contribution to the cultural shift, but also to the rise in pregnancy and STD rates. Although debatable, I believe the evil does not lie within the birth control pill itself, but in its broader implications. I do believe that the Pill and other forms of birth control that prohibit conception are beneficial to marriages and adults in commited relationships, and that using and supporting birth control does not make someone eugenic. It is the carefree attitude about sex that has come from the Pill that is discouraging to me ~ and its widespread use among children. We see an accepted desire for self-gratification ~ masked as empowerment and liberation. And this self-gratification discourages the natural human desire to bond in ways that result in mutual respect, responsibility, care, trust, romance, and unselfish love ~ all prerequisites for healthy units such as marriage and family. In contrast to what we are told, our pursuit of self-fulfillment is ultimately an expression of self-denial. Without meaningful human bonding and the fruit it produces, we are isolated people with hardened hearts ~ trying to find any way to please our ego in order to make ourselves feel good. And although we would never consciously reject love, our actions suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, this attitude effects every aspect of our culture. The "success" of abortion comes from the "success" of the eugenics movement ~ however unbelievable it may seem to suggest our society to be "textbook eugenicists". Yet, as "textbook eugenics" was dying, an unconscious form of eugenics was blooming, creating weapons more powerful than a pill or a procedure ~ a weapon that destroys the human desire for healthy bonding and replaces it with a destructive "all about me" worldview that elevates ourselves above God or excludes Him altogether, giving us the "right" to destroy life. Even more troubling are the statistics that show that 70% of women who receive an abortion describe themselves as Christian. Consciously or not, embracing a "me first" attitude serves the self and denies respect for the life of others, born or unborn. Though very few pro-choicers think of themselves as supporters of eugenics, selfishly choosing to deny life to another for the purpose of self-advancement is nothing short of eugenic, despite intentions.

I believe as Americans, we need to check the depths of our hearts. We need to realize that abortion is not a matter of women's rights ~ it is a matter of human rights. Abortion affects millions of women and men worldwide every year ~ born and unborn. I believe Americans have a tendency to want to deny the big picture because we are too focused on ourselves. Fortunately, God has a tendency to change human perspective. When we put God first, we find our place and our "me first" attitude cannot stand.

~ Lester

"Scientific" Racism

Eugenics: 1. The study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating).

After doing some studying on German history ~ specifically seeking a correlation, if any, between Nazi Germany and attitudes held by Germans living in Germany and other countries ~ I started pondering the "science" of eugenics. We often hear of the Holocaust when we hear of the horrors of eugenics. But what we do not hear much about is the horrors it caused in the United States.

Eugenics was "invented" when the word was coined in the late 19th century by a Briton named Sir Francis Galton and it quickly spread in the U.S. among progressives and the intelligentsia. By the early 20th century, eugenics was widely accepted among the American public ~ even finding it's way into education, politics, and religion. Cousin to Charles Darwin, Galton saw eugenics as a way to evolve mankind through encouraging procreation of "desirables"(positive eugenics) and controlling the birth rates of "undesirables"(negative eugenics). In the U.S., it was negative eugenics that was most utilized.

The lack of science supporting eugenics is laughable, despite its once widespread popularity. However, at the time it was popularized, it is possible that social and economic conditions made Americans susceptible to such reasoning. The early 20th century was a time of depressions, a scarce middle class, and high immigration. With the stock market crash in October 1929, the dawn of the infamous Great Depression broke. Amidst the darkness the people felt, eugenics found it's niche ~ although to assume the economic temperature was solely to blame would be reckless and inaccurate. However, immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe ~ such as the Russians, Jews, and Polaks ~ became targets of the eugenics movement. By no means were immigrants the only groups singled out. Those also targeted were people categorized as criminal, insane, blind, deaf, epileptic, mentally or physically disabled, dependent on the government, idiotic, "feebleminded", deformed, sickly, drunken, imbecile, promiscuous, etc. These conditions were seen as a detriment to society and, therefore, needed to be controlled to maintain pure and healthy bloodlines and reduce the continuation of these traits, as well as to prosper economically.

The birth control measures taken in the U.S. varied from immigration restriction laws and marriage laws to involuntary sterilizations. Laws restricting immigrants to freely enter the United States were enforced and many were rejected for discriminatory reasons in the early 20th century. Also, inter-racial marriages were prohibited. A law was passed prohibiting "epileptics, imbeciles, and feebleminded persons from marrying or having extramarital relations before age forty-five" in Connecticut in 1890. Indiana was the first state to pass a sterilization law in 1907. By 1927, twenty-seven states had sterilization laws, although sterilizing criminals and the mentally ill were commonplace in institutions before state laws were passed allowing such sterilizations. The passing of laws, however, often extended legal sterilization to other "undesirable" groups. For example, after the ruling in Buck vs. Bell in the state of Virginia, anyone deemed worthy of sterilization was forced through the state to have the procedure. In the case of Buck vs. Bell, Carrie Buck was sterilized for "feeblemindedness" and promiscuity. Tried at 17 yrs. old, Carrie had already given birth to a child and Carrie's mother was institutionalized. Carrie ultimately was sterilized after the judge ruled that "three generations of imbeciles was enough". Later it was revealed that Carrie was adopted, and her child was conceived as a result of being raped by a relative of her adopted family. A report card showing her grades to be more than satisfactory also debunked claims that she was of "below average" intelligence ~ though one source reviewed had Carrie's baby as the recipient of the "below average" claims. Regardless, the result of the ruling opened the door to many more Virginians being sterilized. On May 23, 2002 Governor Mark R. Warner issued a formal apology for Virginia's estimated 7,450 sterilizations between 1927 and 1979. By 1941, approx. 36,000 people were sterilized in the U.S. and the number rose to 60,000 by the 1970's.

"Scientific" racism is not based on science. The true reasons behind why this flourished on the back of science when it clearly was not, I am not sure. There is no data to support it, but there surely is to debunk it. For example, their "research" was based on data collected mostly from second-hand accounts about families, by friends and relatives, going back only one to two generations. Can this second-hand statement be proven: "Yeah, I think Aunt Betsy had a limp"? A better question would be: Was it proven? Furthermore, vague terms used to describe conditions worthy of sterilization, like "feeblemindedness", are not definitive and have no basis for measurement. Also, this was before the discovery of DNA. The hereditary term used at that time was "germ plasma", and genetics were far from understood. Today, we clearly know issues such as poor hygiene, laziness, promiscuity, and "feeblemindedness" are not passed on through DNA.

Ultimately, two schools of thought regarding social problems tend to be consistent. The first being that sin, pain and suffering are inevitable constants in the world and that history shows us the best way to deal with them. Secondly, there is the belief that an utopia can be reached when the proper social structures are put in place. It is apparent that those open to eugenics, in some form or another, subscribe to the latter of the two thoughts. There is irony in that often we hear people cry out against racism, but sometimes it is those same people that support issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research ~ both issues that are rooted in eugenics. My next blog will touch on the issues most relevant today concerning eugenics, such as abortion and its widespread use through Planned Parenthood. In discussing eugenics, as with all of life's issues, it is important to remember that God did not dump us here on earth to fend for ourselves and leave us to our own "evolutionary" tactics. He does not want us to weed out the weak to progress as humans ~ instead He wants us to become weak so that we rely on His strength for survival. Though it is easier to listen to the ideological shouts of human progression, ultimately it is God's voice that screams salvation and redemption to our soul ~ leaving us with an understanding that surpasses all human wisdom. In short, God's wisdom IS wisdom.

Happy Easter!
~ Lester

The Mind of a Lover

A couple of weeks ago, an Alabama man went on a killing spree. The murder count reached 11, including four relatives and himself. It seemed to have begun with specific targets such as his mother and, near the end of his spree, the victims became random and opportunistic. The victims' ages ranged from toddler to elderly. The man even killed four dogs in his rampage. Apparently this man was very unhappy, angry, discouraged, and depressed. Alot of people go through these feelings, experience difficulties and failures in life, feel betrayal and disrespect and never kill people. It is obvious that this young man had some problems with his mind, thought processes, and emotions.

Stories like these have become quite common in the news lately, so it wasn't the story itself that got me thinking. It was a story told about the killer by one of his school teachers. The teacher told of an incident involving the man when he was a child, describing how he had found some money and turned it over to the teacher instead of keeping it. She remembered this because of the honesty she saw in the boy. I'm sure it was disheartening and confusing to learn that this thoughtful boy had grown up to become a thoughtless killer.

How could something like this happen? Obviously, this man's reaction was abnormal, but I couldn't help but wonder why caring people become bitter and loose control. When I threw this question around in my mind, this passage from the bible stuck with me:

Romans 7:14-25 (NIV)
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to
sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what
I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know
that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the
desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the
good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if
I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living
in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good,
evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I
see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of
my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.
What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be
to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a
slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

In essence, people want to do good and "be good", but we all suffer from the human condition. We desire to do what is right but our body, with it's temptations, are in conflict with our will. Good parents raise their children by reinforcing their children's good deeds and teaching coping skills to deal with the results of bad decisions made by the child and others. Of course, this does not guarantee success, nor does the lack of such upbringing lead to a murderous rampage. My point is that, as we get older, certain things are likely to happen: innocence is stripped and we become desensitized by evil. Often mistreatment by others can lessen our potential for empathy as we attempt to deal with our feelings of betrayal, whether it be real or imagined. We are broken people living among broken people. God chose to come to Earth in the form of a human. When Jesus walked on Earth, He was fully God and fully human. However, He was given human treatment, resulting in His crucifixion. Even though He was betrayed, beaten and murdered, He prayed for us to be forgiven while He hung dying on a cross. The treatment He received did not change His heart. Jesus showed the world what it really meant to have the mind of a lover.

There are two things I want to point out here. First, God always wins. Those who crucified Jesus believed that they had conquered Him. But God cannot be defeated. Likewise, when we trust in God, we do not need to fear. Despite the way we are treated in life, God is triumphant and works good for those who believe in Him. Secondly, even though Jesus was self-sufficient, He was in constant contact with the Father. We may believe we are self-sufficient, but we are not. We need contact with God. We cannot do things on our own. Evil has footing without the love and grace given us by Christ. It is through Him that we learn to forgive and can indiscriminately feel compassion and empathy, despite our circumstances. He gives hope to the hopeless and direction to the lost. He restores us from our broken feelings. Trying to sustain goodness and hope without God is exhausting and is often contingent on what life throws at us.


The Alabama man could no longer see love. Without any other information on him, I will assume the following: The Alabama killer desired good and, at some point, realized that it is easier to do wrong. There was a battle going on inside of him for a long time. Consciously or not, he allowed anger and bitterness to build. Maybe his feelings gave him a sense of power. Regardless, evil gained ground and lies took over. When his feelings got too strong, he gave up control. Given his extreme instability, he chose to take out his pain on others ~ probably as an ultimate expression of power.


~ Lester