I recently launched the Facebook cause PIONEERS-USA as one of the first steps toward initiating unreached peoples advocacy groups for our organization. Facebook allows you to recruit your friends to join and give to the causes close to your heart and also posts how much you and your friends have given to these causes–creating a competition of sorts.

It sounds good, but it’s caused me to think about the concept of the “right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing” (a la Matthew 6:3). Isn’t it wrong to talk about what you’re giving? Shouldn’t your giving be privatized?

I say “No.” Privatized giving is one of the banes of 21st-century evangelicalism. It has allowed wealthy Western Christians to keep and spend vast sums of God’s money without a shred of guilt, simply because none of the brothers and sisters to whom they’re supposed to be accountable have a clue how much their giving. Guys join accountability groups to combat porn addiction. Women join support groups for eating disorders. But when’s the last time you heard someone ask a fellow Christian about whether they really needed a new 18-foot bass boat?

In Matthew 6, Jesus wasn’t prohibiting public giving, he was condemning those who give for the purpose of impressing some, demeaning others and raising their status with God. As the author of Hebrews says, “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds” (10:24).

I guess that’s where Facebook comes in. Who’d a thought?

I’m a typical guy–I can’t resist an incredible deal. So, when I was surfing car ads on AutoTrader.com, I saw a 1999 Honda Accord with 80,000 miles for $2,800, I shot the seller an e-mail to set up a time to view the car. (Note: This is less than half of the Blue Book value for this vehicle.) Considering the age and the price paid, I figured acquiring this car would still allow me to maintain membership in the Junky Car Club.

Probably some little old lady who doesn’t know how much the car is worth, I thought.

Sure, the e-mail response was in broken English. Sure, the seller was living in Europe, and the car was here in the U.S. Sure, the images they sent me of the car were 72 pixels high (exactly an inch). Sure, the seller kept putting off my requests to look at the car. But what a deal!

The plan, the seller explained, was this: I would pay a $1,500 deposit and the car would be delivered to my door. I would have 5 days to try out the car. If I liked it, I would pay the balance of the cost of the car. If not, I would get my $1,500 back. [Wouldn't it be cool if you could actually buy a car this way.]

I immediately recognized that this was a scam, but decided to go along for the ride and see if I could play with the tricksters a little bit myself. Perhaps, by wasting their time, I could prevent them from snookering someone else. So, I asked for some more photos and the VIN number, so that I could run a CarFax check while they prepared my “invoice.”

The “invoice” came in the form of an e-mail from a Hotmail account instructing me to go to my nearest Western Union and wire $1,500 in cash to a gentleman in London. My payment would be guaranteed by SafePay Solutions.

My response? I expressed “concern” that the e-mail was generated by Hotmail and not SafePay and noted that SafePay does not accept cash payments for online transactions.

“However, I hope this is not a scam,” I wrote cheerfully. “I really want this car!”

Unfortunately, they’ve not been in contact with me about delivering the car … Oh, well.

I want to have as much consistency in my ethic of life as possible.

That’s why I thought it was a good idea in 2000 when Illinois placed a moratorium on its death penalty. DNA evidence was exposing grave instances of injustice in which men were being executed for crimes they didn’t commit. If there is uncertainty as far as the guilt of an accused murderer, I take the side of life.

I’m sure presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would agree with me.

I am equally disturbed with our nation’s seeming nonchalance about the collateral civilian lives that have been lost in the conflict in Iraq. According to a March 15 issue of The Washington Post, 1640 civilians had already lost their lives in Iraq in 2008. Estimates of the civilian death toll in Iraq since the beginning of conflict are edging toward 90,000. While many of these were likely killed in Iraqi-initiated attacks, others are victims of errant missiles, friendly fire, mistaken identity, etc. This number doesn’t include the civilian victims of the conflict in Afghanistan. These deaths are indirectly the result of our nation’s response to the murder of 3,000 American civilians on September 11, 2001. Simply put, the numbers reveal an unspoken premise that American civilian lives are worth more than the civilian lives of Iraqis and Afghans. If there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of a military campaign that is destroying the lives of countless civilians, I take the side of life.

I’m sure presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would agree with me.

I’m not sure when life begins. If it begins at conception, what happens to the many zygotes that are naturally aborted before implantation? When does a human being possess a soul? If it doesn’t begin at conception, when does it begin? I do know however, that if there is uncertainty about when life begins, I take the side of life and its preservation.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree with me on this uncertainty, but in the case of abortion, it’s apparently just not politically expedient for them to take the side of life. Pathetic.