From Bill Shuler on (suprisingly) FoxNews.com:

To honor is to express respect. It is a recognition of the value of another. As a culture we reserve such expressions for moments marked by finality. We are comfortable sharing our feelings of love and appreciation at retirement ceremonies and funeral services. The word honor is often never heard because it comes too late, resulting in the greatest of all regrets unexpressed love.

Dishonor is prevalent on the national scene. Our public leaders are fodder for late night comedians. Parents are blamed for all our woes. The elderly are under-valued and neglected. The scriptures tell us to honor all people, to love one another, to fear God and honor those in authority. It is a prescription for a healthy society. It does not mean that we will agree or that others have earned honor but it eliminates the hate based, disrespectful dialogue that is so prevalent today.

To merely recognize the need for honor is to fall short. It is a way of life. Its target is as near as a family figure, a mentor or a friend. Honor disarms, heals and strengthens. It calls forth the best in all of us.

I'm continually amazed at how little honor we (I) show for each other, even Christians - especially Christians. Respect, not contempt. Let's consider whether what we do honors others, or dishonors ourselves.

This parable was originally written in 1953 by an Episcopalian named Theodore Wedel. Perhaps nothing originating with man has ever captured better the cycle of history that has faced God's people since the beginning: success for a generation, drifting from first principles in the next, open departure following this, division, a remnant returning to God's way while the majority continue on uncaring.

On a dangerous seacoast where shipwrecks often occur there was once a crude lifesaving station. The building was just a hut, and there was only one boat, but the few devoted members kept a constant watch over the sea, and with no thought for themselves went out day and night tirelessly searching for the lost. Many lives were saved by this wonderful little station, so that it became famous. Some of those who were saved, and various others in the surrounding area, wanted to become associated with the station and give of their time and their money and their effort for the support of its work. New boats were bought and new crews were trained. The little lifesaving station grew.

Now some of the members of the lifesaving station became unhappy, in time, however, because the building was so crude and so poorly equipped. They felt that a more comfortable, suitable place should be provided as the first refuge of those saved from the sea. And so they replaced the emergency cots with beds, and they put better furniture in the now enlarged building, so that now the lifesaving station actually became a popular gathering place for its members. They took great care in decorating it beautifully and furnishing it exquisitely, for they found new uses for it in the context of a sort of club. But fewer members were now interested in going to sea on lifesaving missions, and so they hired lifesaving crews to do this work on their behalf, and in their stead. Now, don't misunderstand, the lifesaving motif still prevailed in the club's decoration and symbols — there was a liturgical lifeboat (symbolic rather than fully functional) in the room where the club initiations were held, for example — so the changes did not necessarily mean that the original purposes were totally lost.

About this time a large ship was wrecked off the coast, and the hired crews brought in boatloads of cold and wet, half-drowned people. They were dirty people and they were sick people, some of them with black skin, some with yellow skin. The beautiful new club, as you might imagine, was thrown into chaos, so that the property committee immediately had a shower house built outside the club where these recent victims of shipwreck could be cleaned up before coming inside the main clubhouse.

At the very next meeting, there was a split in the club membership. Most of the members wanted to stop the club's lifesaving activities for being so unpleasant, as well as for being a hindrance to the normal social life of the club. Some members insisted upon lifesaving as their primary purpose, pointing out that, indeed, they were still called a lifesaving station. But these few were finally voted down and told that if they wanted to save the lives of all the various kinds of people who were shipwrecked in those waters, they could begin their own lifesaving station down the coast. And so, they did just that.

Now as the years passed, the new station down the coast came to experience the very same changes that had occurred in the older, initial station. It evolved into a club, and yet another lifesaving station had to be founded to restore the original purpose.

Well, history continued to repeat itself, so that if you visit that seacoast today, you will find a great number of exclusive clubs along that shore. Shipwrecks are frequent in those waters, but most of the people drown!

As I've said before, I make it a point not to post much on politics here. I don't believe God endorses any political party (which is fortunate, since I'm not a member of one). I've been known to take people (particularly other bloggers in churches of Christ) to task for either implying or out-and-out stating that their political ideology is more in line with God's plan than their political opposition's. While I'm not Lipscombian, I find that God's teachings urge us to focus less on the physical and more on the spiritual

Plus, it probably says something that the Christians I've known that became heavily involved in politics tended to wind up in jail.

However, that doesn't mean I'm apolitical. I have strongly-held beliefs developed over the years based on historical and economic facts. I'll be the first to admit that I spend entirely too much time on politics as a whole. Sometimes I need a good reminder of what's really important, which is why this post from Edwin Crozier hit home with me today.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to say that individual Christians are not allowed to participate in the political process. I encourage you to vote. I encourage you, if you have a heart’s desire for it, to be political. But please, recognize that Christian is not a political party. God did not establish Christianity to impact national politics. Jesus did not die so nations could become Christian. Jesus died so we could carry the gospel message to one more person and let them be forgiven.

It's an important reminder in our partisan-crazed society today, no?

I'm slated to preach tomorrow, and as part of my study, I researched the authorship of Psalm 119. In doing so, I ran across this post by a modern rabbi that advances some strong arguments in support of Davidic authorship:

I would like to offer what I believe are compelling pieces of evidence in support of the traditional position that King David was, in fact, responsible for Psalm 119:

1) The structure of the Psalm, in which the first letters of the verses follow an alphabetical acrostic, is found only in psalms explicitly attributed to King David.

2) Throughout the Book of Psalms, only King David refers to himself (or is referred to) as "Your servant" when addressing Hashem. This phraseology appears in Psalm 119 several times.

3) The phrase "Pneh elai v'honeni" - turn to me and show me favor - is found only in Psalms composed by David, and appears in Psalm 119.

4) Only in Psalms by King David are the commandments referred to as "pekudim"; this terminology is employed in Psalm 119 as well. (There is one exception to this rule, Psalm 111, but it is also an "orphan psalm" that shows signs of being the work of King David.)

5) The author of Psalm 119 states that noblemen sit around and talk about him, and that he speaks of Hashem's testimonies in the presence of kings. This certainly indicates that the Psalmist was not a commoner, but a king, i.e., David.

6) The themes of Psalm 119 bear a striking resemblance to the words of King David in Psalm 19, "The Torah of Hashem is perfect, restoring the soul, the testimony of Hashem is trustworthy, making the simpleton wise, etc., etc." They are also reminiscent of Psalm 18, ""For I guarded the ways of Hashem, and did not commit evil before my God; For all of His laws are before me, and His statutes I shall not remove from myself." Also compare Psalm 25, "Hashem, make known to me Your ways, teach me Your paths. Lead me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation." And Psalm 86, "Teach me, Hashem, Your ways; I shall walk in Your truth; unify my heart to fear Your name." I am sure that there are more examples of this motif that are not coming to mind right now. However, these sentiments do seem to be uniquely Davidic in nature.

7) Psalm 119 uses the phrase "Ger Anochi Baaretz" ("I am a stranger in the land"). This kind of expression appears only one other time in Psalms - namely, in Psalm 39, which is openly attributed to King David. The same is true regarding "Shiviti Mishpatecha", a phrase in Psalm 119 that closely resembles "Shiviti Hashem L'negdi Tamid" found in Psalm 16. Examples like this are simply too numerous to list here.

8) Psalm 119 describes experiences of suffering - being unjustly pursued, etc. - that are strongly reminiscent of the travails of King David as characterized elsewhere in Psalms and in Nach.

Considered together, these observations seem to provide a very strong (if not incontrovertible) argument in favor of the traditional view that King David was the author of Psalm 119.

Seems like a strong argument to me. What do you think?

Penn Jillette is one half of the magic/comedy duo of Penn & Teller. He is extremely outspoken, frequently profane, and an avowed atheist. He has gone so far as to take the "Blasphemy Challenge" by publicly denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. His escapades, pranks, and stories involving his opposition to religion range from the juvenile to the obscene; most cannot be repeated here because of their crudity, but one of the least was an attempt to get listeners to his talk show to buy McDonalds' out of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches on a Friday during Lent in hopes of forcing Catholic families with hungry children into eating beef.

Sounds like a charming sort, no? So, ask yourself a question: "Would I share the gospel with this man, or would I prejudge that to be a waste of my time and not even bother?" and then watch the video below.

Sometimes we forget that we're supposed to be sowers of the seed, not the ones who give the increase. One of the things that impresses me most about the parable of the sower is that the seed was sown everywhere, even though it would never prosper in the vast majority of the soils. That may be poor farming, but it's good evangelism. If we truly believe the Word is living and powerful, shouldn't we share it with anyone and everyone we come across without precondition? They, like Penn Jilette, may reject it; however, it's also possible that they, like the apostle Paul, may come to accept and obey despite being (in man's eyes) the least likely of candidates. Even if they reject it today, circumstances later in life may cause them to reconsider.

Is there someone you haven't shared the gospel with because you didn't think they'd accept it? If so, realize you're never wasting your time. Find a way, present the truth in love, and let them decide whether they want the blessings God offers through Christ.

The gospel is for sinners, and we are not the least of these. Do good while you have an opportunity.

May 10 marked four years of the blog at Truth in Love. That's the anniversary. I was pre-occupied with other matters, so I missed it; however, I decided earlier this year to post only when I felt I had something worth writing and not to apologize if I "go dark" for weeks or even months. Thus, the non-apology. I have a few posts slowly working their way up, but they're being blocked by another that... well, you'll see when I get around to finishing it. I've written or rewritten it four times now and still it isn't ready to be released.

The interesting post? It's not this one. Instead, it's from Shane Scott's new blog and contains this provocative (though correct) paragraph:

So I want to be clear in saying that not only are “command, example, inference” a valid way to think– there is no other valid way to think. Anyone who reads the Bible to learn what it means to be a Christian and what a local church is supposed to be will get information the same way Peter, Paul and Barnabas, and James made their case in Acts 15.

Head over to Shane's site to read the whole thing.