personal trainer

Female Firsts

Don't mess with these girls! 

Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester became the first woman since WW2 to earn a Silver Star for action in combat.  Her convoy was attacked in Iraq.  During the ensuing firefight, her unit assaulted the enemy trenches with grenades and fire before clearing them.  In the close quarters combat, Hester personally killed at least three insurgents with her M-4 rifle.  They know how to shoot in Kentucky.

The US Air Force demonstration team, The Thunderbirds, announced the first female pilot to fill a slot on the team, Captain Nicole Malachowski.  She currently serves with the 494th Fighter Squadron in Lakenheath, England, and will be flying with the T-Birds in 2006.   

CPS

Michelle Malkin posts a lengthy piece about the recent sexual attack at Mifflin High School, a Columbus Public School.  For those of you who may not be familiar with the story, a developmentally disabled female student was sexually abused by male students in the school auditorium while other students watched and even videotaped the event.  After the incident, the administration allegedly failed to call authorities, discouraged the girl's parents from calling 911, and left school by the time police arrived.

I have an interest in the story because Rick Watson, the assistant principle involved, worked closely with my wife (who teaches at a different CPS high school) last year.  I have been in Rick's home and listened to countless conversations in which his professional conduct was discussed.  In short, he is the most supportive and proactive assistant my wife has encountered to date.  However, as Linda and I listened to the story unfold, we thought the administration at Mifflin blew it big time.  Time will tell if that judgment proves true.

UPDATE:  State of the Union notes that our Mayor, and would be Governor, is handling this rather poorly. 

Drill Weekend

The month rolls by quickly and I find myself back at it for Uncle Sam.  I am a member of the 251st Combat Communications Group in Springfield, Ohio.  We also have a fighter wing resident at the base--the 178th FW.  They fly F-16 Fighting Falcons, or Vipers, as the crews call them.  This is actually a training wing where new pilots, or pilots transitioning to another aircraft, are brought up to speed on the ways of the Viper.  As usual, I don't have access to e-mail for security purposes, but I do have limited access to the internet.  My military e-mail is:  Jon.Trainer@OHSPRI.ANG.AF.MIL

On the Death of a Pope

Yesterday we had a lively discussion at church regarding the death of Pope John Paul II.  With several converted Catholics in the room, and some fundamentalists who are aware of other little popes, there was no lack of opinion.  So this morning I have a few responses from others that I have found interesting.  I am focusing on Protestants and their reponses; they express a variety of opinion, from theological disagreement to praise. A number of these are just excerpts, so you can click on the link to "read the whole thing" as they say.  You can read Catholic responses here and at an unofficial Pope's blogsite.

Peter at Comment Me No Comments:  Pope John Paul II has died. He was not my Holy Father, he did not stand as the vicar of Christ on Earth for me, he is not the head of the Body to which I am joined, he was not right in his theology or in his life's role as Supreme Pontiff to Roman Catholics. Had he been so, he could not have remained their pope. He was, however, a great man by his lights, a courageous voice for life, someone I find deeply affected by the Gospel, by Christ's teachings, and by a moral and social vision that we can scarcely afford to disregard or disrespect. That's all I have to say about him.

Blog Jones:  To my fellow Protestants regarding the pope:  De mortuis nil nisi bonum (concerning the dead, people should say nothing except good).

Doug Wilson:  As we gather this morning for worship, we do so as convinced, practicing and confessional Protestants, who do not believe that the Reformation was a tragic mistake. We are mindful of the chasm that still separates us from our neighbors in the Roman Catholic communion.  Nevertheless, even in this context, our condolences and sympathies are with our Roman Catholic family members, neighbors and friends, at the passing of this remarkable man. We are not interested in a sectarian judging of the servant of another; to his own master he stands or falls. 

Having said this, we are grateful for John Paul’s role in bringing down one of the greatest instances of human wickedness in history—the practice of international communism in Eastern Europe. We are grateful for his stand against the secularist culture of death, and his unwavering opposition to the carnage of abortion. We are grateful for the good he did within his generation.  We do not say this in the grip of an ecumenical fuzziness, in a sentimentalist blur, that wants to pass over every difference, however important, in order to get to the eulogy. We are mindful of the many idols that remain in our day, and we want to be faithful in resisting them, whether they are Roman or Protestant idols. And yes, this would include the idols that John Paul did not topple.

Tim Challies:  The pope's death gives us a tremendous opportunity to challenge our Roman Catholic friends, and perhaps our Protestant friends as well. It will also surely tell us much about many evangelical leaders as we see which ones are quick to laud the pope as a great Christian leader and which are careful to point out that he did not uphold the gospel. I suspect many more will do the former than the latter.  In the next days and weeks we need to be attentive to our friends and to be in prayerful consideration for ways to share the Truth with those who do not know the Lord. May God, in His infinite wisdom, use His people in this time to lead many to Him.

Al Mohler:  We should be unembarrassed and unhesitant to declare our admiration for John Paul II's courageous stand against Communism, his bold defense of human dignity and human life, and his robust and substantial defense of truth in the face of postmodernism. In many of the great battles of our day, evangelicals found John Paul II to be a key ally. This was especially true with the crucial issues of abortion and euthanasia....

Even so, we must also recognize that John Paul II also represented the most troubling aspects of Roman Catholicism. He defended and continued the theological directions set loose at the Second Vatican Council. Even as he consolidated authority in the Vatican and disciplined wayward priests and theologians, he never confronted the most pressing issues of evangelical concern. 

Even in his most recent book, released in the United States just days before his death, John Paul II continued to define the work of Christ as that which is added to human effort. Like the church he served, John Paul II rejected justification by faith. Beyond this, he rejected the biblical doctrine of hell, embraced inclusivism, and promoted an extreme form of Marian devotion, referring to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," and "Mother of all Graces." 

In the end, evangelicals should be thankful for the personal virtues Pope John Paul II demonstrated, and for his advocacy on behalf of life, liberty, and human dignity. Yet we cannot ignore the institution of the papacy itself, nor the complex of doctrines, truth claims, and false doctrines that John Paul II taught, defended, and promulgated. As Roman Catholics mourn the passing of the pope, we should take care to respond with both compassion and conviction, fulfilling our own responsibility to take the measure of this man and his legacy.

James White:  ....the passing of John Paul II opens up a tremendous opportunity for dialogue. Are you prepared? Can you address the issue of the Papacy, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the reality of the gospel of Jesus Christ and how Rome does not possess that gospel (but instead dogmatically denies it)?

Please remember that many Roman Catholics today have known no Pope but John Paul II. They have a very, very strong attachment to him on a personal level. Your task is to be gentle yet direct in your seeking to proclaim God's truth to Roman Catholics. You can address the Papacy without addressing John Paul II individually. But the better you know your faith, and the better you know the teachings of Rome, the more confidence you will have in addressing this topic.

Joe Carter at EO:  I was nine-years-old the first time I heard about the Pope. My family attended a small backwoods fundamentalist congregation – The First Church of Hellfire and Damnation, or something to that effect -- and the preacher would often mention the Pope in one of his “Identifying the Antichrist” sermons. The Antichrist was hard to pin down and his identity invariably rotated between one of the select “heathen” groups: Chinese communists, the Russians, secular humanists, Episcopalians. The Pope, though, was the favored candidate for ushering in the End of Days.

But then I saw the new Pope, John Paul II. Since this was the man who would be ushering in Armageddon I figured I should pay attention. I was glued to the TV, watching as the new pontiff stood waving and smiling in front of thousand of Catholics. That’s when I noticed that something wasn’t quite right with this guy. He didn’t have the charming smile of “The Beast” like our pastor had warned. John Paul’s smile was warm, kindly, and sincere. In fact, this new leader of the Catholics seemed genuinely sincere and could even pass for a Christian to those who didn’t know better. But even as a child I understood that this guy couldn’t be the Antichrist. For one thing, he was Polish. The Beast could be Russian or German or some other nationality that John Wayne would fight. But the Antichrist couldn’t be Polish; Poles just aren’t that scary.

The Fruit of Liberalism

The island nation that produced Charles Spurgeon is suffering woefully at the hands of inept, unbelieving clergy.  The results of a recent survey of church life in England found parishioners are leaving the pews empty because they have had it with deadwood in the pulpits.  Here is an excerpt, but read the whole thing:

Researchers found “a widespread sense of anger and frustration” at what was happening to churches in the UK and Ireland. The 42-page report is an indictment of modern preaching and worship, illustrating how excessive liberalism and lack of conviction are driving worshippers from the pews.

The report portrays a desire for sermons based on the Bible and traditional teaching, rather than on politics, social affairs or audience-pleasing stunts.

The report calls for better apologetics, or Christian teaching, and claims that many clergy are unable to mount a convincing argument in defense of Christianity and are not interested in trying.

Of course, the same thing is happening in America.  We just happen to be a few years behind, and graciously preserved by a host of seminaries and churches that jealously guard the gospel deposit entrusted to their care. 

On the way to our new church location, we pass an old United Methodist church that used to be out in the country.  The building is deteriorating, and most of the congregation is buried just outside, their headstones keeping silent vigil on the property.  The church is no longer Methodist; the sign out front says, "Universalist Christian Church."  They believe in everything and nothing.  The five or six cars parked outside on a Sunday testify to a congregation on life support. 

Our building will be constructed on land that was probably farmed by some of those old Methodist church members.  We are challenged to catch the passing torch, thrown just across the street, by long gone generations who once built a church to preach the gospel.  Their dream has died, but not the gospel.  May those who come behind us find us faithful. 

Israel Never Existed?

Archaeologist William Dever defends the historicity of the nation of Israel against postmodern revisionsists who want to erase it from history, facts notwithstanding.

The revisionist's position: “There is no history in the Hebrew Bible. It’s all written too late to be reliable. It is all a myth. There was no real ancient or biblical Israel. There was no exodus, no Sinai, no [Hebrew] faith, no conquest of Canaan, no Israelite ethnicity.”

Dever on the revisionists:  “They will demolish any facts that don’t suit their theories.  If the Hebrew Bible is a literary hoax, then you people here are the greatest fools.  If it’s not, then we need to think of ways to make it come alive again, and I don’t know any better way than archaeology.”

Bill Maher

Bill Maher, in a desperate bid for publicity, has decided that Christians and others who are religious suffer from a neurological disorder that "stops people from thinking." 

He goes on to say, "We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. If you look at it logically, it's something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. It certainly was drilled into mine at that age. And you really can't be responsible when you are a kid for what adults put into your head."

A couple of bloggers have taken Mr. Maher to task.  Bill at Wallo World, with tongue firmly implanted in cheek says, "Further, neurological research indicates that a particular part of the brain is connected to religious experiences. Perhaps atheists are the product of a genetic deficiency or disorder – and if so, one can only wonder what else is wrong with them. After all, most atheists seem to suffer from delusions of grandeur, convinced that they hold the keys to humanity’s march toward utopia. They are also quite happy to embrace programs to “improve” humanity to suit their own purposes – hardly a coincidence, one would have to suggest, that the most repressive regimes of recent days have all been formulated along atheistic, humanist principles. One can only hope that the possible link between atheism and mental illness is examined honestly before countless others suffer needlessly."

Hat Tip:  EO

Just Stuff

The historian, Paul Johnson, writes a short column on why the world may be softly saying "God bless America."

Ralph Peters does not have kind words for the brass that command the blue suiters (Air Force).  Are we buying stuff we don't need to fight a war that won't happen?  Robert Novak pours fuel on the fire--pun intended.

Congressman Trent Franks notes, "On January 14, 2005, Norma McCorvey, the woman formerly known as Jane Roe, petitioned for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States formally asking the Court to reverse or reopen the Roe v. Wade on its merits."  Will the case be heard?

Mere Comments has an interesting discussion unwinding about movies, entertainment, popular culture, and Christians writing about all this stuff.  I see Joel got a letter posted...becoming a regular blogger, that one.

An interesting reaction to Bauder's article on "A Fundamentalism Worth Saving" going on here.  What now, indeed. 

Darwinian Fundamentalism

David Klinghoffer relates the story of a scientist, Richard Sternberg, who is being ostracized because he dared to allow an article advocating Intelligent Design in one of the publications of the Smithsonian Institute.  He did not write the article, mind you, he simply let it pass across his editorial desk.  Klinghoffer describes the knee-jerk reaction of the evolutionists at the Smithsonian:

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. . . . He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; . . . he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?' " The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

Dr. Sternberg happens to be a practicing Catholic.  He describes himself this way, "I would call myself a believer with a lot of questions about everything.  I'm in the postmodern predicament."  Well this is unacceptable to the Darwinian Fundamentalists in the scientific community.  Dr. Sternberg, along with many other "believing" scientists are victims of a not-so-quiet inquisition. 

Who is the real fundamentalist here?  The believer who is open to questions and debate about the role of faith and science, or the scientist who slams the door shut on serious doubts raised about his conclusions? 

Pity Laura Bush

A comment on an older post has resurrected a discussion about women, work, roles and responsiblities. The American Thinker has an interesting commentary regarding an article expressing a "non-traditionalist" woman's perspective on Laura Bush.  If only the First Lady would get out from behind her husband's stetson and express an opinion now and then.