Jonathan's blog

On Saturday evening we attended a birthday party at the gymnastics center. Here are some videos:

In his commentary on The Minor Prophets, James Montgomery Boice summarizes a book by Robert Anderson

Robert Anderson wrote one of the most original and stimulating books have read. It is called The Silence of God. It asked why in our time, if God is as omnipresent, omniscient, and caring for us as we imagine Him to be, He does not speak. He spoke in the past through prophets. From time to time there was even a voice from heaven. Certainly we would like to hear God speak today. In a number of penetrating chapters Anderson presents how even strong believers would like a whisper of explanation in moments of personal suffering, a pointed, directing word in crisis, a shout of vindication when non-Christians seem to have the upper hand. Yet God does not speak. We refer to the four hundred silent years that intervened between the words of God through Malachi and the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. But since the time of Jesus nearly two thousand years (five times the other silent period) have gone by. Why is God silent? Why does God of all the universe not speak? Anderson answers that God has already spoken everything that can probably be spoken graciously. Jesus is the ultimate, final word of God in that area. Not a syllable can be added. The only words that remain to be spoken are the final words of judgment. And God is silent now because, when He speaks audibly again, that judgment will come.

Is that a convincing explanation? Why is God silent? Or maybe you don't think he's silent, but whispering instead. If so, why doesn't he speak louder?

Some of this week's TV recommendations from The Week magazine:

• Independent Lens: Motherland Afghanistan, Tue 10 PM PBS
• Breakfast at Tiffany's, Wed, 8 PM TCM
• Mash, Sun, 8 PM, FMC
• The State Within, Sat-Sun , Sat Feb 24 BBC America
• Longford, Sat 8 PM HBO
• Planet Carnivore, Sun 9 PM National Geographic Channel

On Saturday afternoon we went sledding with some friends at City Forest. Here are a few photos and videos:

From an article of the same title by Ray Rivera in the NY Times:

As he prepares for a possible run for president - a road that goes deep into the heart of conservative America - Rudolph W. Giuliani takes with him a belief in abortion rights that many think could derail his bid to capture the Republican nomination. But in recent weeks, as he has courted voters in South Carolina and talked to conservative media outlets, Mr. Giuliani has highlighted a different element of his thinking on the abortion debate. He has talked about how he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the Supreme Court - what abortion rights advocates say is code among conservatives for those who seek to overturn or limit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling declaring a constitutional right to abortion. The effect has been to distance himself from a position favoring abortion rights that he espoused when he ran for mayor of New York City, where most voters favor abortion rights. "I hate it," he said of abortion in a recent interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News. "I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against. However, I believe in a woman's right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that."

Those who have followed Mr. Giuliani's career say he is unlikely to undergo a radical shift in his views in the manner of Mitt Romney, a Republican rival and former Massachusetts governor who advocated abortion rights until about two years ago. Fred Siegel, author of "Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life," said Mr. Giuliani would likely be careful to avoid anything perceived as a flip-flop on the issue. "Part of his appeal is that he doesn't bend in the wind," he said. But Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, said Mr. Giuliani's position was even more offensive than that of someone who believes abortion is morally acceptable. "To say I think it's morally wrong, but I think it's a woman's choice is like saying I'm opposed to segregation but it ought to be left up to the store owner to decide," Mr. Land said. "That's a preference, not a conviction."

Andrew Sullivan has a different take on Giuliani, that he isn't shifting to satisfy the party base but that he is taking the reasonable view that such divisive issues should be decided on a state level. Mitt Romney seems to be becoming the posterchild for someone whose convictions are shaped by his politics and not the other way around...a flip-flopper. Kathleen Parker had a recent column emphasizing that what is sometimes characterized as flip-flopping is really changing ones mind based on careful study and contemplation, that kind of thing that a leader should be prepared to do. We have plenty examples lately the inability to admit mistakes or adjust course early enough leads to bad situations getting even worse. So that's the rub...as we evaluate our leaders and potential leaders, we have to suss out (h/t for vocab expansion: Scott Freeman) whether they are stubbornly determined and unwilling to deviate from a path we happen to support even when common sense says otherwise or are they willing to change their mind sometimes in a direction different from ours or are they simply a flip-flopper that happens to currently speaking words we like at the current moment...and which of those types of people we prefer to have running our country.