"Christian" Terrorism?

It's been almost two weeks since Anders Behring Breivik blew up a government building in Oslo, Norway and then went to nearby Utøya Island dressed as a police officer and fatally shot 69 people, most of them teenagers, at a Norwegian Labour Party youth camp. I caught the story early on the Internet, and became sick with horror and sadness as it unfolded. How could any thinking, feeling person do such a thing? How could someone coolly shoot down children, some face-to-face and others as they begged for their lives or tried desperately to run or swim away? Is there no limit to human depravity?

Well, it seems depravity has its echo in the cynical opportunism of those who would exploit a tragedy to serve their own political and social agenda--in this case "liberal" commentators and and the mainstream media. As soon as Breivik was arrested and the first details of his background emerged, the media were referring to him as a "Christian fundamentalist" and continued to do so even even after Breivik's own writings on the Internet ("2083: A European Declaration of Independence"), in which he denied that he was a religious person and disclaimed any personal relationship with God or Jesus Christ, became widely known and available. (Unfunny) comedian Bill Maher insisted on his TV show that Breivik is a "Christian terrorist." Other commentators, including Sally Quinn and Mark Juergensmeyer, support this characterization.

Why are these people--most of whom are at least skeptical of any religion and particularly of Christianity, or (like Maher) are downright hostile to it--pushing this line with such enthusiasm? And why does the mainstream media continue the drumbeat as though Breivik's Christian identity was a self-evident, universally recognized fact? Columnist Ed Stetzer offers this explanation for why juxtaposing the terms "Christian" and "terrorist" appeals so to media types and left-leaners:

1. Many in the media have deep suspicions about what they call "fundamentalism." They do not understand these strange people and are afraid of what they might do. . . .

2. Some desire to create a moral equivalence. There are Muslim fundamentalists and they are bad. There must be Christian fundamentalists who are equally bad.

3. Many believe that Christian fundamentalists are just a moment away from violence. . . .

A narrative is being fashioned about conservative Christians (and to the media, just about all evangelicals would be very conservative). That narrative is that they are simple, angry, persecute gays, cling to God and guns, and are close to violence at any moment.

The opinions of these people might be readily dismissed if it weren't for their considerable (if baleful) influence on public opinion and government, and the potential for their views to mislead and discourage many from finding God. So, the things they say should not go unanswered.

Is there any basis for the suggestion that Anders Breivik is a "Christian"? One commentator notes in Breivik's "manifesto" an assertion that he believes in Christianity "as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform," which he says "makes [me] Christian." But he also stated that " . . . you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter))." In addition, Breivik declared: "I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment."

Thus, Breivik's own writings make clear that he is not a spiritual Christian at all, but sees Christianity in abstract intellectual terms only, as the historical and social underpinning of a culture he claims to value and wishes to defend against the onslaught of an alien culture (Islam). He fancies himself a Knight Templar, flashes the Templar Cross, and wants to start a modern-day crusade to defend "Christian" Europe (for a remarkable exploration of Breivik's writings as they reveal his twisted mind, see Susan Shannon's "Anders Breivik’s 2083 European Declaration of Independence: In Depth Analysis"). Does that make him a "Christian"?

In Matthew 7:16-20, Christ Himself taught us how distinguish His true followers from "false prophets":

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

It can hardly be said that the fruits of Anders Breivik's musings and passions, however inspired by some vision of defending Christian/European culture, were anything other than "corrupt." Even if his broader motives and non-homicidal efforts in behalf of Christendom were thought laudable, Christ warns us in Matthew 7:21-23 that mere outward virtue and pious works do not make us true disciples:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Again, who would seriously suggest that the mass murder of children accords with the will of our Heavenly Father? A genuine follower of Christ would heed and live His teaching:

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. (Luke 6:27-31)

Not only did Anders Breivik not love his "enemies," or turn his cheek to those he thought were seeking to smite him and his kind, he did the worst possible violence to people (mostly teenagers) who were innocent and posed not the slightest threat to him or anyone.

What Anders Breivik did is what almost always happens when passionate, desperate, or hate-filled people eschew genuine faith in God and His eternal Kingdom, and take the law--and the power of life and death--into their own hands for what they claim is the greater good. God has already warned those puffed up in their own minds, like Anders Breivik, that "when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood." (Isaiah 1:15)

So, it's demonstrably (and, let's be honest, patently) absurd to refer to Breivik as a "Christian." Perhaps he thought himself a Christian and a noble crusader for the Christian heritage of Europe, but it was all a fantasy twisted by an evil lust for vengeance and personal glory. Bill Maher and his ilk know that, but truth is of little concern to them; they keep up the "Christian terrorist" drumbeat simply because it denigrates something they despise, mocks its followers, and (so they think) diminishes its stature and influence in society. They might rightly refer to Breivik as a "terrorist who calls himself a Christian," or even as a "self-described-Christian terrorist." But they choose to use the more colorful and provocative term, as it better suits their social agenda.

Justification for using the "Christian terrorist" label has also been claimed by some as a proper response to what they see as widespread "Islamophobia" among people in this country, a disdain for Muslims on the presumption that they all condone or encourage jihadist terrorism, if not practice it themselves. Breivik's actions just amounted to "Christian" jihadism, so the thinking goes; are the Muslims really any different or any less trustworthy than Christians? Or are the latter any less dangerous?

There is some merit to this point; no one should treat Muslims generally, or individuals of the Muslim faith they may meet, with out-of-hand suspicion or contempt just because a handful of their coreligionists have committed despicable acts. But it's equally unwarranted and unjust to tar all Christianity with Breivik's brush. And, there are differences: Breivik apparently was an army of one (though he might have a few sympathizers), while we know that thousands of radical jihadists, many trained, supplied, and controlled by far flung networks, are at murderous work in dozens of countries around the world. And not a single bona fide Christian, so far as anyone knows, has come to Breivik's defense. In contrast, crowds of thousands regularly dance in Arab streets when Jews are slain in terrorist attacks in Israel. So, it may not be quite valid to equate Anders Breivik, monster that he is, with Osama bin Laden (monster that he was).

The "Christian terrorist" narrative being spun by the mainstream media and liberal pundits must be answered vigorously, so that people aren't swayed into rejecting Christianity or "religion" generally because of the bad things done, today or in the past, by many people who merely call themselves Christians or religious. Styling oneself something, or taking some action in its name, doesn't alone make him or her so; one must LIVE what he or she professes, and if one falls short, as is most often the case, it doesn't make the faith itself invalid. Nothing really worthwhile is easy. By nature people are incredibly weak and subject to corruption; the Bible acknowledges this everywhere. We mustn't allow scorners and mockers to exploit this fact and hold up as a universal example of our faith those who talk the talk but don't walk the walk so well. Rather, we must identify and loudly celebrate the countless "good" and selfless faithful among us, and trumpet their example. It's a war for the souls of our children and neighbors, and we must not yield the field to the Deceiver's minions.

I'm BAAAAACK!

Hello, my faithful Followers! If you've been wondering why I haven't posted in over a month--it's been a most trying one!

Several weeks ago my 5-year-old computer--which up to that point had been performing reasonably well--became infected with a series of nasty viruses that made the machine all but unusable. After much searching for help and labor, I'd get them cleaned off, only to have something else invade within a few days. My security software--two suites' worth--seemed incapable of keeping the system healthy. Ultimately, it became painfully obvious that the only effective solution would be to replace the computer entirely, which I reluctantly did. That meant going through all my files and programs (when the old computer would allow me to), saving to an external hard drive everything I wanted to keep, detaching the old machine and hooking up the new one, then painstakingly copying back onto it the old files, reinstalling what old programs I could and installing new ones, and configuring/reconfiguring EVERYTHING. All of that while trying to learn a new operating system. All this in the evenings and on weekends, including holidays. ARRGGHH!!!

On top of that, I had to buy a new mp3 player to replace my old iPod (that was left in a pants pocket and run through the washing machine while we were down in Florida in June to visit my parents and sister's family), and learning/configuring that and loading my music onto it--most of which had to be searched for and retrieved from the external hard drive. AND, my dear wife--the one who professes a deep antipathy toward computers and digital devices generally--decided she wanted an iPod Touch, which has a decidedly higher learning curve than your average simple mp3 player and even old iPod models. So, I've put in a good bit of time in the last week or so figuring out how to set up that little item.

Bottom line: no time for blogging in almost seven weeks! Now that I seem to have gained some degree of familiarity and control over the new computer, and have the new devices set up on a basic level, I hope to have more opportunity for blogging. So much has happened, here and in the world generally, since I've been "incapacitated"! How have you all managed to find your way without my inspiration and guidance? Well, take heart, friends--your sage counselor is back to impart his matchless wisdom and return humanity to Truth, Justice, and the American Way!

It IS getting a bit deep here, isn't it?

All Marriages are NOT Equal

As I write this, the New York legislature is considering a bill--introduced by Governor Andrew Cuomo this past Tuesday--that would make New York the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage. Thirty-one of 62 state senators have publicly indicated support, which means that the bill--already assured of passage in the Democrat-dominated Assembly--needs support from just one more senator to pass.

I'm sure my views on this subject won't matter to anyone in Albany, but I feel compelled to express them. I hate to see yet another chink in the social armor that is the family, and having it gouged out by my "own" state representatives. There is (and has been, since at least the 1960s) a war going on for the soul of America and the future of Western civilization, and homosexuality (or "same-sex," to use the more polite, politically-correct term) is one of its hottest battlegrounds. I recently "fought" a skirmish in that war on Facebook, pitting my younger, college-age son and his friends against me and my sister, over an article Colin posted favoring same-sex marriage and criticizing someone else's suggestion that its legalization would devalue traditional marriage. Fortunately, the discussion stayed pretty civil and we thanked each other for conducting it that way. I doubt any minds were changed at that time, but no one knows what may happen with a seed once planted.

I'll leave to the Lord any judgments about the immorality of homosexual conduct (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27). Many Christian believers oppose same-sex "marriage" on this ground, contending that it dignifies and elevates a profoundly sinful practice to the same status as the God-ordained institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and so denigrates that institution as well as its Author. I rather agree, but question how persuasive such an argument can be for non-believers, who now make up an increasingly large if not a majority portion of the population. Perhaps a more broadly acceptable ground of objection is the adverse effect on individual, family, and social health, over time, of "equalizing" in people's minds and in the law heterosexual with homosexual and other abnormal types of relationships.

Marriage between one man and one woman is an institution, established over millennia among the vast majority of the world's peoples, designed to create and nurture children in a stable family structure where they can learn from both genders how to be healthy, confident, well-balanced, and giving adults with a normal heterosexual identity, able to provide the same guidance to their own children, and so on down through the generations. Civilized society needs individuals and families like this not only to thrive, but to survive. This is why traditional heterosexual marriage has long been favored in culture, protected under the law, and consecrated by religious institutions. No other type of relationship or "family" structure, particularly homosexual, can effectively perform these functions.

But if we accord the same dignity and grant the same legal rights and benefits to people in homosexual and other "alternative family" relationships, including polygamy and incest, traditional marriage and family will come to be regarded as no better than they are--as just another "lifestyle choice"--and will thus lose their place in society as the standard on which future generations and a healthy, stable civilization depend. In the prevailing climate of political correctness, the equality of all relationships and "family" structures will be celebrated and endorsed in popular culture, and enforced by governments. Over time, without effective support by law, schools, religious institutions, and culture, the unique and indispensable value of traditional heterosexual marriage and family will become widely denied, obscured and forgotten. Such arrangements will be seen as a quaint relic at best, or as personally stifling and socially irresponsible at worst. Heterosexual relationships, loosed from the values and obligations that traditional marriage imposes, will become increasingly transitory and unstable, and ineffective to nurture or teach children what they need to know about themselves and others to become well-adjusted members of a strong, productive society. Steeped in a culture of moral boundlessness and self-gratification, and without clear guidance and modeling by a man and a woman working together to build a lasting family unit, young people will remain confused about their sexual identities and impulses, and spend their lives drifting in and out of relationships of all kinds--with catastrophic personal and social consequences.

It must be acknowledged that the contemporary decline of traditional marriage and family cannot be laid solely, or even primarily, at the feet of homosexuals. To this point, heterosexual immorality and infidelity to values and commitments--encouraged, to be sure, by a depraved popular culture--have probably done much more damage to the family than have relationships between gay people. But the answer to this crisis is a restoration of moral values and a culture of monogamous heterosexual marriage and family, not promoting relationships that are simply incapable of doing for society and for future generations what the traditional family can do.

Today, homosexuality and homosexual relationships are generally tolerated in society, and even celebrated in the arts, entertainment, and academia. Current laws favoring traditional marriage and family do not prevent gay people from loving each other, from making homes together, from bequeathing their property to each other, or from expressing their sexual identities. New York and many other states already have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in most commercial and life activities. Even many conservatives don't object to the enactment of some form of civil union that secures to gay couples most of the same personal rights and legal benefits as are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. So, is the relentless pursuit of absolute "equality" between straight and gay marriage just about being able to claim the title of "married"? Is it just about being able to "feel equal"? Or is the real, long-range agenda--at least among homosexual/bisexual/transgender activists--to legally redefine and repurpose the family, to bring more children into gay homes through adoption (which is already skyrocketing and being aggressively promoted by the Obama administration), or in other ways to help indoctrinate young people to embrace homosexuality?

My views were recently given voice by Richard Waghorne, a commentator for the Irish Daily Mail who is himself a homosexual. Mr. Waghorne warned that “selfish” attempts to introduce same-sex marriage are in reality “a demand for marriage to be redefined.”

Marriage is vital as a framework within which children can be brought up by a man and woman. Not all marriages, of course, involve child-raising. And there are also, for that matter, same-sex couples already raising children. But the reality is that marriages tend towards child-raising and same-sex partnerships do not.

. . . So the question that matters is this: Why should a gay relationship be treated the same way as a marriage, despite this fundamental difference? A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures. This is certainly not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution.

. . . If gay couples are considered equally eligible for marriage, even though gay relationships do not tend towards child-raising and cannot by definition give a child a mother and a father, the crucial understanding of what marriage is actually mainly for has been discarded. What that amounts to is the kind of marriage that puts adults before children. That, in my opinion, is ultimately selfish, and far too high a price to pay simply for the token gesture of treating opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships identically.

Another worrisome aspect of the "marriage equality" crusade is the platform its success would give activists to muzzle the defenders of traditional marriage and family. Although the bill currently before the New York legislature purportedly protects clergy and churches from being required to perform or host same-sex marriage ceremonies, I question whether politicians will be able to resist future demands by gay partisans that churches and other organizations resisting the tide of same-sex equality lose their tax-exempt status for "discrimination;" that Catholic Charities and other religious social service agencies be forced to participate in "gay adoptions" or risk being barred from their work; and that anyone who publicly expresses disapproval of homosexuality, gay marriage, or the like on religious grounds will face prosecution for hate speech. These things are already happening in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain.

One's stance on the issue of same-sex marriage should not be all about open- or close-mindedness as, or toward, individuals. Nor should it turn only on abstract notions of "equality" or "justice," "privacy" or "freedom" of individuals or groups. At some point, the long-range needs of society and its members as a whole need to be weighed in the balance at least as heavily. As a society, we have no duty to embrace, endorse, encourage, honor, celebrate, or sanctify every lifestyle or relationship that individuals or groups want or feel a need for, no matter how sincere they may be.

I'm not worried that the mere existence of gay marriage will lead increasing numbers of people to "become" gay. Rather, the deleterious effect of same-sex marriage would be its gaining equal dignity with traditional marriage, and the eventual confusion this would engender in the minds of children--who become adults--about what a real (i.e., nuclear, two-parent, two-gender) "family" is and needs to be.

All individuals may be created equal in the eyes of God, but that is not true of all domestic arrangements and lifestyles. In terms of society's most fundamental needs, some really are "better" than others.

When Every Day is Memorial Day

NOTE: I had planned to post this on Sunday May 29, but a sudden and near-disastrous virus infection of my home computer over the weekend put me out of action for a few days. Thankfully, the problem is now mostly resolved. But I didn't want Memorial Day to pass too far without an acknowledgment of those left behind, who have to pick up the pieces and march on every day, after a hero falls.

On Memorial Day, we remember and honor those who have given their lives while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. Solemn ceremonies, military salutes, and the playing of Taps in quiet cemeteries are the order of the day (at least among those who still care what this day is supposed to be about). We think about the fallen heroes and the ultimate sacrifice they made to keep us safe and our country strong and free.

But how much thought and care do we give their survivors--a spouse, children, siblings, parents, even friends? After the funerals and the remembrance ceremonies are over, the rest of us go back to our daily lives and cares. But for those close to one who has died in service to his or her country, every day is Memorial Day--and most of those days aren't enlivened with parades and picnics. They're just like any other day, except that the gaping hole in the survivor's life never goes away--the heartache and loneliness, especially for family members, abides forever. The survivor must go on living life, but somehow manage without the emotional and practical support, the comfort and the guidance, of the one suddenly snatched away.

It's now two days past Memorial Day 2011. Before it fades completely from our memories, let's commit to helping the survivors of fallen service members in some concrete way, as by joining or donating generously to military support organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), United Service Organization (USO), or Freedom Is Not Free, just to name a few (see a list of additional such organizations here). If you're personally acquainted with or related to a survivor, of course the very best way to help is to let him or her know that you're there for whatever and whenever their need may be. If you don't know a survivor, getting involved in an effort or organization aiding military families will almost certainly lead you to some.

*****
Something that always reminds me poignantly of the military survivor's plight is the great Statler Brothers' song (1977) Silver Medals and Sweet Memories. It tells the story of a young American bride and mother-to-be who lost her husband in World War II, and--together with her child--carried on in loving remembrance without him, the rest of her life. My eyes brim every time I hear it (lyrics below video):

Just a picture on a table
Just some letters Mama saved
And a costume broach from England
On the back it has engraved:
To Eileen, I love you
London, nineteen forty-three.
And she never heard from him again
And he never heard of me

And the war still ain't over for Mama
Every night in her dreams she still sees
The young face of someone who left her
Silver medals and sweet memories

In Mama's bedroom closet
To this day on her top shelf
There's a flag folded three-cornered
Layin' all by itself
And the sergeant would surely be honored
To know how pretty she still is
And that after all these lonely years
His Eileen's still his

And the war still ain't over for Mama
Every night in her dreams she still sees
The young face of someone who left her
Silver medals and sweet memories

(Pennsylvania) Dutch Treat

Recently Melany and I were able to get away for a few days to that beautiful area known as the Pennsylvania Dutch country (for a good description of the geography, history, and culture of this area, click here; for a good tourist portal, click here) around Lancaster, Pennsylvania. It was spring-break week for Melany, and since her school bus driving work prevented her from accompanying me on a family visit to Florida in March, she came up with the idea of this trip as something we could do together when she finally got a few days' vacation. It's remarkable how refreshing and fun a short road trip like this can be for a couple, at least when things go well, as they did on this occasion (and when they don't go so well, you treat it as a God-sent test of your patience, faith, and love!).

Armed with a GPS device that we received for Christmas, and which we'd never used before on a real road trip, we shoved off early Wednesday morning, April 20. We were blessed to escape the heavy rains that fell that day on western New York, and had a pleasant drive down New York State Route 17 and U.S. Route 15 through the Allegheny Mountains and along the beautiful Susquehanna River. We arrived at our initial destination, Ephrata, Pennsylvania, shortly after noon, couldn't find the local eatery we were looking for, and finally decided to have lunch at an Applebee's we happened upon (on a Christmas gift card from my parents--thanks, Mom and Dad!). With a couple of hours to spend before we could check into our nearby bed & breakfast, we headed to the cultural heart and namesake of the town, called Ephrata Cloister.

Located on several quiet, shaded acres at the center of town, Ephrata Cloister is one of America's oldest religious communities. It was founded in 1732 by Conrad Beissel of Eberbach, Germany, who fled the violent religious conflicts and persecutions of 17th-century Germany in search of solitude and closeness to God in the New World. He didn't find the solitude he was looking for; instead, like-minded people found him. According to a good Wikipedia article about the Cloister:

Around this charismatic leader a semi-monastic community (the Camp of the Solitary) with a convent (the Sister House) and a monastery (the Brother House) was established called Ephrata. The members of the order were celibate. In addition to celibacy, the members believed in strict interpretation of the Bible, and self-discipline. Members were required to sleep on wooden benches 15 inches (380 mm) wide, with wooden blocks for pillows. They slept six hours per night, from 9 P.M. to midnight, and from 2 A.M. until 5 A.M., with a two-hour break to "watch" for the coming of Christ. They ate one small vegetarian meal a day. The only time the followers of Beissel were permitted to eat meat was during the celebration of communion when lamb was served. The members of the cloister spent much time at work or praying privately. Services every Saturday were led by Beissel, often being several hours long.

That's quite the regimen! The "Solitary" brothers and sisters also wore nearly-identical white robes and slippers, indoors and out. There were other, more "normal" members of the community, however:

Other believing families [called "householders"] settled near the community, accepted Beissel as their spiritual leader and worshipped with them on Sabbath. These families made an integral part to the cloister, which could not be self-sustaining without them. The brothers and sisters of Ephrata are famous for their writing and publishing of hymns, and the composition of tunes in four voices. Beissel served as the community's composer as well as spiritual leader, and devised his own system of composition.

The community's "dormitory" buildings were remarkable, as they soar four and five stories high--quite impressive for their time! It's remarkable, too, that they've survived almost 300 years virtually intact.



The indoor working areas, where the members engaged in writing, printing, art work, and music, as well as ate and slept, were very cramped and spare.



One amazing find during a 1998 archaeological excavation at the site, and which I saw on display in a small museum at the Cloister, is a glass trumpet, apparently from Germany, and the only one of its kind in North America. Its excellent condition led archaeologists to believe that it was intentionally buried, perhaps sometime during the 18th century.

Here's another remarkable item: a slipper found in an upstairs closet in the women's residence, which apparently had laid there undisturbed for more than two centuries:

Late Wednesday afternoon, we left the Cloister and drove a short distance to our bed & breakfast, a beautiful 1795 stone residence called the Kimmel House. The place is beautifully decorated in early American style; the owners, Dave and Bonnie Harvey, haven't missed a detail! Our room was furnished with lovely Shaker furniture, including a four-poster bed with an exquisite handmade canopy. Each day began with a delicious breakfast cooked by Bonnie. We were the only guests on the two days we were there, so we were the only ones at the dining table, but Bonnie chatted with us gave us lots of help with our day's plans.

After settling in at the Kimmel House and taking some rest, we hopped back into the car and drove a few miles to the village of Bird-in-Hand, where we had dinner at the Plain & Fancy Farm Restaurant. I chose this place based on my pre-trip Internet research, which has its limitations. It turned out that Plain & Fancy is housed in a rambling, rather modern building with an attached store full of made-in-China souvenirs, although there were some locally-produced items--kind of like a Pennsylvania Dutch-style Cracker Barrel, complete with non-Amish employees dressed in Amish-"inspired" uniforms! We could choose to eat "Family Style" and sit at a long table with other customers, passing around the plates, or personalized meals--we selected the latter. I was afraid that our meal was going to be as cheesy as the surroundings, but thankfully the food was very good and the service was friendly and capable. I had a traditional Pennsylvania Dutch meal of pork sausages (made on the premises), noodles with browned butter, pepper cabbage, dried sweet corn, and of course, shoo-fly pie for dessert! It was getting dark by the time we were done, so we drove back to the Kimmel House and relaxed in our room for the rest of the evening.

Following a marvelous breakfast Thursday morning, we spent a couple of hours touring shops in nearby Adamstown, Pennsylvania, known as the "Antiques Capital of the USA." Around noon we drove to the village of Lititz and visited the Julius Sturgis Pretzel Bakery, the first commercial pretzel bakery in America (est. 1861). The "tour" was a bit disappointing, but we learned about pretzel history and how to twist a pretzel by hand, bought several bags of pretzels (one of my very favorite snack foods!) in the attached store, and even savored a couple of hot, soft pretzels for lunch! After that we poked into several craft shops in Lititz, then headed down the road a few miles to the village of Intercourse. We explored several more shops there, especially The Old Country Store and The Village Pottery where I bought a nice mug made by a local Mennonite artisan. Then it was on to dinner at the nearby Stoltzfus Farm Restaurant. In contrast to the Plain & Fancy Farm Restaurant where we ate the night before, the Stoltzfus place was located on a working farm in what was once a real farmhouse, unconnected with any store, and had a much quieter, more authentic atmosphere in a warm and inviting dining room. The meal was served family-style, but we arrived somewhat early and had a table to ourselves. Once again we had a traditional Pennsylvania Dutch meal, this time including ham loaf, sausages, fried chicken, pepper cabbage, chow-chow, potato stuffing, corn, and for dessert, shoo-fly pie (me) and pumpkin roll (Melany). The food and atmosphere were excellent--while we ate, Melany watched a little Amish boy out in the nearby fields playing with his dog!

After dinner, we decided to spend the remaining couple of daylight hours driving along the back roads through the countryside. This turned out to be the most interesting and fun part of our trip! Since the only printed maps I had of the area were pretty sketchy, our GPS unit was the only thing that enabled us to cut loose and still find our way back to the Kimmel House. As the sun slowly settled toward the horizon, we drove over and around the hills in the heart of Amish country, past many beautiful old farms--some with houses and barns obviously a century or more old (many of these places have been in the same family since the 1700s!). Family members of all ages and both genders were often out in the fields and barns working, even when the sunlight was almost gone. In these surroundings, seeing people live and work in the same clothes and using the same tools as people did two centuries ago, I felt transported back in time in a more compelling way than ever before!



We had two especially interesting experiences during this jaunt. We saw a group of mules or donkeys (I can never remember which is which) cavorting in a field near the road, apparently just after having been unhitched from a plough. We stopped to watch them, at which moment a group of cows in a field on the other side of the road galloped up to the fence to see what the fuss was all about. When was the last time you saw a cow gallop (are Amish-raised cows more alert and active than others?)? They made a hilarious sight jostling each other at the fence for a place in my picture!

We drove around a while longer. Just as the sun was setting and we started thinking about heading back to our B&B, we happened by a house near the road with a small sign announcing a scrapbooking-and-quilt store inside. Needless to say, we HAD to stop and check it out--and it was the best shop we visited the whole trip! Called Farmhouse Memories (no web site yet), it's run by a very nice lady named Rachel (write or call us, if you'd like, for the address and phone). She and Melany hit it off instantly--to hear them gab on about scrabooking, sewing, fabric, crafts, children, etc., you'd think they had known each other for 20 years! Up to that point Melany hadn't found in the other stores we'd visited much she liked at the right prices, but all that changed in Rachel's little shop! We even got to meet her little nephew, who showed us some cards he had made (very skillfully, too--we even bought some!). We were in there the better part of an hour, but finally parted feeling like we had made a new friend, not just found a store we liked. How often do you have an experience like that?

By this time, it was getting pretty dark, so we decided to go straight (in a manner of speaking; our route was anything but) back to the Kimmel House. Put to its greatest challenge, as we were out in the middle of farm country in the dark with no clue how to get back, the GPS performed flawlessly! Sometimes technology really can be a blessing!

Friday morning, after another of Bonnie's magnificent breakfasts, we decided to forego visiting the huge and rather crowded Green Dragon Farmers Market & Auction, there in Ephrata, and proceed on to Buffalo to pick up our dog Frank and cat Chloe from our son Rob's house, where they'd been staying during our trip. It was a long drive (7+ hours), but we had great fun chatting about our delightful visit to Pennsylvania Dutch Country (let us know if you'd like to make a trek there, and we'll supply you with all kinds of information and brochures)!

Change We Can Believe In

As you know, the Obama administration and its media allies are heavily into Change. And they've really topped themselves in the wake of the (alleged) hit on Osama bin Laden, serving up a dizzying variety of stories about how it happened that shift more actively the Arabian sands. Here's a sampling of the "facts" that I've heard put forward in the last few days, most from government officials and spokespersons, others from various media outlets and supposed witnesses. It was fun, in a perverse sort of way, putting this list together:

• Osama lived in the house for two years. Five years. Six years.
• The residence was an air-conditioned, fortified mansion. It was a seedy, un-airconditioned blockhouse.
• The house had no Internet service. The house had Internet service.
• Osama was actively directing Al-Qaeda. He was not actively directing Al-Qaeda.
• The mission was to kill him. The mission was to take him alive.
• The Pakistanis helped in the raid. They knew about it but didn't help. They didn't know.
• There was a big firefight. There was a little firefight. There was no firefight.
• Osama resisted. He didn't resist.
• He fired back. He was unarmed.
• His associates in the house fired back. One of them was armed but didn't shoot. None of them were armed.
• Osama's wife called to him by name. She didn't call to him. Somebody else called to him. Nobody called to him.
• He hid behind his wife. He didn't hide behind his wife. She was somebody else's wife. Sister. Daughter. Niece. Servant.
  
• She was killed. Wounded. Unharmed.
• There was no woman near him.
• Osama was shot and then captured. He was captured and then shot.
• He was shot in the forehead. In the temple. In the chest. Some of the above. All of the above.
• He died Sunday afternoon (EST). Sunday evening. Last week.
• The DNA identification took several days. Several hours. Several minutes.
• The President saw the whole thing on live video. He didn't see the whole thing. He didn't see anything.
• We'll release a photo of his corpse. We won't release a photo of his corpse.
• Sen. Brown saw the real photos, which prove that Osama is dead.
• Sen. Brown saw fake photos--but we don't need the real ones to know that Osama is dead.
• Al-Qaeda is still strong. Al-Qaeda is dead.
• The war on terror isn't over. The war on terror is virtually over.

Here's another manifestation of this phenomenon--Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in a press conference on September 7, 2006:

[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.

Nancy Pelosi May 2, 2011:

The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .

If you, too are heavily into Change, you've gotta be loving this. Or spinning your head around like Linda Blair.

A New Royal FAMILY!

I know that guys aren't supposed to pay any attention to such stuff, but I was enthralled by last week's "Royal Wedding" uniting Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine ("Kate") Middleton, now Duchess of Cambridge. I was only able to see Kate's arrival at Westminster Abbey and her walk down the aisle to the altar, and the singing of Guide Me O Thou Great Redeemer (one of my favorite hymns) before I had to leave home for work. But I was later able to see the entire spectacle, including the wedding ceremony itself, on YouTube.

Many Americans dismissed the wedding as silly and irrelevant, but not me. Being a history enthusiast and a romantic, I'm naturally absorbed by any event that features an ancient land and culture, breathtaking architecture (Westminster Abbey and Buckingham Palace), stirring music, colorful military regalia, a dashing young nobleman, a beautiful young lady, an Archbishop (of Canterbury), dukes and earls, several Princes, a Queen, and so on. Great Britain is America's mother country and the ultimate source of our language, literature, and legal institutions, so what happens there is, or should be, of great interest to us. And who can forget the heroic, solitary struggle of the British against the Axis in the early years of World War Two, under the leadership of the redoubtable Winston S. Churchill?

Even more compelling to me was the hope, perhaps even the promise, of a new Royal FAMILY (emphasis on the latter word) to model love, nurturing, and self-sacrifice for Britain and the whole world. Can you imagine these things actually becoming fashionable? Few indeed are the couples who can uplift a whole people, and promote family-building, society-strengthening values, just by being good spouses and parents. William and Kate (I'll dispense with their royal titles) have a chance to do so, and I just get the feeling that they might pull it off. The United Kingdom (UK) and the whole Western world desperately need a shining example of family strength. British royals of the recent and more distant past haven't done a very good job of this--Queen Victoria and Prince Albert being a notable exception, at least for a while--but something about Kate and William makes me more hopeful.

Maybe it's the aura of graceful self-confidence that Kate projects; she impresses me as a mature woman in command of herself and her life (in contrast to the fragile vulnerability of William's mother Diana at the time of her marriage), yet generous and sensitive to others, not self-absorbed or vain. She comes from a middle class family with roots (on her mother's side) in England's coal-mining country; what wealth her parents have was earned in their own start-up business, not inherited. She and her siblings and parents seem to have a harmonious relationship. Kate even showed a bit of maternal instinct when she bent down to console one of her toddler bridesmaids who became upset during "The Kiss" on the Buckingham Palace balcony, as Royal Air Force planes flew over and the crowd became deafening. And she positively beams in the "official" wedding pictures with all those children around her and William. At the same time, she's shown some iron in dealing with the paparazzi, and I believe would fight to maintain a normal family life and keep William "on the reservation," much more effectively than Diana could with Prince Charles.

Another positive aspect of the couple's relationship is its endurance over nearly a decade; they even "broke up" at least once, but reconciled some months later. They know each other well and didn't give up on each other, despite their differences, so should be unusually well-prepared for the realities of marriage. They had years to reflect and weigh what they would give up and what they would gain by marrying, what burdens they would have to shoulder and and what joys they would have. Despite all they've already been through, in public they still seem entirely familiar, natural, and affectionate with each other, and so already exhibit many characteristics of a happily married couple.

I'm not completely naive; I'm aware of the widespread speculation that William and Kate have "known" each other in the, ahem, "Biblical" sense, for some time. Assuming such rumors are true, however, I likewise don't dismiss out of hand the possibility that they came to recognize this as a dead-end street, and that there was a much richer life awaiting them as husband and wife. If the demands of their station and the corrosive effects of modern culture don't overwhelm them, I like to think that they'll embrace the life they've chosen and continue to grow in maturity and wisdom.

I also like to think that the promise of this new family was well expressed in the sermon delivered at the wedding ceremony by Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London:

In a sense every wedding is a royal wedding with the bride and the groom as king and queen of creation, making a new life together so that life can flow through them into the future.

William and Catherine, you have chosen to be married in the sight of a generous God who so loved the world that he gave himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

And in the Spirit of this generous God, husband and wife are to give themselves to each another.

* * * *

I pray that God will bless you in the way of life that you have chosen, that way which is expressed in the prayer that you have composed together in preparation for this day:

God our Father, we thank you for our families; for the love that we share and for the joy of our marriage.
In the busyness of each day keep our eyes fixed on what is real and important in life and help us to be generous with our time and love and energy. Strengthened by our union help us to serve and comfort those who suffer. We ask this in the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Amen.

So, please forgive me if I choose to believe in this particular Fairy Tale. If we never believed in fairy tales, none would ever have a chance of coming true. It would be so inspiring, and so good for the UK and the West, if this one did.

One more thing, ladies: