"Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and peridition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6-10 NKJV
I have often said, half jokingly, that I have nothing against rich people; in fact, I hope to be one someday! I suppose I've always had this semi-fantasy floating in the back of my mind of a day when I did not have to balance the check book and wonder whether there was enough money to make the house payment. O, the day when I could write a $1000 check to a worthy charity and be glad to have had it to share! Yes Lord, I would do great things if You would only trust me as much as (I say) I trust You!
We know that it doesn't work this way. We should also know that there is a very good reason why it does not and should not work this way. Some, such as I, could not be trusted with large chunks of money. I am absolutely certain of what drives my desire for money. Money = power. That's it. There really is not much more to it.
And the writer of Timothy hits on a key word as well: "contentment". I suppose it never really struck me until last night as I was reading through this passage in preparation for a Sunday sermon (YES!! I get to fill in for someone!). What does it take to be content, truly content? Does contentment feed fulfillment, or is it the other way around? There is enough contained in this passage to force any reasonable disciple to guess that there much more to life than the pursuit of worldly riches, those things "that rust".
It is easy for me to point a finger at the Vatican and high-dollar pastors and demand that they live like the rest of us, but the reality is that any among us is just as subject to these temptations. I for one don't seem too willing to sell everything I own and take up a cross. It would seem I am more willing to tote the extra burden (the cross) along with all my "stuff". This is not a pretty picture of someone who has virtually demanded that the Vatican be sold and the space be given up for homeless folks.
The very same can be said for saving money and fretting about Social Security. Whom do we truly trust if we actually spend time worrying about what will happen to us tomorrow, surely knowing that tomorrow may well never come for us?
That's it, isn't it? It's not that we fear tomorrow necessarily; it is that we are afraid there will be too many "tomorrows" and not enough cash to go around. Either way, we condemn ourselves by demanding that others live up (or down) to a standard we are not willing to abide by.
This is not to say that there are not excesses within the Church. It must be remembered, however, that until we are willing to lead BY EXAMPLE, the message is just a lot of meaningless noise.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Sunday, April 02, 2006
The Da Vinci Code
Not long ago while attending a class, Principles of the Life of Christ, the instructor was introducing various historical documents that man has used over time to justify his religion. He spoke briefly of the Bible, of course, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Apocrypha, and the Gnostic Gospels. What really got this man on a tear, however, was Dan Brown and his megahit The Da Vinci Code. The good reverend was extremely upset that Mr. Brown had the audacity to present his book as a historical source work. When I mentioned to the instructor that I had read - and thoroughly enjoyed - the book and found nothing that suggested such a claim (in fact, there is a printed disclaimer that reminds us that the overall work is a piece of FICTION). Mr. Instructor then suggested I go online to Mr. Brown's website to which I responded, "I have, and I stand by what I say." Did I mention that I got a "B" in the class?
Hence the title link to "Common Questions" on Dan Brown's website about The Da Vinci Code. There is no claim to historical accuracy even though there are some historic references such as ancient organizations and practices, but the plot of the whole story required that Mr. Brown take some artistic license with some of these references. Mr. Brown is not, to my knowledge, trying to sell this work as a "text" book for some future class in religion history.
I can only say that I have not enjoyed a book as much as I enjoyed this one (with the possible exception of The Grapes of Wrath). It was an incredible ride that kept me on the edge of my seat AND my sanity (I kept having to reread some portions to make sure I was not trying to "learn" something historic that was not meshing with what I had actually "learned" in some history and theology classes!)!!
If you choose to read this book, try to remember that it is a work of FICTION. This means that the story itself is not true even if some references are accurate. He is not trying to attack the Roman Catholic Church, and he is not necessarily trying to dispute 2000 years of Christian teachings (though I must admit that some portions of the book did force me to stop and think. In fact, I think one or two sermons came from this book!).
Did I mention that The Da Vinci Code is a work of FICTION? That's F*I*C*T*I*O*N.
The only reason I get so worked up is because I still read snippets here and there from some theologians who insist that Dan Brown is challenging the very foundation of the Church itself. One thing I can be sure of is this: what Dan Brown or I may think about the Church will not change its foundation one tiny bit. He thinks, and I think. That's just about it except for the fact that he probably gets paid a lot more than I for what he thinks.
Hence the title link to "Common Questions" on Dan Brown's website about The Da Vinci Code. There is no claim to historical accuracy even though there are some historic references such as ancient organizations and practices, but the plot of the whole story required that Mr. Brown take some artistic license with some of these references. Mr. Brown is not, to my knowledge, trying to sell this work as a "text" book for some future class in religion history.
I can only say that I have not enjoyed a book as much as I enjoyed this one (with the possible exception of The Grapes of Wrath). It was an incredible ride that kept me on the edge of my seat AND my sanity (I kept having to reread some portions to make sure I was not trying to "learn" something historic that was not meshing with what I had actually "learned" in some history and theology classes!)!!
If you choose to read this book, try to remember that it is a work of FICTION. This means that the story itself is not true even if some references are accurate. He is not trying to attack the Roman Catholic Church, and he is not necessarily trying to dispute 2000 years of Christian teachings (though I must admit that some portions of the book did force me to stop and think. In fact, I think one or two sermons came from this book!).
Did I mention that The Da Vinci Code is a work of FICTION? That's F*I*C*T*I*O*N.
The only reason I get so worked up is because I still read snippets here and there from some theologians who insist that Dan Brown is challenging the very foundation of the Church itself. One thing I can be sure of is this: what Dan Brown or I may think about the Church will not change its foundation one tiny bit. He thinks, and I think. That's just about it except for the fact that he probably gets paid a lot more than I for what he thinks.
More on "Repent from What?
Well, I guess I should have seen it coming. This post is linked to an MSN story which reports that the Vatican expects royalties from papal writings. That is to say, the wisdom of the pope seems to be for sale. That is to say, papal writings which has always attended church doctrine with practical application with a gospel perspective cannot be reprinted without royalties being paid.
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this. I do recognize that there are expenses related to printing, but I'm not sure that a royalty payment is directly related to production expenses. I am not so sure that priests should be "moonlighting" for extra cash. Besides, does the Vatican have exclusive claim to what is written by a pope? After all, it is the Vatican that is demanding royalty payments presumably for encyclicals, a papal declaration of church teaching.
What do you think?
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this. I do recognize that there are expenses related to printing, but I'm not sure that a royalty payment is directly related to production expenses. I am not so sure that priests should be "moonlighting" for extra cash. Besides, does the Vatican have exclusive claim to what is written by a pope? After all, it is the Vatican that is demanding royalty payments presumably for encyclicals, a papal declaration of church teaching.
What do you think?
Repent from What?
"After John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." Mark 1:14-15 NKJV
All eyes are on the Roman church this weekend because of the commemoration of the passing of John Paul II. Because of the life this man had led, there is much to be remembered for I believe that his life was one of inspiration and dedication. I believe now as much as I believed then that John Paul II was true to his calling.
I also experienced some troubling thoughts as I was watching some of the reviews on TV that showed the Vatican. I hope my Catholic friends do not take offense with what I am about to offer because my intent is not to denigrate Catholicism at all.
I was reading this passage from Mark when an image of the Vatican was displayed on TV, and I began to recall some thoughts others have had in the past about the excessiveness of the Vatican and the private residence of one who had at one time taken a vow of poverty for the sake of the gospel. Now the pope resides in a palace and is nowhere near the level of poverty we know and understand.
The worldwide church, not exclusively the Roman church, owns property and has holdings worth millions, if not billions. Because some of these holdings are so massive, the cost just to maintain these holdings must be huge. There are pastors and bishops from other denominations whose compensation packages must be worth over $200,000.00 annually, and this is not even including a paid residence. I recall once a "bean counter" from the conference who came to our church to help explain the budget of the conference, and he made mention of $40 million in holdings for a "rainy day".
Considering the magnitude of poverty and hunger in the entire world, I'm thinking that it's raining cats and dogs in some parts of this country alone, and yet the church is waiting for a "rainy day". Can anyone tell me the proportion of the world-wide church's budget that is devoted to ministry and mission vs administration? If I had to guess, I would say that we are spending an awful lot of money on day-to-day "operations" that has little to do with directly confronting hunger alone.
We church people are eager to blame the United States and the Western nations for hording too much wealth and spending too much on war, but we do little with our own cash except to wait for "rain".
It is no small wonder that many have lost faith in the church so much to the point that tithing is not the act of worship it once was or could actually be. Administrative costs are a reality, I know, but what are we "holding" out for? How bad does it actually have to be before we are collectively willing to really stick our necks out for the sake of the gospel?
It seems to be that our costs have grown so out-of-control because we are more eager and wiling to spend money "on faith" that attracting more persons to our churches will somehow change the world. And maybe it will to some extent. Or maybe it is that building bigger and nicer buildings and paying the pastors more and buying CD's (certificates of deposit, not music) and hiring professional musicians and hording our money to make more money in order to see to the "business" of the church is more along the lines of the necessary repentance to which Jesus was referring.
If we truly possess the faith which we preach as necessary for salvation, why are we so afraid of tomorrow that we would horde money and wait for "rain"? Why must hundreds of thousands of persons literally starve to death or lose their homes while we pay accountants and attorneys to protect what is "ours"?
The church has no more need to repent of its past for racism or slavery or the Holocaust or the Inquisition or the Crusades. We blame governments for not doing enough for the masses but we give the masses little reason to believe in the mission and ministry of Christ's Holy Church.
The repentance of the Church, it seems to me, is for the "here and now".
All eyes are on the Roman church this weekend because of the commemoration of the passing of John Paul II. Because of the life this man had led, there is much to be remembered for I believe that his life was one of inspiration and dedication. I believe now as much as I believed then that John Paul II was true to his calling.
I also experienced some troubling thoughts as I was watching some of the reviews on TV that showed the Vatican. I hope my Catholic friends do not take offense with what I am about to offer because my intent is not to denigrate Catholicism at all.
I was reading this passage from Mark when an image of the Vatican was displayed on TV, and I began to recall some thoughts others have had in the past about the excessiveness of the Vatican and the private residence of one who had at one time taken a vow of poverty for the sake of the gospel. Now the pope resides in a palace and is nowhere near the level of poverty we know and understand.
The worldwide church, not exclusively the Roman church, owns property and has holdings worth millions, if not billions. Because some of these holdings are so massive, the cost just to maintain these holdings must be huge. There are pastors and bishops from other denominations whose compensation packages must be worth over $200,000.00 annually, and this is not even including a paid residence. I recall once a "bean counter" from the conference who came to our church to help explain the budget of the conference, and he made mention of $40 million in holdings for a "rainy day".
Considering the magnitude of poverty and hunger in the entire world, I'm thinking that it's raining cats and dogs in some parts of this country alone, and yet the church is waiting for a "rainy day". Can anyone tell me the proportion of the world-wide church's budget that is devoted to ministry and mission vs administration? If I had to guess, I would say that we are spending an awful lot of money on day-to-day "operations" that has little to do with directly confronting hunger alone.
We church people are eager to blame the United States and the Western nations for hording too much wealth and spending too much on war, but we do little with our own cash except to wait for "rain".
It is no small wonder that many have lost faith in the church so much to the point that tithing is not the act of worship it once was or could actually be. Administrative costs are a reality, I know, but what are we "holding" out for? How bad does it actually have to be before we are collectively willing to really stick our necks out for the sake of the gospel?
It seems to be that our costs have grown so out-of-control because we are more eager and wiling to spend money "on faith" that attracting more persons to our churches will somehow change the world. And maybe it will to some extent. Or maybe it is that building bigger and nicer buildings and paying the pastors more and buying CD's (certificates of deposit, not music) and hiring professional musicians and hording our money to make more money in order to see to the "business" of the church is more along the lines of the necessary repentance to which Jesus was referring.
If we truly possess the faith which we preach as necessary for salvation, why are we so afraid of tomorrow that we would horde money and wait for "rain"? Why must hundreds of thousands of persons literally starve to death or lose their homes while we pay accountants and attorneys to protect what is "ours"?
The church has no more need to repent of its past for racism or slavery or the Holocaust or the Inquisition or the Crusades. We blame governments for not doing enough for the masses but we give the masses little reason to believe in the mission and ministry of Christ's Holy Church.
The repentance of the Church, it seems to me, is for the "here and now".
Thursday, March 30, 2006
I Never Thought I'd See the Day
There was a time when I would lament about how too many people hold the pastor personally responsible for attendance. After all, if the pastor is not a good preacher, how can the congregation expect to sit still for a mediocre sermon? How can we take ownership of what the pastor is saying if the pastor himself/herself does not seem to believe what is being said?
Now I find myself in an odd position. When it comes to worship, there can never be too much music for me. I love to sing and I love good singing, but I am not for drums and electric guitars or anything "funky" in church; it's just not my thing. I am something of a traditionalist, but I do also love many of the more contemporary so-called praise choruses.
After this comes the sermon. Now I'm having a problem. We visited a church this past Sunday where the preacher went on for FIFTY MINUTES! FIFTY MINUTES!! Yes, I timed him because Dan over at Common Saints has written many very good posts about the attitude of worship and what we expect, but he also has conducted polls to find out how long the typical church has music during its worship services. This is why I was timing the church where we were. Did I mention that the sermon was FIFTY MINUTES long??
The first 1/2 hour was entirely devoted to music which also included an exceptional solo. When the music was done and the offering collected, the pastor got up to preach. At the 30-minute mark he stated, "Can I talk to you for a minute?" ... OH ..... MY ...... GOSH!! What has he been doing for the last 30 minutes?? Then he continued to "talk" to us for another 20 minutes. What was worse is that he kept repeating himself.
Another church I've attended has what I believe to be an exceptional pastor with a good heart, but his preaching leaves me extremely thirsty. I've not timed him, but it honestly feels like an eternity because he has yet to really make a point and then DRIVE IT HOME. To be perfectly honest, I cannot tell if he is ill at ease or if he's completely bored with the whole thing. Either way, I am not convinced that he is completely convinced of what he was trying to convince me of. Now I don't want to go back.
Why am I seemingly on a never-ending quest for the perfect preacher? Why is my Sabbath focus on demanding that the pastor get my attention and keep it? Why is my worship not complete unless a pastor "wows" me? That my heart is not in the right frame when I show up at a church is a given. I miss preaching. I think I have control issues, but I also think that I cannot get settled because I have been called to preach.
I once thought that I lacked the genuine heart of a pastor, but now I wonder why I resigned my church. Preparing and preaching a 15 or 20 minute sermon was not so great deal that I couldn't do it. I was more afraid that if/when the time came when someone in my congregation would be in genuine need of a pastor, I would not be available. Or that I would not be completely at their disposal. Between secular work, school, children events and family time, I was afraid more than anything else that I would be forced to make a choice. I thought that my family, my congregation, and I deserved better.
Now I am miserable, and I cannot find my way. Even more than this, though, is the haunting thought that keeps crossing my mind: how can I lead worship if I cannot free myself to worship? There is an element missing, and I cannot put my finger on it.
I ...... feel ....... lost.
Now I find myself in an odd position. When it comes to worship, there can never be too much music for me. I love to sing and I love good singing, but I am not for drums and electric guitars or anything "funky" in church; it's just not my thing. I am something of a traditionalist, but I do also love many of the more contemporary so-called praise choruses.
After this comes the sermon. Now I'm having a problem. We visited a church this past Sunday where the preacher went on for FIFTY MINUTES! FIFTY MINUTES!! Yes, I timed him because Dan over at Common Saints has written many very good posts about the attitude of worship and what we expect, but he also has conducted polls to find out how long the typical church has music during its worship services. This is why I was timing the church where we were. Did I mention that the sermon was FIFTY MINUTES long??
The first 1/2 hour was entirely devoted to music which also included an exceptional solo. When the music was done and the offering collected, the pastor got up to preach. At the 30-minute mark he stated, "Can I talk to you for a minute?" ... OH ..... MY ...... GOSH!! What has he been doing for the last 30 minutes?? Then he continued to "talk" to us for another 20 minutes. What was worse is that he kept repeating himself.
Another church I've attended has what I believe to be an exceptional pastor with a good heart, but his preaching leaves me extremely thirsty. I've not timed him, but it honestly feels like an eternity because he has yet to really make a point and then DRIVE IT HOME. To be perfectly honest, I cannot tell if he is ill at ease or if he's completely bored with the whole thing. Either way, I am not convinced that he is completely convinced of what he was trying to convince me of. Now I don't want to go back.
Why am I seemingly on a never-ending quest for the perfect preacher? Why is my Sabbath focus on demanding that the pastor get my attention and keep it? Why is my worship not complete unless a pastor "wows" me? That my heart is not in the right frame when I show up at a church is a given. I miss preaching. I think I have control issues, but I also think that I cannot get settled because I have been called to preach.
I once thought that I lacked the genuine heart of a pastor, but now I wonder why I resigned my church. Preparing and preaching a 15 or 20 minute sermon was not so great deal that I couldn't do it. I was more afraid that if/when the time came when someone in my congregation would be in genuine need of a pastor, I would not be available. Or that I would not be completely at their disposal. Between secular work, school, children events and family time, I was afraid more than anything else that I would be forced to make a choice. I thought that my family, my congregation, and I deserved better.
Now I am miserable, and I cannot find my way. Even more than this, though, is the haunting thought that keeps crossing my mind: how can I lead worship if I cannot free myself to worship? There is an element missing, and I cannot put my finger on it.
I ...... feel ....... lost.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
I Just May Do It!
For years I've wondered what it must be like to serve as a representative in the state legislature or the US Congress. Having finally taken my first trip to Washington DC a couple of years ago, I was awed by the sheer history that surrounds everything. Though we did not get the chance to tour the Congress or the White House, I could not help but to wonder how any politician could lose that sense of awe and wonder in being a part of history.
I really began paying attention to national politics in 1980 when President Carter faced a challenge from Ronald Reagan. It was then when jobs were not so easy to come by and interest rates were out of control. Though I hesitate to blame President Carter now (I was happy to at the time!), I am convinced in my heart and mind that President Reagan was the right man at the right time for the job. I was so inspired by Mr. Reagan that I joined the US Marine Corps to become a part of something much bigger than self. In fact, during a battalion inspection in boot camp just prior to graduation, this is exactly what I told the battalion commander when he asked why I had joined up.
Over the years I was quite caught up in the "fight" that has since come to define politics. I sometimes wonder if my involvement somehow helped to fan the flames to the low point that politics has reached now. It is becoming more difficult to wade through the "mud" and find out exactly what a political candidate stands for. We have become a complacent nation that seems to be satisfied with sound bites and name-calling candidates. I suppose the nature of political campaigns has become so much worse over the years because we voters have rewarded the nastiest of these people with an election win and, ultimately, a lifetime job and pension.
So I am seriously considering a run for a house seat in the Arkansas legislature. Whether I will actually do it this time is still a big question. I've just learned that the only other Republican who is running for the same seat is an attorney; I have yet to earn a degree though I am in school. In order to get voters to take such a candidacy seriously would require the kind of political savvy that I am not so sure I possess.
Is it possible to run a campaign without trashing one's opponent? I think this would be where I would like to start. Having a face-to-face debate is one thing, but throwing charges and counter-charges through the media in a campaign is somewhat over the line and not conducive to giving voters real choices. If a candidate did nothing more than to educate voters and give them some things to think about besides a political opponent's nocturnal habits, much more could be accomplished.
In my own congressional district is a gentleman named Vic Snyder. He is a Democrat and has served this district (honorably, I might add) for ten years. Love him or hate him, but he commands respect not because he is some awesome creation but because he is a gentleman. He is of sound character and, I think, profound intregity. His sense of ethics has never been questioned though his politics has been challenged more than once. However, I think he has run for re-election twice without opposition; once for sure that I distinctly recall. Why? Maybe it is for the same reason I have seriously considered voting for him as much as I disagree with him. I know I can trust him. Not everyone can say this about their congressman or senator and for me, this is worth a lot.
I have only a few issues that I believe to be important in Arkansas politics. Whether I actually get to introduce these proposals myself remains to be seen:
I really began paying attention to national politics in 1980 when President Carter faced a challenge from Ronald Reagan. It was then when jobs were not so easy to come by and interest rates were out of control. Though I hesitate to blame President Carter now (I was happy to at the time!), I am convinced in my heart and mind that President Reagan was the right man at the right time for the job. I was so inspired by Mr. Reagan that I joined the US Marine Corps to become a part of something much bigger than self. In fact, during a battalion inspection in boot camp just prior to graduation, this is exactly what I told the battalion commander when he asked why I had joined up.
Over the years I was quite caught up in the "fight" that has since come to define politics. I sometimes wonder if my involvement somehow helped to fan the flames to the low point that politics has reached now. It is becoming more difficult to wade through the "mud" and find out exactly what a political candidate stands for. We have become a complacent nation that seems to be satisfied with sound bites and name-calling candidates. I suppose the nature of political campaigns has become so much worse over the years because we voters have rewarded the nastiest of these people with an election win and, ultimately, a lifetime job and pension.
So I am seriously considering a run for a house seat in the Arkansas legislature. Whether I will actually do it this time is still a big question. I've just learned that the only other Republican who is running for the same seat is an attorney; I have yet to earn a degree though I am in school. In order to get voters to take such a candidacy seriously would require the kind of political savvy that I am not so sure I possess.
Is it possible to run a campaign without trashing one's opponent? I think this would be where I would like to start. Having a face-to-face debate is one thing, but throwing charges and counter-charges through the media in a campaign is somewhat over the line and not conducive to giving voters real choices. If a candidate did nothing more than to educate voters and give them some things to think about besides a political opponent's nocturnal habits, much more could be accomplished.
In my own congressional district is a gentleman named Vic Snyder. He is a Democrat and has served this district (honorably, I might add) for ten years. Love him or hate him, but he commands respect not because he is some awesome creation but because he is a gentleman. He is of sound character and, I think, profound intregity. His sense of ethics has never been questioned though his politics has been challenged more than once. However, I think he has run for re-election twice without opposition; once for sure that I distinctly recall. Why? Maybe it is for the same reason I have seriously considered voting for him as much as I disagree with him. I know I can trust him. Not everyone can say this about their congressman or senator and for me, this is worth a lot.
I have only a few issues that I believe to be important in Arkansas politics. Whether I actually get to introduce these proposals myself remains to be seen:
- Arkansas constitutional officers are term-limited by a vote of the people. In response, the Arkansas legislature changed the formula by which they qualify for pension. They now need only to serve five years - FIVE YEARS - to qualify for a LIFE TIME pension. My proposal would be to simply have the state make a contribution to an officer's existing retirement fund; whether IRA, 401(k) - with no matching funds - or other similar retirement plans; only during their active service, and that's it. Once they leave office, there is no more money coming to them from the state. These are supposed to be citizen-legislators, not career politicians.
- Term limits would apply to the person and not the position. As it is now, a person serves in the House, term limits out and then runs for the Senate. From there, maybe a run for attorney general and then, perhaps, governor. Surely the term limits were intended to prevent the person from consolidating power and thus corrupting the system. It happened here not with a house seat but a person.
- Currently Arkansas is home base to the largest publicly traded trucking company in the United States as well as several other very large commercial carriers. Yet each of the vehicles, trucks and trailers alike, are all licensed in Oklahoma. Why? Because Oklahoma is cheaper, and a company is only required to maintain an office in that state. Arkansas misses out on enormous revenue by trying to be greedy. In exchange for making licensing in Arkansas an attractive alternative, the state could also cut the state's fuel tax on diesel for every carrier who tags its vehicles in Arkansas. In the end there would be more revenue for highway building and maintenance projects. There are also more jobs prospects in this kind of proposal not only for the state but also for carriers who might considering changing their place of domicile.
- Public school funding must be centralized to the state's Department of Education. This way, rural districts would be able to share in the wealth of districts that have more money only by virtue of their location and tax base. Each of the 75 counties in Arkansas would have only one school superintendent who would be an employee of the state, specifically the Department of Education, and would oversee the equitable disbursement of funds. They would be accountable to the state superintendent of schools. Teachers would also become employees of the state and not the local school district. The Lake View case in Arkansas has demanded that every student is entitled to equal educational opportunities. This consolidation of funds and other resources is the only way to make this happen without a substantial increase in taxes.
There is much more to what needs to be done in Arkansas, but how can an uneducated rube such as I run against a lawyer without telling lawyer jokes? For my way of thinking, at least, it could be that there are too many lawyers running the state now. An esteemed profession it is, but being an attorney does not imminently qualify one to run the state or to speak in my behalf.
More later.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
More Arkansas Education
The Little Rock (Arkansas) School District had offered a proposal in which teachers would vote to be eligible for merit pay increases and as much as a $10,000.00 bonus; the proposal was soundly defeated. The proposal was to have served as a pilot program for whether a bonus or merit pay proposal for teachers is even feasible. The school’s administration embraced the idea; the teachers evidently did not think so highly of the proposal. So is it a fair question to ask why teachers would turn down a chance at making more money and getting a $10,000.00 bonus to boot especially when all we seem to hear about is how poorly teachers are paid? In this case, yes. The answer, however, comes from the teachers themselves and demands our full attention.
The vote and “letters to the editor” feedback from the state’s teachers indicate that there is a fundamental objection to the entire proposal for only one reason: the merit pay and bonuses would be directly related to how well students perform on a standardized test.
Letters from teachers told the story very well, and their perspective is a must for any legislator or school administrator if these people truly have the children’s best interests and education at heart. The teachers, in order to qualify for the merit pay and bonuses, would be hamstrung to the standardized tests that the students would have to do well on. In short, the teachers would not feel so free to teach the students HOW to think but, rather, WHAT to think. "Teaching the test", as they say.
The teachers have a point, of course. Children have to be taught how to reason and how to think. The conclusions they reach, based on information not only given to but also processed in their little minds may not always be dead-on correct, but credit must also be given where latitude can be allowed. Two plus two will always equal four and this will never change, but simply memorizing this formula without the reasoning required to come to the only conclusion is perhaps more important than the correct answer itself.
Teachers have to be accountable to parents for the jobs they do, but I don’t think they have a problem with this although as a parent I’ve been forced to contend with a certain level of arrogance that I thought to be highly inappropriate and undeserved. The teachers I know personally, however, are not afraid of a challenge, and they have no fear of accounting for how they spend their days.
Of course there are bad teachers. There are some lazy teachers, there are some mean teachers, none of whom have any business being in their profession. There must be some equitable and reasonable way to weed these people out. By the same token, there must also be an equitable way by which those who are truly dedicated to what they consider to be their calling to be rewarded. These professionals deserve to be rewarded just as any of us in the secular working world would expect to be rewarded for going above and beyond expectations.
I still stand by what I have maintained all along. Money alone is not going to solve the education problem even though there are government people who have somehow become convinced that pumping more money into an unsolved problem will somehow make the problem disappear. It would almost appear as though these legislators and school administrators received the same kind of education they are trying to hand off to our children.
The vote and “letters to the editor” feedback from the state’s teachers indicate that there is a fundamental objection to the entire proposal for only one reason: the merit pay and bonuses would be directly related to how well students perform on a standardized test.
Letters from teachers told the story very well, and their perspective is a must for any legislator or school administrator if these people truly have the children’s best interests and education at heart. The teachers, in order to qualify for the merit pay and bonuses, would be hamstrung to the standardized tests that the students would have to do well on. In short, the teachers would not feel so free to teach the students HOW to think but, rather, WHAT to think. "Teaching the test", as they say.
The teachers have a point, of course. Children have to be taught how to reason and how to think. The conclusions they reach, based on information not only given to but also processed in their little minds may not always be dead-on correct, but credit must also be given where latitude can be allowed. Two plus two will always equal four and this will never change, but simply memorizing this formula without the reasoning required to come to the only conclusion is perhaps more important than the correct answer itself.
Teachers have to be accountable to parents for the jobs they do, but I don’t think they have a problem with this although as a parent I’ve been forced to contend with a certain level of arrogance that I thought to be highly inappropriate and undeserved. The teachers I know personally, however, are not afraid of a challenge, and they have no fear of accounting for how they spend their days.
Of course there are bad teachers. There are some lazy teachers, there are some mean teachers, none of whom have any business being in their profession. There must be some equitable and reasonable way to weed these people out. By the same token, there must also be an equitable way by which those who are truly dedicated to what they consider to be their calling to be rewarded. These professionals deserve to be rewarded just as any of us in the secular working world would expect to be rewarded for going above and beyond expectations.
I still stand by what I have maintained all along. Money alone is not going to solve the education problem even though there are government people who have somehow become convinced that pumping more money into an unsolved problem will somehow make the problem disappear. It would almost appear as though these legislators and school administrators received the same kind of education they are trying to hand off to our children.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
A Matter of Priority
GM has reached agreements with the UAW that if up to 113,000 hourly-wage employees will leave the company and waive their company-paid health insurance, they will receive a severance of $140,000 even though the workers will still be entitled to their accrued pension benefits. It seems that the auto maker is only concerned with the cost of the health insurance which some financial analysts believe to be GM's greatest financial burden.
Wow.
The story itself is not a major concern to me (I have never cared much for GM products) although I hate that so many are about to lose jobs. $140,000.00 is not a lot of money all things considered. However, CNN has a poll that asks readers their opinion about the question of the day, and today's question asked whether the reader would leave his or her job for a $140,000.00 payout. I voted "yes" and clicked to see the results. Out of 170,000 votes, a whopping 140,000 said they would take the buy-out even though analysts do not believe many workers will take GM's offer. What do the workers know that these 140,000 voters do not?
I could not help but wonder if there are that many dissatisfied workers who feel somehow trapped in their current jobs. I am relatively young; $140,000 would not go far with me. I have two daughters at home, one of whom is about to enter college. I'm a (part-time) college student myself with a mortgage and bills out the wazzoo. What was I thinking??
I was once enrolled in a private university in which an accelerated program offers only two degrees: organizational management and information technology. These are two very good programs, but the truth is these things do not hold any interest for me. So I quit. I am currently enrolling at a public university that offers courses of study more in line with that which interests me. Whether this course leads to seminary or law school or an early grave only the Lord knows. But I entered into the program so that I could "hurry up" and earn my degree.
Life is too short to waste time worrying about how much money we will be able to make. The world is filled with lawyers and MBA's; I cannot help but to wonder how many of these educated persons are actually doing what makes them happy and gives them a sense of accomplishment. Are we so ambitious and concerned with doing what is expected of us that we do not stop to think about what genuinely pleases us? Do we really shy away from social work or teaching only because of the lousy pay? How many good cops and firefighters will we never know about who chose the MBA route to fame and fortune only because of the earning potential?
I admit that I am still far too concerned with how much money I can make. I love to write, but I have every intention of one day hitting it big. My daughter asked me just yesterday why I can't become a teacher and share my passion with words. The truth? The pay scares me.
Talk about priorities.
Wow.
The story itself is not a major concern to me (I have never cared much for GM products) although I hate that so many are about to lose jobs. $140,000.00 is not a lot of money all things considered. However, CNN has a poll that asks readers their opinion about the question of the day, and today's question asked whether the reader would leave his or her job for a $140,000.00 payout. I voted "yes" and clicked to see the results. Out of 170,000 votes, a whopping 140,000 said they would take the buy-out even though analysts do not believe many workers will take GM's offer. What do the workers know that these 140,000 voters do not?
I could not help but wonder if there are that many dissatisfied workers who feel somehow trapped in their current jobs. I am relatively young; $140,000 would not go far with me. I have two daughters at home, one of whom is about to enter college. I'm a (part-time) college student myself with a mortgage and bills out the wazzoo. What was I thinking??
I was once enrolled in a private university in which an accelerated program offers only two degrees: organizational management and information technology. These are two very good programs, but the truth is these things do not hold any interest for me. So I quit. I am currently enrolling at a public university that offers courses of study more in line with that which interests me. Whether this course leads to seminary or law school or an early grave only the Lord knows. But I entered into the program so that I could "hurry up" and earn my degree.
Life is too short to waste time worrying about how much money we will be able to make. The world is filled with lawyers and MBA's; I cannot help but to wonder how many of these educated persons are actually doing what makes them happy and gives them a sense of accomplishment. Are we so ambitious and concerned with doing what is expected of us that we do not stop to think about what genuinely pleases us? Do we really shy away from social work or teaching only because of the lousy pay? How many good cops and firefighters will we never know about who chose the MBA route to fame and fortune only because of the earning potential?
I admit that I am still far too concerned with how much money I can make. I love to write, but I have every intention of one day hitting it big. My daughter asked me just yesterday why I can't become a teacher and share my passion with words. The truth? The pay scares me.
Talk about priorities.
A Moral Dilemma
Suppose you are a conscientious social services worker and you stumbled across a family of illegal immigrants. Suppose you came across knowledge of this family strictly by accident or fate. It happens that this family is working several jobs, paying rent, and doing all other things that citizens do. They stay within the bounds of the law, they pay taxes, and their children are as precocious as the next door neighbor's kids. And suppose you came across information about this family because one of the kids is in desperate need of the kind of medical attention that, because of expense, would almost certainly require health insurance. And because this family is doing everything just to provide food, a home, and decent clothes for school, they cannot afford health insurance. What to do?
A citizen is required by law to report illegal activity. A Christian is required to obey the law for the sake of "good order". Whether we would agree or disagree with the law is not a matter for us to take upon ourselves. If there is no reasonable and lawful order within society, anarchy would ensue. We have an obligation to do our part to help maintain this order within our society.
I wish I could remember what I must have heard on the radio driving home from work, but something pushed this notion into my mind. No, I am not a social worker but I've often wondered about the dilemmas these professionals must confront on a daily basis. In such a case as what I have offered, what would be the "right" thing to do? Being illegal aliens - including the children - they are not entitled to any government assistance. Publicity would only reveal this family to the media and, ultimately, the authorities.
So does it then become a matter of law or a matter of morals? Can the two be separated? Must there be a distinction between the two? This fictitious family is "playing by the rules" with one glaring exception: they have broken the law by entering into this country illegally. Even still, there is a child in desperate need of medical attention. It may even be a matter of life or death for this child, but the expense of her treatment would be prohibitive for most citizens.
There is no real point here except to say that we seem to hinge every argument we would care to make on one simple point: they broke the law by entering into this country. They are "criminals" by definition. Does this somehow make them less than human? Judging by callers to one particular radio station, it would seem so. Is this how we really feel?
A citizen is required by law to report illegal activity. A Christian is required to obey the law for the sake of "good order". Whether we would agree or disagree with the law is not a matter for us to take upon ourselves. If there is no reasonable and lawful order within society, anarchy would ensue. We have an obligation to do our part to help maintain this order within our society.
I wish I could remember what I must have heard on the radio driving home from work, but something pushed this notion into my mind. No, I am not a social worker but I've often wondered about the dilemmas these professionals must confront on a daily basis. In such a case as what I have offered, what would be the "right" thing to do? Being illegal aliens - including the children - they are not entitled to any government assistance. Publicity would only reveal this family to the media and, ultimately, the authorities.
So does it then become a matter of law or a matter of morals? Can the two be separated? Must there be a distinction between the two? This fictitious family is "playing by the rules" with one glaring exception: they have broken the law by entering into this country illegally. Even still, there is a child in desperate need of medical attention. It may even be a matter of life or death for this child, but the expense of her treatment would be prohibitive for most citizens.
There is no real point here except to say that we seem to hinge every argument we would care to make on one simple point: they broke the law by entering into this country. They are "criminals" by definition. Does this somehow make them less than human? Judging by callers to one particular radio station, it would seem so. Is this how we really feel?
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Church Mission Statements
“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” Deuteronomy 6:4-9
In the Religion section of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette each Saturday is a feature story about a central Arkansas place of worship (I hesitate to say “church” because I think there have been synagogues featured). The feature highlights a brief history of the church and its ministries and pastor. It is usually the run-of-the-mill stuff that almost any church is interested in: serving the community and one another. Not to suggest that such “stuff” is routine but for the most part, it reads almost the same from one week to the next. Except for this week.
As part of the introduction of the featured church, there is a “mission statement” attached to the story to offer the reader what that church feels is its own essence, a brief description of how the church views its ministry and mission.
The reading from Deuteronomy cited above was listed as the “mission statement” of yesterday’s featured church. It is a non-denominational congregation that was apparently created from the collective vision of several from other denominations who felt that the true mission of the church can be easily lost to denominational doctrinal understandings (or misunderstandings). The church as a whole loses its proper focus when that focus concerns itself so narrowly on what we as a people would like to see, according to what we specifically believe.
The mission of the church: to love the Lord your God with …everything you have and everything you are, and to love your neighbor as yourself. How much simpler can this be and yet so profound at the same time? And as I read and re-read this “mission statement”, it occurred to me that other mission statements I have reviewed in the past came across as commercial fluff that might be appealing to a particular segment of society, or it might be eye-catching to that particular neighborhood it serves. Not to dismiss any church statement that is not a direct quote from Holy Scripture, but the appeal that this particular church had in conjunction with its stated purpose for existence was powerful in a way that I am seriously considering the 45-minute commute every Sunday. Even as the United Methodist licensed pastor I am, at least on the surface this is a church I would be proud to serve as a preacher and pastor.
Jesus Himself quotes this passage from Deuteronomy when asked what He considers to be the “greatest” commandment. And then He states, “The second greatest commandment is LIKE the first …”
So simple and yet so powerful a statement that contains not what we might like to see from a church we would choose to attend and be a part of but, rather, a statement of purpose which is more a reflection of the Lord’s will rather than our own. After all, is this not what our common prayer usually focuses on, "Thy will be done"?
If not, it certainly should.
In the Religion section of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette each Saturday is a feature story about a central Arkansas place of worship (I hesitate to say “church” because I think there have been synagogues featured). The feature highlights a brief history of the church and its ministries and pastor. It is usually the run-of-the-mill stuff that almost any church is interested in: serving the community and one another. Not to suggest that such “stuff” is routine but for the most part, it reads almost the same from one week to the next. Except for this week.
As part of the introduction of the featured church, there is a “mission statement” attached to the story to offer the reader what that church feels is its own essence, a brief description of how the church views its ministry and mission.
The reading from Deuteronomy cited above was listed as the “mission statement” of yesterday’s featured church. It is a non-denominational congregation that was apparently created from the collective vision of several from other denominations who felt that the true mission of the church can be easily lost to denominational doctrinal understandings (or misunderstandings). The church as a whole loses its proper focus when that focus concerns itself so narrowly on what we as a people would like to see, according to what we specifically believe.
The mission of the church: to love the Lord your God with …everything you have and everything you are, and to love your neighbor as yourself. How much simpler can this be and yet so profound at the same time? And as I read and re-read this “mission statement”, it occurred to me that other mission statements I have reviewed in the past came across as commercial fluff that might be appealing to a particular segment of society, or it might be eye-catching to that particular neighborhood it serves. Not to dismiss any church statement that is not a direct quote from Holy Scripture, but the appeal that this particular church had in conjunction with its stated purpose for existence was powerful in a way that I am seriously considering the 45-minute commute every Sunday. Even as the United Methodist licensed pastor I am, at least on the surface this is a church I would be proud to serve as a preacher and pastor.
Jesus Himself quotes this passage from Deuteronomy when asked what He considers to be the “greatest” commandment. And then He states, “The second greatest commandment is LIKE the first …”
So simple and yet so powerful a statement that contains not what we might like to see from a church we would choose to attend and be a part of but, rather, a statement of purpose which is more a reflection of the Lord’s will rather than our own. After all, is this not what our common prayer usually focuses on, "Thy will be done"?
If not, it certainly should.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
South Dakota Steps Up
Although a court challenge is sure to come, South Dakota has taken a definitive step in recognizing something I believe to be fundamental to our very existence: life. In recognizing the sanctity of life and in defending the concepts of our very Declaration of Independence, at least one state in this great Union has demanded that we answer for our duties and responsibilities toward our fellow man: defend the defenseless.
How odd it is, then, that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports statistics about abortion that I find to be ironic. “Most believe that having an abortion should be a personal choice, but they also think it is murder.”
Citing an AP poll in which it is stated that “most” Americans believe abortion should be legal, it breaks the poll down into four categories. 19% believe that abortion should be legal in all cases, and 16% believe it should be illegal in all cases. 32% believe abortion should be legal in most cases while 27% believe it should be illegal in most cases. “Most cases” is not defined though I suspect the usual litany of political excuses, none of which addresses the moral implications of the act itself.
Karlyn Brown, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, states, “When we as a society make up our minds about something, as we have about abortion, most people tend to pull away from it.”
Have we really “made up our minds” about abortion? The AP poll would suggest otherwise. My math indicates that 59% cannot make up their minds. It is only the 35% who believe that abortion should be legal or illegal “in all cases”, and even these Americans cannot agree.
I suppose where I am having the most difficulty in grasping a concept is in those who claim to believe in “personal choice” yet seem definitive in calling abortion what it is: a deliberate termination of life. Premeditated murder. This legal definition tells the story: a life exists, and a move is made to intentionally end that life. For reasons unknown? Hardly.
We know exactly why this horrid procedure is being allowed. Under the guise of “personal choice” and a constitutional right to privacy, women undergo this procedure for one reason: they do not want the child. For one reason or another, these women have decided that the quality of their lives will somehow be enhanced by ridding themselves of this … what? How can it be that an unborn child is so dehumanized with scientific terms as “fetus” while medical science clearly shows life in abundance? What do these women seek when they make such a rash choice? Especially if “most” Americans believe it to be murder?
There are plenty of political organizations that seek to undo the horror of Roe v Wade, but the reality is that judges will decide based on legal precedent and politicians will decide based on what polls say it will take to be elected or re-elected.
There is only One who can end this scourge that we have allowed to “pollute our land”, and He does not answer to “personal choice” nor is He defined by a desire to be popular. Justice demands that blood be answered with blood.
My fear for the future of this nation is not in high taxes or Iranian nuclear power or Islamic terrorists or illegal immigration. Rather, my fear comes from watching this slaughter continue right under my nose while I have remained virtually silent for fear of upsetting some delicate sensibilities. South Dakota has set the pace. What shall be done from here? Because it is not a legal issue or a political issue; it is a moral issue with eternal implications. It is life, and without it we cease to exist.
How odd it is, then, that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports statistics about abortion that I find to be ironic. “Most believe that having an abortion should be a personal choice, but they also think it is murder.”
Citing an AP poll in which it is stated that “most” Americans believe abortion should be legal, it breaks the poll down into four categories. 19% believe that abortion should be legal in all cases, and 16% believe it should be illegal in all cases. 32% believe abortion should be legal in most cases while 27% believe it should be illegal in most cases. “Most cases” is not defined though I suspect the usual litany of political excuses, none of which addresses the moral implications of the act itself.
Karlyn Brown, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, states, “When we as a society make up our minds about something, as we have about abortion, most people tend to pull away from it.”
Have we really “made up our minds” about abortion? The AP poll would suggest otherwise. My math indicates that 59% cannot make up their minds. It is only the 35% who believe that abortion should be legal or illegal “in all cases”, and even these Americans cannot agree.
I suppose where I am having the most difficulty in grasping a concept is in those who claim to believe in “personal choice” yet seem definitive in calling abortion what it is: a deliberate termination of life. Premeditated murder. This legal definition tells the story: a life exists, and a move is made to intentionally end that life. For reasons unknown? Hardly.
We know exactly why this horrid procedure is being allowed. Under the guise of “personal choice” and a constitutional right to privacy, women undergo this procedure for one reason: they do not want the child. For one reason or another, these women have decided that the quality of their lives will somehow be enhanced by ridding themselves of this … what? How can it be that an unborn child is so dehumanized with scientific terms as “fetus” while medical science clearly shows life in abundance? What do these women seek when they make such a rash choice? Especially if “most” Americans believe it to be murder?
There are plenty of political organizations that seek to undo the horror of Roe v Wade, but the reality is that judges will decide based on legal precedent and politicians will decide based on what polls say it will take to be elected or re-elected.
There is only One who can end this scourge that we have allowed to “pollute our land”, and He does not answer to “personal choice” nor is He defined by a desire to be popular. Justice demands that blood be answered with blood.
My fear for the future of this nation is not in high taxes or Iranian nuclear power or Islamic terrorists or illegal immigration. Rather, my fear comes from watching this slaughter continue right under my nose while I have remained virtually silent for fear of upsetting some delicate sensibilities. South Dakota has set the pace. What shall be done from here? Because it is not a legal issue or a political issue; it is a moral issue with eternal implications. It is life, and without it we cease to exist.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
For the Love of a Child
Many of you may be aware that I resigned from the pulpit for a time due to acute conflicts in my schedules between a full-time secular job, school at night, and my family. I felt that if there were to ever come a time when a pastor might be needed, I would not be able to give all that would be required. With a very heavy heart, I resigned.
This particular church I was honored to serve is filled with some of the most wonderful persons the Lord God put on this earth. They are just regular folks with good hearts and very hospitable souls. They were very good to my family and me, and I will always have a special place in my heart for them.
There was this one particular child who seemed to take quite awhile to warm up to me. She pretty much kept me at a distance even as she was quite the cut-up! She was two years old when I got there. The most endearing thing about this precious child was that she reminded me of the character, Boo, from the movie "Monsters, Inc". She even had dark hair that she sometimes wore in pigtails just like Boo. She was just beginning to really talk, and she had that muddled bunch of verbs and consonants that she was proud to use, and I'm also pretty sure she knew exactly what she was saying!
Well, she didn't much care for me calling her "Boo", so I started calling her "Fred" (her name is Sarah). She confronted me one day with hands on her hips, looking extremely exasperated, and finally said, "Pweachew, I guess I can live with 'Boo'; I don't like Fwed".
Her grandmother called me this evening although I had not yet made it home from work, so my daughter called me on my cell phone to relay a message. One was that grandmother had read an article I had published in the state's Methodist newspaper and was complimenting me on it, and the other was that "Boo" thought the new preacher who replaced me was ok but she was still wondering and waiting for my return.
There are the little things in our lives that make getting out of bed worth the effort, and this was one of them. When my daughter told me what "Boo" had said, I nearly had to pull off to the side of the road because my vision was suddenly and mysteriously blurred (it surely must have been a speck of dust!!).
It always feels good when folks give compliments about a particular sermon, but it is literally heaven on earth to be missed by a child.
This particular church I was honored to serve is filled with some of the most wonderful persons the Lord God put on this earth. They are just regular folks with good hearts and very hospitable souls. They were very good to my family and me, and I will always have a special place in my heart for them.
There was this one particular child who seemed to take quite awhile to warm up to me. She pretty much kept me at a distance even as she was quite the cut-up! She was two years old when I got there. The most endearing thing about this precious child was that she reminded me of the character, Boo, from the movie "Monsters, Inc". She even had dark hair that she sometimes wore in pigtails just like Boo. She was just beginning to really talk, and she had that muddled bunch of verbs and consonants that she was proud to use, and I'm also pretty sure she knew exactly what she was saying!
Well, she didn't much care for me calling her "Boo", so I started calling her "Fred" (her name is Sarah). She confronted me one day with hands on her hips, looking extremely exasperated, and finally said, "Pweachew, I guess I can live with 'Boo'; I don't like Fwed".
Her grandmother called me this evening although I had not yet made it home from work, so my daughter called me on my cell phone to relay a message. One was that grandmother had read an article I had published in the state's Methodist newspaper and was complimenting me on it, and the other was that "Boo" thought the new preacher who replaced me was ok but she was still wondering and waiting for my return.
There are the little things in our lives that make getting out of bed worth the effort, and this was one of them. When my daughter told me what "Boo" had said, I nearly had to pull off to the side of the road because my vision was suddenly and mysteriously blurred (it surely must have been a speck of dust!!).
It always feels good when folks give compliments about a particular sermon, but it is literally heaven on earth to be missed by a child.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
The Voice of a Prophet
The Voice of a Prophet
“Then the Lord said to me, ‘There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem. They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to My words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. Therefore this is what the Lord says: I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them.’” Jeremiah 11:9-11
The Hebrew Scriptures make it abundantly clear that the Lord God has nothing but love for His people but once in awhile, they incurred his wrath. This small portion from Jeremiah is only a small sample of the “judgment” verses in which the Lord had been provoked to anger by their actions of disobedience; “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Exodus 20:3
Verses like these cannot be overlooked when we read the Bible as an exploratory of a budding relationship between the Lord and ourselves. Just as we take time to get better acquainted with a new friend by learning as much as we can about them, we are touched by the Holy Spirit in such a way that provokes a genuine hunger in the soul that can only be filled by Him. This is the way He seems to work in His constant efforts to draw us closer to Him. He also uses His "witnesses" to send out the invitations! That would be you and me.
When we are convicted of our sins, verses like these strike a little harder at the conscience because a relationship has been established, and our hearts tell us that the One who loves us with an “everlasting love” has been hurt. I’ve often wondered if the story of King David’s son Absalom in 2 Samuel 18-19 and the king’s mourning over the loss of even a rebellious son was as much historical as it is theological, indicative of a “king” who still weeps for His own children when they perish even while actively working against Him.
The Westboro Baptist church in Topeka KS first came to my attention in 1998 when a young man by the name of Matthew Shepard was beaten and left to die tied to a fence in Wyoming. We learned later that Mr. Shepard was homosexual and had been beaten by two other men who maintained that Matthew had “made a move” on them. Whether this was all true or not is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that it had been reported that on the day of Matthew’s funeral when he was being laid to rest and his parents were mourning the loss of their beloved son, these “Christians” from Westboro church in Topeka showed up at Matthew’s funeral to “protest”. It was their intent to remind everyone of what the Bible says about homosexuality. These Westboro people even went so far as to try to raise money to build a monument which would essentially state that Matthew is in hell for all eternity.
If this is not enough, these people showed up in Lincoln NE on February 25 of this year to protest, or picket or whatever the heck it is they think they are doing, at the funeral of Army 1st Lt Garrison Avery. Why? Because he was killed in a war defending a nation that “promotes” homosexuality. Their banners read, “God is your enemy”, and “Thank God for IED’s”, an apparent reference to the ever-present roadside bombs our brothers and sisters in Iraq contend with almost daily.
Would Jeremiah have been so bold? Would he have even thought it necessary to show up at Matthew’s funeral? What does this “reverend” Fred Phelps hope to achieve by leading this crowd around the country to do nothing more than anger and genuinely hurt decent folks? Incidentally, an online search will reveal that Westboro church is made up almost exclusively of Phelps’ own family. Little wonder why this church is not a growing concern.
Is it possible that Phelps truly is the “prophet” he apparently claims that he is? I suppose anything is possible and if we believe the Bible as it is written, what is it about this man and his “message” that can be theologically challenged? I realize no one takes him seriously; I certainly don’t.
The Bible makes it clear that the Lord God “hates” sin, and He curses those who curse Abraham’s descendents. Jeremiah and other prophets also make it equally clear that the Lord, when provoked to anger, pronounces judgment and people die. What does it all mean? Can it really be that such a mean-spirited, hateful, angry old man and his family can be entrusted to “translate” scripture for us in such a way that they would virtually spit in the face of a family in mourning? Is this representative of the Lord our God?
In the face of this brand of Christianity, it is little wonder that the Church struggles to be relevant.
“Then the Lord said to me, ‘There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem. They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to My words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. Therefore this is what the Lord says: I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them.’” Jeremiah 11:9-11
The Hebrew Scriptures make it abundantly clear that the Lord God has nothing but love for His people but once in awhile, they incurred his wrath. This small portion from Jeremiah is only a small sample of the “judgment” verses in which the Lord had been provoked to anger by their actions of disobedience; “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Exodus 20:3
Verses like these cannot be overlooked when we read the Bible as an exploratory of a budding relationship between the Lord and ourselves. Just as we take time to get better acquainted with a new friend by learning as much as we can about them, we are touched by the Holy Spirit in such a way that provokes a genuine hunger in the soul that can only be filled by Him. This is the way He seems to work in His constant efforts to draw us closer to Him. He also uses His "witnesses" to send out the invitations! That would be you and me.
When we are convicted of our sins, verses like these strike a little harder at the conscience because a relationship has been established, and our hearts tell us that the One who loves us with an “everlasting love” has been hurt. I’ve often wondered if the story of King David’s son Absalom in 2 Samuel 18-19 and the king’s mourning over the loss of even a rebellious son was as much historical as it is theological, indicative of a “king” who still weeps for His own children when they perish even while actively working against Him.
The Westboro Baptist church in Topeka KS first came to my attention in 1998 when a young man by the name of Matthew Shepard was beaten and left to die tied to a fence in Wyoming. We learned later that Mr. Shepard was homosexual and had been beaten by two other men who maintained that Matthew had “made a move” on them. Whether this was all true or not is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that it had been reported that on the day of Matthew’s funeral when he was being laid to rest and his parents were mourning the loss of their beloved son, these “Christians” from Westboro church in Topeka showed up at Matthew’s funeral to “protest”. It was their intent to remind everyone of what the Bible says about homosexuality. These Westboro people even went so far as to try to raise money to build a monument which would essentially state that Matthew is in hell for all eternity.
If this is not enough, these people showed up in Lincoln NE on February 25 of this year to protest, or picket or whatever the heck it is they think they are doing, at the funeral of Army 1st Lt Garrison Avery. Why? Because he was killed in a war defending a nation that “promotes” homosexuality. Their banners read, “God is your enemy”, and “Thank God for IED’s”, an apparent reference to the ever-present roadside bombs our brothers and sisters in Iraq contend with almost daily.
Would Jeremiah have been so bold? Would he have even thought it necessary to show up at Matthew’s funeral? What does this “reverend” Fred Phelps hope to achieve by leading this crowd around the country to do nothing more than anger and genuinely hurt decent folks? Incidentally, an online search will reveal that Westboro church is made up almost exclusively of Phelps’ own family. Little wonder why this church is not a growing concern.
Is it possible that Phelps truly is the “prophet” he apparently claims that he is? I suppose anything is possible and if we believe the Bible as it is written, what is it about this man and his “message” that can be theologically challenged? I realize no one takes him seriously; I certainly don’t.
The Bible makes it clear that the Lord God “hates” sin, and He curses those who curse Abraham’s descendents. Jeremiah and other prophets also make it equally clear that the Lord, when provoked to anger, pronounces judgment and people die. What does it all mean? Can it really be that such a mean-spirited, hateful, angry old man and his family can be entrusted to “translate” scripture for us in such a way that they would virtually spit in the face of a family in mourning? Is this representative of the Lord our God?
In the face of this brand of Christianity, it is little wonder that the Church struggles to be relevant.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
How Much Longer?
Shane at Wesley Blog laments about more UMC scandals in which adults are accused of misconduct. There are also two articles on CNN involving another American Catholic bishop and Catholic clergy in Ireland. While the accusation against the Spokane bishop is highly suspect due to a claims deadline, the situation in Ireland is a little overwhelming. Both, however, have come as a result of the Roman Church's acknowledgment of severe problems in the past that were swept under the rug in too many instances.
Having said this, however, I must say that I grew up in the Catholic Church. I have absolutely no recollection of any priest ever coming close to doing anything remotely inappropriate. I have also grown cynical over the years. It is difficult for me to believe that the problem of such abuse was so prevalent. It seems to me that there are far too many who are a little eager to find fault within the Church so much so that all these people suddenly have these repressed memories that surface twenty, thirty, or even forty years later.
I wish I had something profound to offer, but I don't. These revelations sometimes leave me breathless because it is unimaginable to believe that a grown man can do such a thing. Maybe I am too idealistic and trusting for my own good or maybe it is that I have a chip on my shoulder from having grown up Catholic in a predominantly Protestant town, but the Catholic Church seems to be too preferred as a target.
This is not to say that some of these accusations were not true. Some priests and other ministers have been sent to prison for these crimes. This is not even to say that the Church should be given a break if these allegations are proved true, and the Church should most certainly be called to account for bishops who knew or even suspected that such things were taking place and did nothing. The sheer numbers of those coming forward to make claims, however, leaves me to wonder how many are just jumping on the bandwagon in hopes of a pay-off in exchange for their silence.
Something to consider, though. How many parents and other parishioners leaving their children in the care of a pastor without other adults present are doing so just so they can have some time to themselves? How many of these parents have offered to help supervise some church-sponsored activities so that the kids could have a safe place to go and play? How many pastors took it upon themselves to provide these services for children because no one else in the parish would care to be bothered with it?
This provides no excuse for the accused, of course, but as a minister, I WILL NOT be found alone with others' children. If this would mean that the church would have to close its doors for lack of interest, I would provide the lock. I offer no excuses or alibis for those found guilty of such misconduct, but I also offer no excuses for parents and other church workers and members for leaving children alone with another adult.
We parents had better begin simplifying our lives so that we do not depend on others to care for our children because we are "too busy". We parents had better get used to the idea that WE are primarily responsible for the well-being of our children. We are also responsible for the well-being of the children of others. If we see situations in which only one adult, for instance, is willing to do a lock-in or camp-out with children, then we either better be willing to help or pull our children out.
As is often the case, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Having said this, however, I must say that I grew up in the Catholic Church. I have absolutely no recollection of any priest ever coming close to doing anything remotely inappropriate. I have also grown cynical over the years. It is difficult for me to believe that the problem of such abuse was so prevalent. It seems to me that there are far too many who are a little eager to find fault within the Church so much so that all these people suddenly have these repressed memories that surface twenty, thirty, or even forty years later.
I wish I had something profound to offer, but I don't. These revelations sometimes leave me breathless because it is unimaginable to believe that a grown man can do such a thing. Maybe I am too idealistic and trusting for my own good or maybe it is that I have a chip on my shoulder from having grown up Catholic in a predominantly Protestant town, but the Catholic Church seems to be too preferred as a target.
This is not to say that some of these accusations were not true. Some priests and other ministers have been sent to prison for these crimes. This is not even to say that the Church should be given a break if these allegations are proved true, and the Church should most certainly be called to account for bishops who knew or even suspected that such things were taking place and did nothing. The sheer numbers of those coming forward to make claims, however, leaves me to wonder how many are just jumping on the bandwagon in hopes of a pay-off in exchange for their silence.
Something to consider, though. How many parents and other parishioners leaving their children in the care of a pastor without other adults present are doing so just so they can have some time to themselves? How many of these parents have offered to help supervise some church-sponsored activities so that the kids could have a safe place to go and play? How many pastors took it upon themselves to provide these services for children because no one else in the parish would care to be bothered with it?
This provides no excuse for the accused, of course, but as a minister, I WILL NOT be found alone with others' children. If this would mean that the church would have to close its doors for lack of interest, I would provide the lock. I offer no excuses or alibis for those found guilty of such misconduct, but I also offer no excuses for parents and other church workers and members for leaving children alone with another adult.
We parents had better begin simplifying our lives so that we do not depend on others to care for our children because we are "too busy". We parents had better get used to the idea that WE are primarily responsible for the well-being of our children. We are also responsible for the well-being of the children of others. If we see situations in which only one adult, for instance, is willing to do a lock-in or camp-out with children, then we either better be willing to help or pull our children out.
As is often the case, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Headlines from 2029 AD
"Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly known as California."
"White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language."
"Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock."
"Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped."
"Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage."
"Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American Territory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon)."
"Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels."
"France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica."
"Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking."
"George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036."
"Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only."
"85-years, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise are the keys to weight loss."
"Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs."
"Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut." (Hummmmmmmmm)
"Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative. "
"Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights."
"Average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches."
"New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036."
"Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts."
"IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent."
"Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines."
"White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language."
"Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock."
"Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped."
"Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage."
"Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American Territory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon)."
"Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels."
"France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica."
"Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking."
"George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036."
"Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only."
"85-years, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise are the keys to weight loss."
"Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs."
"Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut." (Hummmmmmmmm)
"Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative. "
"Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights."
"Average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches."
"New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036."
"Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts."
"IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent."
"Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines."
Sunday, March 05, 2006
The Root of Christianity
Back when I began taking classes through Course of Study, I was not sure what to expect. Here were a bunch of middle-aged men and women who had heeded the call to proclaim the Gospel of the Lord, many of whom had never set foot in a college classroom, suddenly being asked to write college-level papers and read college-level theology books. It was exciting to begin this new journey, and I was looking forward to the challenge. I had only one stumbling block that I had to get past.
Having grown up Roman Catholic, I have a certain set of expectations and beliefs that have been a part of what I believe and will likely be with me until my last breath on this earth. Even (and perhaps especially) as a Methodist, much of the catechism has been affirmed for me though Protestant doctrines have presented an interesting portrait of our religion (Christianity, not Methodism) as well. Actually, I have found much of doctrinal studies to be strangely similar even though we use different words to make essentially the same point.
The stumbling block I encountered in the Course of Study was, oddly, John Wesley and the emphasis on his life and his teachings. Even though John Wesley was no more or less a disciple than many who have devoted their lives to service in the Gospel, it is still the Gospel of - are you ready?? - CHRIST. Let's face it: John Wesley is only a PART of the total history of the Church itself. It's funny to me how Protestants can find fault with the catechism of the Catholic Church because of its "lack of scriptural authority" but will constantly refer back to some dead Protestant reformer as the "light" toward which we must all move.
That's right. The Eternal Covenant that came from the Lord God of all creation in the person of Jesus of Nazareth has come to all of mankind, even to those who do not believe. This is the root of not only our religion but of our faith. We believe that the Lord God is so filled with love for all of His creation that He has made it possible for us to be reconciled to Him through an act that He performed for our sake. And the last time I checked, John Wesley is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Nor is John Calvin or Martin Luther or even John Paul II. Heck, I couldn't even find Billy Graham!
None of this is to disparage John Wesley or the work that he did. Though he was as fallible as the rest of us, his take on the Gospel still reverberates today. Much of what he believed is the banner under which we Methodists meet and march and proclaim. But must we return to the root of Wesleyanism or Methodism (whatever that is), or should we perhaps be more concerned about returning to the root of Christianity instead?
The Methodist Church has a rich history, but it is a minor part of the history of the Church itself. After all, how many churches / bodies of Christ can there be? (If you say, "thousands", then you're not keeping up.)
Now we are involved in worship studies and options and doughnuts and other snacks in the sanctuary, etc., all in an effort to attract crowds. We will do virtually anything short of prostituting our mothers to get one more body inside the church. What they do from there is their own business, right? As long as they put enough money in the collection plate so that apportionments can be paid, right? And if they don't want to participate in the life of the church, then this is ok, also. Right? After all, we don't want to upset them and risk running them off. Right?
The Church, whether Catholic or Protestant, is about Christ. And if there are "many" bodies of Christ, then there must be more than one God. And the Trinity is a joke. And that is not the Holy Spirit moving you - it's the sugar in your fourth doughnut you've had while in worship. Oh yes, I saw you get up and go out to the table all those many times and come back with perhaps a cup of milk or juice and a new doughnut. I've even seen you go fill up your coffee cup. Had you stayed in your seat and paid attention, you might have learned something about - what - the LORD?? How do I know all this if I were truly paying attention to the sermon? I know because you stepped on my foot going after your third doughnut! In fact, you very nearly spilled grape juice on my new shirt!
Do not bore me with dead preachers and bells and whistles and dancing bears in church. If my soul is in danger, tell me more about the one - the ONLY One - who can save me and teach me and guide me. Tell me about the One who has a history of doing such things. Do not suggest to me even for a moment that I need to be more focused on John Wesley in order to save the church or my soul.
And by the way, he was Anglican. And Jesus was a Jew. The pope is Catholic, and a bear does crap in the woods. So there.
Having grown up Roman Catholic, I have a certain set of expectations and beliefs that have been a part of what I believe and will likely be with me until my last breath on this earth. Even (and perhaps especially) as a Methodist, much of the catechism has been affirmed for me though Protestant doctrines have presented an interesting portrait of our religion (Christianity, not Methodism) as well. Actually, I have found much of doctrinal studies to be strangely similar even though we use different words to make essentially the same point.
The stumbling block I encountered in the Course of Study was, oddly, John Wesley and the emphasis on his life and his teachings. Even though John Wesley was no more or less a disciple than many who have devoted their lives to service in the Gospel, it is still the Gospel of - are you ready?? - CHRIST. Let's face it: John Wesley is only a PART of the total history of the Church itself. It's funny to me how Protestants can find fault with the catechism of the Catholic Church because of its "lack of scriptural authority" but will constantly refer back to some dead Protestant reformer as the "light" toward which we must all move.
That's right. The Eternal Covenant that came from the Lord God of all creation in the person of Jesus of Nazareth has come to all of mankind, even to those who do not believe. This is the root of not only our religion but of our faith. We believe that the Lord God is so filled with love for all of His creation that He has made it possible for us to be reconciled to Him through an act that He performed for our sake. And the last time I checked, John Wesley is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Nor is John Calvin or Martin Luther or even John Paul II. Heck, I couldn't even find Billy Graham!
None of this is to disparage John Wesley or the work that he did. Though he was as fallible as the rest of us, his take on the Gospel still reverberates today. Much of what he believed is the banner under which we Methodists meet and march and proclaim. But must we return to the root of Wesleyanism or Methodism (whatever that is), or should we perhaps be more concerned about returning to the root of Christianity instead?
The Methodist Church has a rich history, but it is a minor part of the history of the Church itself. After all, how many churches / bodies of Christ can there be? (If you say, "thousands", then you're not keeping up.)
Now we are involved in worship studies and options and doughnuts and other snacks in the sanctuary, etc., all in an effort to attract crowds. We will do virtually anything short of prostituting our mothers to get one more body inside the church. What they do from there is their own business, right? As long as they put enough money in the collection plate so that apportionments can be paid, right? And if they don't want to participate in the life of the church, then this is ok, also. Right? After all, we don't want to upset them and risk running them off. Right?
The Church, whether Catholic or Protestant, is about Christ. And if there are "many" bodies of Christ, then there must be more than one God. And the Trinity is a joke. And that is not the Holy Spirit moving you - it's the sugar in your fourth doughnut you've had while in worship. Oh yes, I saw you get up and go out to the table all those many times and come back with perhaps a cup of milk or juice and a new doughnut. I've even seen you go fill up your coffee cup. Had you stayed in your seat and paid attention, you might have learned something about - what - the LORD?? How do I know all this if I were truly paying attention to the sermon? I know because you stepped on my foot going after your third doughnut! In fact, you very nearly spilled grape juice on my new shirt!
Do not bore me with dead preachers and bells and whistles and dancing bears in church. If my soul is in danger, tell me more about the one - the ONLY One - who can save me and teach me and guide me. Tell me about the One who has a history of doing such things. Do not suggest to me even for a moment that I need to be more focused on John Wesley in order to save the church or my soul.
And by the way, he was Anglican. And Jesus was a Jew. The pope is Catholic, and a bear does crap in the woods. So there.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
The Journey that is Lent
"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as He was coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. And a Voice came from heaven, 'You are My son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.'"
"And the Spirit immediately drove Him out into the wilderness. Jesus was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels waited on Him."
"Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God and saying, 'The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe in the good news." Mark 1:9-15
Beginning with Ash Wednesday, we are now into the season of Lent and this reading from Mark is the Gospel lesson from the lectionary for the first Sunday of Lent. I've read comments from other bloggers who live for this season as well as from others who either don't get it or would just as soon forget it until Good Friday. I can appreciate where both are coming from because there are times when I'm not sure that I fully comprehend exactly what it is we are supposed to be doing.
Forty days of focus is a tall order for many of us simply because we are too wrapped up in our own worlds. We have jobs to do and kids to raise. We are running here and there just trying to keep our heads above water. For many, the idea of giving something up for Lent is not a fair proposition because we have been taught that to give up something for Lent is not simply for the purpose of seeing whether or not we can but, rather, whether or not we will. It is for the purpose of preparing for something. It is a time of self-denial and sacrifice to be mindful of something much greater than anything in this world. Unfortunately, that "something" we may be trying to give up is that very "something" that gives us a little respite from such a crazy, hectic world!
In the spirit of the season of Lent, I think maybe the forty days of preparation and introspection may be something akin to why the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness after His baptism. Jesus was preparing for something Himself, and it would seem that this very radical kind of preparation was what it would take for Him to be fully empowered. Forty days of fasting?? And we can be pretty sure that it wasn't chocolate or TV that Jesus was taking a fast from!
When Jesus emerged from the desert, He was proclaiming a message of good news. GOOD NEWS!! "The Kingdom of Heaven is upon us!" And then He went about His ministry.
It may be significant that John had just been arrested when Jesus came out from the wilderness. It may be that the timing was simply there. John had proclaimed One who was coming who was "greater" than he. Now it is time for Jesus, the "greater" One whose arrival had been anticipated. John's time was done.
Now Jesus has ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Holy Father. Though He has promised to be with us "until the end of the age", something is still lacking. We can believe through our faith that He is walking with us and crying with us and praying with us and laughing with us, but all this is not quite the same as the physical presence of the One who truly has all the answers to our questions. He is the only One who can put an end to the constant bickering between the "liberals" and the "conservatives", both of whom proclaim themselves "right" but who are probably to a greater degree wrong more often than not. He is the only one who can settle the score. And yet He is not so readily available to us, not so easily accessible to us because we cannot touch Him. We cannot feel him. And all too often, we cannot hear Him. And yet, Jesus did not leave a void. He commissioned His followers to pick up where He left off.
Forty days of focus is indeed a tall order. It will require a lot from us. But I don't think that the season of Lent is as much about giving something up as it is a time of preparation for those of us who claim to be His followers. And what we are preparing for, what we are asked to prepare for, is not the day of Good Friday nor is it the glorious day of Easter. What we are preparing for goes far beyond a specified day on the calendar, and its demands and opportunities will be never ending.
Jesus proclaims that the "kingdom of God is upon us" which could very well mean that it never left us. Indeed, if He is with us "until the end of the age", then this must mean that the kingdom is STILL very much "upon us".
So what exactly are we preparing for? What would He ask of us during this time? If we are distracted by the trappings of this world and we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed and overcome by this world and if we do not stop and put something aside that only serves to distract us, the answer may be just beyond our grasp. Forever.
"And the Spirit immediately drove Him out into the wilderness. Jesus was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels waited on Him."
"Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God and saying, 'The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe in the good news." Mark 1:9-15
Beginning with Ash Wednesday, we are now into the season of Lent and this reading from Mark is the Gospel lesson from the lectionary for the first Sunday of Lent. I've read comments from other bloggers who live for this season as well as from others who either don't get it or would just as soon forget it until Good Friday. I can appreciate where both are coming from because there are times when I'm not sure that I fully comprehend exactly what it is we are supposed to be doing.
Forty days of focus is a tall order for many of us simply because we are too wrapped up in our own worlds. We have jobs to do and kids to raise. We are running here and there just trying to keep our heads above water. For many, the idea of giving something up for Lent is not a fair proposition because we have been taught that to give up something for Lent is not simply for the purpose of seeing whether or not we can but, rather, whether or not we will. It is for the purpose of preparing for something. It is a time of self-denial and sacrifice to be mindful of something much greater than anything in this world. Unfortunately, that "something" we may be trying to give up is that very "something" that gives us a little respite from such a crazy, hectic world!
In the spirit of the season of Lent, I think maybe the forty days of preparation and introspection may be something akin to why the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness after His baptism. Jesus was preparing for something Himself, and it would seem that this very radical kind of preparation was what it would take for Him to be fully empowered. Forty days of fasting?? And we can be pretty sure that it wasn't chocolate or TV that Jesus was taking a fast from!
When Jesus emerged from the desert, He was proclaiming a message of good news. GOOD NEWS!! "The Kingdom of Heaven is upon us!" And then He went about His ministry.
It may be significant that John had just been arrested when Jesus came out from the wilderness. It may be that the timing was simply there. John had proclaimed One who was coming who was "greater" than he. Now it is time for Jesus, the "greater" One whose arrival had been anticipated. John's time was done.
Now Jesus has ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Holy Father. Though He has promised to be with us "until the end of the age", something is still lacking. We can believe through our faith that He is walking with us and crying with us and praying with us and laughing with us, but all this is not quite the same as the physical presence of the One who truly has all the answers to our questions. He is the only One who can put an end to the constant bickering between the "liberals" and the "conservatives", both of whom proclaim themselves "right" but who are probably to a greater degree wrong more often than not. He is the only one who can settle the score. And yet He is not so readily available to us, not so easily accessible to us because we cannot touch Him. We cannot feel him. And all too often, we cannot hear Him. And yet, Jesus did not leave a void. He commissioned His followers to pick up where He left off.
Forty days of focus is indeed a tall order. It will require a lot from us. But I don't think that the season of Lent is as much about giving something up as it is a time of preparation for those of us who claim to be His followers. And what we are preparing for, what we are asked to prepare for, is not the day of Good Friday nor is it the glorious day of Easter. What we are preparing for goes far beyond a specified day on the calendar, and its demands and opportunities will be never ending.
Jesus proclaims that the "kingdom of God is upon us" which could very well mean that it never left us. Indeed, if He is with us "until the end of the age", then this must mean that the kingdom is STILL very much "upon us".
So what exactly are we preparing for? What would He ask of us during this time? If we are distracted by the trappings of this world and we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed and overcome by this world and if we do not stop and put something aside that only serves to distract us, the answer may be just beyond our grasp. Forever.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
How Dare We?
When Terri Schiavo was denied food and water by order of the court, it took her thirteen long, slow, distressful days to die of dehydration. Thirteen days. It would have been kinder to shoot her. But that would have been against the law, and we know the law is just.
Funny how, long after you've forgotten everything else about some big story, one detail will stick in your mind. Have you ever sat by the bedside of a dying patient - a father or mother, perhaps of some other loved one - and given the patient a little cracked ice? And seen the relief and the inaudible "thank you" in the drug-dimmed eyes? After all the futile treatments and the succession of helpless doctors, when grief has come even before the death, you sit there with a little cracked ice and think, "At last I can do this one thing right. I'm not totally useless." However much or little the ice might help your patient, it does wonders for the caregiver. You suddenly realize why people go into nursing. Can there be any greater satisfaction than this?
But when the law decreed that Terri Schiavo was to be given no food or water, it MEANT no food or water. That's what the court, the sheriff's deputies, the whole clanking machinery of the law was there for - to see that the severe decree was carried out. That's what the new art and science of bioethics at the dawn of the 21st century had come down to in the end: NO CRACKED ICE FOR TERRI SCHIAVO. The doctors and nurses who had cared for her for years were now forbidden to give her even a single chip. That's the detail that has stayed with me.
All credit due Mr. Paul Greenberg, editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
It is not enough to simply remain silent and "respect" a law that is immoral. Sometimes it is not enough to declare that the "law is the law". The perverted laws in this country that have allowed courts to declare a life not worthy of respect are laws made by blinded man. Whether we are talking about Terri Schiavo or the over 40 million unborn children who have been slaughtered, we are still talking about LIFE and not some mass of flesh to be used or disposed of at our leisure.
I will say it: Terri Schiavo should not have died in such a manner. Her death was ordered by the courts, appealed to by a man with suspect motive. Of course we will never know whether Terri had actually spoken words to her "husband" to the effect of, "let me die..." under certain circumstances. But there was enough doubt and her family's willingness to take over her care that the LAW OF THIS LAND should have acted with caution and restraint. Terri's death should not have been ordered by the US GOVERNMENT.
I applaud President Bush and the Congress for coming together to address this issue. I am equally saddened that the momentum for doing the right thing died with Terri. We are nothing if not life itself, an incredible gift the value of which is immeasurable.
How dare we?
Funny how, long after you've forgotten everything else about some big story, one detail will stick in your mind. Have you ever sat by the bedside of a dying patient - a father or mother, perhaps of some other loved one - and given the patient a little cracked ice? And seen the relief and the inaudible "thank you" in the drug-dimmed eyes? After all the futile treatments and the succession of helpless doctors, when grief has come even before the death, you sit there with a little cracked ice and think, "At last I can do this one thing right. I'm not totally useless." However much or little the ice might help your patient, it does wonders for the caregiver. You suddenly realize why people go into nursing. Can there be any greater satisfaction than this?
But when the law decreed that Terri Schiavo was to be given no food or water, it MEANT no food or water. That's what the court, the sheriff's deputies, the whole clanking machinery of the law was there for - to see that the severe decree was carried out. That's what the new art and science of bioethics at the dawn of the 21st century had come down to in the end: NO CRACKED ICE FOR TERRI SCHIAVO. The doctors and nurses who had cared for her for years were now forbidden to give her even a single chip. That's the detail that has stayed with me.
All credit due Mr. Paul Greenberg, editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
It is not enough to simply remain silent and "respect" a law that is immoral. Sometimes it is not enough to declare that the "law is the law". The perverted laws in this country that have allowed courts to declare a life not worthy of respect are laws made by blinded man. Whether we are talking about Terri Schiavo or the over 40 million unborn children who have been slaughtered, we are still talking about LIFE and not some mass of flesh to be used or disposed of at our leisure.
I will say it: Terri Schiavo should not have died in such a manner. Her death was ordered by the courts, appealed to by a man with suspect motive. Of course we will never know whether Terri had actually spoken words to her "husband" to the effect of, "let me die..." under certain circumstances. But there was enough doubt and her family's willingness to take over her care that the LAW OF THIS LAND should have acted with caution and restraint. Terri's death should not have been ordered by the US GOVERNMENT.
I applaud President Bush and the Congress for coming together to address this issue. I am equally saddened that the momentum for doing the right thing died with Terri. We are nothing if not life itself, an incredible gift the value of which is immeasurable.
How dare we?
A Question of Salvation
As I was driving to work this morning, a thought crossed my mind that I could not readily answer given our differences between the doctrine of "once saved ..." vs the concept of free will enabling us to "walk away". The thought - actually, the question - that occurred to me was this: Can the Savior of the World save us from ourselves? This question is not designed to diminish His sovereignty. Rather, it is to help me to understand the thought processes behind the doctrines that have evolved since the time of Christ.
I just came home from an Ash Wednesday service in which the pastor reminded us that through this powerful thing that He has done, we should be able to walk confidently and without fear for we have been FORGIVEN. The pastor even mentioned specifically the sin of rejecting His grace that is so freely given. Indeed, I've preached in the past myself that refusing this enormous gift is not unlike spitting in the Hand that feeds us! However, it is not a matter of rejecting the gift; it is for me somehow a matter of declaring myself worthy.
Make no mistake. I have personally encountered the overwhelming presence of the Lord. Though I cannot put into words anything that could come close to describing it, I can say with confidence that these encounters have been more about a kick in the pants than a pat on the back. Maybe it is because I cannot so easily reflect on my past without feeling a profound sense of shame and guilt that keeps me at arm's length.
"I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sins NO MORE."
What an overwhelming promise! This is not like writing something on paper and then trying to use an eraser which will still leave a mark on the paper, and it is not like how we humans can forgive but not so easily forget, bless our hearts (the pastor's words). "I will ... remember their sins NO MORE." It means that He, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, will be as though it never happened. Incredible. Absolutely mind-boggling. And yet I cannot embrace it ... not because I do not believe it but because I am afraid to ask.
Am I hopeless? I cannot say this if I truly believe what I've preached in the past. For the life of the faithful there must always be hope, or He cannot be the God of our lives, of my life. Still I keep my distance as if I dare not approach perhaps for fear of being exposed for what I truly am: a sinner who is not worthy. This is why it is so difficult for me to declare for myself my own salvation. I don't reject it at all. In fact, I declare it for many who are so easily condemned by others. I have even found myself able to pray for child molesters! Those who make me want to wretch and who make me want to believe in torture as a legitimate law enforcement tool, and I have actually spoken prayers for these people. And yet in my own prayers, all I can do for myself is to say, "Have mercy on me, Lord".
I do not live in fear of the judgement. It will come soon enough, and there is nothing I can do or say to change it. I can only hope that His mercy is everything I've believed and preached.
I just came home from an Ash Wednesday service in which the pastor reminded us that through this powerful thing that He has done, we should be able to walk confidently and without fear for we have been FORGIVEN. The pastor even mentioned specifically the sin of rejecting His grace that is so freely given. Indeed, I've preached in the past myself that refusing this enormous gift is not unlike spitting in the Hand that feeds us! However, it is not a matter of rejecting the gift; it is for me somehow a matter of declaring myself worthy.
Make no mistake. I have personally encountered the overwhelming presence of the Lord. Though I cannot put into words anything that could come close to describing it, I can say with confidence that these encounters have been more about a kick in the pants than a pat on the back. Maybe it is because I cannot so easily reflect on my past without feeling a profound sense of shame and guilt that keeps me at arm's length.
"I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sins NO MORE."
What an overwhelming promise! This is not like writing something on paper and then trying to use an eraser which will still leave a mark on the paper, and it is not like how we humans can forgive but not so easily forget, bless our hearts (the pastor's words). "I will ... remember their sins NO MORE." It means that He, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, will be as though it never happened. Incredible. Absolutely mind-boggling. And yet I cannot embrace it ... not because I do not believe it but because I am afraid to ask.
Am I hopeless? I cannot say this if I truly believe what I've preached in the past. For the life of the faithful there must always be hope, or He cannot be the God of our lives, of my life. Still I keep my distance as if I dare not approach perhaps for fear of being exposed for what I truly am: a sinner who is not worthy. This is why it is so difficult for me to declare for myself my own salvation. I don't reject it at all. In fact, I declare it for many who are so easily condemned by others. I have even found myself able to pray for child molesters! Those who make me want to wretch and who make me want to believe in torture as a legitimate law enforcement tool, and I have actually spoken prayers for these people. And yet in my own prayers, all I can do for myself is to say, "Have mercy on me, Lord".
I do not live in fear of the judgement. It will come soon enough, and there is nothing I can do or say to change it. I can only hope that His mercy is everything I've believed and preached.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Kennedy, Chappaquiddick, and Cheney
Sen. Kennedy has been one of the more outspoken critics of the "Texas Quail Hunt Massacre" in that he somehow believes that VP Cheney and/or the White House must have been trying to hide something. After all, when the incident occurred, the hunting party had the gall to call an ambulance before contacting the Washington press corps.
Actually, I don't think Sen. Kennedy believes for one moment that there has been some great cover-up conspiracy. I believe that he wants US to believe it, but I also think he is doing nothing more than continuing to play the same political game he has been playing for years. Why would he change his course of action when he is continually re-elected time and again? He has found what works in his home state, and he trades on a name that is associated with power and affluence.
Let it be known that I have no use for Senator Kennedy. I personally don't care much for his name-calling and orations against Republicans in general, and I have yet to hear him say anything with any real substance.
Having said this, however, I must also say that those who try to play Sen. Kennedy's unfortunate past against him are doing nothing more than sinking (no pun intended) down to his own, sorry level. However, I will also offer this perspective. Senator Kennedy has buried two brothers who were gunned down in the prime of their lives. His big family has had troubles that the average citizen cannot even fathom. And knowing what I know only from what I have read, if I came from a family like that, I would probably be a little angry as well!
There is no connection or similarity between what happened a jillion years ago and what happened last week. It's over, and Mr. Whittington is doing just fine. For his age, I would say his recovery is rather remarkable. But this finger-pointing and name-calling has got to stop.
Did you ever notice that this kind of behavior is happening in the church as well? It's that same, tired, old "liberal" vs "conservative" and accusations of one or the other deliberately trying to destroy "innocent" people or not caring enough. Come to think of it, our behavior in our churches looks a lot like what the political headlines read. We keep screaming that it's all about Jesus, but evidence to the contrary suggests that church life is about anything BUT Jesus.
Who says religion and politics don't mix?
Actually, I don't think Sen. Kennedy believes for one moment that there has been some great cover-up conspiracy. I believe that he wants US to believe it, but I also think he is doing nothing more than continuing to play the same political game he has been playing for years. Why would he change his course of action when he is continually re-elected time and again? He has found what works in his home state, and he trades on a name that is associated with power and affluence.
Let it be known that I have no use for Senator Kennedy. I personally don't care much for his name-calling and orations against Republicans in general, and I have yet to hear him say anything with any real substance.
Having said this, however, I must also say that those who try to play Sen. Kennedy's unfortunate past against him are doing nothing more than sinking (no pun intended) down to his own, sorry level. However, I will also offer this perspective. Senator Kennedy has buried two brothers who were gunned down in the prime of their lives. His big family has had troubles that the average citizen cannot even fathom. And knowing what I know only from what I have read, if I came from a family like that, I would probably be a little angry as well!
There is no connection or similarity between what happened a jillion years ago and what happened last week. It's over, and Mr. Whittington is doing just fine. For his age, I would say his recovery is rather remarkable. But this finger-pointing and name-calling has got to stop.
Did you ever notice that this kind of behavior is happening in the church as well? It's that same, tired, old "liberal" vs "conservative" and accusations of one or the other deliberately trying to destroy "innocent" people or not caring enough. Come to think of it, our behavior in our churches looks a lot like what the political headlines read. We keep screaming that it's all about Jesus, but evidence to the contrary suggests that church life is about anything BUT Jesus.
Who says religion and politics don't mix?
Thursday, February 23, 2006
A Measure of True Worth
I mentioned in an earlier post about the death of a central Arkansas high school student who was killed in a single-vehicle accident. News came later that this child was very drunk and also had traces of cocaine in her system. I wondered then why the news media would have decided that this news needed to be shared at all. Did this news diminish the worth of this young lady's life in any way? I think not.
This young lady was a very popular student, involved in many extracurricular activities and even did some volunteer work. This life was overflowing with potential! Yet we learn later that she was every bit as human as the rest of us, suffering from the same frailties and temptations that many of us battle every single day. Her drunkenness cannot be excused, but I also cannot help but wonder whether, if she had hit another vehicle and someone other than she had died, the community would be crying for justice to go easy on her because she was who she was?
I ask these questions only because the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette wrote a beautiful op-ed piece about her life and accomplishments. In the obituaries of the same section, however, was the story of a 19-year-old man who had died. The circumstances of his death were not mentioned in his obituary and there was no front-page headline heralding the world's loss of such a fine young man with so much accomplished and much more to look forward to.
Not to detract from this girl's death and her loved ones' anguish, but what does it say about us as a society that somehow her death was "breaking news" worthy of a headline, but this young man was nothing more than a blip in the obituaries? She was very pretty with long blonde hair and a very impressive resume. The young man's photo revealed a healthy and eager smile, a handsome young man who, judging by the obituary, had many loved ones who hurt just as much.
Did I mention that the young man was black?
This young lady was a very popular student, involved in many extracurricular activities and even did some volunteer work. This life was overflowing with potential! Yet we learn later that she was every bit as human as the rest of us, suffering from the same frailties and temptations that many of us battle every single day. Her drunkenness cannot be excused, but I also cannot help but wonder whether, if she had hit another vehicle and someone other than she had died, the community would be crying for justice to go easy on her because she was who she was?
I ask these questions only because the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette wrote a beautiful op-ed piece about her life and accomplishments. In the obituaries of the same section, however, was the story of a 19-year-old man who had died. The circumstances of his death were not mentioned in his obituary and there was no front-page headline heralding the world's loss of such a fine young man with so much accomplished and much more to look forward to.
Not to detract from this girl's death and her loved ones' anguish, but what does it say about us as a society that somehow her death was "breaking news" worthy of a headline, but this young man was nothing more than a blip in the obituaries? She was very pretty with long blonde hair and a very impressive resume. The young man's photo revealed a healthy and eager smile, a handsome young man who, judging by the obituary, had many loved ones who hurt just as much.
Did I mention that the young man was black?
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Tag .. I'm It
John at Locusts and Honey has challenged a few to designate songs we love that must also include the following instructions: List seven songs you are into right now. No matter what the genre, whether they have words, or even if they're any good, but they must be songs you're really enjoying now. Post these instructions in your blog along with your seven songs. Then tag seven other people to see what they're listening to.
- Nella Fantasia - Celtic Woman
- Time to Say Goodbye - Sarah Brightman
- Havana - Kenny G
- Catching the Breeze - Eden's Bridge
- Poems, Prayers, and Promises - John Denver
- Hymn of Promise - UMH 707
- The Nutcracker Suite - Peter Ilyitch Tchaikovsky
I'm not much for contemporary music anymore, and "oldies" stations are getting harder to come by. And by the way, the church where my family and I have alighted during my sabbatical - we are joining a Sunday school class tomorrow, and it's not a "young adults" class. Oh my gosh, I'm OLD!!
Tag - You're it: Jason Hall, Dan McGowan, Wayne Cook, Andy Bryan, John Wilks, Mike Lamson, Randy Graves
Man's Quest for "More"
In today's religion section of a state-wide newspaper were two articles that caught my attention. One was a shorty about the phenomenal growth of so-called "megachurches". Readers may recall that a few of these "megachurches" caught the ire of the general Christian public by choosing to cancel Christmas Day worship services because the holiday itself fell on a Sunday. The article pointed to a study by Leadership Network, a Dallas-based nonprofit consultant on church growth. In simple terms, the attendance and/or membership of these churches has nearly doubled in the last five years. They continue to grow and "draw younger Americans and families through contemporary programming and conservative values."
The other article was a play on man's so-called "mid-life crisis" but with a holy twist. Successful persons are no longer in pursuit of bigger and better toys or paychecks or positions. The successful persons mentioned in the article had achieved as much as they could in man's world. The "more" they were continually in search of was of a more divine nature.
As a United Methodist with Roman Catholic tendencies, non-denominational churches have always held a curious attraction for me yet I've not been curious enough to attend the services even though a very dear friend of mine, actually a former drinking buddy, got his life turned around through the ministry of a "megachurch". Now he is a dedicated disciple who has done quite a bit of missionary work. It's kind of hard to knock a church that can count among its members such a person who was truly on a dark path and made such a remarkable about-face.
At one time I was perfectly content with the larger churches because it was easy to get lost in them. No one really bothered me, and no one ever asked me to participate in anything. Yet as I grew up, it became more important for me to be an ACTIVE member of a congregation which I suppose eventually led me to the pulpit, first as a lay speaker and then as a licensed pastor. In all that time and during all that growth, however, it never occurred to me that I was continually restless. In retrospect, I was never satisfied. I needed more, but I didn't quite know how to go about it or even identify it. I suppose I'm still there, restless and wanting more.
Now that I am only months away from graduation from college, the possibilities of "more" stand before me. I can go to law school if I want to, or I can go to seminary if I want to. More choices, because of education, will be before me than ever before. Yet when I read about highly successful persons who have accomplished "more" and have grown tired of the so-called "rat race", I wonder why it is that I cannot learn through the testimony of others that "more" is not always better.
Megachurches have their own attraction and if the "entertainment value" factor of these churches gets young people to attend and hear the Word of the Lord and have their hearts opened by moving music, then I'm all for it even though it may not be my cup of tea. It seems to me, however, that reaching for more of the world, even if we try to attach a divine element to it, will get us nothing but sore arms and a perpetual thirst that can never be quenched.
The successful people who are trading their places in the board rooms for mission projects have finally figured out how to quench their own thirst - by helping to quench the thirst of others. Is this not the life that Christ calls us all to? Could it be that these "megachurches" had enjoyed such growth because other successful people traded in the stock options for something a bit more eternal? What these persons have found is finally true fulfillment. The sad thing is that too many of us will have to be knocked in the head more than once before we finally get it.
The other article was a play on man's so-called "mid-life crisis" but with a holy twist. Successful persons are no longer in pursuit of bigger and better toys or paychecks or positions. The successful persons mentioned in the article had achieved as much as they could in man's world. The "more" they were continually in search of was of a more divine nature.
As a United Methodist with Roman Catholic tendencies, non-denominational churches have always held a curious attraction for me yet I've not been curious enough to attend the services even though a very dear friend of mine, actually a former drinking buddy, got his life turned around through the ministry of a "megachurch". Now he is a dedicated disciple who has done quite a bit of missionary work. It's kind of hard to knock a church that can count among its members such a person who was truly on a dark path and made such a remarkable about-face.
At one time I was perfectly content with the larger churches because it was easy to get lost in them. No one really bothered me, and no one ever asked me to participate in anything. Yet as I grew up, it became more important for me to be an ACTIVE member of a congregation which I suppose eventually led me to the pulpit, first as a lay speaker and then as a licensed pastor. In all that time and during all that growth, however, it never occurred to me that I was continually restless. In retrospect, I was never satisfied. I needed more, but I didn't quite know how to go about it or even identify it. I suppose I'm still there, restless and wanting more.
Now that I am only months away from graduation from college, the possibilities of "more" stand before me. I can go to law school if I want to, or I can go to seminary if I want to. More choices, because of education, will be before me than ever before. Yet when I read about highly successful persons who have accomplished "more" and have grown tired of the so-called "rat race", I wonder why it is that I cannot learn through the testimony of others that "more" is not always better.
Megachurches have their own attraction and if the "entertainment value" factor of these churches gets young people to attend and hear the Word of the Lord and have their hearts opened by moving music, then I'm all for it even though it may not be my cup of tea. It seems to me, however, that reaching for more of the world, even if we try to attach a divine element to it, will get us nothing but sore arms and a perpetual thirst that can never be quenched.
The successful people who are trading their places in the board rooms for mission projects have finally figured out how to quench their own thirst - by helping to quench the thirst of others. Is this not the life that Christ calls us all to? Could it be that these "megachurches" had enjoyed such growth because other successful people traded in the stock options for something a bit more eternal? What these persons have found is finally true fulfillment. The sad thing is that too many of us will have to be knocked in the head more than once before we finally get it.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Random Thoughts
I was visiting with a "headhunter" the other day who had contacted me at my workplace. This person was not looking for me in particular; she had only called the company and asked for the director of operations. While she was speaking in very general terms, she asked me what my ideal position would be. Of course I knew that she was talking about the transportation business, but I said, "I would like to write."
That's it. If I could do anything in the world that I could choose, I would choose to write full-time. Whether it is about religion or politics or anything else under the sun, I love to write. How ironic it is that at this very moment, I can think of absolutely nothing to write about.
However, it occurred to me while I was thinking about my ideal that I was completely engrossed in only what interested me. There was no thought about how such a position would affect my family or my home, there was no thought about whether this might be what the Lord would want me to do, and there was not even much of a thought about whether I could make a living at it.
Yes, I have tried to sell a few pieces here and there, but one syndicated writer who was kind enough to evaluate my work warned me to expect several rejections. If this is part of the game, then I am well on the road to success! Incidentally, he liked what I sent him but he refused to pay for it. Funny guy.
Other random thoughts:
That's it. If I could do anything in the world that I could choose, I would choose to write full-time. Whether it is about religion or politics or anything else under the sun, I love to write. How ironic it is that at this very moment, I can think of absolutely nothing to write about.
However, it occurred to me while I was thinking about my ideal that I was completely engrossed in only what interested me. There was no thought about how such a position would affect my family or my home, there was no thought about whether this might be what the Lord would want me to do, and there was not even much of a thought about whether I could make a living at it.
Yes, I have tried to sell a few pieces here and there, but one syndicated writer who was kind enough to evaluate my work warned me to expect several rejections. If this is part of the game, then I am well on the road to success! Incidentally, he liked what I sent him but he refused to pay for it. Funny guy.
Other random thoughts:
- How much information do I really need? A high school senior, apparently very popular, outgoing, and accomplished, was recently killed in a single-car crash. Her school and almost the entire state mourned her passing. She was young and beautiful. It was later discovered that she was drunk with traces of cocaine in her system. Did the entire state really need to know this?
- Why is power so intoxicating? This nation's Congress is as divided as this nation's churches. It is not enough to simply disagree and try to prove the other wrong. It seems we would rather destroy the offending party for ... what? Control. Power. We want - no - we NEED to be right. But even more than this, we NEED the opposition to be wrong. Only then can complete dominance be achieved.
- How badly was FEMA managed during Katrina? Think about it. New Orleans knew for DAYS that a massive hurricane was coming. As I understand it, the Feds cannot come in without permission from the state. Folks are still displaced, audits are discovering that huge amounts of money have been virtually given away without really checking things out, there are 10,000 mobile homes parked in Arkansas that were originally destined for the gulf region to be used as homes that now cannot be used down there. But was all this mismanagement or political knee-jerk reactions without any real thought process?
- Was it really that big of a deal? The vice president was involved in a hunting accident. So was Billy-Bubba and a host of others, some of whose victims did not live to tell about it. Why was the vice president's mishap of such national importance?
- The government cannot be all things to all people. My congressman sits on the House Armed Services and the Veterans Affairs committees. Both committees are exploring how to provide the best care for veterans, and I am sure they are focused on the current war on terror. However, should non-combat veterans be entitled to the same benefits as our counter-parts who have endured the horrors of war? I was a peace time Marine and was proud to serve. However, I just don't feel "entitled". Does this make sense? The government, contrary to popular opinion, has limited resources. If choices have to be made to cut anything in order to provide what is really needed, shouldn't the non-combat vets be willing to stand aside? After all, our service was "self-less", wasn't it?
Is this a great country or what??
Thursday, February 16, 2006
One More Word
Freedom. The principles of this nation are founded upon the concept of freedom. We are free to come and go as we please. We are free to have families as we please. We are free to be successful, or to fail, as we please. Within the reasonable boundaries of law, we are free to do virtually anything we please - as long as we do not harm others.
This situation over the caricatures of Muhammad has gotten out of hand not only by those who would answer this "offense" with violence but also by those who would thumb their noses at decorum and cultural sensitivity in the name of the very freedom that would not only allow such carelessness but would also grant to us the freedom to refrain from that which could ultimately do more harm than good. Just because we have a right to do something does not necessarily mean that we should.
More newspaper columnists are decrying the American newspapers who are choosing to refrain from publishing the cartoons as "caving", but then again these "watchdogs of freedom" must surely be relatively certain that they will not be held financially liable if such "in your face" journalism should cause physical property damage. Ain't freedom grand??
It would appear to me that the American brand of "freedom" is not completely compatible with the kind of freedom spoken of in the Bible. There is a whole different concept that allows that just as surely as we are free to DO, we are also free to refrain - especially when we know or even think that someone may be genuinely offended in any way.
I think it is as simple as defining "moral" behavior. It is not enough to refrain from doing evil but rather, true moral behavior would be more inclined toward actively good behavior. WWII and the Holocaust should be enough for Americans to know that remaining silent and doing nothing is not only not conducive to moral conduct but may in fact actually be immoral.
Never mind the nasty comments such as, "In your face, raghead", and other such derogatory remarks. They achieve nothing. We are indeed at war but we are not at war with Islam; we are at war with a world-wide band of mauraders, thugs, and murderers who happen to align themselves with Islam. There is a major difference, and those who are true and faithful to their calling deserve at least our respect. This will be the only way we can ever hope to earn any respect.
This situation over the caricatures of Muhammad has gotten out of hand not only by those who would answer this "offense" with violence but also by those who would thumb their noses at decorum and cultural sensitivity in the name of the very freedom that would not only allow such carelessness but would also grant to us the freedom to refrain from that which could ultimately do more harm than good. Just because we have a right to do something does not necessarily mean that we should.
More newspaper columnists are decrying the American newspapers who are choosing to refrain from publishing the cartoons as "caving", but then again these "watchdogs of freedom" must surely be relatively certain that they will not be held financially liable if such "in your face" journalism should cause physical property damage. Ain't freedom grand??
It would appear to me that the American brand of "freedom" is not completely compatible with the kind of freedom spoken of in the Bible. There is a whole different concept that allows that just as surely as we are free to DO, we are also free to refrain - especially when we know or even think that someone may be genuinely offended in any way.
I think it is as simple as defining "moral" behavior. It is not enough to refrain from doing evil but rather, true moral behavior would be more inclined toward actively good behavior. WWII and the Holocaust should be enough for Americans to know that remaining silent and doing nothing is not only not conducive to moral conduct but may in fact actually be immoral.
Never mind the nasty comments such as, "In your face, raghead", and other such derogatory remarks. They achieve nothing. We are indeed at war but we are not at war with Islam; we are at war with a world-wide band of mauraders, thugs, and murderers who happen to align themselves with Islam. There is a major difference, and those who are true and faithful to their calling deserve at least our respect. This will be the only way we can ever hope to earn any respect.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Where is the Love?
Typically there are the so-called liberals who take issue with so-called conservatives over the homosexual deal. Especially in theological discussions about the "right" or the "wrong" of it, the liberals insist that Jesus preached "love". "Love your neighbor", "Love God with your whole heart". Then of course, there is the ever-present "Judge not ..."
Reading today's editorial section in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, my head was spinning! With all the "hateful "letters to the editor virtually burning President Bush in effigy, I had to wonder where all the venom was coming from.
I learned my lesson the hard way. Years ago when President Clinton was in office, some friends and I were sitting around the table discussing politics. You should know that I was no fan of President Clinton, and I am sure that I was not quiet or discreet about my disdain for this man and his policies. My then 10-year-old daughter chimed in on the conversation and said, "I HATE Bill Clinton!"
You should also know that there was only one source from which my daughter could have gleaned such an attitude. I was a little surprised at her outburst but as I thought about it, I realized that I had taken what was at once an innocent child and had inadvertently offered her fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Without realizing it, I had violated the innocence of a child and had taught her how to speak not according to what she knew or what she believed but rather, from an emotion to emulate someone she looked up to and respected.
Needless to say, it took me a long time to undo the damage I had done. And this is the task that is before us. We have allowed the politicians too much power for far too long and as a result, we have allowed ourselves to get caught up in the "mob mentality" frenzy of calling names and spewing the most vile words we can possibly come up with. And oddly, we do this in the name of "justice" for the poor, the disenfranchised, the elderly .... the Christ.
Have we so digressed to a level in which we find that we have more need to hate than to love? Have we become such a "mob" of people who have some inate desire - if need - to hate? Or are we nothing more than a bunch of cowards who take some perverted delight in trashing another human being with the relative certainty that nothing will come of it, certainly no consequences.
We can do better. And for the sake of the next generation, we must.
Reading today's editorial section in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, my head was spinning! With all the "hateful "letters to the editor virtually burning President Bush in effigy, I had to wonder where all the venom was coming from.
I learned my lesson the hard way. Years ago when President Clinton was in office, some friends and I were sitting around the table discussing politics. You should know that I was no fan of President Clinton, and I am sure that I was not quiet or discreet about my disdain for this man and his policies. My then 10-year-old daughter chimed in on the conversation and said, "I HATE Bill Clinton!"
You should also know that there was only one source from which my daughter could have gleaned such an attitude. I was a little surprised at her outburst but as I thought about it, I realized that I had taken what was at once an innocent child and had inadvertently offered her fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Without realizing it, I had violated the innocence of a child and had taught her how to speak not according to what she knew or what she believed but rather, from an emotion to emulate someone she looked up to and respected.
Needless to say, it took me a long time to undo the damage I had done. And this is the task that is before us. We have allowed the politicians too much power for far too long and as a result, we have allowed ourselves to get caught up in the "mob mentality" frenzy of calling names and spewing the most vile words we can possibly come up with. And oddly, we do this in the name of "justice" for the poor, the disenfranchised, the elderly .... the Christ.
Have we so digressed to a level in which we find that we have more need to hate than to love? Have we become such a "mob" of people who have some inate desire - if need - to hate? Or are we nothing more than a bunch of cowards who take some perverted delight in trashing another human being with the relative certainty that nothing will come of it, certainly no consequences.
We can do better. And for the sake of the next generation, we must.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
It's the Little Things
In 2 Kings 5 is the story of a great leader, a general named Naaman, who is afflicted with leprosy. His wife's servant, a girl from Israel, encouraged Naaman to go to Israel to seek healing from the prophet Elisha.
Long story short, he goes but what he encounters is not what he had come to expect. This general was a great military leader and was accustomed to doing great things. He was also accustomed to people coming to him, so it was probably an exceeding insult that Elisha did not come directly to Naaman but instead, sent a messenger. And the message was simply: go dip in the Jordan River seven times and be healed.
Naaman was insulted on several levels, not the least of which is that Elisha did not come offer enough respect to show his face. And then to go and wash in a river in a land that Naaman likely considered to be inferior to his own homeland. It was only when his own servants reminded him that if something great had been asked of him, he would not have hesitated to do it for the sake of being healed. So Naaman dipped himself in the river as Elisha had instructed, and he came out completely healed.
Some of us get too filled with the big jobs we dream of one day having, such as a pastorate in a very large church or conducting revivals on the scale of a Billy Graham crusade or having thousands of dollars to give toward what we would consider to be a worthy cause. We rarely consider that it is the "little things" that give the greatest and most profound blessings. In the end, we touch more lives with the little things we are capable of managing than we will in wishing for something (coveting??) that is beyond our grasp.
Such is the life of a blogger. Or a preacher at a small, rural church. Or a server on the soup line. Or a stock person at a Salvation Army Thrift Store. Or the greeter who stands at the door of any church and makes everyone feel right at home. This list of the little things is only the beginning of the small, yet powerful, ways each of us can impact a life.
We are not Jesus. We cannot reasonably expect to be able to do the things He did. Then again, there can only be one Christ as there is only one God. Doing the things that we can do, however great or small, will make the difference in another's life and give them a sense of belonging, a sense of self-worth that will go a lot further than our dreams of accomplishing "great" things, even if our intent is to do great things in the name of the Lord. The really great things are the "lost coin" or the "lost sheep". Just one small thing at a time.
Long story short, he goes but what he encounters is not what he had come to expect. This general was a great military leader and was accustomed to doing great things. He was also accustomed to people coming to him, so it was probably an exceeding insult that Elisha did not come directly to Naaman but instead, sent a messenger. And the message was simply: go dip in the Jordan River seven times and be healed.
Naaman was insulted on several levels, not the least of which is that Elisha did not come offer enough respect to show his face. And then to go and wash in a river in a land that Naaman likely considered to be inferior to his own homeland. It was only when his own servants reminded him that if something great had been asked of him, he would not have hesitated to do it for the sake of being healed. So Naaman dipped himself in the river as Elisha had instructed, and he came out completely healed.
Some of us get too filled with the big jobs we dream of one day having, such as a pastorate in a very large church or conducting revivals on the scale of a Billy Graham crusade or having thousands of dollars to give toward what we would consider to be a worthy cause. We rarely consider that it is the "little things" that give the greatest and most profound blessings. In the end, we touch more lives with the little things we are capable of managing than we will in wishing for something (coveting??) that is beyond our grasp.
Such is the life of a blogger. Or a preacher at a small, rural church. Or a server on the soup line. Or a stock person at a Salvation Army Thrift Store. Or the greeter who stands at the door of any church and makes everyone feel right at home. This list of the little things is only the beginning of the small, yet powerful, ways each of us can impact a life.
We are not Jesus. We cannot reasonably expect to be able to do the things He did. Then again, there can only be one Christ as there is only one God. Doing the things that we can do, however great or small, will make the difference in another's life and give them a sense of belonging, a sense of self-worth that will go a lot further than our dreams of accomplishing "great" things, even if our intent is to do great things in the name of the Lord. The really great things are the "lost coin" or the "lost sheep". Just one small thing at a time.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Is It Really Idolatry?
So the Arabic world of Islam is offended by the caricatures of the prophet Muhammad in some European newspapers, one of which was a depiction of the prophet wearing a bomb-shaped turban. I specify "Arabic" world because it appears that at least American Muslims, though seemingly genuinely offended by these caricatures, are not burning, looting, and pillaging their neighborhoods.
It is hard to feel pity for those who seem intent on such destruction. Americans are still reeling from 9/11 and are still sending loved ones overseas to fight in an increasingly unpopular war. And as we read the daily papers and listen on the TV and radio, there seems rarely a day when Americans don't suffer casualties. And then we see these same people whom we believe we are fighting to protect virtually dancing in the streets whenever the US suffers casualties.
And yet as the caricature story continues to unfold - and yes, I believe Arabic Islamic "leaders" are stoking the fires - I cannot help but to at least wonder if the West can ever get off its "high horse" and realize that we are talking about an entirely different culture and mindset.
The Islamic prohibition against such caricatures and images is part of not just a religion which may be a 'part' of one's life but a religion that for many IS life in its entirety. Should Christians be so intimately tied to our religion? I think so but judging by a typical response to the "offense", it would appear that Christians may tend to be as "in your face" as the careless Europeans who insisted on reprinting these cartoons just to prove a point about freedom and liberty without acknowledging the enormous responsibility that comes with it.
In the movie, "Bruce Almighty", the main character makes a direct challenge to the Almighty since his own meager, yet adequate, life is not quite to his own satisfaction. The Lord decides then to directly confront "Bruce" and endow him with Divine Powers. The problem with having been granted this Power is that Bruce did not have the Wisdom that would have necessarily been required to properly exercise such power.
So we in the West thumb our noses at the Islamic prohibition against images as "idolatrous" because we don't see it their way. But when we also choose to thumb our noses at respect and decorum, what is it that we choose instead to worship?
It is hard to feel pity for those who seem intent on such destruction. Americans are still reeling from 9/11 and are still sending loved ones overseas to fight in an increasingly unpopular war. And as we read the daily papers and listen on the TV and radio, there seems rarely a day when Americans don't suffer casualties. And then we see these same people whom we believe we are fighting to protect virtually dancing in the streets whenever the US suffers casualties.
And yet as the caricature story continues to unfold - and yes, I believe Arabic Islamic "leaders" are stoking the fires - I cannot help but to at least wonder if the West can ever get off its "high horse" and realize that we are talking about an entirely different culture and mindset.
The Islamic prohibition against such caricatures and images is part of not just a religion which may be a 'part' of one's life but a religion that for many IS life in its entirety. Should Christians be so intimately tied to our religion? I think so but judging by a typical response to the "offense", it would appear that Christians may tend to be as "in your face" as the careless Europeans who insisted on reprinting these cartoons just to prove a point about freedom and liberty without acknowledging the enormous responsibility that comes with it.
In the movie, "Bruce Almighty", the main character makes a direct challenge to the Almighty since his own meager, yet adequate, life is not quite to his own satisfaction. The Lord decides then to directly confront "Bruce" and endow him with Divine Powers. The problem with having been granted this Power is that Bruce did not have the Wisdom that would have necessarily been required to properly exercise such power.
So we in the West thumb our noses at the Islamic prohibition against images as "idolatrous" because we don't see it their way. But when we also choose to thumb our noses at respect and decorum, what is it that we choose instead to worship?
Sunday, February 05, 2006
The Act of Worship
It is my first Sunday morning after having resigned my pulpit, and I do not know what to do with myself! I used to have my Sunday mornings lined out in such a way that I would rise early, have coffee with the morning paper for a brief time, then prepare for church. Often this would involve a last-minute review of the sermon and Bible texts and then a dash out the door for the 1/2 hour drive to the little church I served. Not a stressful morning, but at least a morning with purpose and time constraints.
The church we are about to visit is pretty close to a 1,000-member church with three Sunday morning worship services. Now you might suggest that three services to accomodate this kind of crowd would be required, and it probably is. What I'm having trouble with, however, is choosing which "kind" of service I will attend.
A few weeks ago my family and I attended this church's "praise" service. This service is very casual and is held not in the sanctuary but in the church's fellowship hall. There are no pews but, rather, tables and chairs. I was a little taken aback when some young people came in with doughnuts and sodas; there were others having coffee. Then it occurred to me that I should be grateful that these young people were bothering to come to church at all. As time passed, however, I had to wonder if such an accomodation has become necessary just to get folks in the door.
We should not begrudge any church that uses whatever reasonable means at its disposal to attract folks to church. Any exposure to the Word and a good sermon with lots of good music is a step in the right direction. As a somewhat conservative person, I have to constantly stay on my guard to try to see the positives that can come from such an environment. My concern, however, is in where our hearts are when we plan such a service. Are we trying to please the Lord God by doing whatever is necessary to get folks to church, or are we offering "consumers" an opportunity to be entertained with hopes that the Spirit may speak to them? Or are we doing whatever is necessary to keep the doors open?
Back when I served as lay leader to a local congregation, part of my duties was to offer a word before a collection was taken up. My word to the congregation, which got the attention of the finance people, was to simply hold back that portion of their gifts that were being given grudgingly. In other words, if you cannot give the gift and be glad about it, just keep it.
Now this admonishment is very biblical, but the finance manager and even the pastor were more than a little concerned that I was giving some an "out", an excuse for not giving. And, after all, don't we have bills to pay??
Like the gifts we offer, worship has to be offered in the very same vein. We must be on guard that we are not offering something that we hope will be pleasing to man long before we even concern ourselves with whether the Lord God will be pleased. After all, why are we there at all?
I should be grateful on so many levels for the opportunity that is before me that a) I am free to worship, b) I have such choices before me. So why am I so anxious? Why can I not look forward to this time of worship? I've been serving as a pastor for the past six years. Maybe it is that a time of adjustment will be required. This seems to be a given. In my time as a pastor, however, it never really occurred to me that different or additional services might be required in order to get people in the door. What if I simply pray with a sincere heart for guidance?
Then it occurred to me. Those who have designed these worship services may very likely have already prayed to the Lord God for guidance, and these varied services are where He led them. I remind myself that the condition of another's heart is not my concern. My business, my concern, is that I offer to those around me the best portrait of Christ I can offer. This is my worship, Sunday or any other day of the week. This is my opportunity whether I am behind the pulpit or in front of it.
Go worship with a glad heart. And if you are suffering the same anxieties that I am enduring, give yourself permission to "be still" and know who is God.
The church we are about to visit is pretty close to a 1,000-member church with three Sunday morning worship services. Now you might suggest that three services to accomodate this kind of crowd would be required, and it probably is. What I'm having trouble with, however, is choosing which "kind" of service I will attend.
A few weeks ago my family and I attended this church's "praise" service. This service is very casual and is held not in the sanctuary but in the church's fellowship hall. There are no pews but, rather, tables and chairs. I was a little taken aback when some young people came in with doughnuts and sodas; there were others having coffee. Then it occurred to me that I should be grateful that these young people were bothering to come to church at all. As time passed, however, I had to wonder if such an accomodation has become necessary just to get folks in the door.
We should not begrudge any church that uses whatever reasonable means at its disposal to attract folks to church. Any exposure to the Word and a good sermon with lots of good music is a step in the right direction. As a somewhat conservative person, I have to constantly stay on my guard to try to see the positives that can come from such an environment. My concern, however, is in where our hearts are when we plan such a service. Are we trying to please the Lord God by doing whatever is necessary to get folks to church, or are we offering "consumers" an opportunity to be entertained with hopes that the Spirit may speak to them? Or are we doing whatever is necessary to keep the doors open?
Back when I served as lay leader to a local congregation, part of my duties was to offer a word before a collection was taken up. My word to the congregation, which got the attention of the finance people, was to simply hold back that portion of their gifts that were being given grudgingly. In other words, if you cannot give the gift and be glad about it, just keep it.
Now this admonishment is very biblical, but the finance manager and even the pastor were more than a little concerned that I was giving some an "out", an excuse for not giving. And, after all, don't we have bills to pay??
Like the gifts we offer, worship has to be offered in the very same vein. We must be on guard that we are not offering something that we hope will be pleasing to man long before we even concern ourselves with whether the Lord God will be pleased. After all, why are we there at all?
I should be grateful on so many levels for the opportunity that is before me that a) I am free to worship, b) I have such choices before me. So why am I so anxious? Why can I not look forward to this time of worship? I've been serving as a pastor for the past six years. Maybe it is that a time of adjustment will be required. This seems to be a given. In my time as a pastor, however, it never really occurred to me that different or additional services might be required in order to get people in the door. What if I simply pray with a sincere heart for guidance?
Then it occurred to me. Those who have designed these worship services may very likely have already prayed to the Lord God for guidance, and these varied services are where He led them. I remind myself that the condition of another's heart is not my concern. My business, my concern, is that I offer to those around me the best portrait of Christ I can offer. This is my worship, Sunday or any other day of the week. This is my opportunity whether I am behind the pulpit or in front of it.
Go worship with a glad heart. And if you are suffering the same anxieties that I am enduring, give yourself permission to "be still" and know who is God.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Ancient Thought, Modern Process
"Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people." Deuteronomy 17:6-7
In what Moses is said to have written to the people of Israel, the text suggests to the people that the only way someone can be convicted of a capital crime is if there are genuine witnesses, presumably eye witnesses who can attest - with the same story - that they actually saw the crime take place. Then and only then can the guilty be put to death. This is not unlike so much we have seen in TV lawyer shows when attorneys suddenly rise on the testimony of a witness and shout, "Objection, your honor! Hearsay!"
It is fundamental to our system of justice that if one did not actually see a crime take place or was not party to a particular conversation, then one cannot accurately testify to the legitimacy of the claim. Whether something actually happened or was actually said must come from first-hand knowledge, not second-hand information.
There have been several in the last few years who have been released from prison or given a reprieve from death row because DNA evidence proved their innocence or at least cast enough doubt to give the condemned person the benefit. But while this DNA evidence is getting some released from prison, DNA evidence is also serving as a reliable witness to get others put away. I cannot cite a particular case in which DNA was used to condemn someone to death, but I am certain it may come to that if it has not already.
The Lord God established a system of justice centuries ago as a means by which we could govern ourselves with divine guidance. The idea of such a system of justice would leave little to chance in demanding that eye witnesses be part of the process. DNA may very well be a reliable witness in and of itself, but this DNA has to be processed by man. There is always a risk of evidence, DNA or otherwise, being tainted by the fallible nature of man even if the best of intentions are in place. So when the Day of the Lord is upon us and He asks about those we put to death in this country, do you think He will accept DNA evidence as part of the process?
I have to say that I have never been very comfortable with the death penalty. There are too many variables involved in the judicial process - including human emotion - and now, by the time a person accused of a capital crime is brought to trial, the entire state knows what this person looks like and has pretty much settled the case long before a judge has heard the first word. And depending on the nature of the crime, it may be that our hearts are so hardened that we would not be willing to accept a district attorney's decision to drop the matter due to lack of hard evidence because our minds will have already been made up.
Those I once considered as "bleeding hearts" have finally made a little inroad into my thought process. The truth is that our system of justice works best and most often in favor of those who can afford the more expensive and experienced attorneys. Those who because of economic circumstances are forced to depend on a government lawyer to defend them are genuinely gambling with their lives for no reason other than that they cannot afford an attorney.
While it may be "just" that a person be put to death for taking the life of another, judging by the responses of far too many citizens, "justice" is the furthest thing from our minds once we are able to attach a name and a face to a crime. I suppose by that point, the accused may as well be put to death because in reality, their life is all but over anyway, convicted by the court of public opinion with "hearsay" and put to death by the hardness of unforgiving hearts blinded by grief and emotion, never minding facts to the contrary.
Is it just possible that the Lord, in His infinite wisdom, was not only giving us a standard by which to govern but was also giving us a system by which we would be protected - from ourselves?
In what Moses is said to have written to the people of Israel, the text suggests to the people that the only way someone can be convicted of a capital crime is if there are genuine witnesses, presumably eye witnesses who can attest - with the same story - that they actually saw the crime take place. Then and only then can the guilty be put to death. This is not unlike so much we have seen in TV lawyer shows when attorneys suddenly rise on the testimony of a witness and shout, "Objection, your honor! Hearsay!"
It is fundamental to our system of justice that if one did not actually see a crime take place or was not party to a particular conversation, then one cannot accurately testify to the legitimacy of the claim. Whether something actually happened or was actually said must come from first-hand knowledge, not second-hand information.
There have been several in the last few years who have been released from prison or given a reprieve from death row because DNA evidence proved their innocence or at least cast enough doubt to give the condemned person the benefit. But while this DNA evidence is getting some released from prison, DNA evidence is also serving as a reliable witness to get others put away. I cannot cite a particular case in which DNA was used to condemn someone to death, but I am certain it may come to that if it has not already.
The Lord God established a system of justice centuries ago as a means by which we could govern ourselves with divine guidance. The idea of such a system of justice would leave little to chance in demanding that eye witnesses be part of the process. DNA may very well be a reliable witness in and of itself, but this DNA has to be processed by man. There is always a risk of evidence, DNA or otherwise, being tainted by the fallible nature of man even if the best of intentions are in place. So when the Day of the Lord is upon us and He asks about those we put to death in this country, do you think He will accept DNA evidence as part of the process?
I have to say that I have never been very comfortable with the death penalty. There are too many variables involved in the judicial process - including human emotion - and now, by the time a person accused of a capital crime is brought to trial, the entire state knows what this person looks like and has pretty much settled the case long before a judge has heard the first word. And depending on the nature of the crime, it may be that our hearts are so hardened that we would not be willing to accept a district attorney's decision to drop the matter due to lack of hard evidence because our minds will have already been made up.
Those I once considered as "bleeding hearts" have finally made a little inroad into my thought process. The truth is that our system of justice works best and most often in favor of those who can afford the more expensive and experienced attorneys. Those who because of economic circumstances are forced to depend on a government lawyer to defend them are genuinely gambling with their lives for no reason other than that they cannot afford an attorney.
While it may be "just" that a person be put to death for taking the life of another, judging by the responses of far too many citizens, "justice" is the furthest thing from our minds once we are able to attach a name and a face to a crime. I suppose by that point, the accused may as well be put to death because in reality, their life is all but over anyway, convicted by the court of public opinion with "hearsay" and put to death by the hardness of unforgiving hearts blinded by grief and emotion, never minding facts to the contrary.
Is it just possible that the Lord, in His infinite wisdom, was not only giving us a standard by which to govern but was also giving us a system by which we would be protected - from ourselves?
Respecting the Differences
So the Muslim world is up in arms because of some caricatures of the prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban on his head and because the Muslims protested the first distribution in Denmark, other European papers chose to run this caricature not because there was necessarily a political statement to be made but because the papers intended to make a point about "liberty" and the press's freedom of expression.
What saddens me is not that these papers chose an "in your face" approach to defend their liberties but that the Christian Church as a whole has been thus far silent with the exception of Pope Benedict calling it an "unnecessary incitement". It seems to me that there was much lamentation, during WWII when it was well-known what the Nazis were up to against the Jews, that the Catholic Church took quite a beating about its own silence during that era, a silence which the late John Paul II chose to apologize for.
Say what you will about Islam and Muslims in general but if Christians do not come to the defense of those who are genuinely offended by these caricatures, then we are no better than the ones who are throwing this "liberty" in the face of any who oppose. To defend against that which is wrong, however, is not to respond in like manner but to respond as the apostle Paul would have - in fact, did - admonish the Romans, "If your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died." Romans 14:15 NKJV
Of course we are not talking about food, but the offense is just as real. And while we may not consider Muslims to be our "brothers" simply because they are not Christian, we must surely realize that Christ died for them just as surely as He died for any one of us. That is, of course, if He truly is the Savior of the WORLD. Accepting or rejecting this Gift does not change the course of history. So if Christ died for one, He surely died for all and our liberty has not been granted to us for our own use but for the glory of God alone.
Christians must be the voice of reason. In speaking up on behalf of Islam in the face of this unnecessary provocation, there is an opportunity availing itself to us at this time that we have yet to fully appreciate. What an opportunity to show Muslims what we really believe and what we truly stand for! And during this "window of opportunity", they just might be willing to listen.
What saddens me is not that these papers chose an "in your face" approach to defend their liberties but that the Christian Church as a whole has been thus far silent with the exception of Pope Benedict calling it an "unnecessary incitement". It seems to me that there was much lamentation, during WWII when it was well-known what the Nazis were up to against the Jews, that the Catholic Church took quite a beating about its own silence during that era, a silence which the late John Paul II chose to apologize for.
Say what you will about Islam and Muslims in general but if Christians do not come to the defense of those who are genuinely offended by these caricatures, then we are no better than the ones who are throwing this "liberty" in the face of any who oppose. To defend against that which is wrong, however, is not to respond in like manner but to respond as the apostle Paul would have - in fact, did - admonish the Romans, "If your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died." Romans 14:15 NKJV
Of course we are not talking about food, but the offense is just as real. And while we may not consider Muslims to be our "brothers" simply because they are not Christian, we must surely realize that Christ died for them just as surely as He died for any one of us. That is, of course, if He truly is the Savior of the WORLD. Accepting or rejecting this Gift does not change the course of history. So if Christ died for one, He surely died for all and our liberty has not been granted to us for our own use but for the glory of God alone.
Christians must be the voice of reason. In speaking up on behalf of Islam in the face of this unnecessary provocation, there is an opportunity availing itself to us at this time that we have yet to fully appreciate. What an opportunity to show Muslims what we really believe and what we truly stand for! And during this "window of opportunity", they just might be willing to listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)