Saturday, December 15, 2007

Christmas and Eschatology

I have been told many times that there is an apparent "war on Christmas", that secularists and liberals are trying to run Christmas out of the public sphere. I am also told that secularist engineers are recklessly encouraging American retailers to sweep the term "Christmas" under the rug so as not to offend their base of customers. Congress has even passed a resolution affirming Christianity as "a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, [and] is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world."

In this post, I want to offer a different perspective on America's "drift into secular monotony," as one prominent preacher has put it. I am persuaded that this "war" has much less to do with Christians being on the defensive as much as they are on the offensive. The current climate of dispensational eschatology has warped the Christian's triumphant spirit into an aggressive attack on anything non-Christmas, perceiving it as anti-Christmas, and that the appropriate response is to go on the defensive against it.

Dispensational eschatology, a la' Left Behind, really does not inspire the church to greatness. The eschatology essentially says that the church is going to wither up and shrink from the earth until there is a rapture that will come and rescue the few faithful remaining Christians from a horrible end. This overtly defeatist tone has pushed the church into a supposed corner and therefore it interprets itself as having to come out with tooth and claw borne so as to defend itself from secular humanist and atheistic attack.

According to the House resolution mentioned above, there are 225,000,000 Christians in America. Obviously then, Christians occupy a majority status on America. Of course we must account for nominal and carnal Christians, not to mention indifferent ones. Plus, there are the vocal minority that continuously claims that Christianity is being assaulted upon every street and avenue. Wither then the brave Christian?

We have picked and chosen the wrong enemy and it isn't the secular humanist or the atheist. Our adversary is still the devil and he gets great pleasure watching God's children flounder wasting their precious evangelistic time waging a war for Christmas. God has not called us to be culture warriors; rather, He has called us simply to be faithful. Persecution is something that should be expected; indeed we are blessed when persecuted (Matthew 5:11). If a "secular", a "liberal", or an atheist reviles Christmas, we should count our blessings, not get on the offensive, rattling our green and red sabers.

By recapturing the triumphalist tone of Christmas we can cause more good for the Savior than by marching to the drum beat of the culture warrior. Consider Isaac Watts' words in the second through fourth verses of Joy to the World, which ironically, really is not a Christmas hymn:

Joy to the World, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat, the sounding joy.

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders, of His love.

Notice just a few considerations and Scriptural reflections. Jesus is on the throne of David, has been, and will continue to be (Acts 2:29-35).
"Joy to the World, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ..."
Mr. Watts also recognized Christ is extending His rule unto all the nations and is putting all His enemies under His feet (1 Corinthians 15:25-26).

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found...

As a final reflection, Watts realized that Christ's rule was "already" though still "not yet." The government indeed rests upon His shoulders and His rule would increase until consummated (Isaiah 9:6-7).

He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love...

Jesus rules as King of kings and Lord of lords. This is much reason for the Christian to celebrate Christmas yet to remember that Christ already reigns and does not need His rule spread by coercion or force, but by simple evangelistic witness. The eschatology of Christmas is not one of defensive market and media aggression but one of triumphant hope and a victory that has already been won.
In His days, the righteous shall flourish, and abundance of peace, until the moon is no more. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth. Those who dwell in the wilderness will bow before Him and His enemies will lick the dust. Psalm 72:7-9

30 comments:

Alexandra said...

Bless you my brother and I hope that God puts his hand and blesses you and your family.
Alex

fightingpreacher said...

Ok tony. I agree and disagree here. First, you dont make a very good baptist in not supporting the horrible theology of left behind or pre-trib rapture garbage. So here we agree. I disaree that we are not called to be culture warriors.

One of the ideas of Advancing the Kingdom of God is that of warfare specifically special operations warfare known as unconventional warfare. We have been inserted behind enemy lines (the world whose god is Satan) to lead an insurgency against an evil government. To do this we must identify, train, and activate potential turn coat people inside that evil system.

All in all as we win converts we slowly begin to change the culture hence a culture war.

Tony said...

Alex,

Thank you for the well-wishes. Many returns.

FP,

Thank you for first expressing some agreement before expressing disagreement. I appreciate that.

How exactly did you come to those conclusions about being a "culture warrior"?

Steve Sensenig said...

Jesus already defeated the lord of this world. It is not our duty to defeat him, but rather to proclaim the kingdom of God that has come. Our message is a message of victory, not a battle cry.

fightingpreacher said...

Tony we are called to Preach the Gospel in the whole world and to teach disciples all that Jesus has commanded us. This is a Culture War! It is the Culture of the Kingdom vs. th culture of this world. It is 2 worlds colliding. Inherently there is the sense that we are called to change the culture as we change people.

I could use the account in Genesis but you wouldnt accept the OT probably.

Tony said...

Steve,

I agree. In light of Scripture verses such as 1 John 5:4-5,And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. Who is he that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? and 1 Corinthians 15:57, But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

John and Paul agree and speak as the victory is already ours (and it is!) and not something we have to fight and strive for.

fightingpreacher said...

The victory has been one, but we are still to war adn fight...Ephesian 6:10 "We wrestle not with flesh and blood" Hence we still have an active part of this war.

For example in Desert Storm we had one the war before we even stepped into that country, but we still had to go in.

Steve Sensenig said...

I could use the account in Genesis but you wouldnt accept the OT probably.

FP, I know you weren't talking to me on this last comment, but I find your sarcasm quite inhibiting to serious conversation. Nevertheless, I will attempt to engage what you have written.

"We wrestle not with flesh and blood" Hence we still have an active part of this war.

But the very fact that it's not against flesh and blood means that we are not fighting our culture. The so-called "culture war" is about fighting against people who don't believe like we do. That is not what we are called to do.

Worse yet, the "culture war" is about us wanting to insist that unregenerate people live by the same moral code we live by, value the same things we value, say the same phrases we say, etc. That is such a ridiculous proposition.

Why would I expect a homosexual person to be at all interested in changing their sexual orientation just because I believe it's wrong?

Preach the message of Christ, and live out that example for others, and you will have an impact on the culture around you. But come out with fists clenched and your chest bared and looking for a fight, like your profile pic, and nothing is accomplished.

Incidentally, where do "turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", etc. fit into your philosophy, FP?

For example in Desert Storm we had one the war before we even stepped into that country, but we still had to go in.

What do you mean when you say "we had one [sic] the war"? I'm not sure I see the comparison between the US in Desert Storm and Jesus winning our victory for us.

fightingpreacher said...

Steve said
I could use the account in Genesis but you wouldnt accept the OT probably.

FP, I know you weren't talking to me on this last comment, but I find your sarcasm quite inhibiting to serious conversation. Nevertheless, I will attempt to engage what you have written.

***Steve it wasnt towards you so I wouldnt concern yourself with it. It was a reference back to an earlier comment...So chill out man.

"We wrestle not with flesh and blood" Hence we still have an active part of this war.

But the very fact that it's not against flesh and blood means that we are not fighting our culture. The so-called "culture war" is about fighting against people who don't believe like we do. That is not what we are called to do.

***Really so out of curosity who do those powers use? I mean do they wage war against us in the air with no physical application? I am not sure where you come up with the idea that we fight against people who dont believe like we do...cause that isnt a culture war. A culture war is the war between 2 opposing ideologies. So we being in tune with Gods ideology are warring agains the ideology of this world which is feed from the God of this world who is Satan.

Worse yet, the "culture war" is about us wanting to insist that unregenerate people live by the same moral code we live by, value the same things we value, say the same phrases we say, etc. That is such a ridiculous proposition.

***Yes I believe that people should live by our moral code. Every government does that. The Romans, the Greeks, Europe, and the US...incidently all Islamic Countries do it as well with their law...cant spell it but Shuria.

What is so ridiculous about saying you cant murder, you cant steal, you cant lie, you cant have a homosexual marriage? Regardless of your religious persuasion, what is so ridiculous?

Why would I expect a homosexual person to be at all interested in changing their sexual orientation just because I believe it's wrong?

***I dont expect anyone to change...God does that.

Preach the message of Christ, and live out that example for others, and you will have an impact on the culture around you. But come out with fists clenched and your chest bared and looking for a fight, like your profile pic, and nothing is accomplished.

***Funny, through Gods grace I have accomplished quite a bit...not to mention getting you to judge me...which incidently is against what the Bible teaches.

Incidentally, where do "turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", etc. fit into your philosophy, FP?

***The fit very well into my philosophy. I love my enemies and pray that the terrorist come to know the true God. But I am also intelligent enough to realize that the Bible tells us this group of people will always exist and will always cause the children of God trouble to the point of war. I wonder if many people really understand what it means to love our enemies? Turning the other cheek fits into my philosophy very well. For example I was in Chicago quite a few years ago and while preaching a man attacked me. Little did I know he was holding a knife until after the situation was over. What did I do? You and others assume you know me and judge me to be a violent man. So you think I beat the guy to a pulp. Well I put my hands up and told the man that God loved him and that his rage was a product of God convicting him. So continue to judge me wrongly...I am at peace with God.

I will respond about the Desert War stuff next.

fightingpreacher said...

Steves said

What do you mean when you say "we had one [sic] the war"? I'm not sure I see the comparison between the US in Desert Storm and Jesus winning our victory for us.

It is an analogy. Here it is. In Desert Storm we were going to go to war with Iraq. Was there any doubt we were going to win? No! Was there any question that they were going to wear us out? No! Was there any chance that we were going to take any significant causalties? No! Did we still have to invade? Yes! Even though victory was secured prior to our military entry did we still have to go and fight? Yes!


It is an analogy. In this spiritual battle we are engaged with a spiritual enemy. Is there any doubt we are going to win? No! Is there any question that Satan is going to wear us out? No! Is there any chance that we are going to take any significant causalties? No! Do we still have to invade this World with the Gospel? Yes! Even though our victory was secured at the cross prior to our birth do we still have to go and fight? Yes!

It is a military analogy I know...but key term there is it is an analogy...I.E. picture of truth.

Tony said...

John,

I will attempt to respond but not in like fashion. Your rhetorical style is fretful and I really don't want to engage in tit-for-tat one-upmanship with you again.

You have challenged my approach to the OT...fair enough. I approach the OT Christocentrically. I interpret all the OT as how Christ has fulfilled all the law. I look to a NT referent in all the OT passages and how that OT passage played out and was fulfilled by the New.

The Sermon on the Mount is my guide, where Jesus said, "You have heard it said...but I say unto you..." Christ set aside what God the Father said to ancient Israel and replaced it with much more stringent teachings. Now this did not happen with all the OT, but I look to how Christ fulfilled each portion of the OT and then go from there.

As far as culture warriors, I object to that idea. Steve makes a very valid point, that we don't wrestle against flesh and blood. Paul is clearly talking about spiritual warfare, which is not conducted here, on the ground. It is conducted on our knees, in the spiritual realm--I fail to see a consistent hermeneutic on your part in that passage. I believe that you would interpret that passage metaphorically; we aren't literally putting on a "belt" of truth or a literal "breastplate" of righteousness but then you switch gears mid-stream. The "flesh and blood" that we are to wrestle quickly become literal--real--to you so as to justify a "war" and you telescope that interpretation into Desert Storm.

I cannot see the congruency. When I made the statement in the original post, God has not called us to be culture warriors; rather, He has called us simply to be faithful, there is no Scriptural, particularly NT justification that we are to wage war against our culture.

What you have presented is your own version of militarism read back into the Scriptures, and it informs every position you have.

Over the past year, I have been stripping away--at least trying--all of my preconceived ideas, notions, biases, theologies, etc. and suspend judgment about any position until I have formulated a position from Scripture. I have changed some, some have been strengthened.

I try (at first) to ignore theology, history, etc. until I discover what the Scripture says first. It has been extremely difficult. This has been my interpretive method, not that I ignore what other great writers and thinkers before me have said, but that I see what God's heart and mind is on it first. And I don't have a lot of this stuff figured out. The deeper I get into the Word, the more abased I feel.

So--did Jesus take up arms against the Roman government? No. Did He command us to take up arms? No. Did any of the apostles do the same? No. Did Paul? No. The way they changed their culture was by spreading the Gospel. Numerous references in the book of Acts support this position. They didn't get on the offensive with any people group but rather shared the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit and let God do His great work.

I will say this in conclusion. You are not going to find any agreement here for your positions. If I am reading you correctly, you're desire is to see yourself declared "right" and me and my readers declared "wrong"; a capitulation on our part. That is the mindset of a warrior, no? So, cut and paste all you want, but I truly do not wish to continue sparring with you. Your passion and vehemence are admirable, but they do not automatically make you right. I respect your positions, and I ask that you do likewise.

As I said before, there are thousands upon thousands of blogs that desire a firefight upon every post. I don't. So, my suggestion is that you find one of those; you stumbled upon mine easy enough, perhaps you can find someone who really wants to be taken to task over every one of his positions.

God bless, John. Have a blessed week.

fightingpreacher said...

Alright Steve and Tony...is your desire simply to post and have everyone just agree with you? If so I will leave and not come back. But if you wish to be challenge and take your beliefs through the tests of fire associated with throwing out your opinions.

fightingpreacher said...

John,


You have challenged my approach to the OT...fair enough. I approach the OT Christocentrically. I interpret all the OT as how Christ has fulfilled all the law. I look to a NT referent in all the OT passages and how that OT passage played out and was fulfilled by the New.
***Jesus states he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. The OT teaches about the Character of God and you can’t abolish it simply because Jesus came.

The Sermon on the Mount is my guide, where Jesus said, "You have heard it said...but I say unto you..." Christ set aside what God the Father said to ancient Israel and replaced it with much more stringent teachings. Now this did not happen with all the OT, but I look to how Christ fulfilled each portion of the OT and then go from there.

As far as culture warriors, I object to that idea. Steve makes a very valid point, that we don't wrestle against flesh and blood. Paul is clearly talking about spiritual warfare, which is not conducted here, on the ground. It is conducted on our knees, in the spiritual realm--I fail to see a consistent hermeneutic on your part in that passage. I believe that you would interpret that passage metaphorically; we aren't literally putting on a "belt" of truth or a literal "breastplate" of righteousness but then you switch gears mid-stream. The "flesh and blood" that we are to wrestle quickly become literal--real--to you so as to justify a "war" and you telescope that interpretation into Desert Storm.
***I totally agree that it is clearly speaking of Spiritual Warfare. But Spiritual Warfare is manifested in the flesh right? Every time spiritual warfare is mentioned there is an Earthy portion too it. Daniel and the princes, in the book of Jude with Michael coming for the body of Moses, etc.

I cannot see the congruency. When I made the statement in the original post, God has not called us to be culture warriors; rather, He has called us simply to be faithful, there is no Scriptural, particularly NT justification that we are to wage war against our culture.

What you have presented is your own version of militarism read back into the Scriptures, and it informs every position you have.
***My friend I don’t have to read militarism back into the writings of Paul. There is more military euphemism in the NT than any other subject next to the Law.

Over the past year, I have been stripping away--at least trying--all of my preconceived ideas, notions, biases, theologies, etc. and suspend judgment about any position until I have formulated a position from Scripture. I have changed some, some have been strengthened.
***How can you formulate any position until you understand the linguistic, grammatical, historical, general (Testament), and immediate (book) context?

I try (at first) to ignore theology, history, etc. until I discover what the Scripture says first. It has been extremely difficult. This has been my interpretive method, not that I ignore what other great writers and thinkers before me have said, but that I see what God's heart and mind is on it first. And I don't have a lot of this stuff figured out. The deeper I get into the Word, the more abased I feel.

So--did Jesus take up arms against the Roman government? No. Did He command us to take up arms? No. Did any of the apostles do the same? No. Did Paul? No. The way they changed their culture was by spreading the Gospel. Numerous references in the book of Acts support this position. They didn't get on the offensive with any people group but rather shared the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit and let God do His great work.

***No and nowhere in any of my post on the culture war do I espouse such a position. IF you will go back and read I clearly stated that the culture war in that God views aren’t the views of this world and as we win people we conquer the world view and make it a God view.

I will say this in conclusion. You are not going to find any agreement here for your positions. If I am reading you correctly, you're desire is to see yourself declared "right" and me and my readers declared "wrong"; a capitulation on our part. That is the mindset of a warrior, no? So, cut and paste all you want, but I truly do not wish to continue sparring with you. Your passion and vehemence are admirable, but they do not automatically make you right. I respect your positions, and I ask that you do likewise.
***You are not reading it correctly since right from the beginning I agree and disagree with you.

As I said before, there are thousands upon thousands of blogs that desire a firefight upon every post. I don't. So, my suggestion is that you find one of those; you stumbled upon mine easy enough, perhaps you can find someone who really wants to be taken to task over every one of his positions.

God bless, John. Have a blessed week.

fightingpreacher said...

Another question. Where is the Eschatology in this conversation? I havent seen anything concerning the endtimes.

fightingpreacher said...

You know I have been on Streaks blog and your blog now for a couple of weeks. Even though we have left this conversation behind I find it in every single post and every single blog on your page and his.

You guys kept assuming that in my views masculinity meant violence.

But I will tell you a characteristic of masculinity that I find lacking in the church. It is thick skin. I have noticed that women are more senstive in nature and that men are more rough in nature or another way to say it is that women are like water...smooth and flowing and men are like earth rough and static. Of course this is a generalazation but it is something I have noticed especially in dealing with my sons verses dealing with my daughter.

fightingpreacher said...

man I forgot to sum that up. So i think a characteristic of masculinity (not by any stretch the only) is a thick skin.

Steve Sensenig said...

I wonder if many people really understand what it means to love our enemies?

So, what does it mean?

You and others assume you know me and judge me to be a violent man.

Oh, so when you say that real men are always looking for a fight, you mean that in a very non-violent way?

If you don't want to be judged as a violent man, drop the "tough guy" approach in your comments and change your profile pic.

By the way, I don't assume that I know anything. I'm simply responding to what you have written. You seem to assume that you know a lot about what I'm assuming.

*ring*
"Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."

Alright Steve and Tony...is your desire simply to post and have everyone just agree with you?

Uhhh, where did I say that?

Tony said...

John,

Seriously, I have spent a long time cultivating a friendly Internet community with people whom I have grown to trust and appreciate. Men like Steve Sensenig, Streak, and Steve S (not to mention several others who have emailed me and said they would love to comment and talk with me about a post but refuse because of the "fighting preacher") have become steadfast friends in the blogosphere. Our relationship extends beyond "You said..." and "Well, you said..."

We spend time talking to one another and not talking down to one another.

We converse, weigh one another's opinions and theological positions and decide--nothing against the other's character. Plus, we do it in a friendly, amiable, graceful tone. I admitted the Godmen post was over the top, and I apologized. Get beyond that, OK?

You guys kept assuming that in my views masculinity meant violence. Come on, John. No, what I said and again, you seem to know a lot about what people assume, is that you want us to prescribe to your brand of masculinity. Sorry. I cannot and I will not.

is your desire simply to post and have everyone just agree with you? No, and I think if you really read and interacted you would know that.

You don't have a desire to dialogue. And my hide is a lot tougher than you give me credit. Just because I don't want to continue to take your guff doesn't make me weak.

fightingpreacher said...

Steve, nowhere did I say that real men are always looking for a fight!

Hopefully tony will back me on that.

Steve Sensenig said...

FP,

Elsewhere, Tony quoted the premises of The Movement That Shall Not Be Named as the following:

The movement assumes:

1) Men need a battle.
2) Men need weapons/tools to fight with
3) Men need to be taught how to use the weapons
4) The most neglected element..Men need to be told " Ok guys, lets go fight."


And your response to that when Tony said they were faulty premises:

Funny the scripture affirms everyone of these.

Now, you're trying to play semantics to say that you never said real men are always looking for a fight.

Really, who wants to try to dialogue with someone who's going to play those types of games?

Not I. I'm done trying to talk to you, FP.

Tony said...

(Thanks, Steve.)

John,

Right here. and here.

Sorry.

These quotes are in the context of Brad Stine's "Concepts to Consider," (which I reject, btw) but I am going to assume, and I know that is dangerous, that you represent that philosophy. Your comments there speak for themselves.

Humbly and respectfully, I am asking you to leave.

fightingpreacher said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tony said...

John,

Comment moderation is on and I deleted your last comment. As Steve correctly pointed out, you are playing a semantic game. No one has misrepresented you here.

There are thousands upon thousands of other blogs in the blogosphere that want to engage in the kind of rhetoric you desire. Please, I am asking as a brother, go and find one of those. May God bless you.

Cameron Cloud said...

Tony,

I would agree that the "war" and the Christian response to it is overblown.

I'm not sure I can agree fully with the connection with dispensationalism. Perhaps that is because of my own eschatological leanings, but I don't think so. :)

There are too many non-dispies who are agressively involved in agressively changing the culture. Also, there are many dispies who would criticize such overt involvement in the public arena. In fact, your statements here remind me of what I have heard from dispies because of their eschatology.

They believe that because of the rapture, the church is not defeated. Because "time is short," they feel we should be busy sharing the gospel and being faithful rather than involving ourselves in cultural matters.

It is interesting that you say, "God's children flounder wasting their precious evangelistic time waging a war for Christmas." I have heard dispies critized for that same mentality.

I don't think it can be both ways. Some say dispensationalism produces too much restraint from culture engagement, and others say it causes inordinate involvement.

I'm not ready to fight over this (especially during the annual Christmas war ;) ), just offering a slightly different perspective.

Hopy you and your family have a "Happy Holiday!"

Earl said...

Tony,

Excellent article! I thought your comments are right on target.

Tony said...

Earl,

Thanks for stopping by. It has been a while since you popped in. I hope that grandbaby is doing well!

Cameron,

Honestly, I was looking for a theological rationale for the GWOT, which I obviously don't agree with, and appreciate you coming to help me think through this.

Your side certainly makes sense. You said, I have heard dispies critized for that same mentality. Maybe I live under a rock, at least out in the country like you, (we have had a Mickey D's for quite some time, though :) but if you make it back here can you cite at least one dispie that thinks that way?

Maybe with this post it has helped me to see more of a balance in the theological side of the "GWOC" than I realized.

And hey, Happy Holidays to you, too.

Tony said...

Oops, I said GWOT; I meant GWOC...sorry!!!

Cameron Cloud said...

Tony, I wish I had more time to discuss this, but am preparing for our annual Christmas trek.

At least one reference though. In his book "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds," Os Guinness lists eight things that undermined the "Puritan mind." (Certainly a very civically minded bunch!) Among these eight he cites the dispensational movement.

In a section titled "A Firefighter's Theology," he states, "Little wonder that popular dispensationalism has cultural consequences. When the house is on fire, life is worth more than books and precious objects. When the end times are on the slipway, such cultural pursuits as art and music are frivolous." and, "they have virtually turned their backs on the world in which they live."

Now, while that is an indictment of dispensationalism, it seems to be the reverse of what you are saying. He says dispies have withdrawn completely from culture because they believe each dispensation ends in human failure. You see them too aggressively involved in the "social wars." I acknowledge there is overlap in the two positions regarding feeling "backed into a corner."

Perhaps it is because of the diversity within this theological persuasion that allows for this duality. As for those "dispies" who feel the way you do, I can't quote them because unfortunately they are too busy "evangelizing" to write anything! ;)

Most of them are personal acquaintances and friends who look skeptically at the social and civic involvement of both dispies and non-dispies alike. They feel it is a waste of time. That ministering to people and spreading the gospel is of higher importance.

I guess my over-all point (and you were probably wondering if there was one) is that I don't believe dispensationalism NECESSARILY pushes one into being a "cultural warrior." Sometimes, it seems to have the opposite effect.

Personally, I think a balance of the two is both proper and possible. (Sorry for the long post.)

Merry Christmas to you and your family!

Tony said...

Cameron,

We will be making a Christmas trek as well, but not until Monday. Thanks for being "civil" in this conversation (I just read your repost!)

Perhaps I could be wrong in my evaluation and need to rethink it. The balance is what is necessary. Again, thanks for taking the time to respond and for giving me something to think about.

Merry Christmas to you and yours and be safe driving with all this tailgating bums out there!

keypad deadbolt said...

This is very amazing material...I don't see how anyone with any rational thinking skills could dismiss it. There is absolutely no way all of this happened by chance!!! sliding doors track, tudung bidang 60, panasonic shaver reviews