As Emily Belz reported Wednesday, Maine voters this week repealed that state’s law legalizing same-sex marriage.

For supporters—and opponents—of traditional marriage, the vote is important for a number of reasons.

First, money didn’t make the difference. According to Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, groups such as Stand for Marriage Maine (supporting traditional marriage) were outspent by a margin of 2-to-1.

The passing of Proposition 8 in California (which overturned court-ordered gay marriage) galvanized proponents of same-sex marriage, and Maine was seen by many as an opportunity to stop any momentum gained on the West Coast. According to Brown, “Same-sex marriage activists saw Maine as their best chance to win a direct marriage vote.” But despite resources, energy, and plenty of media attention, the momentum to maintain traditional marriage was not slowed.

Maine’s vote was the first time in history that voters overturned action taken by a legislature on this issue. This in a state not considered conservative by a long shot.

Brown calls the vote “a decisive and historic victory for marriage.” No doubt supporters of same-sex marriage will downplay its significance.

But consider this from an October Associated Press article leading up to the vote:

“Supporters of same-sex marriage, in Maine and elsewhere, are cautiously hopeful of a landmark victory, which they believe would have an impact in other states including California. But they acknowledge that defeat—by an electorate known for its independence and moderation—would be crushing.”

As Brown put it, “The voters in a deep New England state have now joined 30 other states in directly affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If we can win in Maine, we can win anywhere.”

In a 1960 episode of The Twilight Zone titled “King Nine Will Not Return,” World War II Capt. James Embry awakens on a desolate beach to find himself near a crashed airplane, his crew missing. As he tries to figure out what happened, he spirals toward insanity. Just then, futuristic (i.e., 1960-vintage) jets fly overhead and he realizes that he knows all about jet aircraft—though that is impossible.

The last scene has Embry lying unconscious in a hospital bed decades after the war. Two doctors in white coats and armed with charts are discussing his case and his delirious claims that today he has been back in the desert with his plane. We learn from the doctors’ conversation that during the war the captain had in fact declined that particular mission at the last minute, and that the crew who did go were all lost. The doctors reasonably ascribe the former flight leader’s incoherent ramblings to a long-festering guilt.

A nurse then comes by with the patient’s clothing and deposits them on a table. As she puts down the shoes, about a cup of beach sand spills out.

How do you know if something happened or if you dreamed it? C.S. Lewis writes in his book Miracles:

“In all my life I have met only one person who claims to have seen a ghost. And the interesting thing about the story is that that person disbelieved in the immortal soul before she saw the ghost and still disbelieves after seeing it. She says that what she saw must have been an illusion or a trick of the nerves. And obviously she may be right. Seeing is not believing. For this reason, the question whether miracles occur can never be answered simply by experience. Every event which might claim to be a miracle is, in the last resort, something presented to our sense. . . . And our sense are not infallible. . . .”

We already knew this, of course, from Luke 16, in which Abraham told the rich man in hell, who asked him to send his brothers on earth a visitor from the other side, that his brothers would not believe, even if someone should come to them from the dead.

In chapter 4, I used to think it quaint that Joshua had the Israelite leaders of the 12 tribes extract 12 rocks from the middle of the Jordan River while its waters were still pulled back from flood stage, to raise them as a lasting testimony of the incident of the crossing. Isn’t that so Old Testament?

But just imagine this: Some years hence, some Eliab ben Nethanel ben Shelumiel ben Ammishaddai who has rejected his parents’ religion and run off with the family goat to start a new life in Amnon will perchance stop at the Jordan River to rest. And the sight of a stack of rocks will catch his eye. And he will inquire of one of the townspeople, “What do these stones mean . . ?” (verse 6).

“[T]hen you shall tell them that the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord. When it passed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. So these stones shall be to the people of Israel a memorial forever” (verse 7).

All through the Twilight Zone episode we are not sure whether the captain is sane or is imagining things. The sand spilled from the shoes settles the matter. It really did happen.

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.

The last time I posted here I subjected you to a couple of my home movies. Now I’m the first to know I don’t have one ounce of video expertise. I never even owned a video camera until three weeks ago! I like to think I’m getting better, but only time (and someone really objective—that is, my husband) will tell.

As I’ve carried my little camera around capturing footage everywhere I go, I’ve caught a lot of life on film—the good, the bad, the ugly, the frustrating, the hilarious, and the mundane. All the raw footage resides in iMovie on my iMac right now, but most of it will eventually make its way to the trash can, never to see the light of day.

Ah, the edit function. It isn’t that I don’t want to portray an accurate picture of life as we know it, it’s just that I don’t particularly want to showcase my own sin (or the sin of my children) for the world to see. It is a really great thing to draw the edit box around the 30 seconds of someone’s squabble and just hit delete. Presto! Sin gone!

Oh, if only life were that way. As it is, I have no edit function for the multitude of math struggles and the rest of life’s daily irritations. I can’t drag a yellow box around the things I wish were different and hit delete (even though I really wish I could).

But even if I could edit out my bad behavior, Scripture teaches that I still need a Savior. I wouldn’t see my need for a savior if I could deal with my sin myself. I wouldn’t view my kids as less needy of grace if I could edit out their sinful struggles. I wouldn’t pray and depend on God if I could just move my garbage to the trash can on my own.

Rest assured, I don’t see sin as God’s “gift” to me to learn to depend upon him more—James tells us that God does not tempt (though he does test). But I do see my lack of real-life editing skills as further proof for my desperate need for an editor—the Editor—with His skilled eye focused on editing my story into His, which is the greatest story ever told.

The name of His editing program? Sanctification.

In reading chapter 3, I did a double take at verses 15 and 16, as the inspired narrator was describing the million-man crossing of the Jordan River into the Promised Land:

“. . . as soon as those bearing the ark had come as far as the Jordan, and the feet of the priests bearing the ark were dipped in the brink of the water (now the Jordan overflows all its banks throughout the time of harvest), the waters coming down from above stood and rose up in a heap very far away, at Adam. . . .”

I have almost no memory of hearing about the miraculous crossings of the Israelites (first of the Red Sea and, 40 years later, the Jordan River) without simultaneously hearing the miraculous element cut out of it by well-meaning teachers. From childhood they gave with one hand and took away with the other. Scientists had discovered, they told us, the natural causes that had allowed a band of nomads to cross these watery barriers.

A typical explanation: Naum Volzinger, a senior researcher at St. Petersburg’s Institute of Oceanography, and Alexei Androsov, a fellow researcher in Hamburg, Germany, have analyzed the conditions that would have made possible the parting of the Red Sea. They have calculated that a 67-mile-per-hour wind sustained for several hours could have exposed an underlying reef that would have served as a footpath for the peripatetic Semites.

The version of choice in my school happened to be that the Red Sea dwindles to a trickle at some times of the year, thus making for plausible passage. The condescending implication, as I understand it, is that a miracle of good timing is still a miracle. (And I, for one, can appreciate that since I have trouble enough timing my potatoes to be ready with my roast.)

Similarly, we are told not to be disheartened that the miracle of the loaves and fishes (Matthew 14:13-21) was not really a literal multiplication of victuals but rather that the people’s hearts were moved to share their lunch bags with their neighbors. That’s pretty cool, too (but not to an 8-year-old).

I would think, however, that the logic of 14th century William of Ockham still applies: “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” (Entities should not be qualified unnecessarily). The best explanation for an occurrence is the simplest and most straightforward, all things being equal. If you are going to tell me I can keep my miracle, may as well let me keep the miracle the way the Bible narrator told it.

But I have never before noticed the parenthetical editorial comment in Joshua 3:15: “now the Jordan overflows all its banks throughout the time of harvest.” It is as if the Lord saw Volzinger and Androsov and my Enlightenment child elementary school teacher coming and decided to obviate any way of diminishing His glory: “Yo! The Jordan is always overflowing at this time! Your Enlightenment explanation is not likely.”

That leaves us with a take-it-or-leave-it choice about God and His Word. As C.S. Lewis put it in God in the Dock:

“Do not attempt to water Christianity down. There must be no pretense that you can have it with the Supernatural left out. So far as I can see, Christianity is precisely the one religion from which the miraculous cannot be separated. . . .”

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.

Millions of personal blogs major in egotism. Not so David Wenzel’s blog, Jump David Jump.

Most people have never heard of Jump David Jump, but it’s received over 1,000 hits a day over the past four months. It’s a place where Wenzel talks about his work, his wife, Amy, and faith pushed hard by the recent grade II olio-based glioma tumor that now occupies one-fourth of his brain. (The blog’s title refers to “jumps” Wenzel has taken in his life; his cancer diagnosis is just another.)

While Wenzel had been blogging before his diagnosis, the site shifted in tone—and traffic—after he discovered he had cancer and began detailing his every step in the journey online, even posting updates on Twitter and Facebook between initial MRIs.

He reported a grand mal seizure upon bumping his head at a conference in California in June. This led to a stay at the Mayo Clinic, appointments with multiple brain specialists, and the sobering diagnosis that the tumor is “not a lump you can scoop out. It’s like chicken wire that has infused itself in my brain,” Wenzel says. That means it’s inoperable: Doctors give patients up to 10 years to live if they do radiation and chemotherapy.

Through his blog, followers learn the tumor has probably been growing in his head for 10 years and has wrapped itself in Wenzel’s speech centers. His blog posts range from the humorous to the inspirational. Some have been controversial, including his view that God placed this specific type of cancer in this specific area of his brain for a specific reason (he credits John Piper’s essay “Don’t Waste Your Cancer” as inspiration).

Wenzel’s blog is just one medium through which he’s telling his story. A group on Facebook—Pray for David Wenzel! – Operation 55 Zebra!—has nearly 1,300 members; he posts general updates there and links back to his blog. His basic message: “Having cancer is a bummer but if that’s what it takes for me to understand who God is and what He wants for my life I’ll gladly take it.” Readers often leave Wenzel’s site either puzzled or in awe of a man choosing faith and optimism over anger and discouragement.

Nicole Russell is a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C.

A year ago the world was waiting to see if Americans would elect a president who would bring about sweeping social, cultural, and political change. As Sen. Barack Obama became President Obama it brought a mix of ridiculous expectations and unfounded fears regarding what “Superpresident” would accomplish. I was so captivated by the spectacle of it all after Election Day I committed to attend the presidential inauguration ceremony. I have kept my attendance quiet until now.

Although I strongly disagree with the way House Speaker Nancy Pelosi views America and with many policy initiatives of the Obama administration, in the spirit of honoring the office of president (1 Peter 2:17) and recognizing the legitimacy of government (Romans 13:1), I met family members and friends in Washington, D.C., to witness the transition from President Bush to President Obama. Standing in front of the Washington Monument I felt the magnitude and weight of the office in ways I had not experienced before. It was fantastic to witness all the pomp and circumstance. Watching the procession of congressional leaders, Supreme Court judges, and so on was thrilling. I was particularly surprised by the cold interactions between Presidents Clinton and Carter witnessed by millions on JumboTrons before they took their seats. These two families obviously do not like each other.

Many voters on Election Day and at the inauguration were excited because “change” was coming. We were supposedly ushering in a new era of governance. In the past nine months, however, not much has changed and the Obama administration continues as is normal for Democrats—and for an ever-growing number of Republicans—to expand the tentacles of government into areas where government is neither designed nor equipped to manage. Oddly, there has been much disappointment among many liberals because Obama has not gone far enough in bringing about “change.”

According to The New York Times, Europeans are growing critical of Obama because “Mr. Obama has not broken clearly enough with Bush administration policies that they dislike.” I say if the Europeans are frustrated with Obama, then he must be doing something right. Why then has there not been “change” enough to satisfy liberal critics? The answer is found in the reality check President Obama encountered when his campaign rhetoric was met with real facts about the world and by the independent agenda of Speaker Pelosi.

The Rasmussen Reports‘ daily Presidential Tracking Poll from yesterday showed that 28 percent of the nation’s voters “Strongly Approve” of the way that Barack Obama is performing while 41 percent “Strongly Disapprove,” giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13. What does this mean? Friends, the Obama honeymoon is over and most people, with the exception of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, are realizing that President Obama is a regular politician. No change, just Washington politics as usual.

I’m sorry, but Rahab the harlot has always reminded me of the noble, bighearted saloon girls in the 1950s TV westerns. There was always one; her name was usually Kitty. A few of the local rowdies would predictably be goading a down-on-his-luck cowhand, and Kitty would take his side and give them a piece of her mind.

Rahab is strong like that—clear-minded and quick-thinking, too. She has heard the rumors of an encroaching military force and sees the handwriting on the wall. Devoid of over-sentimentality, due to the nature of her profession, she soberly takes stock of her situation and acts. She tells the spies: “I know that the Lord has given you the land . . .” (verse 9). Oh, would that the people of God had such assurance of faith!

Her decisive steps to save herself from destruction are as good a picture of a biblical conversion as there is. Not much in the way of deep love for God is required on the ground floor; it is enough to see danger and flee to Him. “. . . Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). “. . . [F]lee from the wrath to come” (Luke 3:7).

God is the most humble of husbands. He takes as his lover a person whose motive for union is at first pure self-interest and is content to let the relationship develop over time. There is a sense in which salvation is a stark and unromantic business transaction—a covering with the blood of Christ in exchange for my white-flag surrender.

The writer of Hebrews is impressed enough to list Rahab among the likes of Abraham and Moses in the “hall of faith.” Joshua 6:17 has a more down-to-earth description of her accomplishments: “. . . she hid the messengers whom we sent.” Who would have thought that prosaic act merited such accolades? You have done something like that yourself every time you sent a check to a missionary, or allowed yourself to be interrupted by someone because you thought God would like that.

Bible teacher Beth Moore suggests for homework that you add your own name to Hebrews 11, with your name filled in after the words “By faith. . . .” Let’s see now: By faith Jane gave a hug to Sally today, even though she knew she might be rejected.

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.

Last year’s economic collapse has strengthened what Jay Richards calls the “myth of greed.” Opponents of free markets claim that capitalism is fundamentally based on greed and blame it for the nation’s current economic woes. Last month, Richards, author of Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem, defended capitalism at The King’s College as part of its Distinguished Visitor Series.

Born and raised in Amarillo, Texas, Richards underwent a radical intellectual shift toward socialist thought while in high school. He said he saw socialism as “an extension of the Christian worldview” because of its emphasis on alleviating poverty. He soon, however, realized that although socialism talks about helping the poor, it is powerless to do so, Richards said, because “command economies just couldn’t compete” with free markets.

Richards addressed the common accusation that greed is necessary for the success of capitalism by agreeing partially by saying, “If the essence of capitalism is greed, you cannot be a capitalist as a Christian.” He, however, passionately denied greed as the essence of capitalism by distinguishing self-interest, not greed, as capitalism’s foundation.

Richards also said that the government bears “the lion’s share” of the blame for the economic downturn, citing the government’s subsidization of the housing industry through its implicit backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: “Government can’t legislate the rules of economics away.” He proceeded to criticize the government’s response to the downturn, saying that instead of the recent stimulus packages, the government should have taken a “cold turkey” approach.

The unfortunate reality, Richards said, is that many government officials “simply don’t understand basic economic principles.” Though free markets will never produce “heaven on earth,” he believes they provide the best way for a people to maintain freedom and the ability to independently improve their lives.

Matthias Clock is a student at The King’s College in New York City.

Ideas have consequences. Some ideas are mightier than swords. Deadlier too. As Terry Pratchett warns: “Unfortunately, wild and unstable ideas have a disturbing tendency to move around and take hold.” Some of the wildest and most devastating ideas came from Karl Marx. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, those ideas still corrupt American youth. The most vulnerable are students exposed to the influence of anti-capitalist instructors in the fields of economics, philosophy, history, and political science. A multitude of falsehoods thrive in our academic centers where tenured faculty members pass their dogmatic views on to kids who are still thinking mostly with their hearts. They don’t come with horns and pitchforks—some are very nice people, intelligent and full of good intentions, as was a recent Marxist guest speaker at The King’s College.

As millions of people in the former communist countries mourn the victims of practical Marxism, leftists of all flavors are struggling to raise the red banner one more time. Socialist professors and their brainwashed disciples are in the forefront of the fight against American imperialism and economic neo-colonization. Our universities have become hatcheries for anti-globalists trying to persuade the developing nations that breaking their economic links with the West will protect their people from exploitation.

Traditional Marxism has been marginalized but not before it had metastasized. Hoping to catch in their webs as many confused souls as possible, today’s socialists redefine their idol’s ramblings for class struggle to mask it as a fight for race and gender equality. The infiltration of failed ”progressive” ideas diverts civil rights and environmental movements from the real problems of our generation. It is getting so bad that even the president of the United States sees no problem surrounding himself with Maoists.

Those are some of the reasons why, 20 years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, we still cannot celebrate the victory over the “empire of evil.” Yes, socialism is far from dead. We cannot pronounce it dead until it evaporates from those heads where the lies of the omniscience and omnipotence of government still reside. One thing we need to teach our children is that for democracy to really mean freedom and not a dictatorship of special interests, it cannot coexist with pervasive bureaucratic control of our economic affairs.

I told my sister-in-law Aline that there is so much of the Old Testament I don’t understand. She said: Just ask the Lord for one thing in each chapter. Surely even the census lists of Numbers and the bad advice of Bildad in Job impart spiritual value, if you look for it.

As I happen to be in Joshua in my private devotions, let us test Aline’s proposition here. If the gambit proves successful, we will come away with 24 words from the Lord, the better to know him, obey him, and enjoy him.

I would be very dense indeed not to see the emphasis of chapter 1, as it is commanded four times: “Be strong and courageous” (verse 6), “Be strong and very courageous” (verse 7), “Be strong and courageous; do not be frightened” (verse 9), and “Only be strong and courageous” (verse 18).

I say “commanded” as a reminder to myself that this is an order, not a sweet nothing in my ear, as I am prone to make of it. I have done this same injustice to many an imperative in Scripture. “Do not be anxious about anything,” Philippians 4:6 insists, and I have received it as treacly sentimentality—and not obeyed.

Israel under Joshua is being told to do something totally beyond herself—to go in and take possession of a land of giants and fortified city states (Numbers 13). Where man lives beyond himself is where God most shines. God is best glorified in the differential between our natural ability and the size of the objective. For instance, “Love your friends” is reachable by most folks, but “Love your enemies” is out of reach for people “behaving only in a human way” (1 Corinthians 3:3).

The word rendered “be strong” is the Hebrew “chazaq.” It is the same word used in 1 Samuel 30:6 where it is translated “David encouraged himself [literally made himself strong] in the Lord.” How do you “make yourself strong” in a scary situation? Well, you can always “Whistle a Happy Tune,” like the song says. Or you can lie to yourself. Or you can speak truth to yourself.

A missionary I know was filled with dread about a transfer to Germany and didn’t know why. She then realized that it was because her father, a German, had berated her since childhood, and now she unconsciously feared 82,000 replicas of him telling her she would never amount to much. She told me she decided to preach the truth to herself about how much God values her, and it strengthened her. She said, “A lie is still a lie, even if you’ve been believing it for 40 years; and the truth is still the truth, even if you’ve been believing it for only two weeks.”

Here is some truth Joshua preached to himself:

1. “I have given [the land] to you” (verse 3). This is a past participle verb. That is, it’s a done deal in heaven; now just bring it forth “on earth as it is in heaven.”
2. “The Lord your God is with you wherever you go” (verse 9). The thought of God being with his people should be our confidence, as it is our enemies’ terror (Genesis 21:22-24; 26:28). When God goes “with” you (verse 9), it’s not like your friend Harry going “with” you on a trip. Harry is just company; God is power and protection.

This is true whether the conquest is the Old Testament takeover of land or the New Testament takeover of land. Land is involved in both cases—a repossession of territory from the enemy. Just as the devil was sitting on Israel’s physical inheritance, he sits on our spiritual inheritance. Warfare should be our all-consuming passion as it was our ancestors’. I don’t see much difference between Joshua 1 and Matthew 28:18-20.

The convicting question is: Are we of the new age army really up for it? Do we get up in the morning bent on warfare, determined to “take captive every thought” and “put to death” every unholy desire? Or is Ephesians 6 just talk?

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.