From the State of Washington Voter's Pamphlet:
Initiative 1053: . . .but at least we are doing better than other states. The two-thirds majority is a disaster in California, creating gridlock and making it impossible to balance their budget. . .California is a mess because of the two-thirds requirement. . .The two-thirds requirement is causing havoc in California.
Initiative 1100: Under this scheme hard liquor outlets will explode from 315 to 3,300, three times more per person than California.
Initiative 1105: I-1105 allows hard liquor stores to explode from 315 to more than 3,300; three times more per person than California.
I remember a number of times during the years I lived in Oregon where this tactic was used. Pick the issue; the only argument against needed to be "Well that's how they do it in California" and the conversation stopped. Somehow California became the official bogeyman against which all northwest ideas are measured. And the mantra becomes "whatever they do, we need to do the opposite."
I'm not making any political recommendations on the above initiatives, so don't read anything into this. I just hope we don't go down that road of measuring our ideas not by their own merit, but instead by "at least we're not like California."
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, October 18, 2010
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Joining the Manhattan Conversation
The ripple effect of the recent Manhattan Declaration continues to grow across the blogosphere. In case you missed it, the MD (full version here) was released as an "Historic Declaration of Christian Conscience," issuing a "clarion call to Christians to adhere to to their convictions," and informing "civil authorities that the signers will not - under any circumstance - abandon their Christian conscience." Penned by Chuck Colson, Dr. Robert George and Dr. Timothy George, it was originally signed by more than 125 Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical leaders. Thousands more have signed it since.
The MD begins with a historical overview of the Church's social consciousness, including the many times they have "defended the weak and the vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society. . ." It then goes on to list the three big issues they call all Christians to support:
1. sanctity of human life
2. dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. rights of conscious and religious liberty
As is to be expected, reaction has been mixed, with some hailing this as a historic new day, while others, Christian and non-Christian alike, see it as a bit more troubling.
Fred Clark calls it "Fatuous Foolishness." He categorizes it as "wince-inducing misplaced self-importance and lack of perspective," making the case that "Their own awesomeness is a topic the authors address with relentless relish."
Hugo Schwyzer calls it a scandal, full of "smugness and cheap grace." He concludes that it "is an exquisite example of what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called 'cheap grace.' Those who sign it, embrace it, and live out its call can comfort themselves with the thought that when they campaign against same-sex marriage and women’s health, they are doing the most important work in all of God’s kingdom. Changing how they spend, how they travel, how they eat — the really challenging things — are rendered irrelevant by comparison. This is a scandal and a shame to the body of Christ, and deserves bold and prophetic repudiation."
Brian McLaren says it's more of the old adage, "doing the same things and expecting different results." He takes serious issue with Colson's argument that these three are THE top three issues all Christians should be worrying about.
Scot McKnight has publicly endorsed it. And the comment stream following that endorsement is an education into the varying underlying beliefs and opinions of a whole host of people, Christian and otherwise.
John MacArthur chose not to sign it, stating that it doesn't present the gospel clearly enough; in addition, it doesn't recognize the "fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity." In other words, since it includes Catholic and Orthodox leaders and scholars, Evangelicals ought to stay away.
John Stackhouse calls it a "waste of everybody's time." In fact, he says it is "strangely useless." He argues that it "gives no clear direction about what anyone is supposed to do once they have read it." Furthermore, he states that "it is not clear to us that such declarations, and the outlook that prompts them, really increase non-Christian willingness to respect conservative Christian concerns, let alone to seriously entertain any proclamation of the Gospel."
That's probably enough of a sampling for today, don't you think?
So, joining the ranks of Stackhouse, McKnight, and MacArthur, here's my opinion on the matter.
First, I agree with the underlying premises behind these three points. I believe as a child of the Giver of Life I am called to an ethic of life, of recognizing that all of life is a gift of God. We do live in a 'culture of death,' and Christians need to be working harder at affirming and supporting a life-giving way, from conception to the grave. I also believe in a scriptural ethic for marriage as the life-long union of male and female, and have pointed out elsewhere that I believe anything less than that is damaging to society. And I believe, as a Christian, that it is important to behave in a way that is consistent with my conscious, just as I believe it should be for people of other belief systems.
What I do find troubling, though, is a phrase that seems to be quickly brushed over.
While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.
In other words, "Yes, we need to be concerned for poor and vulnerable people, but that's just not as important as abortion, gay marriage, and freedom of religion."
Which, in at least 2/3 of this issue, seems contrary to the gospel. In fact, the religion that Colson et al want to practice is supposed to be made up of caring for the poor and the vulnerable, not in making public pronouncements about social concerns, nor in fighting for government recognition. When I look at the story of Jesus laid out in the gospels, when I read stories of the early church, they didn't publish papers and issue policy statements regarding the 'sinful ways of those pagans;' instead, they reached out in compassion to the poor, to the widows, to the orphans in their distress. This very document lays claim to that story:
. . .we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire's sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.
And yet they now interpret that heritage as fighting gay marriage and demanding religious freedom. I think they got that part wrong.
Is 'fighting for' traditional marriage a good cause? At its root, I would say yes. But I would also say we need to be really careful about what we mean by "fighting." Public declarations such as this probably won't do much to win the hearts and minds of those in the other camp.
Is 'fighting for' religious freedom a good thing? I suppose so, although I don't see it as a cause championed in the scriptures. For thousands of years the church has survived and thrived in places lacking in religious freedom. It seems the greater question is not "how do we maintain the freedoms we've loved," but "how do we live as the people of God no matter the circumstances in which we find ourselves."
Is 'fighting for' the sanctity of life a good thing? Absolutely. And the one place in this document that I heartily endorse. But even here there is a shortfall; the document explicitly addresses abortion and end-of-life issues. Yet it remains silent on the larger concept of a culture of violence surrounding this culture of death. We live in a land in which the economy spends billions on exporting violence, we are currently involved in two wars, our entertainers regularly fill our lives and minds with images of death, rape, mutilation, and torture, all in the name of 'fun.' I don't think you can divorce the abortion discussion from the larger pool we're all swimming in, as if it is its own unique discussion. So long as we use violence as a draw to movies and television shows, so long as we use tactics of alienation and affinity to sell products to consumers, so long as our first response to attack is to fight back, so long as we keep selling the message that "it's all about you!," we will never win the hearts and minds of people with our call to affirm life.
So, to conclude. They meant well. They have offered us a great discussion starter. But their declaration on our behalf that this is The Definitive Statement smacks as a little bit of posturing. And their insistence that fighting for religious freedom is more important than looking after the poor and the vulnerable is simply wrong.
To that end, I'm choosing not to sign. But see me standing on the floor enjoying and engaging the discussion, rather than simply dismissing the MD.
The MD begins with a historical overview of the Church's social consciousness, including the many times they have "defended the weak and the vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society. . ." It then goes on to list the three big issues they call all Christians to support:
1. sanctity of human life
2. dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. rights of conscious and religious liberty
As is to be expected, reaction has been mixed, with some hailing this as a historic new day, while others, Christian and non-Christian alike, see it as a bit more troubling.
Fred Clark calls it "Fatuous Foolishness." He categorizes it as "wince-inducing misplaced self-importance and lack of perspective," making the case that "Their own awesomeness is a topic the authors address with relentless relish."
Hugo Schwyzer calls it a scandal, full of "smugness and cheap grace." He concludes that it "is an exquisite example of what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called 'cheap grace.' Those who sign it, embrace it, and live out its call can comfort themselves with the thought that when they campaign against same-sex marriage and women’s health, they are doing the most important work in all of God’s kingdom. Changing how they spend, how they travel, how they eat — the really challenging things — are rendered irrelevant by comparison. This is a scandal and a shame to the body of Christ, and deserves bold and prophetic repudiation."
Brian McLaren says it's more of the old adage, "doing the same things and expecting different results." He takes serious issue with Colson's argument that these three are THE top three issues all Christians should be worrying about.
Scot McKnight has publicly endorsed it. And the comment stream following that endorsement is an education into the varying underlying beliefs and opinions of a whole host of people, Christian and otherwise.
John MacArthur chose not to sign it, stating that it doesn't present the gospel clearly enough; in addition, it doesn't recognize the "fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity." In other words, since it includes Catholic and Orthodox leaders and scholars, Evangelicals ought to stay away.
John Stackhouse calls it a "waste of everybody's time." In fact, he says it is "strangely useless." He argues that it "gives no clear direction about what anyone is supposed to do once they have read it." Furthermore, he states that "it is not clear to us that such declarations, and the outlook that prompts them, really increase non-Christian willingness to respect conservative Christian concerns, let alone to seriously entertain any proclamation of the Gospel."
That's probably enough of a sampling for today, don't you think?
So, joining the ranks of Stackhouse, McKnight, and MacArthur, here's my opinion on the matter.
First, I agree with the underlying premises behind these three points. I believe as a child of the Giver of Life I am called to an ethic of life, of recognizing that all of life is a gift of God. We do live in a 'culture of death,' and Christians need to be working harder at affirming and supporting a life-giving way, from conception to the grave. I also believe in a scriptural ethic for marriage as the life-long union of male and female, and have pointed out elsewhere that I believe anything less than that is damaging to society. And I believe, as a Christian, that it is important to behave in a way that is consistent with my conscious, just as I believe it should be for people of other belief systems.
What I do find troubling, though, is a phrase that seems to be quickly brushed over.
While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.
In other words, "Yes, we need to be concerned for poor and vulnerable people, but that's just not as important as abortion, gay marriage, and freedom of religion."
Which, in at least 2/3 of this issue, seems contrary to the gospel. In fact, the religion that Colson et al want to practice is supposed to be made up of caring for the poor and the vulnerable, not in making public pronouncements about social concerns, nor in fighting for government recognition. When I look at the story of Jesus laid out in the gospels, when I read stories of the early church, they didn't publish papers and issue policy statements regarding the 'sinful ways of those pagans;' instead, they reached out in compassion to the poor, to the widows, to the orphans in their distress. This very document lays claim to that story:
. . .we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire's sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.
And yet they now interpret that heritage as fighting gay marriage and demanding religious freedom. I think they got that part wrong.
Is 'fighting for' traditional marriage a good cause? At its root, I would say yes. But I would also say we need to be really careful about what we mean by "fighting." Public declarations such as this probably won't do much to win the hearts and minds of those in the other camp.
Is 'fighting for' religious freedom a good thing? I suppose so, although I don't see it as a cause championed in the scriptures. For thousands of years the church has survived and thrived in places lacking in religious freedom. It seems the greater question is not "how do we maintain the freedoms we've loved," but "how do we live as the people of God no matter the circumstances in which we find ourselves."
Is 'fighting for' the sanctity of life a good thing? Absolutely. And the one place in this document that I heartily endorse. But even here there is a shortfall; the document explicitly addresses abortion and end-of-life issues. Yet it remains silent on the larger concept of a culture of violence surrounding this culture of death. We live in a land in which the economy spends billions on exporting violence, we are currently involved in two wars, our entertainers regularly fill our lives and minds with images of death, rape, mutilation, and torture, all in the name of 'fun.' I don't think you can divorce the abortion discussion from the larger pool we're all swimming in, as if it is its own unique discussion. So long as we use violence as a draw to movies and television shows, so long as we use tactics of alienation and affinity to sell products to consumers, so long as our first response to attack is to fight back, so long as we keep selling the message that "it's all about you!," we will never win the hearts and minds of people with our call to affirm life.
So, to conclude. They meant well. They have offered us a great discussion starter. But their declaration on our behalf that this is The Definitive Statement smacks as a little bit of posturing. And their insistence that fighting for religious freedom is more important than looking after the poor and the vulnerable is simply wrong.
To that end, I'm choosing not to sign. But see me standing on the floor enjoying and engaging the discussion, rather than simply dismissing the MD.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Somebody needs to say it
In the capacity of an official representative of the Body of Christ, I would like to make the following statement:
The "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8" bumper stickers that certain cars are sporting do not, in any way, reflect the attitude for which Christians are to be known in the world. Putting it simpler: You cannot justify the use of these stickers from a Christian viewpoint. Putting it simpler: These stickers are horrible and should not be used by any who call themselves followers of Christ.
Or, put it this way: If you truly are a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, and if you attempt to live your life according to God's Word, then DON'T GET ONE OF THESE STICKERS!
Also, if you're none of the above, then I apologize for this blatant misuse of scripture to make a foul political point. This is deceptive, it is not 'cute' as it purports to be. This is just plain wrong. And it's nothing to joke about.
Christians are told to pray for those in authority over us. But this is what our attitude is supposed to look like:
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. - 1 Timothy 2
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. - Romans 13
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. - Titus 3
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. - 1 Peter 2.
Seriously. . .is it all that difficult? You don't have to like the guy; you don't even have to agree with, nor support, his policies. But this is what we are called to do: Submit to him, pray for him (pray that he comes to a knowledge of the truth), be thankful for him, be obedient and humble toward him, refrain from slandering him, honor him. All those things are right there in the Book. Right there in the New Testament.You may not feel like doing any of those things, but you don't really have a choice. You either do those things, or you stand disobedient before God.
When we go around behaving silly and stupidly, misusing the Text to make some sort of political joke, we sin against God, we disobey the Biblical mandate before us, we make a mockery of the Bible in front of the world, we make fools of ourselves, we damage our credibility, we sacrifice our witness and mission on the altar of political tomfoolery.
Is this clear enough for you? Come on, Christians. Let's be smarter than this. Let's do what the text actually calls us to do. Let's be above the mud-slinging and cynicism. Let's pray for the man. Better that he come to follow the wisdom of God, than something terrible happen to him and cause more chaos in the land. Better we be models of peace and humility than we lose any shred of respectability we have left.
The "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8" bumper stickers that certain cars are sporting do not, in any way, reflect the attitude for which Christians are to be known in the world. Putting it simpler: You cannot justify the use of these stickers from a Christian viewpoint. Putting it simpler: These stickers are horrible and should not be used by any who call themselves followers of Christ.
Or, put it this way: If you truly are a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, and if you attempt to live your life according to God's Word, then DON'T GET ONE OF THESE STICKERS!
Also, if you're none of the above, then I apologize for this blatant misuse of scripture to make a foul political point. This is deceptive, it is not 'cute' as it purports to be. This is just plain wrong. And it's nothing to joke about.
Christians are told to pray for those in authority over us. But this is what our attitude is supposed to look like:
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. - 1 Timothy 2
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. - Romans 13
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. - Titus 3
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. - 1 Peter 2.
Seriously. . .is it all that difficult? You don't have to like the guy; you don't even have to agree with, nor support, his policies. But this is what we are called to do: Submit to him, pray for him (pray that he comes to a knowledge of the truth), be thankful for him, be obedient and humble toward him, refrain from slandering him, honor him. All those things are right there in the Book. Right there in the New Testament.You may not feel like doing any of those things, but you don't really have a choice. You either do those things, or you stand disobedient before God.
When we go around behaving silly and stupidly, misusing the Text to make some sort of political joke, we sin against God, we disobey the Biblical mandate before us, we make a mockery of the Bible in front of the world, we make fools of ourselves, we damage our credibility, we sacrifice our witness and mission on the altar of political tomfoolery.
Is this clear enough for you? Come on, Christians. Let's be smarter than this. Let's do what the text actually calls us to do. Let's be above the mud-slinging and cynicism. Let's pray for the man. Better that he come to follow the wisdom of God, than something terrible happen to him and cause more chaos in the land. Better we be models of peace and humility than we lose any shred of respectability we have left.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Real Question of Ref. 71
Note: the following is my own opinion, and does not stand for the official position of the church I pastor. In addition, it is an invitation to conversation. Those who disagree (as well as any who agree) are asked to respond in civility and with an eye toward mutual edification as we all journey down this path together.
On the radio Sunday afternoon the discussion was on Washington's Ref. 71, the 'Everything but Marriage' act. And the callers were angry. Over and over, the challenge was laid out: "Somebody needs to show me how giving gays the same rights as heterosexual couples affects their marriage. How does a gay marriage harm a straight marriage? What right do people have to vote out the civil rights of others?"
This seems to be the idea and the question at the heart of it all: What couples do in their bedrooms ought to be left to them and not the government. The lifelong commitment of marriage (or, in this case, civil union) ought to be up to the individuals involved, not the rest of society and certainly not the government. If two people are in love, who's to stop them from marrying? And how could those against gay marriage/civil unions be so heartless as to hold back basic rights (hospital visitation, insurance benefits) from two people who love each other? And, ultimately, what does it matter? Two men marrying, two women entering a civil union won't threaten 'straight marriage.' In fact, if any man or woman suffer in their marriage just because gays are given the same rights, than that couple had bigger problems to begin with.
I get that. In fact, should Ref. 71 pass, and should Washington eventually pass legislation recognizing gay marriage, it probably won't affect my marriage in the slightest.
But I think that's asking the wrong question. The assumption is "if what I do doesn't hurt you, then what right do you have to stop me?" Especially when the cause seems so noble - the extension of civil rights to a minority group within society.
The real question, though, is not how it affects me. The real question is how it affects society. And not just tomorrow or next Tuesday, but the days, months, and years to follow. And, theology aside, this is the reason I'm reticent to support Ref. 71.
Let me explain my thinking:
The healthiest place for children to be raised is within a family led by the father and mother who created them.
Already, some people are offended, because that statement is judgmental. For that, I am sorry. I don't mean to denigrate adoptive parents, nor single parents. Right now I know personally a half dozen or more mothers attempting to raise kids alone - some because of divorce, some through adoption, and various other reasons. And they are all doing an admirable job. In no way do I want it said that they aren't honorable or doing a wonderful job.
In addition, I know there are gay and lesbian couples raising their kids in a loving, caring environment, doing their best to support their children, loving them with a fierce and passionate love to rival the love of any straight couple. I recognize that reality.
But, in the end, I can't get around the fact that, of many 'good' possibilities, the 'best' possibility is a household with two parents of different gender, esp. if those parents are the actual biological parents of their children.
Of course, life is broken, and we do what we can to make the best of brokenness. Marriages fail, children are born into untenable situations, spouses die, some people can't conceive, others can't (or aren't ready to) care for the children they do conceive. And we do well to honor those who exist in these places of pain, to care deeply for single mothers or fathers, to support adoptive parents, to love kids who can't be with their birth parents.
At the same time, as a society, do we not have the right to strive for "the best," to create systems that push toward the ideal? Just because the ideal isn't always achievable, does that mean we don't work creatively to assist people in pursuing that ideal? (Which is why I'm perversely intrigued by the anti-divorce proposition making the rounds in California. It started out as an ironic statement. . .but I think just maybe we ought to take it seriously.)
At the end of the day, society has the right to formulate policy that is in the best interests of society as a whole. And, if the best possible scenario, if the healthiest situation is for children to be raised in the home in which they were born, raised by both the father and the mother whose genes they carry, then it seems to make sense that we would want policies supporting that ideal, while still showing kindness and consideration for those who can't achieve that ideal.
Sometimes, it seems we're almost ashamed to hold up an ideal, for fear of offending people who can't reach it. In this age of self-esteem, we dare not label something as 'best,' because all the other variations will somehow feel slighted. But this is not a pathway toward sustainable health; it achieves temporary good feeling while ignoring a deeper problem.
So my disagreement with Ref. 71 is not based on any effect it will have on my marriage. My disagreement is that it continues the falsehood that "any scenario is fine, so long as we call it so." Rather than pushing society in a direction of health, it sends the message that any option is just as healthy as the rest. And with that, I would disagree.
Let me flesh this out just a tiny bit: imagine a world wherein the vast majority of kids have been raised by the parents who conceived them, where they have known the loving hand of both father and mother, growing up in the presence of a healthy male role model AND a healthy female role model, where they have learned to respect both genders, where they have grown up within the sphere of influence of a man and all that he brings to the table, and a woman and all she brings to the table.
That, to me, is the healthiest option, and will create the healthiest society. And, as a society, shouldn't we be making policy that pushes us in the healthiest possible direction? Or do we settle for second-best (which isn't the same as 'bad,' mind you) just because everybody wants to be treated equally?
______
Post-script: These are not easy words to write. They are controversial; by some they could be conceived as an attack. I have friends who are gay and lesbian, I have former youth group kids who are now firmly on the other side of this issue. So I'm torn between my personal conviction and my love for them, recognizing that, even in posting this, I may be stretching the bonds of our friendship. On the other hand, we're all given the right to share our opinions in this political system, and too often I've been disheartened by the discussion on both sides. Too many on the one side take to name-calling and Bible-bashing, too many on the other take to bullying and lumping all on 'our side' into one pile. What I'm trying to do here is, in as few words as possible, explain my position without resorting to biblical texts or fear-mongering, trying to be a civil voice in the wasteland of 'activism by shouting,' offering up some thoughts for consideration without 'spreading the hate.' Obviously, I'm only touching the surface of this issue; had I nothing else to do in life I might have written a book. Unfortunately, that's not my calling, so, for now, these few thoughts will have to suffice.
On the radio Sunday afternoon the discussion was on Washington's Ref. 71, the 'Everything but Marriage' act. And the callers were angry. Over and over, the challenge was laid out: "Somebody needs to show me how giving gays the same rights as heterosexual couples affects their marriage. How does a gay marriage harm a straight marriage? What right do people have to vote out the civil rights of others?"
This seems to be the idea and the question at the heart of it all: What couples do in their bedrooms ought to be left to them and not the government. The lifelong commitment of marriage (or, in this case, civil union) ought to be up to the individuals involved, not the rest of society and certainly not the government. If two people are in love, who's to stop them from marrying? And how could those against gay marriage/civil unions be so heartless as to hold back basic rights (hospital visitation, insurance benefits) from two people who love each other? And, ultimately, what does it matter? Two men marrying, two women entering a civil union won't threaten 'straight marriage.' In fact, if any man or woman suffer in their marriage just because gays are given the same rights, than that couple had bigger problems to begin with.
I get that. In fact, should Ref. 71 pass, and should Washington eventually pass legislation recognizing gay marriage, it probably won't affect my marriage in the slightest.
But I think that's asking the wrong question. The assumption is "if what I do doesn't hurt you, then what right do you have to stop me?" Especially when the cause seems so noble - the extension of civil rights to a minority group within society.
The real question, though, is not how it affects me. The real question is how it affects society. And not just tomorrow or next Tuesday, but the days, months, and years to follow. And, theology aside, this is the reason I'm reticent to support Ref. 71.
Let me explain my thinking:
The healthiest place for children to be raised is within a family led by the father and mother who created them.
Already, some people are offended, because that statement is judgmental. For that, I am sorry. I don't mean to denigrate adoptive parents, nor single parents. Right now I know personally a half dozen or more mothers attempting to raise kids alone - some because of divorce, some through adoption, and various other reasons. And they are all doing an admirable job. In no way do I want it said that they aren't honorable or doing a wonderful job.
In addition, I know there are gay and lesbian couples raising their kids in a loving, caring environment, doing their best to support their children, loving them with a fierce and passionate love to rival the love of any straight couple. I recognize that reality.
But, in the end, I can't get around the fact that, of many 'good' possibilities, the 'best' possibility is a household with two parents of different gender, esp. if those parents are the actual biological parents of their children.
Of course, life is broken, and we do what we can to make the best of brokenness. Marriages fail, children are born into untenable situations, spouses die, some people can't conceive, others can't (or aren't ready to) care for the children they do conceive. And we do well to honor those who exist in these places of pain, to care deeply for single mothers or fathers, to support adoptive parents, to love kids who can't be with their birth parents.
At the same time, as a society, do we not have the right to strive for "the best," to create systems that push toward the ideal? Just because the ideal isn't always achievable, does that mean we don't work creatively to assist people in pursuing that ideal? (Which is why I'm perversely intrigued by the anti-divorce proposition making the rounds in California. It started out as an ironic statement. . .but I think just maybe we ought to take it seriously.)
At the end of the day, society has the right to formulate policy that is in the best interests of society as a whole. And, if the best possible scenario, if the healthiest situation is for children to be raised in the home in which they were born, raised by both the father and the mother whose genes they carry, then it seems to make sense that we would want policies supporting that ideal, while still showing kindness and consideration for those who can't achieve that ideal.
Sometimes, it seems we're almost ashamed to hold up an ideal, for fear of offending people who can't reach it. In this age of self-esteem, we dare not label something as 'best,' because all the other variations will somehow feel slighted. But this is not a pathway toward sustainable health; it achieves temporary good feeling while ignoring a deeper problem.
So my disagreement with Ref. 71 is not based on any effect it will have on my marriage. My disagreement is that it continues the falsehood that "any scenario is fine, so long as we call it so." Rather than pushing society in a direction of health, it sends the message that any option is just as healthy as the rest. And with that, I would disagree.
Let me flesh this out just a tiny bit: imagine a world wherein the vast majority of kids have been raised by the parents who conceived them, where they have known the loving hand of both father and mother, growing up in the presence of a healthy male role model AND a healthy female role model, where they have learned to respect both genders, where they have grown up within the sphere of influence of a man and all that he brings to the table, and a woman and all she brings to the table.
That, to me, is the healthiest option, and will create the healthiest society. And, as a society, shouldn't we be making policy that pushes us in the healthiest possible direction? Or do we settle for second-best (which isn't the same as 'bad,' mind you) just because everybody wants to be treated equally?
______
Post-script: These are not easy words to write. They are controversial; by some they could be conceived as an attack. I have friends who are gay and lesbian, I have former youth group kids who are now firmly on the other side of this issue. So I'm torn between my personal conviction and my love for them, recognizing that, even in posting this, I may be stretching the bonds of our friendship. On the other hand, we're all given the right to share our opinions in this political system, and too often I've been disheartened by the discussion on both sides. Too many on the one side take to name-calling and Bible-bashing, too many on the other take to bullying and lumping all on 'our side' into one pile. What I'm trying to do here is, in as few words as possible, explain my position without resorting to biblical texts or fear-mongering, trying to be a civil voice in the wasteland of 'activism by shouting,' offering up some thoughts for consideration without 'spreading the hate.' Obviously, I'm only touching the surface of this issue; had I nothing else to do in life I might have written a book. Unfortunately, that's not my calling, so, for now, these few thoughts will have to suffice.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday Stuff
- A great video of a unique introduction to Jesus (h/t Nate)
- Roshni pointed me toward a new music label/collective/project made up of a few of the more 'fringey' artists in the Christian music scene (Danielson, Leigh Nash, Sufjan Stevens, and more!). Three songs off their first release are available on their myspace. It may take you a listen or two to 'get it,' but there really is some depth and artistry here.
- Add me to the list of "Fans Against Neon Green Football Jerseys."
- Flash mob protest at Whole Foods in Oakland. note: a tiny bit of language that some readers might find offensive, and a whole lot of politics that some people might find offensive. But in the end. . .it's still a lot of fun. This is what protests ought to look like, whether or not you agree with the underlying point. They make their statement, and at the same time give people something to laugh about.
- Looks like I got all that firewood chopped up just in time. The forecast high for today is a chilly 57 degrees. Personally, I love the fall, and look forward to all that it brings. It's just the winter on the other side of fall that gets me less-than-enthusiastic.
- A friend and occasional former mentor has created a new organization with the aim of supporting theological education in the developing world. Ron helped me out with some good counsel after I was ignominiously fired from my first church; years later, I sat in my backyard in Turlock, talking to him in Australia, picking his brain about a current logjam I faced, and again his wisdom helped push me forward. (Oh, and once, when I was still single, his youngest daughter came over and made me dinner, and even before that I took his oldest daughter out to dinner. . .). So I'm happy to point you to Synseis Alliance International.
- Upcoming Gigs
The Down Home Band (with yours truly on lead trumpet) is playing this Saturday night at the Key Pen Cornucopia Dinner and fundraiser, following the KP Farm tour.
I've been invited to participate in the 1st Annual Gig Harbor/KP Blessing of Law Enforcement, firefighters, EMTs and their families. The event is this Sunday from 1-4 at the Gig Harbor United Methodist Church, with the blessing taking place from 2:00-2:30.
- Roshni pointed me toward a new music label/collective/project made up of a few of the more 'fringey' artists in the Christian music scene (Danielson, Leigh Nash, Sufjan Stevens, and more!). Three songs off their first release are available on their myspace. It may take you a listen or two to 'get it,' but there really is some depth and artistry here.
- Add me to the list of "Fans Against Neon Green Football Jerseys."
- Flash mob protest at Whole Foods in Oakland. note: a tiny bit of language that some readers might find offensive, and a whole lot of politics that some people might find offensive. But in the end. . .it's still a lot of fun. This is what protests ought to look like, whether or not you agree with the underlying point. They make their statement, and at the same time give people something to laugh about.
- Looks like I got all that firewood chopped up just in time. The forecast high for today is a chilly 57 degrees. Personally, I love the fall, and look forward to all that it brings. It's just the winter on the other side of fall that gets me less-than-enthusiastic.
- A friend and occasional former mentor has created a new organization with the aim of supporting theological education in the developing world. Ron helped me out with some good counsel after I was ignominiously fired from my first church; years later, I sat in my backyard in Turlock, talking to him in Australia, picking his brain about a current logjam I faced, and again his wisdom helped push me forward. (Oh, and once, when I was still single, his youngest daughter came over and made me dinner, and even before that I took his oldest daughter out to dinner. . .). So I'm happy to point you to Synseis Alliance International.
- Upcoming Gigs
The Down Home Band (with yours truly on lead trumpet) is playing this Saturday night at the Key Pen Cornucopia Dinner and fundraiser, following the KP Farm tour.
I've been invited to participate in the 1st Annual Gig Harbor/KP Blessing of Law Enforcement, firefighters, EMTs and their families. The event is this Sunday from 1-4 at the Gig Harbor United Methodist Church, with the blessing taking place from 2:00-2:30.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Random Tuesday
- Some are forecasting that tomorrow will be the hottest day ever recorded in the Seattle area. I suppose it's too late to get my pool put in.
- While the temperature has been rising, the Mariners are in the midst of an uncontrollable plummet. Surely one of the nice surprises of this year's baseball season, they seem, sadly, to have returned back to earth.
- Tomorrow morning, around 10:00, Lakebay Community Church has our meeting with the Pierce County planning folks, as we continue the process of acquiring the conditional use permit on our KP Highway property.
- Yeah, I know. We're way behind the times. But Karina and I finally watched Slumdog Millionaire last night.
- In case you missed it, William Shatner reciting Sarah Palin's farewell speech.
- Speaking of politics. . .Remember back in the 90s, when a certain type of conservative spent way too much time and energy trying to uncover supposed hidden crimes of then-President Clinton? It all started with Whitewater, then went on to many supposed rapes, and ended up wasting how much money and time in a failed impeachment, all because he lied under oath about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky? And so, rather than accomplishing anything positive, instead of moving ahead and setting out a worthwhile agenda, the Republicans spent their time acting out of spite and bitterness in an ill-fated attempt to besmirch Clinton. You know, the classic junior high game of "If I can't beat you, I'll call you names." Right. And now we're at it all over again, with this "birther" movement. Rather than actually doing something positive for this country, we're simply going to sling mud at the rightfully-elected president. Listen, folks. We have two options. We can be adults, and move forward on fixing this country, or we can behave like petulant children who would rather pout over in the corner, complaining about "how unfair it all is." And no, I'm not necessarily a fan of Obama; I'd just rather see us focusing on More Important Issues, and not becoming bogged down in mud-slinging.
- Finally, from the Covenant Website: "Annette Knofel, 59, wife of Evangelical Covenant Church Pastor Bruce Knofel, was killed Sunday evening in a traffic accident near Anchorage. . ." Lord, have mercy.
- While the temperature has been rising, the Mariners are in the midst of an uncontrollable plummet. Surely one of the nice surprises of this year's baseball season, they seem, sadly, to have returned back to earth.
- Tomorrow morning, around 10:00, Lakebay Community Church has our meeting with the Pierce County planning folks, as we continue the process of acquiring the conditional use permit on our KP Highway property.
- Yeah, I know. We're way behind the times. But Karina and I finally watched Slumdog Millionaire last night.
- In case you missed it, William Shatner reciting Sarah Palin's farewell speech.
- Speaking of politics. . .Remember back in the 90s, when a certain type of conservative spent way too much time and energy trying to uncover supposed hidden crimes of then-President Clinton? It all started with Whitewater, then went on to many supposed rapes, and ended up wasting how much money and time in a failed impeachment, all because he lied under oath about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky? And so, rather than accomplishing anything positive, instead of moving ahead and setting out a worthwhile agenda, the Republicans spent their time acting out of spite and bitterness in an ill-fated attempt to besmirch Clinton. You know, the classic junior high game of "If I can't beat you, I'll call you names." Right. And now we're at it all over again, with this "birther" movement. Rather than actually doing something positive for this country, we're simply going to sling mud at the rightfully-elected president. Listen, folks. We have two options. We can be adults, and move forward on fixing this country, or we can behave like petulant children who would rather pout over in the corner, complaining about "how unfair it all is." And no, I'm not necessarily a fan of Obama; I'd just rather see us focusing on More Important Issues, and not becoming bogged down in mud-slinging.
- Finally, from the Covenant Website: "Annette Knofel, 59, wife of Evangelical Covenant Church Pastor Bruce Knofel, was killed Sunday evening in a traffic accident near Anchorage. . ." Lord, have mercy.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
It's the end of the World as we Know It
Alan Keyes, a man I believe I once voted for in a presidential primary, has announced that he believes President Obama is about to stage terror attacks in the U.S., declare martial law, suspend the constitution, cancel the 2012 election, and essentially turn us all into communists.
Forgive me if I don't immediately panic. Just like I don't buy into the hooey that George W. was behind the 9-11 attacks, I tend to doubt the sensationalistic anti-Obama smears as well.
Forgive me if I don't immediately panic. Just like I don't buy into the hooey that George W. was behind the 9-11 attacks, I tend to doubt the sensationalistic anti-Obama smears as well.
Friday, December 12, 2008
George W Bush and the Bible
By now, it's all over the news that Pres. Bush admitted he doesn't believe the Bible is "literally true." And that he thinks most religions pray to the same God.
And this nugget, regarding the Christian Scriptures: "but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son.'"
Seriously. . .one of the most powerful men in the world, the leader of the Free world, the man with his fingers on the nuke buttons, the man making policy decisions that literally affect millions of people. . .and this is the depth of his thinking? He doesn't even have the capacity to sort through the various theories regarding the origins of life?
"I think evolution can — you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
I honestly believe most of the students who graduated last year's confirmation class could come up with something better than that. I don't mean to be offensive here, but is this the best he can do? The Pope can publish encyclicals regarding faith and science, and our president says "I'm way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president."
So the question - is he really this slow? Or is he still trying to play the politician, pandering to Christians and non-Christians alike? Is he really a simple president? Or does he just play one on television?
Granted, we don't expect our presidents to be theologians. But we do expect them to be (and sound) intelligent - right? But look at it this way: one of the largest bases of support for the Republican Party has been the Christians in America, and, more specifically, Evangelical Christians. And yet when asked about one of the most basic, fundamental doctrines in Christianity, the President replied with "the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son.'" Hooray. At least he paid attention to all those Christmas cards we sent him.
And this nugget, regarding the Christian Scriptures: "but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son.'"
Seriously. . .one of the most powerful men in the world, the leader of the Free world, the man with his fingers on the nuke buttons, the man making policy decisions that literally affect millions of people. . .and this is the depth of his thinking? He doesn't even have the capacity to sort through the various theories regarding the origins of life?
"I think evolution can — you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
I honestly believe most of the students who graduated last year's confirmation class could come up with something better than that. I don't mean to be offensive here, but is this the best he can do? The Pope can publish encyclicals regarding faith and science, and our president says "I'm way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president."
So the question - is he really this slow? Or is he still trying to play the politician, pandering to Christians and non-Christians alike? Is he really a simple president? Or does he just play one on television?
Granted, we don't expect our presidents to be theologians. But we do expect them to be (and sound) intelligent - right? But look at it this way: one of the largest bases of support for the Republican Party has been the Christians in America, and, more specifically, Evangelical Christians. And yet when asked about one of the most basic, fundamental doctrines in Christianity, the President replied with "the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son.'" Hooray. At least he paid attention to all those Christmas cards we sent him.
Friday, December 05, 2008
More Holiday Fun at the Capitol
Washington's 2008 holiday display, which we discussed a few days ago, is turning into a circus.
Last night, somebody stole the sign erected by the Freedom from Religion folks, a sign which declared that all religion is "myth and superstition." This morning, that sign showed up at a local country-music radio station. Whether this was simply a prank or a political statement remains to be seen.
In the meantime, a number of different Christians have chosen to go public with their sense of being offended about the atheist sign. On Sunday a group is holding a "pro-faith" rally at the capitol, and Ken Hutcherson is trying to put up a new sign, declaring that "atheism is a myth and superstition. . ."
Somehow, the whole thing feels to me like two rival high schools in the days leading up to their football game. Whoever stole the sign is an idiot, for sure, but all the posturing and taking offense and everything else (you knew Bill O'Reilly and Fox news got into the act, too, right?) is just so much wasted noise.
After all, proof that Messiah had come (which is what Christmas is all about, anyway) is not in signs and sound bites. Proof of Messiah is when Christians love their enemies and work for peace, when the poor are fed and the lonely are loved and the sick are cared for and the lame are walking and the blind seeing and God's people are worshiping together. Perhaps if we spent less time being offended and more time doing the work of Messiah, we wouldn't need signs and rallies.
Last night, somebody stole the sign erected by the Freedom from Religion folks, a sign which declared that all religion is "myth and superstition." This morning, that sign showed up at a local country-music radio station. Whether this was simply a prank or a political statement remains to be seen.
In the meantime, a number of different Christians have chosen to go public with their sense of being offended about the atheist sign. On Sunday a group is holding a "pro-faith" rally at the capitol, and Ken Hutcherson is trying to put up a new sign, declaring that "atheism is a myth and superstition. . ."
Somehow, the whole thing feels to me like two rival high schools in the days leading up to their football game. Whoever stole the sign is an idiot, for sure, but all the posturing and taking offense and everything else (you knew Bill O'Reilly and Fox news got into the act, too, right?) is just so much wasted noise.
After all, proof that Messiah had come (which is what Christmas is all about, anyway) is not in signs and sound bites. Proof of Messiah is when Christians love their enemies and work for peace, when the poor are fed and the lonely are loved and the sick are cared for and the lame are walking and the blind seeing and God's people are worshiping together. Perhaps if we spent less time being offended and more time doing the work of Messiah, we wouldn't need signs and rallies.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Hey Doc - can you help me kill myself?
I've had a few people ask what I think about I-1000, the "assisted suicide" initiative here in Washington. To those still undecided, here are two resources that you might find helpful:
The 1997 Covenant Church Resolution on Assisted Suicide
The 2005 Covenant Resolution on Consistently Protecting and Promoting Life
The 1997 Covenant Church Resolution on Assisted Suicide
The 2005 Covenant Resolution on Consistently Protecting and Promoting Life
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
On economic disasters and political discussions: A Christian Approach
For whatever reason, I find myself one step removed from the daily onslaught of breathy newscasters prognosticating doom and gloom regarding the economy, and slashing lives and destroying souls as they "report" the latest news from the Election Trail.
It helps not having television. Whatever news I get I either hear on NPR over breakfast, or read in the few online news sites I frequent, or catch as I work out at the YMCA. But I'm spared the 5:00 news, which is repeated in the 5:30 news, and then rehashed in the 6:00 news, which is then spun over in the 6:30 news, and then repeated all over again in the 10:00 news. And I'm fortunate to not be swamped by the 24-hour-a-day, never-ending "It's the End of the World as We Know It" coverage on the cable news networks.
Perhaps because of that separation, because we get our news sparingly, I find myself more interested in the HOW question than the WHAT question. I'm truthfully not all that interested in what is being reported, so much as I'm fascinated (and troubled) by how the issues are being discussed, both at the "professional news" level and at the "common citizen" level. It is obvious by now that professional news organizations are anything but impartial - whether you are watching Fox or CNN or MSNBC, as much time is spent mocking Obama or Palin or McCain or Biden as is spent reporting what they actually say and do. Vitriolic diatribes fly back and forth, making fun of Palin's wink or blasting Obama's ex-pastor. And it's not just the candidates: let's show clips of rednecks carrying McCain/Palin signs; let's find clips of Christians praying for certain candidates; let's make caricatures of them lib'ruls and their money-wasting, anti-American ways.
I probably don't need to say anything more about that. You're smart enough to know what I mean.
The other issue, of course, is the economic disaster facing our world. And the tsunami-o-blame crashing around in its wake. It's the double-whammy, really. People are frightened, people are losing their jobs and their retirement funds. I had the "good wisdom" about a year ago to take a chunk of cash out of a low-interest savings account and invest it with the Covenant Trust Company. I'm sure the plan, which was to do better than that savings account, has actually backfired. I've been hit hard, too.
And so people are fearful, they are doubtful, they are wondering what tomorrow brings. They are tied into the news, rejoicing over every uptick on the Stock Market, despairing with each successive drop.
Between the two - the political scene and the economic scene, it seems that two emotions rule the day: anger and fear. The anger manifests itself every time a person says "I'm thinking about voting for. . ." Friends of mine have had threats leveled at them because of the political bumper stickers on their car. Internet message boards are filled with slander and venom toward those who support one candidate or the other. Anyone who disagrees with another is an "ignoramous" or a "neo-con" or a "fundamentalist" or a "socialist." I've been warned against discussing politics in the church, because we may end up causing anger and division. And, there's probably some truth to that.
The fear manifests itself in the endless stock reports, the sell-offs, the message boards and coffee shops where people sit around comparing our time to the Great Depression, where people stare into the opening chasm of financial chaos and see the end of their hopes and dreams, and wonder if they'll be left selling apples on the street corner. People who are beginning to stock up on cans of soup, people afraid to rent a DVD or go out to dinner, people who lie awake at night and feel the cold snake of anxiety slither into their room, constricting around their heart and smothering their soul. Fear that the world is sinking around us, that our ship is going under and we may just miss the lifeboats. Fear that the sun will not, in fact, come out tomorrow.
Fear and anger. Anger and fear. Perhaps the two most prevalent emotions of the day.
And as I sit back and watch all this, as I ponder the how of this conversation, I'm struck that the conversation within the church isn't much different.
I get the letters in the mail, I read the internet message boards, I notice the advertisements. There are a lot of angry Christians out there. Christians angry at the "liberals trying to ruin the country." Christians angry at the gays for trying to ruin the country. Christians angry at the fundamentalists for giving a bad name to Christianity. Christians declaring "no follower of Jesus could vote for Obama." And Christians saying "anybody who reads the words of Jesus HAS to vote for Obama."
And Christians who are afraid. Or at least silent in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Christians who are fearful of what tomorrow may bring.
Or, of course, those other Christians who are ecstatic -the ones who figure that all this means Jesus must be coming back in the next week or so, so "Praise the Lord for all the devastation! It just means prophecy is being fulfilled!"
In the end, it seems to me that these reactions - anger, fear, exaltation at the suffering of others - are the exact opposite of the emotions that ought to mark followers of Christ.
Instead, the people of God ought to shine in the world as examples of gentleness, peacefulness, and simple trust. Consider:
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not think you are superior.
As a prisoner of the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle, be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other.
. . .I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe.
So, then, this is the proper response for Christians in the midst of political turmoil and economic disaster: love, respect, gentleness, trust, prayer, peace.
Imagine if Christians engaged in political discussion in a way that was truly respectful of the opinions of others. If Christians could strongly disagree over candidates and issues, and yet treat each other with humility, considering each other better than themselves. Imagine if Christians utterly refused to allow political beliefs and opinions to divide them. Imagine if every time Christians had a political discussion we did so under a huge banner that said "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." And what if we actually lived it?
In other words, what if our common faith in Christ was more important, more precious to us than our opinions on earthly political matters?
And what if we chose to believe God's promises of provision? What if Christians truly were a people of hope and courage in the midst of recession? What if we joyously professed our belief that God will provide? And, just as important, what if those who still had money and possessions shared what they had with those who had lost jobs, those who had witnessed the disappearance of their savings?
What if the Body of Christ were enthused with hope, and practiced love and care for those who suffer?
Just what kind of impact would that make? How would it change the conversation?
So this is what I believe:
1. Those who follow Christ must be marked by the fruit of the Spirit - gentleness, kindness, love, peace foremost. We must not behave like news broadcasters, pundits, and so many bloggers, spitefully mocking those with whom we disagree. We must listen and respect all who come to the conversation.
2. No matter how bad things become, Christians must not lose their hope that God will make all things well. Thus, Christians can radiate joy and gladness even in the midst of pain and sorrow, for we know that, ultimately, we are in God's hands, and, in the words of the great song, "no power of hell, no scheme of man can ever pluck me from his hand."
3. In all things, the Body must stand strong together, meeting each other's needs, caring and providing for those who hurt and hunger, challenging those who are becoming divisive and unruly.
What I'm really saying is this: we are not of this world; thus, we ought not to behave like this world. May the mind of Christ dwell richly within us, so that it is his light that shines through us, bringing hope and civility to a world that has lost its way.
It helps not having television. Whatever news I get I either hear on NPR over breakfast, or read in the few online news sites I frequent, or catch as I work out at the YMCA. But I'm spared the 5:00 news, which is repeated in the 5:30 news, and then rehashed in the 6:00 news, which is then spun over in the 6:30 news, and then repeated all over again in the 10:00 news. And I'm fortunate to not be swamped by the 24-hour-a-day, never-ending "It's the End of the World as We Know It" coverage on the cable news networks.
Perhaps because of that separation, because we get our news sparingly, I find myself more interested in the HOW question than the WHAT question. I'm truthfully not all that interested in what is being reported, so much as I'm fascinated (and troubled) by how the issues are being discussed, both at the "professional news" level and at the "common citizen" level. It is obvious by now that professional news organizations are anything but impartial - whether you are watching Fox or CNN or MSNBC, as much time is spent mocking Obama or Palin or McCain or Biden as is spent reporting what they actually say and do. Vitriolic diatribes fly back and forth, making fun of Palin's wink or blasting Obama's ex-pastor. And it's not just the candidates: let's show clips of rednecks carrying McCain/Palin signs; let's find clips of Christians praying for certain candidates; let's make caricatures of them lib'ruls and their money-wasting, anti-American ways.
I probably don't need to say anything more about that. You're smart enough to know what I mean.
The other issue, of course, is the economic disaster facing our world. And the tsunami-o-blame crashing around in its wake. It's the double-whammy, really. People are frightened, people are losing their jobs and their retirement funds. I had the "good wisdom" about a year ago to take a chunk of cash out of a low-interest savings account and invest it with the Covenant Trust Company. I'm sure the plan, which was to do better than that savings account, has actually backfired. I've been hit hard, too.
And so people are fearful, they are doubtful, they are wondering what tomorrow brings. They are tied into the news, rejoicing over every uptick on the Stock Market, despairing with each successive drop.
Between the two - the political scene and the economic scene, it seems that two emotions rule the day: anger and fear. The anger manifests itself every time a person says "I'm thinking about voting for. . ." Friends of mine have had threats leveled at them because of the political bumper stickers on their car. Internet message boards are filled with slander and venom toward those who support one candidate or the other. Anyone who disagrees with another is an "ignoramous" or a "neo-con" or a "fundamentalist" or a "socialist." I've been warned against discussing politics in the church, because we may end up causing anger and division. And, there's probably some truth to that.
The fear manifests itself in the endless stock reports, the sell-offs, the message boards and coffee shops where people sit around comparing our time to the Great Depression, where people stare into the opening chasm of financial chaos and see the end of their hopes and dreams, and wonder if they'll be left selling apples on the street corner. People who are beginning to stock up on cans of soup, people afraid to rent a DVD or go out to dinner, people who lie awake at night and feel the cold snake of anxiety slither into their room, constricting around their heart and smothering their soul. Fear that the world is sinking around us, that our ship is going under and we may just miss the lifeboats. Fear that the sun will not, in fact, come out tomorrow.
Fear and anger. Anger and fear. Perhaps the two most prevalent emotions of the day.
And as I sit back and watch all this, as I ponder the how of this conversation, I'm struck that the conversation within the church isn't much different.
I get the letters in the mail, I read the internet message boards, I notice the advertisements. There are a lot of angry Christians out there. Christians angry at the "liberals trying to ruin the country." Christians angry at the gays for trying to ruin the country. Christians angry at the fundamentalists for giving a bad name to Christianity. Christians declaring "no follower of Jesus could vote for Obama." And Christians saying "anybody who reads the words of Jesus HAS to vote for Obama."
And Christians who are afraid. Or at least silent in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Christians who are fearful of what tomorrow may bring.
Or, of course, those other Christians who are ecstatic -the ones who figure that all this means Jesus must be coming back in the next week or so, so "Praise the Lord for all the devastation! It just means prophecy is being fulfilled!"
In the end, it seems to me that these reactions - anger, fear, exaltation at the suffering of others - are the exact opposite of the emotions that ought to mark followers of Christ.
Instead, the people of God ought to shine in the world as examples of gentleness, peacefulness, and simple trust. Consider:
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not think you are superior.
As a prisoner of the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle, be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other.
. . .I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe.
So, then, this is the proper response for Christians in the midst of political turmoil and economic disaster: love, respect, gentleness, trust, prayer, peace.
Imagine if Christians engaged in political discussion in a way that was truly respectful of the opinions of others. If Christians could strongly disagree over candidates and issues, and yet treat each other with humility, considering each other better than themselves. Imagine if Christians utterly refused to allow political beliefs and opinions to divide them. Imagine if every time Christians had a political discussion we did so under a huge banner that said "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." And what if we actually lived it?
In other words, what if our common faith in Christ was more important, more precious to us than our opinions on earthly political matters?
And what if we chose to believe God's promises of provision? What if Christians truly were a people of hope and courage in the midst of recession? What if we joyously professed our belief that God will provide? And, just as important, what if those who still had money and possessions shared what they had with those who had lost jobs, those who had witnessed the disappearance of their savings?
What if the Body of Christ were enthused with hope, and practiced love and care for those who suffer?
Just what kind of impact would that make? How would it change the conversation?
So this is what I believe:
1. Those who follow Christ must be marked by the fruit of the Spirit - gentleness, kindness, love, peace foremost. We must not behave like news broadcasters, pundits, and so many bloggers, spitefully mocking those with whom we disagree. We must listen and respect all who come to the conversation.
2. No matter how bad things become, Christians must not lose their hope that God will make all things well. Thus, Christians can radiate joy and gladness even in the midst of pain and sorrow, for we know that, ultimately, we are in God's hands, and, in the words of the great song, "no power of hell, no scheme of man can ever pluck me from his hand."
3. In all things, the Body must stand strong together, meeting each other's needs, caring and providing for those who hurt and hunger, challenging those who are becoming divisive and unruly.
What I'm really saying is this: we are not of this world; thus, we ought not to behave like this world. May the mind of Christ dwell richly within us, so that it is his light that shines through us, bringing hope and civility to a world that has lost its way.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Finally, my presidential endorsement
I've found the candidate of my choice. Watch the news feed here.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
God wants you to vote for _____!
It's generally a fact that churches don't endorse candidates. For one, it can be dangerous, since a lot of churches are made up of people who disagree on political issues. If a church were to officially endorse a candidate, it would risk dividing many of its constituents.
For another, it's illegal. Churches, as non-profit entities, are not allowed to officially endorse any candidate or position. To make such an endorsement, the church would risk losing its non-profit status with the US Government. And since many churches barely make it by as it is, to add a tax burden might just kill other viable ministries.
For yet another, things aren't always as cut-and-dried as they seem. There is hardly ever one candidate who fits every issue Christians believe is important. Pick the issue - abortion, marriage, immigration, care for the poor and elderly, environmental concerns, the economy, war, the death penalty. . .just try to come to a consensus among any group on ALL those issues, and then try to find a candidate who lines up exactly with your group on all those issues. You can't. So then you have to pick and choose exactly which of those issues should take precedence over the others, and try to find a candidate who is closest to the issues you think are important. It's not an easy task.
And for yet another, many believe the church needs to maintain some separation from the political process. God is bigger than any political party, God is bigger than the United States. So many churches want to get their people focusing on more important things. Vote, yes - it's your honor and duty. Be informed, yes - we should all pay attention and do our part to vote as our conscience guides us. But rather than being swamped by partisan politics, churches will focus on carrying out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, preaching the Gospel and feeding the hungry and fighting for the poor and marginalized and working for the Kingdom, rather than wading directly into the political pool.
Of course, astute readers will note there's a bit of a wink-wink nudge-nudge going on here. While churches may not make official endorsements, about this time every few years we're inundated with "Voter's Guides" produced by the Right-to-Life League, the Defense of Marriage League, the Christians for Environmental Awareness Association. Slick, full color pamphlets that don't make official endorsements, yet are clearly laid out in such a way to show which candidate most clearly fits their agenda. A few years ago, when I was still in Turlock, somebody showed up during a Sunday morning worship service and stuck copies of these voter guides on all the cars in the parking lot. To read the pamphlet was to get the clear idea that God only voted Republican. I had the youth group remove the flyers before anybody else saw them.
And, of course, every year at this time we're treated to news footage of the leading democratic candidate preaching at a church service of the First African Episcopal Methodist Church of Los Angeles, New York, Chicago. While these churches don't necessarily "endorse" a candidate, you get the feeling they are certainly "suggesting" the candidate they would most like to see in office. and so it goes. Churches may subtly make their feelings known, but generally don't come out and make official pronouncements.
Only this year, a group is trying to change that. According to an article in the LA Times, "Christian ministers from California and 21 other states will use their pulpits Sunday to deliver political sermons or endorse presidential candidates -- defying a federal ban on campaigning by nonprofit groups."
Their hope is to trigger an investigation by the IRS, which (they hope) would lead to a reversal of the law barring churches from endorsing candidates. By challenging the law, they hope to bring attention to it. And their long-term plan is to "'restore the right of each pastor to speak scriptural truth from the pulpit' without losing a church's tax-exempt status."
Personally, I think sometimes we've hidden behind our tax-exempt status and made it an excuse to not engage in politics. It really does make it easy for pastors to say "well, I can't make any endorsements, because it's against the law." The Church does have a prophetic voice, and it needs to make that voice clear in the U.S. Just last night I told a few people "Maybe we need to give up that tax exempt status, in order to regain our rightful place as prophet to a secular society." So I can applaud, somewhat, the general idea at work here.
What I can't applaud is the way they're going about it. Take this, for instance:
"I'm going to talk about the un-biblical stands that Barack Obama takes. Nobody who follows the Bible can vote for him," said the Rev. Wiley S. Drake of First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park. "We may not be politically correct, but we are going to be biblically correct. We are going to vote for those who follow the Bible."
See, that's where these things fall apart. There's an underlying assumption here that McCain is somehow the only Biblical candidate, that there is a direct correlation between Biblical Truth and the positions of John McCain. (To be fair, I'm assuming that, in attacking Obama, Drake is back-handedly endorsing McCain. Perhaps he'll endorse a third party instead?) But this line of "Nobody who follows the Bible can vote for him" is not just an attack on Obama, but an attack on thousands (hundreds of thousands? Millions?) of Christians who will, in fact, vote for Obama. Because their Biblical Issues are different than the chosen Biblical Issues of the Rev. Drake. Issues like caring for the poor and the elderly, issues like ending the war in Iraq, issues like justice in the marketplace - to many Christians those Biblical Issues are every bit as important as abortion and gay marriage.
You see, it's one thing to say "In the end, we believe ____ best fits the bill for how we see God working in the world, and therefore we endorse him." It's a completely other thing to say "God wants you to vote for _____." In fact, I hate to break it to the Rev. Drake, but I'm not sure there are ANY candidates who "follow the Bible." At least not like he means.
So I'm all for carrying on this discussion about whether or not Churches should be able to endorse candidates; I'd even be up for discussing the disadvantages that come with our tax exempt status. I'd just like to see some level of adult discourse and wisdom on the subject, rather than political bombshells dropped into the pool of media bites. I'd like to see the church enter into discourse about just how we might best have a voice in the United States of America. As a Christian and pastor, I'd certainly like to see Biblical values remain at the forefront of political discussion. But we need to figure out how to do that without becoming just one more shill for any particular party.
What do you think?
For another, it's illegal. Churches, as non-profit entities, are not allowed to officially endorse any candidate or position. To make such an endorsement, the church would risk losing its non-profit status with the US Government. And since many churches barely make it by as it is, to add a tax burden might just kill other viable ministries.
For yet another, things aren't always as cut-and-dried as they seem. There is hardly ever one candidate who fits every issue Christians believe is important. Pick the issue - abortion, marriage, immigration, care for the poor and elderly, environmental concerns, the economy, war, the death penalty. . .just try to come to a consensus among any group on ALL those issues, and then try to find a candidate who lines up exactly with your group on all those issues. You can't. So then you have to pick and choose exactly which of those issues should take precedence over the others, and try to find a candidate who is closest to the issues you think are important. It's not an easy task.
And for yet another, many believe the church needs to maintain some separation from the political process. God is bigger than any political party, God is bigger than the United States. So many churches want to get their people focusing on more important things. Vote, yes - it's your honor and duty. Be informed, yes - we should all pay attention and do our part to vote as our conscience guides us. But rather than being swamped by partisan politics, churches will focus on carrying out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, preaching the Gospel and feeding the hungry and fighting for the poor and marginalized and working for the Kingdom, rather than wading directly into the political pool.
Of course, astute readers will note there's a bit of a wink-wink nudge-nudge going on here. While churches may not make official endorsements, about this time every few years we're inundated with "Voter's Guides" produced by the Right-to-Life League, the Defense of Marriage League, the Christians for Environmental Awareness Association. Slick, full color pamphlets that don't make official endorsements, yet are clearly laid out in such a way to show which candidate most clearly fits their agenda. A few years ago, when I was still in Turlock, somebody showed up during a Sunday morning worship service and stuck copies of these voter guides on all the cars in the parking lot. To read the pamphlet was to get the clear idea that God only voted Republican. I had the youth group remove the flyers before anybody else saw them.
And, of course, every year at this time we're treated to news footage of the leading democratic candidate preaching at a church service of the First African Episcopal Methodist Church of Los Angeles, New York, Chicago. While these churches don't necessarily "endorse" a candidate, you get the feeling they are certainly "suggesting" the candidate they would most like to see in office. and so it goes. Churches may subtly make their feelings known, but generally don't come out and make official pronouncements.
Only this year, a group is trying to change that. According to an article in the LA Times, "Christian ministers from California and 21 other states will use their pulpits Sunday to deliver political sermons or endorse presidential candidates -- defying a federal ban on campaigning by nonprofit groups."
Their hope is to trigger an investigation by the IRS, which (they hope) would lead to a reversal of the law barring churches from endorsing candidates. By challenging the law, they hope to bring attention to it. And their long-term plan is to "'restore the right of each pastor to speak scriptural truth from the pulpit' without losing a church's tax-exempt status."
Personally, I think sometimes we've hidden behind our tax-exempt status and made it an excuse to not engage in politics. It really does make it easy for pastors to say "well, I can't make any endorsements, because it's against the law." The Church does have a prophetic voice, and it needs to make that voice clear in the U.S. Just last night I told a few people "Maybe we need to give up that tax exempt status, in order to regain our rightful place as prophet to a secular society." So I can applaud, somewhat, the general idea at work here.
What I can't applaud is the way they're going about it. Take this, for instance:
"I'm going to talk about the un-biblical stands that Barack Obama takes. Nobody who follows the Bible can vote for him," said the Rev. Wiley S. Drake of First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park. "We may not be politically correct, but we are going to be biblically correct. We are going to vote for those who follow the Bible."
See, that's where these things fall apart. There's an underlying assumption here that McCain is somehow the only Biblical candidate, that there is a direct correlation between Biblical Truth and the positions of John McCain. (To be fair, I'm assuming that, in attacking Obama, Drake is back-handedly endorsing McCain. Perhaps he'll endorse a third party instead?) But this line of "Nobody who follows the Bible can vote for him" is not just an attack on Obama, but an attack on thousands (hundreds of thousands? Millions?) of Christians who will, in fact, vote for Obama. Because their Biblical Issues are different than the chosen Biblical Issues of the Rev. Drake. Issues like caring for the poor and the elderly, issues like ending the war in Iraq, issues like justice in the marketplace - to many Christians those Biblical Issues are every bit as important as abortion and gay marriage.
You see, it's one thing to say "In the end, we believe ____ best fits the bill for how we see God working in the world, and therefore we endorse him." It's a completely other thing to say "God wants you to vote for _____." In fact, I hate to break it to the Rev. Drake, but I'm not sure there are ANY candidates who "follow the Bible." At least not like he means.
So I'm all for carrying on this discussion about whether or not Churches should be able to endorse candidates; I'd even be up for discussing the disadvantages that come with our tax exempt status. I'd just like to see some level of adult discourse and wisdom on the subject, rather than political bombshells dropped into the pool of media bites. I'd like to see the church enter into discourse about just how we might best have a voice in the United States of America. As a Christian and pastor, I'd certainly like to see Biblical values remain at the forefront of political discussion. But we need to figure out how to do that without becoming just one more shill for any particular party.
What do you think?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Just a brief comment
Across the pond in Seattle, a little firestorm is brewing. It seems Richard McIver, a Seattle City Councilman, was fined $1,000 for an ethics violation, related to a time he used his position to award city contracts to friends of his. He paid the fine without much complaint. Only he used the city's own money to pay his fine. The taxpayer's money, that is. And he doesn't seem to see anything wrong in that.
"'It is regrettable that I am now caught in the middle of a disagreement over the interpretation of the law,' McIver said in [a] statement."
That's what all this comes down to: a little disagreement over legal interpretation.
And people wonder why we don't trust politicians. . .
"'It is regrettable that I am now caught in the middle of a disagreement over the interpretation of the law,' McIver said in [a] statement."
That's what all this comes down to: a little disagreement over legal interpretation.
And people wonder why we don't trust politicians. . .
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
If you're sick of CNN and Fox News
And would like a trustworthy insider's perspective to this year's political conventions, check out Dale Kuehne's Convention Blog.
Dale is a professor at St. Anselm College, where he teaches Political Science, among other things. I sat through a seminar he led at the Covenant Midwinter a couple years ago, and would put it in the top three seminars I've ever attended.
And perhaps the best thing going for him is that he pastors a Covenant Church. So he's good people.
Dale is a professor at St. Anselm College, where he teaches Political Science, among other things. I sat through a seminar he led at the Covenant Midwinter a couple years ago, and would put it in the top three seminars I've ever attended.
And perhaps the best thing going for him is that he pastors a Covenant Church. So he's good people.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
On Christianity and Politics
NPR interviewed Richard Land, public policy chief for the Southern Baptist Convention, asking him about how Evangelicals view the upcoming election.
Land is working hard to keep Evangelicals focused on the two issues of the Sanctity of Life and the Sanctity of Marriage. He believes that these two ought to remain the primary issues Evangelicals consider when deciding who to vote for.
A couple things jumped out at me:
- Land makes it clear that while social justice and poverty issues may be important, they cannot overshadow the Abortion and Gay marriage issues.
- Right at the point where I thought Land might give some props to Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo for opening up Evangelicals' eyes to broader issues they should consider, he instead attempted to refocus all attention back to the Two Main Issues, even implying that the Church was moving in the wrong direction if it paid too much attention to any other issues.
- Land explains the shift in Evangelicals from Republican to Independent or Democrat by focusing on the scandals within the Republican Party. In other words, people are upset with the dirty laundry at home more than they are attracted by the sweet words of another.
- Finally, Land dismisses the voice of the younger people, as quoted in a Relevant Magazine article, in which a majority of people interviewed said they would vote for Obama, by stating "The SB Convention is a lot bigger, and we're not voting for a Democrat" (that's not an exact quote; it's my paraphrase).
So, what do you think? Should the church still put all its time and energy focusing on those two issues? Has the day come when issues of social justice, poverty, race relations are just as important? Can Christians any more say that one party is truly "more Christian" than the other?
And the zinger: if you had to list the top 5 issues you're concerned about going into this election, what would they be?
Land is working hard to keep Evangelicals focused on the two issues of the Sanctity of Life and the Sanctity of Marriage. He believes that these two ought to remain the primary issues Evangelicals consider when deciding who to vote for.
A couple things jumped out at me:
- Land makes it clear that while social justice and poverty issues may be important, they cannot overshadow the Abortion and Gay marriage issues.
- Right at the point where I thought Land might give some props to Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo for opening up Evangelicals' eyes to broader issues they should consider, he instead attempted to refocus all attention back to the Two Main Issues, even implying that the Church was moving in the wrong direction if it paid too much attention to any other issues.
- Land explains the shift in Evangelicals from Republican to Independent or Democrat by focusing on the scandals within the Republican Party. In other words, people are upset with the dirty laundry at home more than they are attracted by the sweet words of another.
- Finally, Land dismisses the voice of the younger people, as quoted in a Relevant Magazine article, in which a majority of people interviewed said they would vote for Obama, by stating "The SB Convention is a lot bigger, and we're not voting for a Democrat" (that's not an exact quote; it's my paraphrase).
So, what do you think? Should the church still put all its time and energy focusing on those two issues? Has the day come when issues of social justice, poverty, race relations are just as important? Can Christians any more say that one party is truly "more Christian" than the other?
And the zinger: if you had to list the top 5 issues you're concerned about going into this election, what would they be?
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Why I Disagree with Jim Dobson
You probably already heard about Dobson's Official Statement yesterday, in which he declared that he could not, would not vote for John McCain (not even on a boat, not even with a goat). Thus, should McCain win the Republican Nomination, Dr. D stated that he could not, would not cast a vote in the upcoming presidential election (not even in the rain, not even in a train).
This from the press release:
"Dr. Dobson's statement speaks for itself," said Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media relations for Focus on the Family Action. "He made it as a private citizen, and it reflects his personal opinion of Sen. McCain's candidacy and record. People can read into it what they like; all I see is his own personal 'straight talk' regarding why he can't vote for one candidate."
What's troubling is that Dr. Dobson can't make "personal statements" - anything he says is taken as gospel by hundreds of thousands of evangelicals.
At best, this is extremely myopic. At worst, it's disingenuous and dishonest. Because Dr. Dobson cannot release a public opinion statement, calling it "his own personal straight talk," and not realize that hordes will follow his lead. The very form of this "personal opinion" reads as an official press release, which will cause many to take it as an official document. And if Dr. Dobson says "I'm not voting," then many of his fans will choose not to vote as well.
Besides all that, here's why I think he's wrong:
1) He's guilty of turning this into a single-issue election. Of course, that's Dobson's m.o. It's always been a single issue for him, and you can't fault him for caring deeply about that single issue. But he's allowing that issue to overshadow all the other many issues facing our land - the economy, the war in Iraq, the environment, social security, health care, for instance. When you start looking at all those issues, you find the candidates hold a wide variety of positions, meaning that it still does make a difference who gets elected. Even if the candidate doesn't line up on all your positions (or on your Main Position), there still will be one who lines up on more of your positions than does the other candidate.
2) God's people have always been called to seek the good of the land in which they preside. When Israel was sent into captivity in Babylon, when the church was scattered among the Roman Empire, followers of God were encouraged to pray for their land, to pray for their leaders, to "live such good lives among the pagans that they glorify our father in heaven." Whether or not we agree with our leaders, or even the political process, we are still called to be good citizens, to bless the communities in which we live. We are called to be a part of the process that brings health and well-being to our country. And if we have that opportunity through voting, I think we're obligated to take it.
3) The American Political Process gives room for dissent. There are always more than 2 candidates on the ballot. And you can even write in the candidate of your choice. Granted, the odds are that those other candidates won't win, but still, we have the opportunity to make our voice heard. If enough people vote for Ron Paul, the Major Candidates will be forced to pay attention to those voices. It's not just about the Big Two. True Confession: In 2000 I voted for Alan Keyes. Of course I knew he wouldn't win. But I liked him more than Bush or that other guy, so I voted as my heart led. Dr. Dobson and his followers can do likewise - in fact, mobilize your army to vote a third party or establish a write-in campaign. They may not win, but they can still make a difference; they can make their voice heard in a positive way.
4) Excuse me for getting a little personal, but in the grand scheme of things, Dr. Dobson's approach has him coming off like a whiny kid - "If I can't have it my way, I'm taking my ball and going home!" It's not productive; it's divisive and again sends the message to the world that Evangelicals are petulant and given to temper-tantrums if we don't get our way.
So my advice to my (sadly, very few) regular readers, is to research, study, read, listen, and discern who the best candidate is, and then get out and vote. Even if you have to write my name in.
This from the press release:
"Dr. Dobson's statement speaks for itself," said Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media relations for Focus on the Family Action. "He made it as a private citizen, and it reflects his personal opinion of Sen. McCain's candidacy and record. People can read into it what they like; all I see is his own personal 'straight talk' regarding why he can't vote for one candidate."
What's troubling is that Dr. Dobson can't make "personal statements" - anything he says is taken as gospel by hundreds of thousands of evangelicals.
At best, this is extremely myopic. At worst, it's disingenuous and dishonest. Because Dr. Dobson cannot release a public opinion statement, calling it "his own personal straight talk," and not realize that hordes will follow his lead. The very form of this "personal opinion" reads as an official press release, which will cause many to take it as an official document. And if Dr. Dobson says "I'm not voting," then many of his fans will choose not to vote as well.
Besides all that, here's why I think he's wrong:
1) He's guilty of turning this into a single-issue election. Of course, that's Dobson's m.o. It's always been a single issue for him, and you can't fault him for caring deeply about that single issue. But he's allowing that issue to overshadow all the other many issues facing our land - the economy, the war in Iraq, the environment, social security, health care, for instance. When you start looking at all those issues, you find the candidates hold a wide variety of positions, meaning that it still does make a difference who gets elected. Even if the candidate doesn't line up on all your positions (or on your Main Position), there still will be one who lines up on more of your positions than does the other candidate.
2) God's people have always been called to seek the good of the land in which they preside. When Israel was sent into captivity in Babylon, when the church was scattered among the Roman Empire, followers of God were encouraged to pray for their land, to pray for their leaders, to "live such good lives among the pagans that they glorify our father in heaven." Whether or not we agree with our leaders, or even the political process, we are still called to be good citizens, to bless the communities in which we live. We are called to be a part of the process that brings health and well-being to our country. And if we have that opportunity through voting, I think we're obligated to take it.
3) The American Political Process gives room for dissent. There are always more than 2 candidates on the ballot. And you can even write in the candidate of your choice. Granted, the odds are that those other candidates won't win, but still, we have the opportunity to make our voice heard. If enough people vote for Ron Paul, the Major Candidates will be forced to pay attention to those voices. It's not just about the Big Two. True Confession: In 2000 I voted for Alan Keyes. Of course I knew he wouldn't win. But I liked him more than Bush or that other guy, so I voted as my heart led. Dr. Dobson and his followers can do likewise - in fact, mobilize your army to vote a third party or establish a write-in campaign. They may not win, but they can still make a difference; they can make their voice heard in a positive way.
4) Excuse me for getting a little personal, but in the grand scheme of things, Dr. Dobson's approach has him coming off like a whiny kid - "If I can't have it my way, I'm taking my ball and going home!" It's not productive; it's divisive and again sends the message to the world that Evangelicals are petulant and given to temper-tantrums if we don't get our way.
So my advice to my (sadly, very few) regular readers, is to research, study, read, listen, and discern who the best candidate is, and then get out and vote. Even if you have to write my name in.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Curious about Mormons?
One of the things I've learned from my (granted, somewhat limited) experience with those who call the Mormon Church home is that they are gifted at misdirection. They play like smoke, shifting and dodging in order to avoid the tough questions, hoping to win you over with their good values and nice personalities. Often, after attempting to have extended conversations with Mormons, I've felt that old adage "style over substance" applied very well. Not that they weren't sincere. And I don't even think they were truly lying to me. It's just that they realize some of their cherished beliefs are somewhat controversial, and they'd rather not bring those things into the public eye.
So when you challenge them on the Book of Mormon's validity, they respond "The Book of Mormon isn't on trial here. . ." But when you ask for proof as to the historical validity of Mormonism, they point you to the Book of Mormon.
When you attempt to point out the massive gulf between Christian orthodoxy and Mormon theology (heresy?) they'll say "We're not here to prove this to you. You just need to read the Book of Mormon, pray that God speaks to you, and see if you get a Burning in your Bosom." And then there are the times I've challenged Mormon missionaries on Mormon doctrines that they themselves were unaware of. Perhaps they even keep their own people in the dark about certain theological positions they hold.
Mormons want to be seen as mainstream, as just another branch of Christianity, and they present themselves as such. Yet they never really want to get into the nuts and bolts of things, where they are truly quite far away from historical Christianity. Reference the article I reviewed a few weeks ago, where a Mormon elder went to great pains to say "we're not heretics!" only to espouse some of the oldest and greatest heresies ever rejected by the Church.
So now Romney has delivered what may come to be known as his "Mormon" Speech. And I have no doubt about his sincerity, or the passion with which he follows his Mormon faith. I'm also not convinced that his Mormon faith automatically disqualifies him as a candidate I would vote for (note: I'm not planning on voting for Romney, but for reasons other than his faith).
What I am curious about is how all this publicity will affect the Mormon Church. They are getting the light shown on them, perhaps like never before. For an organization that tends to work in the shadows, this is a coming-out party for them. So far, the smoke-and-mirrors still seems to hold sway. They aren't dealing with the substance of Mormonism; instead, people are simply lauding Romney for sticking to his convictions (One Southern Baptist said the speech was "Kennedyesque"), or rejecting him because those religious convictions stand against their own agendas.
At some point, will somebody actually bring out the substance of what Romney is giving credence to? Will somebody point out that to accept Mormonism means to accept the fact that we all pre-existed as spirit children, that our souls were deposited into our fleshly bodies when we were born, and that if we live good Mormon lives we get to spend eternity populating another planet with our good Mormon spouse(s)?
In other words, will the conversation reveal the unsavory aspects of Mormonism, bringing it all into the light of day?
Or, will Mormons be forced to rethink their more "interesting" beliefs in this new light, perhaps rejecting some of them and moving ever more closer to True Christianity?
Or, will Americans never ask those tough questions, because they're too excited about the Spice Girls reunion tour?
So when you challenge them on the Book of Mormon's validity, they respond "The Book of Mormon isn't on trial here. . ." But when you ask for proof as to the historical validity of Mormonism, they point you to the Book of Mormon.
When you attempt to point out the massive gulf between Christian orthodoxy and Mormon theology (heresy?) they'll say "We're not here to prove this to you. You just need to read the Book of Mormon, pray that God speaks to you, and see if you get a Burning in your Bosom." And then there are the times I've challenged Mormon missionaries on Mormon doctrines that they themselves were unaware of. Perhaps they even keep their own people in the dark about certain theological positions they hold.
Mormons want to be seen as mainstream, as just another branch of Christianity, and they present themselves as such. Yet they never really want to get into the nuts and bolts of things, where they are truly quite far away from historical Christianity. Reference the article I reviewed a few weeks ago, where a Mormon elder went to great pains to say "we're not heretics!" only to espouse some of the oldest and greatest heresies ever rejected by the Church.
So now Romney has delivered what may come to be known as his "Mormon" Speech. And I have no doubt about his sincerity, or the passion with which he follows his Mormon faith. I'm also not convinced that his Mormon faith automatically disqualifies him as a candidate I would vote for (note: I'm not planning on voting for Romney, but for reasons other than his faith).
What I am curious about is how all this publicity will affect the Mormon Church. They are getting the light shown on them, perhaps like never before. For an organization that tends to work in the shadows, this is a coming-out party for them. So far, the smoke-and-mirrors still seems to hold sway. They aren't dealing with the substance of Mormonism; instead, people are simply lauding Romney for sticking to his convictions (One Southern Baptist said the speech was "Kennedyesque"), or rejecting him because those religious convictions stand against their own agendas.
At some point, will somebody actually bring out the substance of what Romney is giving credence to? Will somebody point out that to accept Mormonism means to accept the fact that we all pre-existed as spirit children, that our souls were deposited into our fleshly bodies when we were born, and that if we live good Mormon lives we get to spend eternity populating another planet with our good Mormon spouse(s)?
In other words, will the conversation reveal the unsavory aspects of Mormonism, bringing it all into the light of day?
Or, will Mormons be forced to rethink their more "interesting" beliefs in this new light, perhaps rejecting some of them and moving ever more closer to True Christianity?
Or, will Americans never ask those tough questions, because they're too excited about the Spice Girls reunion tour?
Friday, June 01, 2007
Friday Random Bonanza
The WeatherAh, the weather. The top finally came off the Jeep Wednesday. In Washington, going topless in May is always a sketchy prospect. You know rain is right around the corner. But how could I pass up this opportunity to enjoy the sunshine and 80-degree temps? Unless you've driven along the shoreline, or through the woods, in a Jeep with the top off. . .It's a Jeep thing. You wouldn't understand. The Purdy Spit was a whole new experience.
The NewsThe Key Peninsula geoduck fight makes it back into the news again, this time in the Tacoma News Tribune. For those new to the discussion, one family wants to grow geoducks on their shoreline (approximately 500 yards from where we live), in order to make some money to offset their astronomically high property taxes. Everybody else is afraid doing that will ruin the "pristine" shoreline. It's local politics par excellence. Somebody needs a class in conflict management. Or Washington needs to figure out how to stop runaway property tax increases.
Life
Last fall, Lakebay Community Church blessed us with a gift certificate to a resort about an hour away, on the Hood Canal. We finally get to use it next week. My parents are coming over here to watch the girls, giving usI complete freedom for 48 hours. I was hoping to take advantage of some outdoor opportunities - kayaking, biking, hiking - but now they are saying the rain is returning on Monday. So maybe it will be just sitting by the fire, or in the hot tub, relaxing. One way or the other, it will be nice.
Of course, that means this place will stay a little quiet the early part of next week. The Sermon Experiment Texts might be a little late, or a little early. We'll see.
In Case you hadn't found itYou need to bookmark Nasa's Astronomy Picture of the Day. You get to see stuff like this:
That's Messier 65, a spiral galaxy about 35 million miles from earth.
Something New I LearnedI always thought cookies were only placed on your computer when you visited websites, and that only those website put cookies on your computer. I recently changed the settings on my Firefox browser to notify me whenever somebody wants to put a cookie on my computer. Turns out websites will stick cookies in your computer if you simply google them. Plus all the ads in websites? They stick cookies on your computer, too. So if you visit, say, a website offering financial information, and on the borders of said websites are a couple of advertisements for financial help seminars/books/classes - often those advertised websites are sticking cookies on your computer along with the actual site you visited.
Maybe you already knew that. I didn't.
And, lastly, the Friday Random 10Eclectic bunch today, but all good. Some bluegrass, some classical, some gospel, some new stuff, some old stuff, some ancient stuff. #1,2, and 6 are probably my three favorite female singers. We saw #3 performed live at last year's Puyallup Fair. #4 I missed out on by one year - Erich Kunzel, director of the Cincinnati Pops, visited APU to check out our choir for his Gospel Project, and was duly impressed, inviting the group out to record his album and do a live performance. Alas, I was a senior the year of his visit, and so took part in the impressing, but not the recording.
The NewsThe Key Peninsula geoduck fight makes it back into the news again, this time in the Tacoma News Tribune. For those new to the discussion, one family wants to grow geoducks on their shoreline (approximately 500 yards from where we live), in order to make some money to offset their astronomically high property taxes. Everybody else is afraid doing that will ruin the "pristine" shoreline. It's local politics par excellence. Somebody needs a class in conflict management. Or Washington needs to figure out how to stop runaway property tax increases.
Life
Last fall, Lakebay Community Church blessed us with a gift certificate to a resort about an hour away, on the Hood Canal. We finally get to use it next week. My parents are coming over here to watch the girls, giving usI complete freedom for 48 hours. I was hoping to take advantage of some outdoor opportunities - kayaking, biking, hiking - but now they are saying the rain is returning on Monday. So maybe it will be just sitting by the fire, or in the hot tub, relaxing. One way or the other, it will be nice.
Of course, that means this place will stay a little quiet the early part of next week. The Sermon Experiment Texts might be a little late, or a little early. We'll see.
In Case you hadn't found itYou need to bookmark Nasa's Astronomy Picture of the Day. You get to see stuff like this:
That's Messier 65, a spiral galaxy about 35 million miles from earth.
Something New I LearnedI always thought cookies were only placed on your computer when you visited websites, and that only those website put cookies on your computer. I recently changed the settings on my Firefox browser to notify me whenever somebody wants to put a cookie on my computer. Turns out websites will stick cookies in your computer if you simply google them. Plus all the ads in websites? They stick cookies on your computer, too. So if you visit, say, a website offering financial information, and on the borders of said websites are a couple of advertisements for financial help seminars/books/classes - often those advertised websites are sticking cookies on your computer along with the actual site you visited.
Maybe you already knew that. I didn't.
And, lastly, the Friday Random 10Eclectic bunch today, but all good. Some bluegrass, some classical, some gospel, some new stuff, some old stuff, some ancient stuff. #1,2, and 6 are probably my three favorite female singers. We saw #3 performed live at last year's Puyallup Fair. #4 I missed out on by one year - Erich Kunzel, director of the Cincinnati Pops, visited APU to check out our choir for his Gospel Project, and was duly impressed, inviting the group out to record his album and do a live performance. Alas, I was a senior the year of his visit, and so took part in the impressing, but not the recording.
- Norah Jones/Dolly Parton – Creepin’ In
- Alison Krauss and Union Station – So Long, So Wrong
- David Crowder – You Are My Joy
- Ricky Skaggs and Earl Scruggs – American Roots
- Diana Krall – I’ll string along with you
- Bebo Norman – Where the Angels Sleep
- Derek Webb – Awake My Soul
- Kathleen Battle – Rejoice
- The Dillards – The Whole World ‘Round
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Small-town Politics
Suddenly Lakebay is famous, for all the wrong reasons. . .
Honestly, I would expect better from adults. But this isn't my first experience with one of them, and in our last exchange he acted just like the same petulant little kid. And people say the kids are messed up. It's these guys who worry me. . .
A local fire commissioner was jailed after a fight in which a fellow commissioner was attacked with a coffee mug, apparently the latest incident in a long-standing feud.
The commissioners, 71-year-old Allen Yanity and 64-year-old Jim Bosch, both of Lakebay, got into a heated exchange Tuesday during a break in a meeting as they were standing with their wives, sheriff's Detective Ed Troyer said.
Yanity bashed Bosch repeatedly on the head with a coffee mug, Troyer said.
It's like watching kids on the junior high playground. "I'm gonna get you!" "Oh yeah? Well I'm gonna get you!" "Betcha couldn't!" "Betcha I could!" "I dare you!" "I Double-dog dare you!"Honestly, I would expect better from adults. But this isn't my first experience with one of them, and in our last exchange he acted just like the same petulant little kid. And people say the kids are messed up. It's these guys who worry me. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)