Author: pensandpicks

Note: This series is a bit of a light-hearted departure from my usual topics.

I had the privilege of witnessing the wedding of one of my oldest and best friends, Garrett Perks, and his wife Kristina recently. As I was on my way from Florida to California for the ceremony, I took some time to recall some of what I will call “Campfire Stories with Garrett.”

What will follow over the next few days or weeks are a sampling of some of the crazy adventures we’ve shared over the past 17 years. However, it’s not the humor or the near-death experiences that have forged such a strong bond between two people who talk once every few months and see each other every couple of years. It’s our mutual relationship with, and love for, Jesus Christ and for the theology by which we know and discuss Him that was and is the foundation of our friendship. Garrett is one of the finest men I have ever known, and probably the single most influential person in my life other than my wife.

Enjoy.

The other night I watched a video of author and speaker Dennis Prager and Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias entitled The Death of Truth, The Decline of Culture. At one point, moderator Jeff Foxworthy asked the two men if they believe religious people have contributed to the decline of culture (10:37). Prager mentioned in part of his answer that one of the accusations against religion is that more people have been killed in the name of God/religion than by any other means. He goes on to make his point by contradicting the popular interpretation of one of the Ten Commandments, which I will get into a little later.

First, let me say I have heard the “religion has killed…” argument myself a number of times in discussions with critics and skeptics. The short answer is that many more millions of people have been killed in the name of secularism (Communism, Nazism, etc.) and abortion. However and yes, millions have sadly been killed in the name of religion. The problem with this assertion, often made by atheists, is that it does not delineate between religions, such as Islam and, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses. I haven’t heard of many JW terrorists. Sure, their theology is skewed, but the only violence they can be accused of is beating on millions of doors. Furthermore, skeptics and critics certainly don’t care to distinguish between people who claim to be Christians and those who truly are (which is a claim that can only really be validated by judging their “fruits” as Jesus said in Matthew 12:33).

Here is where Prager’s interpretation of the third commandment – to not take the Lord’s name in vain – becomes very relevant to this discussion. He argues, and the ancient Hebrew text supports him, that this passage has been incorrectly interpreted. The Hebrew word נָשָׂא, or “nasa” (pronounced nah-saw), means “to bear” or “to carry.” I grew up believing that saying “Oh, my God” or “Jeez” were how people violated this commandment. Now, I still believe we should use the name of the Lord reverently no matter which one we use to refer to Him by, but I now understand this commandment condemns much more than simply the flippant use of God’s name. Rather, it condemns committing evil in the name of God. When someone “bears” or “carries” the name of God as justification for wickedness, they are violating the third commandment. This would certainly include executing people or waging war in the name of the one true God, Yahweh. Any other god in whose name violence is perpetrated is tragic, but it’s not done in the name of the true God.

It was with these thoughts fresh in my mind that I read a very troubling news feature this morning about an “evangelical church” that, in my opinion, is grossly violating this commandment. I would love, in Christian charity, to give the Word of Faith church leaders and complicit members the benefit of the doubt, but there are far more than two or three witnesses and this is not the only church-cult I’ve heard of that uses these tactics to control and abuse members. This cult (it’s not a true church) uses lies, manipulation, verbal and physical abuse, slander, false witness (violating the ninth commandment) and other sinful means in the name of God to maintain control of people and grow their numbers.

What this cult does in the name of God is abhorrent and despicable, and the woman who leads this cult and those who join her will be held accountable someday. One of the sad results of this cult’s actions – aside from the broken and confused children who suffer there – is that many people will read this article and conclude, “See, all Christians are lunatics, criminals, abusers and deceivers.” These people will see this cult’s actions as confirmation of all the mischaracterizations they’ve heard and seen about true Christians and Gospel-centered churches.

To those who are not Christians, I urge you to find true, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving and emulating Christians and learn what is really taught and who God really is. There are so many people who carry the name of God in vain and yet have no concept of what it means to be a follower of Christ or to understand the Bible.

To my fellow believers in Christ Jesus, join me in actively seeking to disprove the misconceptions about who we are in relation to Christ and the world. We must expose and contradict false teaching, which means we need to study and understand God’s Word and be ready at all times to give a reason for the hope that’s in us. We cannot remain ignorant or silent. There are far too many cults and other religious groups that are much more educated, much more vocal and much more equipped to advance their false religion in violation of the third commandment.

Let me conclude by quoting Ephesians 5:11-16.

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore, it says, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil.”

Thoughts on Matthew 3:1-12

The first thing to note is that John is the cousin of Jesus. While there are no verses that describe any pre-baptism encounters between them, it seems unlikely to me, given the prominence of family in that culture, that the two didn’t meet at some prior time. Who knows, maybe John and Jesus were hanging out together on the famous trip to Jerusalem when they were 12 years old. Luke 1:80 says of John, “And the child grew and became strong in the spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day of his public appearance to Israel.” At what age John left home for the wilderness is not clear, but it seems it was before he was considered a man. Maybe both his parents died when he was young. After all, they were both well advanced in years when he was born.

Regardless of the time in between Luke 1:80 and Matthew 3:1, we know that John lived a strange life and began preaching in the wilderness at some point. There’s not a definite timeline given, nor is there any indication of how or why people started listening to John. Whatever the catalyst, people began seeking to hear and be baptized by this peculiar man. In Matthew 11, Jesus states John was not only a prophet, but the fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 40:3). And even thought he would deny it (John 1:21), Jesus contradicted him and stated that he was in fact the “Elijah” who was to come (Mark 9:11-13).

Even though John spent most of his life in the wilderness, he still knew enough to know the Pharisees and Sadducees were religious hypocrites. He called them out in front of everybody for their hypocrisy and referred to them as snakes. He even posed a counterargument to their favorite copout argument before they even rebut. He said, “And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’” He hit them hard and didn’t let up. He then proceeded to inform them that judgment had already begun and that bearing fruit in keeping with repentance was necessary to keep them from being chopped up and cast into the fire. John hit them right where it hurt – their pride. They were self-righteous, overly-religious people who didn’t think they needed to repent of anything. They were Jews and thus looked to their standing as children of Abraham to save them even if their good works were inadequate. They were good to go in their eyes. John said otherwise.

John begins to discuss Jesus in verse 11, and described him as one is far superior and who would baptize people with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Many Christians believe, and many pastors and teachers state that this verse relates to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost when tongues of fire appeared on the disciples. However, within its context, the baptism of fire relates to judgment, not the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of fire are antonyms. It’s one or the other, and we all know which one we want and which one John was implying the Pharisees and Sadducees would likely receive. John reveals Jesus as both Savior and final Judge. This picture of Jesus should cause us to fear Him and love Him. It contradicts any notion that He is only a loving, gentle Savior who would not hurt anyone. John’s metaphor of the winnowing fork is a very active and deliberate metaphor. Jesus is depicted as having the winnowing fork in His hand and ready to separate the wheat from the tares. This conceptualization of Him is echoed and supported by Jesus Himself throughout His ministry. The bottom line is that Jesus came to give the gift of the Holy Spirit to the repentant, and separate and save them, while simultaneously judging the wicked and condemning them to eternal punishment with fire. This is also a clear allusion to Hell and is a proof text against those who deny the existence of eternal, conscious punishment for those who reject Jesus Christ as Savior.

Some people are skilled forward-lookers. They are inclined to eagerly anticipate things yet to be realized – places, events, conversations, etc. They can create pictures in their minds of what places will be like – the sights, smells and sounds – and what they will feel there even though they have no actual experience on which to base these thoughts. These are the people who can’t sleep a wink before going to an amusement park or on a camping trip because their mind is bursting with vivid thoughts of what will be.

There are others of us who are better “backward lookers.” We’re the nostalgic types who remember only the good (in great detail), and who often wish to experience those events and places once again. Our minds race back to past circumstances and feelings at the sound of a song, the scent of the grass or the feel of a cool fall breeze. We are not as disposed to conjuring up what the future will be like, but are pros at reconstructing entire memories as though we were watching them on a television screen.

I’m sitting in an Air Force hotel room at Vandenberg Air Force Base as I write this. From here, it’s about a four-and-a-half-hour drive to get “home” – Tracy, California. That dusty, stinky little town I couldn’t wait to leave when I was a teenager. I hadn’t given any thought to visiting when I first planned this trip because of the tight schedule; but because of a delay in the rocket launch, I find myself with just enough time to make a mad dash up there to fulfill some nostalgic desires and wet a line in my old fishing hole.

In the midst of my contemplations of fishing Tom Paine Slough and experiencing the sights, sound and smells that represent some of the most formative years of my life, I was struck with conviction about how much desire I have to go “home” even for a few hours compared with my desire for my heavenly, eternal home. There are times I long to be with Jesus and free from this body of death and sin, but not as often as there should be. I too often do not, as Paul admonishes us to do in Colossians, set my mind on things above. I need so much to learn to look forward to a place I’ve never been, and try, like the people I described in the first paragraph, to envision in vivid detail a place I know so little about.

Maybe, just maybe, we are told so little about what heaven is like because it’s not about the place, it’s about a person – Jesus Christ. I’ve never seen Him either, but I have met Him and have gotten to know Him over the past 19 years. I suppose if I knew Him even better, I would find my inclination to dwell on life in His presence would permeate my mind, pushing out thoughts of past places and things that served their purposes and are best left where they are.

All this has made me think about, and re-read, my first blog post, Theology of the Past. The bottom line is that dwelling too much on the past or the future (unless that desired future state is in heaven with Jesus) can be harmful to our focus on what really matters – our relationships with Jesus Christ, our families and our current friends. May we all learn to long to be in the presence of the Lord and say (and mean!) every day, “Even so, come Lord Jesus.”

Most people are familiar with the childhood song about sticks and stones and the supposed impotence of words. Likewise, many people are aware of the movement, especially among the Millennial generation and other “Social Justice Warriors,” to refute that paradigm. Rather, popular thought is that words do matter … a lot. In fact, they matter so much that some are considered on par with physical violence … or worse.

We have not only witnessed a shift in belief about the weight of words, but also their definitions. For example, hate can now be to disagree with someone, and to disapprove of someone’s actions, beliefs or ideas is to be “phobic” of them. We have effectively lost the ability to have civil discourse and to “agree to disagree” but still respect someone.

However, these changes are not the focus of this article. Rather, I want to juxtapose the current reasons for why words matter so much (mainly hurt feelings and being “offensive”) and the reasons given by one very famous person whose opinion on this matter should give us all pause. His reasoning for why words matter differs greatly from that of pop culture.

Jesus Christ had many things to say in the final three of the 33 years He walked the earth, and a good portion of those were devoted to the importance of words. In fact, there are at least 100 verses on 20 different books of the Bible that address the significance and/or consequences of our words – or the “tongue” or “lips” – to which I could refer, but I will limit myself to a handful of verses with a quote from Jesus on this subject for the sake of brevity.

Matthew 12:33-37 really sums up the gravity with which we consider our words. Jesus says,  

Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.  You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Context is critical in any discussion about words, so please allow me to place this within it’s historical context. In this passage, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees, (the “brood of vipers”) a group of very outwardly religious people who cared much more about pretense and externality than the condition and motivation of the heart. In the preceding verses, the Pharisees accused Jesus of performing His miracles in the power of Satan. Jesus went on to explain that such words were blasphemy of the Holy Spirit of God – the unforgivable sin. He then followed up those damning words with what was quoted above. While originally directed at these examples of false religion, Jesus’ words ring true for everyone who has and will ever live.

Essentially, our words not only reveal our hearts, but echo throughout eternity. This is not a proof text to support a works or words salvation. What Jesus is getting at is that our words (and actions) reveal what’s in our hearts and that that fact matters … a lot. And, it should matter a lot to us, too. That there is an account to be given for every careless word spoken (of which I am more guilty than I’d like to admit!) should cause us to clasp our hands over our mouths and never speak unless absolutely necessary. We should be terrified into giving our words the utmost thought and deliberation before we speak them. However, the reality is that we are flippant and careless, speaking out of the abundance of our selfish, foolish hearts. Rarely are our words deep, meaningful, fitting and edifying to those around us. Rather, they are often complaining, negative, combative and angry. If what Jesus says is true (which it is), then we should be even more concerned because our words are indicative of the condition of our hearts.

So, the question of the day, or rather of our lives, is this: What do our words reveal about our hearts? Thankfully, Jesus not only came to speak hard words and call us to a standard we cannot live up to, He came to live up to that standard for us and take the punishment for our sins and remedy our inability to make our hearts right. Jesus said and did all the right things for all the right reasons perfectly, and He offers us the opportunity to have that perfect righteousness imputed to us through the salvation He offers to us.

Word matter more than anyone knows. I don’t believe that words are equal to violence like the whiney, “snowflake” Millennials might, but there is certainly a physical danger associated with our words – an eternal one that we would all do well to consider.

 

 

 

 

Thoughts on Matthew 2:1-23

This account of Jesus’ birth is an abridged version of Luke’s account. While Luke includes details about the location, what Jesus was wearing, what He was laid in, who was there and the proclamation of the angels, Matthew simply states that Jesus was born. Luke writes an “orderly account” and a narrative that includes more details for more than just Jesus’ birth. Matthew, while not as brief as Mark, is writing to a specific audience (the Jews) who were going to be more persuaded by fulfilled prophecy and the “so what” rather than the granularity of the details.

Matthew doesn’t say where the parents were from, nor does he discuss any locations until the mention of Bethlehem in 2:1 and 2:5-6, which he does probably include just to mention the fulfilled prophecy (like he does in 1:23, 2:15, 18 and 23). Something that occurred to me in reading this passage is that my belief about the timing of the arrival of the Magi might be incorrect. I still reject the idea they were there on the night Jesus was born, as depicted by typical nativity scenes. I have thought for a while now that two years or so was a reasonable amount of time, but I think now I am wrong. In this passage, the Magi come to Bethlehem to see Jesus while they were in a house. Regardless of how many days or weeks it actually was between Jesus’ birth and the visit from the Magi, enough time had elapsed that the inns were no longer full and they were able to find accommodations in a house. To me, this would indicate the census was completed and the crush of people who were in Bethlehem to register were gone. Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth (Luke 2:4), which is at least 60 miles from Bethlehem. Why would they have stayed in Bethlehem for two years? How could they have stayed there for two years? Luke offers no insight on this as he doesn’t even mention the Magi. In summary, I think it was probably within the first few months, but at least a week or more. Luke offers some insight here in that he tells us the young family went up to the temple in Jerusalem (which was only a few miles from Bethlehem, versus many miles from Nazareth) for purification according to the Law, which was 40 days after the birth. So, this presents a valid reason why they would have lingered in Bethlehem and why the Magi would have found them there.

However, the two birth narratives present a challenge in that Matthew says an angel warned Joseph in dream to flee to Egypt, which they do, and then Matthew has them return to Nazareth. Luke has them go to the temple for purification and then heading to Nazareth with no mention of a trip to Egypt. This isn’t necessarily a problem though, since most scholars agree that Jesus was born in 4 B.C., the same year Herod died. It’s quite possible that Jesus was born, was circumcised (Luke 2:21), moved into a house to wait for purification, was visited by the Magi, was taken to Egypt, returned, was presented at the temple (Mary was purified at the 40-day mark), and then they all returned to Nazareth. It would have been a busy 40 days and they would not have been in Egypt long, but they only needed to be there long enough to avoid Herod’s murdering of the baby boys in Bethlehem (which could have easily happened while they were in transit) and fulfill prophecy.

Most commentators agree that the details of what happened immediately following Jesus’ birth as narrated by Matthew and Luke don’t synch up well. Each passage, if read in isolation, presents no real issues. It’s Luke 2:39 that’s the sticking point. It says, “And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” This is difficult because in Matthew the family returns to Galilee after returning from Egypt, during which time Herod died and Archelaus was ruling in Judea. The transition of kings is not troublesome, but the fact that it’s implied Joseph wanted to return to Bethlehem but didn’t because of the change. In an attempt to smooth over this issue, some have suggested that Jesus and His family traveled back and forth between Bethlehem and Nazareth multiple times. That seems unlikely though due to the distance and difficulty of travel, especially with a newborn. There’s also the issue of the star, particularly if you believe the Magi came sometime closer to two years after Jesus’ birth. What happened to the star? Did it follow Jesus back and forth from town to town? Why was Jesus’ family back in Bethlehem, living in a house if they had returned to Nazareth? Doesn’t the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 about Jesus being called a Nazarene become jeopardized if He was actually living in Bethlehem?

Regardless of how everything all actually took place, it’s clear that Matthew, who was a disciple and likely heard this story first-hand from Mary, focuses on the dramatic details and on the fulfillment of prophecy. Luke, on the other hand, a Gentile who never met Jesus, though it’s possible he met Mary in Ephesus, focuses on the happier more positive details. While it is somewhat problematic to overlay the two stories based on the implied timelines, it not impossible (as mentioned above). At the end of the day, the point is that Jesus, the Son of God, came to earth as a baby, born of a virgin, and that many prophecies were fulfilled to the letter. Additionally, we need the Bible to help interpret the Bible; but we can also use historical accounts to help us understand what at first glance may seem to be a contradiction.

Thoughts on Matthew 1:18-25

It had to be Joseph, and it had to be done just the way it was done. If Mary had been single, her pregnancy would have been even more of a scandal. No good Jewish man would even consider her as a bride, and her parents would have had to care for her and her fatherless son. In this way, the prophesy of the virgin bearing a son could have been fulfilled, but there were other prophesies that would not have. It’s possible, but unlikely, that Mary’s parents would have uprooted and gone to Egypt (Matthew 2:15). Would Jesus have been born in Bethlehem if it were not for Joseph having to take Mary and register for the census, or would He have been born in Nazareth of Galilee? There are many reasons why it had to be Joseph, at that time in history and before his marriage to Mary was consummated, but while they were legally bound in betrothal. One of the major reasons why it had to be Joseph as well was because the Messiah was to come from the kingly line of David. Mary was a descendant of David, but through the line of Nathan, so that would not have fulfilled the prophecy. Because Joseph was Jesus’ legal father, Jesus was reckoned to be of the lineage of David through Solomon – the kingly line.

Why was Joseph so confident in the message his dream? What was it about that dream that persuaded him it was unlike other dreams to the point that he should immediately and fully obey what he was directed to do? Was there just a sense that “this was real” when he awoke? Was it that the angel called him by name, acknowledged his lineage, named his wife and described the conundrum he was facing – that his “virgin” wife was pregnant? It appears Joseph’s decision to quietly divorce his wife was not a quick or easy decision. The passage says he was a “just man” and apparently loved, or at least regarded, Mary enough to not seek to ruin her for what appeared to be infidelity. This was no small deal. It meant she was a ruined, unfaithful adulteress who seemed to disregard all propriety, trust and love for Joseph. He could have made a public spectacle of her in order to preserve his integrity and image. The more he denounced her and saw fit she was disgraced, the more agreeable he would have been in the eyes of many of his countrymen, especially the religious. He was taking a risk letting her off the hook quietly if anyone knew the child wasn’t his.

Despite the possible ramifications and the fact he was heeding the words of an angel in a dream, Joseph nonetheless obeyed and trusted that what he was told was true. He had more chances later on to heed messages in dreams, and he listened. It’s also possible that he allowed Mary to share with him about the appearance of the angel to her and allowed that to convince him of the validity of what he saw.

What does this mean for me? It means that the Lord has and does speak to us at different times in various ways such as dreams, Spirit-filled people (prophesy) and, primarily, His Word; and that we need to be careful to test with the Scriptures what is heard and then obey it if we believe it to be from the Lord. It might be that we are called to do something that is socially unacceptable and/or seemingly crazy, as Joseph was. The main thing though is to pray for listening ears. The Lord speaks to us continually in the Bible and, sometimes, maybe, in other ways, but how often are we listening? Note: any “other ways” will never contradict God’s revealed Word, nor should they be given more weight than the Scriptures.

Note: This is the first of many posts related to my reading of the book of Matthew. I am no scholar, so please take what’s here as one man’s attempt to unwrap the Scriptures. I welcome feedback and debate. 

Thoughts on Matthew 1:1-17

Scandalous. That’s one word to describe a number of relationships and circumstances that surround the ancestors of Jesus Christ. Abraham: scandalous relationship with Hagar and dealings with his “sister” wife. Judah and Tamar, his widowed daughter-in-law: scandalous circumstances ultimately leading to the birth of Perez. Solomon, the son of “the wife of Uriah”: scandalous adultery and murder by David the king. Most of the kings of Judah were wicked, scandalous men. Even the circumstances surrounding the virgin birth of Christ appear scandalous.

Nonetheless, God shows His ability to work even our sin into the fulfillment of His overall plan. That’s not to say we should seek to give Him opportunity to do so, thereby putting Him to the test and bringing upon ourselves the chastisement that accompanies scandalous decisions. However, the genealogy of Jesus should give us hope for ourselves and our children knowing that God will take our messes and work them for His glory. If He could take all the immoral and horrifying choices of Abraham, David, and so many others, and weave everything into a tapestry that ended up with Joseph, the human “father” of Jesus, in order to preserve the kingly Davidic line and fulfill prophecy, He can certainly take our shortcomings and missteps and bring about our good and His glory.

Another thing to point out in this passage is the fact that the timeline, in spite of the teaching of some pastors and books, does not allow for Rahab, the mother of Boaz, to be Rahab the harlot from Jericho. Many people have made interesting points in books and sermons about Rahab the harlot being David’s great, great grandmother. However, there’s simply too much time in between the fall of Jericho and David’s birth – upwards of 200 years – that prevents it from being so. Some commentators who agree with my position also point out that all the references to Rahab the harlot include that disgraceful distinguisher – “the harlot” – whereas in the genealogy of Jesus, that descriptor is missing.

Here’s something I wrote a little more than a year ago for the American Leadership and Policy Foundation (alpf.org) that’s even more relevant today than it was then.

It’s “the state of forming a complete and pleasing whole, especially in an artistic context” according to Google, and to Merriam-Webster it’s “a way of combining the parts in a work of art or literature so that they seem to belong together.”

It’s what has made our nation strong, and a lack of it will lead to our demise. Can you guess what it is? I’ll tell you what it isn’t: diversity.

Diversity comes from the Latin word “divertere,” which is the root for “divert” as in “divert someone’s attention.” Diversity places the emphasis on what makes something or someone distinct. In some contexts, this is a good thing. Diversity is a key word in the personal financial realm. It’s an asset when you’re seeking solutions to complex issues. It’s also a lynchpin that makes Capitalism function well.

America was once referred to as a “melting pot” where people from diverse backgrounds and culture came, assimilated and became known as Americans. These were our grandparents, great-grandparents and so on. I for one am a diversity of European descent, having blood from at least five countries ranging from Greece to Norway to Ireland. Many Americans can claim at least two or three cultural and ethnic backgrounds, and that’s one of the things that makes the United States such an eclectic and exciting culture.

Think of America like a complex and colorful rug that’s woven together with millions of individual threads of various colors and textures that, when combined, create a stunning work of art. Does that bring to mind the definition in the opening sentence? That is a definition for the word “Unity.”

While it’s possible to examine that rug, dissect it, analyze the history of each thread and label every hue and texture, it’s also possible, and I would argue preferable, for it to be enjoyed as an exotic rug that can serve its purpose so long as it remains a unified whole.

What if the orange threads all decided their orange-ness was more important to them than their distinct and valued place in whole rug and decided to leave the rug altogether? What if the green threads wanted to be recognized for their uniqueness and expected all the other colors to celebrate their green-ness while ignoring the contribution of the reds, blues and purples? What would happen if each color decided to form a group on one part of the rug, and all the threads of a certain length decided to do the same? It would be a textile disaster.

A rug made with all red, all brown or all blue threads is just as much a valid rug as the “American rug” described above. I don’t want to take anything away from one color or texture, as they all possess their own beauty, uniqueness and purpose. In the same way, I don’t want anyone to think I am unappreciative of the diverse people who make up this idea we call “America.”

There’s no way, and no reason, to discount or ignore the rich histories, struggles, successes and contributions of Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Irish Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, Caucasians and everyone in between. However, and here’s the crux of the issue, we should not focus so intensely on what makes us different, but rather what unifies us.

Take a look at this trend analysis found by doing a word definition search on Google.com for the word “unity.” Notice the steep decline starting in the 1960’s? Now, look at the diagram below that showing the shape increase in the use of the word “diversity” starting around the same time.

With those images in mind, think about America in the past 50 years. Has the nation become more unified and strong, or divided and weak? Is there more racial harmony because of all the diversity awareness classes and “look at what makes me different than you” celebrations?

No! We’re a nation at each other’s throats. Politicians are increasingly divisive. The people are increasingly divided and less tolerant. Instead of looking at each other and seeing a fellow American who bleeds red, white and blue, we see someone who is different and has competing interests. American flags are being lowered from college campus flagpoles because they don’t want to offend someone by being patriotic and proud of being an American. Many people no longer stand or put their hand over heart when they hear the Star Spangled Banner playing. A surprising number of college students have no idea what July 4^th is all about, except an excuse to get drunk and watch fireworks.

America is just a place to live now. Nationalism faded away along with telephone booths and road maps, and maybe even before that. It used to mean something to be an American. It meant you were part of something greater than yourself. It meant you were part of the most successful, powerful, prosperous nation in the history of the world, and you were just as much of an American as the person standing next to you with a different shade of skin or social class. When times got tough, American’s pulled together and unity prevailed. What will happen now when things go downhill? What has happened?

Look at the recent Islamic-inspired terrorist attack in Orlando. Instead of rallying together, caring for the families of those hurt and killed, seeking justice and calling the Islamic terrorist for what he was, fingers started pointing in all different directions. “Gun owners and the NRA are at fault,” “Homophobic Christians are at fault,” “Republicans are at fault.” Everyone is at fault except for the guy who pulled the trigger and those who perverted his mind with radical Islamic ideology. The moment the shell casings hit the floor, we were a divided nation.

What happened after this tragic attack in Orlando is only a foretaste of what’s to come in this country until and unless we can stop myopically focusing on what makes us different, and start embracing and emphasizing what unifies us – starting with the fact we’re all humans made with intrinsic value and worth endowed by our creator.

The Declaration of Independence contains these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That’s a great place to start. From there, we can move on to things like the common struggles, hopes and dreams of human existence, then our commonalities as Americans, and so on.

E Pluribus Unum – Out of Many, One – the great motto of these United States. Let’s not allow it to become “E Pluribus Pluribus” – Out of Many, Many. It has long been said and remains true – united we stand, divided we fall.