When it comes time to travel, I am probably the world’s worst packer. For that matter, when it came time to move into our (hopefully last!) home, my wife and I were pretty much at odds as to how carefully everything should be packed. We bought a home in the same neighborhood that is only about three blocks from our old home. I just did not see the point in taking so much care to pack when the greatest care could be taken just to drive the three blocks and unload it straight into where it belongs. Why pack and unpack, with all the stuffing that goes with it, when the trip is going to be five minutes, tops? It’s not like we were moving across the country!
I just don’t worry too much about how carefully things go into a suitcase or a box. I guess a lot of it has to do with perspective. I am focused not on the journey itself but rather, on the destination. I want to get there as quickly as possible. If something does not make the trip in its proper condition, well, that’s why the Lord made Wal Mart. The same principle applies to taking a short business trip. I’ll take what I need, but I’m still so focused on the destination that I just don’t put a lot of thought into how my goods are going to survive the trip. I don’t know that such an attitude is good or bad; it just is what it is.
No matter where we choose to go, there is always going to be the journey itself which will conclude, sooner or later, with our arrival at destination. I suppose there can really be no such thing as “aimless wandering” because we are always going to eventually wind up somewhere whether we mean to or not. What is important to us, however, will reveal itself in whether we are focused on the journey or the destination. Is one more important than the other? I think not. Rather, it is the proverbial two-sided coin; there cannot be one without the other. And it seems to me that if we focus too intently on one, we may miss the significance of the other.
I have long maintained that if we focus too intently on getting to Heaven (i.e.; saving our own skin), we will miss out on the importance of why we are created in the first place. If we truly believe in the grace of the Lord, we will be more intent on the missionary journey that is discipleship and let the judgment fall into the hands of the merciful One we call “Father”. It is important – to the glory of the Lord – that we live a life worthy of Him, living the best example of Christ’s life that we possibly can. After that will be the call of the Lord God: “Well done, My good and faithful servant. Now enter into My glory.” Anything that focuses too much on “getting saved” can run dangerously close to trying to earn our way into Heaven which, of course, cannot be done.
In Luke’s Gospel reading (12:13-21), however, Jesus seems intently focused on the Final Destination while the rich man is more concerned about the journey though I would suggest that the journey of discipleship that Jesus calls us to is not the same journey the rich man is concerned with. The rich man is completely focused on himself and his own personal comfort, perhaps even his pride. He wants to hoard all that he can so that he can be sure he will never run out, or he wants everyone to SEE what he has and what he has accomplished.
The problem with such an attitude of “self” is that just as surely as there are poor and hungry people among us now, there were poor and hungry people then. In fact, Jesus says so. But “like a thief in the night”, the Lord snuck up on the rich man (again, like Jesus says so) and called him to account. It was time for the Judgment, and all the rich man had to show for his life were big barns filled with his grain and other goods. I think it is safe to say that for the rich man at that moment, all his possessions just about equaled the value of a rusted out Dodge pickup.
Greed makes us do funny things although not many people are laughing when it comes time to account for our lives. And we will, without exception, be called upon in one way or the other because nothing of this life that we can acquire by our greed will do us much good when the Day of the Lord comes. And even in this life, our greed has a tendency to sneak up on us without warning and demand of us more than we are willing to sacrifice, including our families, our children. For the greedy, “adequate” is never enough and in our quest for “more”, we are most willing to sacrifice almost anything to get what we want which is still …. NOT ENOUGH.
I would also suggest that most likely what we value most in this life will matter least in the world to come.
The journey we call “life” is not an easy one and Jesus never promised us an easy way to go, but we seem intent on making our journey as comfortable and as trouble- and worry-free as we can possibly make it. But because all our attention in focused inward on our own comfort and well-being, we miss out on our greatest opportunities to share not only from our abundance but to also receive blessings beyond worldly measure. These blessings are the “feel good” things that make life worth all the trouble and the discomfort and the inconvenience we may encounter when we choose to share rather than to hoard. And lest we forget, choosing to hoard or to share has everything to do with how much faith we are willing to place in the Lord to see to our own needs. Like I stated earlier, what is truly important to us will be revealed in the decision we make to focus on the journey or on the destination.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to go to Heaven; it is a desire we should all share in common. We know all too well, however, that there are too many non-believers out there who are just not willing to make the journey with us. More is the pity, and the reasons why they would choose to reject our path are too numerous and often too vague to even worry about. Then again, when our time comes to account for our lives it is not likely the Lord is going to ask us to answer up for someone else’s refusal to join us. I think, instead, that He will be more focused on the journey we will have chosen. The reward, the Final Reward, will take care of itself by His Grace and His Grace ALONE.
Amen.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Doing the Right Thing
Moral behavior is typically defined not so narrowly as merely being upright or religiously pious. Rather, moral behavior (key word: “behavior”) is more accurately defined as acting in such a way as to benefit one’s own environment. It is not enough to simply live right and mind one’s own business and let things happen as they will because evil is pervasive and is far more powerful than even righteous people are willing to acknowledge. We tend to live according to our own dictates and never mind anyone else. What we fail to acknowledge is that by our immoral silence, we grant implicit approval to all that we see which is evil by failing to stand against it. Just being opposed to such evil is no action at all; it is nothing more than an opinion.
Often, however, we can feel a little overwhelmed by all that surrounds us and come to believe that we are powerless to confront what we know in our own hearts to be just plain wrong. We learn to live within the environment of “wrong” and submit ourselves to a certain reality that we cannot tolerate but also feel powerless to do anything about. It is this very attitude that has allowed such things which we find objectionable to become the norm, the rule rather than the exception.
The late Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority which played a key role in the election of the late President Ronald Reagan attempted to confront what it considered to be a serious “back sliding” of moral life in America by trying to play its hand in the political process. I suppose it was a good idea in its conception, but the movement eventually faded in the American landscape because it became more of an imposition of certain religious values rather than a living example. Abortion and divorce, two social examples (or evidence) of “wrong”, continued unabated even among evangelical Christians. It was not long before the “hypocrite” label was not only attached but was able to stick because such a crowd demanded moral behavior from others but failed to live by its own example, its own values and beliefs. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to convince anyone that such “right” behavior has any value at all. “Do as I say, not as I do” goes about as far in public life as it does with raising our children.
But who gets to say what is right and what is wrong? Christians insists that they have an inherent right to dictate the difference between right and wrong according to their own traditions because this is a “Christian nation”, but they fail to acknowledge that not all who come to this country – or are already here – subscribe to Christian teachings. For that matter, as stated earlier, even Christians fail to live by the teachings of the One whom they call “Savior”. Truly, speaking as a Christian, it is much easier said than done.
As “moral behavior” goes, it might be easier for all of us – regardless of religious background (or lack thereof) – to “first do no harm”. Even Christian teachings insist that if our behavior causes any sort of distress, even as we live in the liberty of Christ and are practicing what we believe to be our religion, that we are to refrain from such behavior out of consideration for others. This sort of concept is pretty far-reaching and encompasses a great deal. Would it suggest that we refrain from practicing our religion altogether if it upsets others? Only insofar as our practice or behavior interferes with others and their right to refrain, in their own pursuit of happiness, from such practices. There is nothing easy about it because there has to be a cut-off point where we can decide that others just need to “get over it”.
It’s not always as easy, as some would insist, to do the right thing because of the differences in opinion and practice and tradition that uniquely exists in America. We Christians would do well, however, to keep an eye out toward others and never mind our own rights or our own happiness. After all, if we really believe in the fundamental tenets of our own faith, we would recognize that the One whom we call “Savior” came not for His own sake but, rather, for the sake of others. It can certainly be said that He lived “right” without interfering with others. The trick is to find and maintain the balance. I’m afraid that I lack the knowledge, insight, or apostolic authority necessary to advise. Suffice it to say that until we can become more like what we are called to be, it might be best that we remain silent.
Often, however, we can feel a little overwhelmed by all that surrounds us and come to believe that we are powerless to confront what we know in our own hearts to be just plain wrong. We learn to live within the environment of “wrong” and submit ourselves to a certain reality that we cannot tolerate but also feel powerless to do anything about. It is this very attitude that has allowed such things which we find objectionable to become the norm, the rule rather than the exception.
The late Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority which played a key role in the election of the late President Ronald Reagan attempted to confront what it considered to be a serious “back sliding” of moral life in America by trying to play its hand in the political process. I suppose it was a good idea in its conception, but the movement eventually faded in the American landscape because it became more of an imposition of certain religious values rather than a living example. Abortion and divorce, two social examples (or evidence) of “wrong”, continued unabated even among evangelical Christians. It was not long before the “hypocrite” label was not only attached but was able to stick because such a crowd demanded moral behavior from others but failed to live by its own example, its own values and beliefs. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to convince anyone that such “right” behavior has any value at all. “Do as I say, not as I do” goes about as far in public life as it does with raising our children.
But who gets to say what is right and what is wrong? Christians insists that they have an inherent right to dictate the difference between right and wrong according to their own traditions because this is a “Christian nation”, but they fail to acknowledge that not all who come to this country – or are already here – subscribe to Christian teachings. For that matter, as stated earlier, even Christians fail to live by the teachings of the One whom they call “Savior”. Truly, speaking as a Christian, it is much easier said than done.
As “moral behavior” goes, it might be easier for all of us – regardless of religious background (or lack thereof) – to “first do no harm”. Even Christian teachings insist that if our behavior causes any sort of distress, even as we live in the liberty of Christ and are practicing what we believe to be our religion, that we are to refrain from such behavior out of consideration for others. This sort of concept is pretty far-reaching and encompasses a great deal. Would it suggest that we refrain from practicing our religion altogether if it upsets others? Only insofar as our practice or behavior interferes with others and their right to refrain, in their own pursuit of happiness, from such practices. There is nothing easy about it because there has to be a cut-off point where we can decide that others just need to “get over it”.
It’s not always as easy, as some would insist, to do the right thing because of the differences in opinion and practice and tradition that uniquely exists in America. We Christians would do well, however, to keep an eye out toward others and never mind our own rights or our own happiness. After all, if we really believe in the fundamental tenets of our own faith, we would recognize that the One whom we call “Savior” came not for His own sake but, rather, for the sake of others. It can certainly be said that He lived “right” without interfering with others. The trick is to find and maintain the balance. I’m afraid that I lack the knowledge, insight, or apostolic authority necessary to advise. Suffice it to say that until we can become more like what we are called to be, it might be best that we remain silent.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Right to Work
The United Methodist Book of Discipline, in its assertion that every human person has a right to work, states in its Social Principles: “Every person has the right to a job at a living wage. Where the private sector cannot or does not provide jobs for all who seek and need them, it is the responsibility of government to provide for the creation of such jobs.” The whole premise of the Social Principles is in recognition of the dignity of humanity, including the right to earn a living and provide for oneself and one’s family. Anything less subjects a person to dependence on another and violates that person’s sense of dignity, a condition not suitable for any human being under any circumstances.
Arkansas is an “at will” employment state which means that workers are free to choose their own employers, depending of course on the employer’s willingness to hire. In the same way, employers are free to hire and fire as they deem necessary within the boundaries of Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act, of course, as well as any applicable union rules and contracts. Though it would make no good business sense to do so, an employer can theoretically wake up one day and decide to fire an employee without good cause. A worker can be terminated for any reason or no reason, and this is the rub for so many who deem such a law as unfair to the American worker. On the surface it does seem unfair that someone with a stellar work record can, again theoretically, find himself or herself unemployed for no good reason, but there are two sides to this coin.
Employers are in business for one thing: to make money, to turn a profit; this is the employer’s “paycheck”. An employer invests a great deal into a business venture and has every reasonable right to expect a fair return on that investment. The employer does not get paid if things are not going so well, as opposed to employees who continue to draw a paycheck even when things are not so good; the employer completely assumes the risk of riding out the slow time, often borrowing against available credit in order to meet payroll and other operations expenses depending on business cycles. To protect the interests of the business, the employer will do whatever is necessary to remain in business and stay competitive. This would necessarily include not only hiring the right people for the right jobs but would also include letting go of those who – for whatever reason – do not suit the employer’s needs. It may seem unfair from a purely one-dimensional perspective because the employer does seem to have the upper hand but then again, one-dimensional does not offer a complete picture.
Beyond federal laws which prohibit discrimination and the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulates workplace standards and OSHA which protects workers from unsafe conditions, I would just as soon the government not become more actively involved in other conditions of my employment. I am also not the least bit interested in any sort of employment contract that “guarantees” my employment status because if a better opportunity comes along, I would like to be free to explore that opportunity. This freedom which is the prerogative of every employee is the same prerogative but is also a major expense to an employer who must decide whether to compete for the employee’s services by offering an incentive to stay or hope another qualified applicant comes along. Either could be a major expense due to lost production during turn-over or additional payroll costs.
Either way, each has a stake in the well-being of a company but it must not fall to the government to “protect” citizens in a free-market, highly competitive environment by tying an employer’s hands and forcing businesses to offer what it cannot afford or does not need. One need only to get involved with government processes and how Congress moves a spending bill through a very cumbersome process, for instance, to know that government is incapable of running an independent business from afar. It is blatantly unfair to presume that every business in America can be neatly categorized according to size and issue blanket demands that all business must ascribe to, especially as it pertains to whether or not an employer – who is taking all the risk - has determined, according to sales figures and forecasts, that he is overstaffed and must cut back in order to survive.
It is unrealistic to demand of government or private business guaranteed employment. It is in business’ – and government’s – best interest that government do nothing more than to perhaps provide tax incentives to hire as many workers as possible, but it is a huge mistake for government to manipulate or attempt to artificially stimulate American business or the economy in order to create a false sense of well-being and security, amounting to nothing more than pandering for votes. In the end it could conceivably cost far more than in the beginning and, within the boundaries of established labor laws, businesses should not have to justify themselves and their operational decisions.
Labor is a tough market for anyone but especially so for those who lack the skills or training or education required to land a particular job. For a business, there is not much of a difference. A potential business may decide that it likes the idea of selling widgets, but there is little that can be done with widgets if the market is hungry instead for wadgets. A decision has to be made to provide the wadgets that have a better chance of selling, or business can continue manufacturing widgets and hope for the best. Workers have the same fundamental decision to make in search of employment. It would do little good to train to dig ditches in an environment where no ditch digging is being done or will ever be done. Ours is a volatile free-market economy that is as fickle as the American consumer. It wants what it wants and will settle for nothing less nor ask for more than it can withstand.
Here’s the thing, though. Every human person has a God-given right to provide for himself or herself; it is the reason we work for our wages. However, even though we are free to choose our vocations and even our employers, there is nothing written or implied that we have any sort of right to be hired or retained by the employer of our choosing unless that employer is also in agreement. The employer still enjoys the same freedom to make decisions in the best interests of the business and to provide employment to the workers of his or her own choice.
Arkansas is an “at will” employment state which means that workers are free to choose their own employers, depending of course on the employer’s willingness to hire. In the same way, employers are free to hire and fire as they deem necessary within the boundaries of Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act, of course, as well as any applicable union rules and contracts. Though it would make no good business sense to do so, an employer can theoretically wake up one day and decide to fire an employee without good cause. A worker can be terminated for any reason or no reason, and this is the rub for so many who deem such a law as unfair to the American worker. On the surface it does seem unfair that someone with a stellar work record can, again theoretically, find himself or herself unemployed for no good reason, but there are two sides to this coin.
Employers are in business for one thing: to make money, to turn a profit; this is the employer’s “paycheck”. An employer invests a great deal into a business venture and has every reasonable right to expect a fair return on that investment. The employer does not get paid if things are not going so well, as opposed to employees who continue to draw a paycheck even when things are not so good; the employer completely assumes the risk of riding out the slow time, often borrowing against available credit in order to meet payroll and other operations expenses depending on business cycles. To protect the interests of the business, the employer will do whatever is necessary to remain in business and stay competitive. This would necessarily include not only hiring the right people for the right jobs but would also include letting go of those who – for whatever reason – do not suit the employer’s needs. It may seem unfair from a purely one-dimensional perspective because the employer does seem to have the upper hand but then again, one-dimensional does not offer a complete picture.
Beyond federal laws which prohibit discrimination and the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulates workplace standards and OSHA which protects workers from unsafe conditions, I would just as soon the government not become more actively involved in other conditions of my employment. I am also not the least bit interested in any sort of employment contract that “guarantees” my employment status because if a better opportunity comes along, I would like to be free to explore that opportunity. This freedom which is the prerogative of every employee is the same prerogative but is also a major expense to an employer who must decide whether to compete for the employee’s services by offering an incentive to stay or hope another qualified applicant comes along. Either could be a major expense due to lost production during turn-over or additional payroll costs.
Either way, each has a stake in the well-being of a company but it must not fall to the government to “protect” citizens in a free-market, highly competitive environment by tying an employer’s hands and forcing businesses to offer what it cannot afford or does not need. One need only to get involved with government processes and how Congress moves a spending bill through a very cumbersome process, for instance, to know that government is incapable of running an independent business from afar. It is blatantly unfair to presume that every business in America can be neatly categorized according to size and issue blanket demands that all business must ascribe to, especially as it pertains to whether or not an employer – who is taking all the risk - has determined, according to sales figures and forecasts, that he is overstaffed and must cut back in order to survive.
It is unrealistic to demand of government or private business guaranteed employment. It is in business’ – and government’s – best interest that government do nothing more than to perhaps provide tax incentives to hire as many workers as possible, but it is a huge mistake for government to manipulate or attempt to artificially stimulate American business or the economy in order to create a false sense of well-being and security, amounting to nothing more than pandering for votes. In the end it could conceivably cost far more than in the beginning and, within the boundaries of established labor laws, businesses should not have to justify themselves and their operational decisions.
Labor is a tough market for anyone but especially so for those who lack the skills or training or education required to land a particular job. For a business, there is not much of a difference. A potential business may decide that it likes the idea of selling widgets, but there is little that can be done with widgets if the market is hungry instead for wadgets. A decision has to be made to provide the wadgets that have a better chance of selling, or business can continue manufacturing widgets and hope for the best. Workers have the same fundamental decision to make in search of employment. It would do little good to train to dig ditches in an environment where no ditch digging is being done or will ever be done. Ours is a volatile free-market economy that is as fickle as the American consumer. It wants what it wants and will settle for nothing less nor ask for more than it can withstand.
Here’s the thing, though. Every human person has a God-given right to provide for himself or herself; it is the reason we work for our wages. However, even though we are free to choose our vocations and even our employers, there is nothing written or implied that we have any sort of right to be hired or retained by the employer of our choosing unless that employer is also in agreement. The employer still enjoys the same freedom to make decisions in the best interests of the business and to provide employment to the workers of his or her own choice.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Floating on Faith in the Sea of Doubt
It all began when Marcus Borg’s Reading the Bible Again for the First Time became assigned reading for a theology class on pastoral interpretation of the Bible. Though the school administrator was less than enthusiastic about the text choice, he nevertheless supported the instructor’s choice but warned us students that we were about to face material and thoughts that we had not encountered before (incidentally, Marcus Borg is considered a “heretic” in certain circles) and that had the potential to upset some. What can I say? That warning alone was reason enough to buy the book; taking the class was just icing on the cake!
Up to the point of reading the book, I had always been pretty comfortable in the tenets of my faith. I had been taught since childhood that the stories of the Bible are what they are, are true, and are not open to question. This is how it seems to go with early childhood religious education. Young children are not capable of “high-minded” theology nor do they have the capacity to think critically, so “Jesus loves me, this I know...” is about all the serious Bible study young children need to have. The more I think about it, however, the more I wonder how critical or high-minded any of us needs to be because the thoughts and ideas presented not only in this particular text but also in subsequent readings has the potential to lend itself to severe doubts so much so that EVERYTHING is called into question. EVERYTHING.
Even though such critical thoughts that question fond Bible lessons and our traditional teachings are summarily dismissed by staunch conservatives and fundamentalists, it is a grave disservice to disciples that such critique is out there and not seriously confronted or addressed. Blaming “those damn liberals” is not enough to cause a reasonable, thinking person to reject a concept only at the word of another. Maybe it is that we Christians take ourselves far too seriously to be taken seriously by non-believers.
It occurred to me after a recent discussion with a friend that each of us has the potential to be completely afraid to confront our own faith. Now how can this possibly be if our faith is ingrained in our very souls, the total sum of our spiritual existence? How can we have the kind of abiding faith we believe ourselves to have and still feel threatened by heretical thought (remember, heresy is not necessarily bad; only by definition: different)? My friend warned me that there is material we ought not to be reading because of the potential threat to faith, exposing us to ideas that are contrary to what we ought to embrace. Again, how can this be if our faith is genuine? How can the thoughts and ideas of mere mortals be a threat to that which can only be divinely imparted to us?
John Wesley, the recognized founder of the Methodist movement in England, suffered doubts for much of his professional life. During a particularly troublesome time during a storm aboard a ship bound for America, Wesley noticed the Moravians on deck singing hymns and continuing with their work while Wesley was huddled below deck with others and praying for safety in the storm. The display of faith by the Moravians had a profound impact on Wesley so much so that he sought guidance and counsel from Peter Bohler, a Moravian leader, upon his return to England. Wesley was encouraged to “preach faith until you have it; then you will preach faith because you have it.”
Wesley did finally find his inner peace with his Aldersgate experience, so maybe there is such a thing as working to convince oneself of a certain truth until one is finally convinced. Still, it almost seems as though Wesley had to somehow manipulate himself into believing what he thought he ought to believe until his “heart was strangely warmed” at Aldersgate. Speculating on precisely what Wesley actually encountered, however, is no more fair or just than judging someone based only on physical appearance. We have no idea about what Wesley encountered except by his written accounts. For the purpose of choosing a path, this should be good enough … for now.
It can be dangerous to defend a particular doctrine, for instance, without fully understanding its historical context. There are few, if any, contemporary doctrines that cannot be traced back to the Reformation and even earlier, but to buy into a particular doctrine or thought discipline merely because someone has promised damnation if you don’t is not faith at all; it is fear of uncertainty, and it serves no useful purpose. The only kind of faith that can be formed under such circumstances is the fleeting kind of faith that will fail at the first sign of trouble.
There is an Aldersgate experience in store for any who earnestly seek, but the search must be for something grander than self. It seems that Wesley was enabled to receive such a heart-warming experience because even though he did write of concerns for the state of his soul, he dedicated himself to the cause of social justice. Though he was as fallible as any mortal can be, he nevertheless seemed to understand that his own place in the realm of the Holy was secondary.
Faith can be a scary thing because there will always on some level be doubts, but we need not fear these doubts nor should we be afraid to explore thoughts and ideas that are foreign to us. For instance, it should be of no great concern for a Christian to read from the Koran or the Book of Mormon. The truth is that we cannot hope to earn the respect of those with whom we would disagree if we cannot, or will not, meet them where they are. Reading such material can cause those who are weak in the faith to stumble; for these, it is dangerous. But if we are afraid to confront and challenge our own faith when we are not seriously threatened, our faith will fall like the house built on sand in the midst of a storm when the threat is more substantial. Like physical exercise for muscles, faith must be allowed to stretch its own legs. It is ok to take faith out for a spin to see what it is actually capable of.
Challenges to our faith and the doubts that will certainly come are nothing to fear. It is within the questions we will soon be compelled to ask that a holy conversation can begin. It is during this conversation when the Lord Himself will determine whether and when we are able and willing to receive that most divine gift of all: faith. Then, and only then, will it become the kind of unshakable, abiding faith that will carry us through the worst of times. It is the kind of faith that, in spite of trouble, will enable us to express our gratitude for the experience. It is the kind of faith from whence life is truly begun, the kind of life that is without end.
Up to the point of reading the book, I had always been pretty comfortable in the tenets of my faith. I had been taught since childhood that the stories of the Bible are what they are, are true, and are not open to question. This is how it seems to go with early childhood religious education. Young children are not capable of “high-minded” theology nor do they have the capacity to think critically, so “Jesus loves me, this I know...” is about all the serious Bible study young children need to have. The more I think about it, however, the more I wonder how critical or high-minded any of us needs to be because the thoughts and ideas presented not only in this particular text but also in subsequent readings has the potential to lend itself to severe doubts so much so that EVERYTHING is called into question. EVERYTHING.
Even though such critical thoughts that question fond Bible lessons and our traditional teachings are summarily dismissed by staunch conservatives and fundamentalists, it is a grave disservice to disciples that such critique is out there and not seriously confronted or addressed. Blaming “those damn liberals” is not enough to cause a reasonable, thinking person to reject a concept only at the word of another. Maybe it is that we Christians take ourselves far too seriously to be taken seriously by non-believers.
It occurred to me after a recent discussion with a friend that each of us has the potential to be completely afraid to confront our own faith. Now how can this possibly be if our faith is ingrained in our very souls, the total sum of our spiritual existence? How can we have the kind of abiding faith we believe ourselves to have and still feel threatened by heretical thought (remember, heresy is not necessarily bad; only by definition: different)? My friend warned me that there is material we ought not to be reading because of the potential threat to faith, exposing us to ideas that are contrary to what we ought to embrace. Again, how can this be if our faith is genuine? How can the thoughts and ideas of mere mortals be a threat to that which can only be divinely imparted to us?
John Wesley, the recognized founder of the Methodist movement in England, suffered doubts for much of his professional life. During a particularly troublesome time during a storm aboard a ship bound for America, Wesley noticed the Moravians on deck singing hymns and continuing with their work while Wesley was huddled below deck with others and praying for safety in the storm. The display of faith by the Moravians had a profound impact on Wesley so much so that he sought guidance and counsel from Peter Bohler, a Moravian leader, upon his return to England. Wesley was encouraged to “preach faith until you have it; then you will preach faith because you have it.”
Wesley did finally find his inner peace with his Aldersgate experience, so maybe there is such a thing as working to convince oneself of a certain truth until one is finally convinced. Still, it almost seems as though Wesley had to somehow manipulate himself into believing what he thought he ought to believe until his “heart was strangely warmed” at Aldersgate. Speculating on precisely what Wesley actually encountered, however, is no more fair or just than judging someone based only on physical appearance. We have no idea about what Wesley encountered except by his written accounts. For the purpose of choosing a path, this should be good enough … for now.
It can be dangerous to defend a particular doctrine, for instance, without fully understanding its historical context. There are few, if any, contemporary doctrines that cannot be traced back to the Reformation and even earlier, but to buy into a particular doctrine or thought discipline merely because someone has promised damnation if you don’t is not faith at all; it is fear of uncertainty, and it serves no useful purpose. The only kind of faith that can be formed under such circumstances is the fleeting kind of faith that will fail at the first sign of trouble.
There is an Aldersgate experience in store for any who earnestly seek, but the search must be for something grander than self. It seems that Wesley was enabled to receive such a heart-warming experience because even though he did write of concerns for the state of his soul, he dedicated himself to the cause of social justice. Though he was as fallible as any mortal can be, he nevertheless seemed to understand that his own place in the realm of the Holy was secondary.
Faith can be a scary thing because there will always on some level be doubts, but we need not fear these doubts nor should we be afraid to explore thoughts and ideas that are foreign to us. For instance, it should be of no great concern for a Christian to read from the Koran or the Book of Mormon. The truth is that we cannot hope to earn the respect of those with whom we would disagree if we cannot, or will not, meet them where they are. Reading such material can cause those who are weak in the faith to stumble; for these, it is dangerous. But if we are afraid to confront and challenge our own faith when we are not seriously threatened, our faith will fall like the house built on sand in the midst of a storm when the threat is more substantial. Like physical exercise for muscles, faith must be allowed to stretch its own legs. It is ok to take faith out for a spin to see what it is actually capable of.
Challenges to our faith and the doubts that will certainly come are nothing to fear. It is within the questions we will soon be compelled to ask that a holy conversation can begin. It is during this conversation when the Lord Himself will determine whether and when we are able and willing to receive that most divine gift of all: faith. Then, and only then, will it become the kind of unshakable, abiding faith that will carry us through the worst of times. It is the kind of faith that, in spite of trouble, will enable us to express our gratitude for the experience. It is the kind of faith from whence life is truly begun, the kind of life that is without end.
Page 10b
Paul Greenberg is the editorial page editor for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as well as a contributing columnist not only for that paper but has also been featured in Jewish World Review. Like so many of my favorite writers, Mr. Greenberg has a way with words. He is obviously very well read and expresses himself so poignantly especially when he writes of his immigrant mother’s experiences upon coming to the US (some of my favorite stories), just as a for instance. He has been “accused” of using $20 words when a $2 word would do, but these critics obviously miss the flow of whatever he happens to be writing about. Mr. Greenberg has a real poetic flair about his writing style.
On July 25, 2007, Mr. Greenberg wrote an article about his family and their celebration of the birth of his new granddaughter entitled, “And so it goes” with a little family history to help connect the dots. On the same page (10b) were two different (yet similar) editorials about two different (yet similar) tragedies: one of a minor league first base coach who was hit and killed by a line drive foul ball right here in North Little Rock, Arkansas, the other of a man who was shot and killed by a stray bullet from a purse snatching gone bad, also right here in North Little Rock, Arkansas – all on the same day.
Both men were close to the same age (35 and 40, respectively), and neither was an intended victim (there is no indication that the shooter in the robbery was actually trying to kill anyone even though he is charged with capital murder in the crime). It would be hard to consider a murder to be a “freak accident” as if it were something completely out of the ordinary, yet the man was killed in a Wal Mart parking lot on a beautiful Sunday afternoon during the commission of a crime that is not typically associated with a fire arm. This poor man just stepped out of his car and into the path of a bullet.
On the opposing op-ed page were the typical letters to the editor and a couple of “I hate Bush and/or the establishment” blah-blah-blah commentaries on the particular gripe of the day. Each one touched on a particular topic that certainly meant something to each writer and each topic was important in its own context. In the “grand scheme”, however, page 11b was just not worthy of significant attention, not following page 10b.
Life is what it is. It doesn’t matter how important others may see such a life as having any particular impact one way or the other. What does matter is that in the scheme of life, there is unbound potential. Absent life, there is nothing. No potential. No significant anything. No particulars to consider one way or the other. Just. Nothing. And it is not a matter of a pendulum of importance swinging too far in one direction or the other. It either is, or it isn’t. For the pure purpose of matter on this earth and in this realm, there is no such thing as “too much” life because life is. It just is. Its value immeasurable; its potential incalculable. In death exists nothing; not “too much” or “too little. It. Is. Just. Nothing.
Far be it from me to decide what is or is not worthy of serious consideration but in the “grand scheme”, I think I’ve nailed it.
On July 25, 2007, Mr. Greenberg wrote an article about his family and their celebration of the birth of his new granddaughter entitled, “And so it goes” with a little family history to help connect the dots. On the same page (10b) were two different (yet similar) editorials about two different (yet similar) tragedies: one of a minor league first base coach who was hit and killed by a line drive foul ball right here in North Little Rock, Arkansas, the other of a man who was shot and killed by a stray bullet from a purse snatching gone bad, also right here in North Little Rock, Arkansas – all on the same day.
Both men were close to the same age (35 and 40, respectively), and neither was an intended victim (there is no indication that the shooter in the robbery was actually trying to kill anyone even though he is charged with capital murder in the crime). It would be hard to consider a murder to be a “freak accident” as if it were something completely out of the ordinary, yet the man was killed in a Wal Mart parking lot on a beautiful Sunday afternoon during the commission of a crime that is not typically associated with a fire arm. This poor man just stepped out of his car and into the path of a bullet.
On the opposing op-ed page were the typical letters to the editor and a couple of “I hate Bush and/or the establishment” blah-blah-blah commentaries on the particular gripe of the day. Each one touched on a particular topic that certainly meant something to each writer and each topic was important in its own context. In the “grand scheme”, however, page 11b was just not worthy of significant attention, not following page 10b.
Life is what it is. It doesn’t matter how important others may see such a life as having any particular impact one way or the other. What does matter is that in the scheme of life, there is unbound potential. Absent life, there is nothing. No potential. No significant anything. No particulars to consider one way or the other. Just. Nothing. And it is not a matter of a pendulum of importance swinging too far in one direction or the other. It either is, or it isn’t. For the pure purpose of matter on this earth and in this realm, there is no such thing as “too much” life because life is. It just is. Its value immeasurable; its potential incalculable. In death exists nothing; not “too much” or “too little. It. Is. Just. Nothing.
Far be it from me to decide what is or is not worthy of serious consideration but in the “grand scheme”, I think I’ve nailed it.
Dancing with the Devil
A couple of weeks ago, NBA referee Tim Donaghy was named by the FBI as a suspect in possibly fixing games he was officiating. It was also revealed that Mr. Donaghy may have had contacts with a “low level mob figure” associated with the Gambino family related to his apparent gambling problem, the primary problem now being that he is about to turn himself in to authorities. Over the weekend, Mr. Donaghy also had requested police protection due to alleged threatening phone calls.
I probably have most of “The Godfather” series memorized, but what I know about the Mafia could still fit on the head of a pin. Still, feeding my fascination with the mob requires that I read as much as possible so much so that as soon as Mr. Donaghy was identified as having been ‘pinched”, or at least identified by the FBI, it would be reasonable to assume that Mr. Donaghy’s rusted out 1956 Plymouth Dart (assuming he had one) would be of more value than his very life. When one dances with the devil, one should expect some heat.
I don’t mean to diminish the value of anyone’s life by making such a glib statement, but it should be noted that Mr. Donaghy must surely have known he had a potential problem when he was contacted by The Mob. And these are not just “low level” street thugs; the Gambino family has been around a long time. These are folks that citizens need to stay clear of. It’s often been said that the Sicilian/Italian Mafia will not go out of its way to bother folks who have no association; they’re much too smart and have at least a code of honor – even if the concept of honor is their very own. Step inside their realm, however, and the gloves come off. I suppose they could probably be good friends to have under certain circumstances, but they most certainly could turn out to be one’s worst enemy – and greatest fear - as Mr. Donaghy is probably figuring out. Especially if their interests are threatened which, in this case, may well be if the situation is as far-reaching as some speculate.
A gambler’s addiction is as real as addictions come. It is as oppressive and compelling as addictions to tobacco, drugs, and alcohol. Mr. Donaghy may well fall within such a category and out of desperation, reached as deeply as he possibly could to find a way out of the mess he’d gotten himself into. Make no mistake; Mr. Donaghy has no one to blame but himself. I would also venture to say that the Gambino crew could not care less about his addiction except in how it will affect them. Strange it is that one may find oneself agreeing with the Gambino crew in this case. After all, they took a “business” risk and have a certain expectation of returns. They helped someone “get out of trouble”, and now their good favor is being rejected because the heat’s on as well it should be.
Aside from the obvious ramifications involving a team’s potentially rightful claim to a victory and/or title it may have been denied, there is something much more sinister and far-reaching than just who may or may not have won a play-off or title game. Mr. Donaghy sold his soul for cash and in so doing placed himself, his family, his reputation, and his livelihood in jeopardy. I have no idea what professional sports referees earn per game, but I would venture to suggest that it is enough for what it’s worth and in the grand scheme, its inherent value verses a deal with the mob is of far greater value than any amount of money.
I probably have most of “The Godfather” series memorized, but what I know about the Mafia could still fit on the head of a pin. Still, feeding my fascination with the mob requires that I read as much as possible so much so that as soon as Mr. Donaghy was identified as having been ‘pinched”, or at least identified by the FBI, it would be reasonable to assume that Mr. Donaghy’s rusted out 1956 Plymouth Dart (assuming he had one) would be of more value than his very life. When one dances with the devil, one should expect some heat.
I don’t mean to diminish the value of anyone’s life by making such a glib statement, but it should be noted that Mr. Donaghy must surely have known he had a potential problem when he was contacted by The Mob. And these are not just “low level” street thugs; the Gambino family has been around a long time. These are folks that citizens need to stay clear of. It’s often been said that the Sicilian/Italian Mafia will not go out of its way to bother folks who have no association; they’re much too smart and have at least a code of honor – even if the concept of honor is their very own. Step inside their realm, however, and the gloves come off. I suppose they could probably be good friends to have under certain circumstances, but they most certainly could turn out to be one’s worst enemy – and greatest fear - as Mr. Donaghy is probably figuring out. Especially if their interests are threatened which, in this case, may well be if the situation is as far-reaching as some speculate.
A gambler’s addiction is as real as addictions come. It is as oppressive and compelling as addictions to tobacco, drugs, and alcohol. Mr. Donaghy may well fall within such a category and out of desperation, reached as deeply as he possibly could to find a way out of the mess he’d gotten himself into. Make no mistake; Mr. Donaghy has no one to blame but himself. I would also venture to say that the Gambino crew could not care less about his addiction except in how it will affect them. Strange it is that one may find oneself agreeing with the Gambino crew in this case. After all, they took a “business” risk and have a certain expectation of returns. They helped someone “get out of trouble”, and now their good favor is being rejected because the heat’s on as well it should be.
Aside from the obvious ramifications involving a team’s potentially rightful claim to a victory and/or title it may have been denied, there is something much more sinister and far-reaching than just who may or may not have won a play-off or title game. Mr. Donaghy sold his soul for cash and in so doing placed himself, his family, his reputation, and his livelihood in jeopardy. I have no idea what professional sports referees earn per game, but I would venture to suggest that it is enough for what it’s worth and in the grand scheme, its inherent value verses a deal with the mob is of far greater value than any amount of money.
Constitutional Rights in Conflict
The public’s right to known vs. the individual’s right to due process”
Two boys, aged 15 and 17, have been arrested and charged with capital murder. During the arraignment one flashes a smile to a family member in the gallery. Later the two boys are talking quietly among themselves and are heard to be giggling. An editorial writer questions whether these two boys are fully aware of the gravity of this situation. Do these boys, both slightly built and as wide-eyed as any other kid filled with wonderment, understand that they stand accused of murder and that they could possibly spend the rest of their natural lives in prison? Do they fully comprehend the fact that a family’s life has been shattered due to their cavalier attitudes and callous acts?
Wait. Did I just convict these boys? Did I presume their guilt? Did I just assume that because they stand accused that they must have done it? Have I yet to realize that an arraignment is not a trial, that these boys – eyewitnesses gathered or not – are “innocent until proven guilty” in court by a judge and/or jury? Does any of this even matter? Surely the police had good reason to arrest these kids and bring them up on charges. Surely having seen these boys’ photos in the paper, I now know that they are guilty absent the official verdict especially since the crime – including their faces – is captured on video tape.
According to the Bill of Rights, a citizen is entitled to due process; it is specifically enumerated in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. However, the public’s right to know is not specifically enumerated even though it is implied by the first amendment’s freedom of the press. Court dockets are considered public information, and news organizations report what they find. If photographs of the accused (mug shots) are available, so much the better to report. After all, the public has this “right to know”, yes?
While it is reasonable to appreciate our right, or rather our need, to know of potentially dangerous persons especially if they bond out, we must also understand that being fair and impartial after so much press coverage can be difficult. This is significant because those who would read such articles would necessarily be among a pool of potential jurors who may be called to hear such a case. It is in the best interests of all involved that the US Constitution be respected and appreciated for everything it means and implies, especially in such a case in which kids are on trial for their very lives. Our society rightly expects and demands that those responsible for capital crimes be brought to account, but our very system of justice demands that we be as fair as is humanly possible. When the public is informed that the victim in this particular case was a “pillar” of his community and was gunned down needlessly and mercilessly, how can the public fairly or impartially respond beyond its emotional capacity?
The now-well-known Duke lacrosse players stood falsely accused and were put through unmitigated hell for over a year because of a zealous and politically motivated prosecutor. It did not help that the boys who stood accused were white and perceived as “privileged” who had raped a poor, black working girl. Several faculty members at Duke as well as the ever-present Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson all wanted these players’ collective liver on a stick (some faculty even went so far as to take out a full-page newspaper ad revealing their disdain for these “criminals”). Now that the charges have been proved false, the prosecutor has been disbarred and may well be held in criminal contempt with requisite jail time although it is reported that he may only face 30 days. Is this “just” in light of the fact that he virtually took more than a year from each of these young men’s lives?
The moronic “public” which demanded that nothing less than tar-and-feathering would be good enough for these men who have since been publicly vindicated remains strangely silent, but certainly not for the sake of “justice”. The boys had been suspended from school for merely being accused. Now that it has been proved that these young men were, in fact, the real victims, only the prosecutor stands to lose anything. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Duke faculty stroll merely along as the narrow-minded zealots they are because there is no entity that exists which can hold them accountable for their eagerness to deny the lacrosse players their constitutionally protected “due process” while zealously advocating “due process” for another.
How can any sort of balance be achieved in such matters? If a crime has been committed, this is news worthy of press coverage. If someone is arrested in connection with said crime, it is still news but the dynamic is changed, for now someone is entitled to due process by fair and impartial players who are being fed by photos, accusations, and speculation. After the public has been suitably saturated with such reporting, a select few will be asked to disregard all that has been reported and hear nothing but fact. The accused begins his or her trial behind the eight ball. And if, as in the case of the two boys, there is a video tape that has been publicly disseminated on the local news shows, there is not much left to discuss except what sort of sentence can be meted out and whether the 15-year-old should be tried as a juvenile or an adult.
Are those who are caught on tape any less worthy of a presumption of innocence? A picture is worth a thousand words, and it would ideally contain irrefutable evidence. Outside of the photo frame, can there be mitigating circumstances that may diminish or enhance the severity of the crime? If so, should the public have such unlimited access before such a case is even brought to trial? Does the press have unlimited freedom to present what is potentially evidence to the public? If we are swayed by what we see – and we are – and the accused is “guilty” in our eyes, has there been a violation of a constitutional right to due process? Has freedom of the press been overstated?
It seems to me that once an accused person has been arrested, the reporting must necessarily end there. A police investigation has come far enough to warrant reasonable suspicion, but evidence that is gathered in the course of such an investigation must be handled carefully so as not to be tainted or manipulated. Our public speculation about collected evidence is irrelevant. Once this evidence is presented in trial, ideally for the first time in public, it can then be reported as fact and not mere speculation.
Absent an alternative, ours is still the best legal system in the world. We lament about rights of the accused which seem to disregard or overshadow the victims who also deserve to see justice done, but we must always be mindful of the whole premise of our legal system which maintains one’s innocence until proven otherwise. The judicial system seems to be doing its part. I suppose now it is up to the rest of us not to jump to conclusions, secure in the hope that the same constitutional courtesies would be extended to us.
Two boys, aged 15 and 17, have been arrested and charged with capital murder. During the arraignment one flashes a smile to a family member in the gallery. Later the two boys are talking quietly among themselves and are heard to be giggling. An editorial writer questions whether these two boys are fully aware of the gravity of this situation. Do these boys, both slightly built and as wide-eyed as any other kid filled with wonderment, understand that they stand accused of murder and that they could possibly spend the rest of their natural lives in prison? Do they fully comprehend the fact that a family’s life has been shattered due to their cavalier attitudes and callous acts?
Wait. Did I just convict these boys? Did I presume their guilt? Did I just assume that because they stand accused that they must have done it? Have I yet to realize that an arraignment is not a trial, that these boys – eyewitnesses gathered or not – are “innocent until proven guilty” in court by a judge and/or jury? Does any of this even matter? Surely the police had good reason to arrest these kids and bring them up on charges. Surely having seen these boys’ photos in the paper, I now know that they are guilty absent the official verdict especially since the crime – including their faces – is captured on video tape.
According to the Bill of Rights, a citizen is entitled to due process; it is specifically enumerated in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. However, the public’s right to know is not specifically enumerated even though it is implied by the first amendment’s freedom of the press. Court dockets are considered public information, and news organizations report what they find. If photographs of the accused (mug shots) are available, so much the better to report. After all, the public has this “right to know”, yes?
While it is reasonable to appreciate our right, or rather our need, to know of potentially dangerous persons especially if they bond out, we must also understand that being fair and impartial after so much press coverage can be difficult. This is significant because those who would read such articles would necessarily be among a pool of potential jurors who may be called to hear such a case. It is in the best interests of all involved that the US Constitution be respected and appreciated for everything it means and implies, especially in such a case in which kids are on trial for their very lives. Our society rightly expects and demands that those responsible for capital crimes be brought to account, but our very system of justice demands that we be as fair as is humanly possible. When the public is informed that the victim in this particular case was a “pillar” of his community and was gunned down needlessly and mercilessly, how can the public fairly or impartially respond beyond its emotional capacity?
The now-well-known Duke lacrosse players stood falsely accused and were put through unmitigated hell for over a year because of a zealous and politically motivated prosecutor. It did not help that the boys who stood accused were white and perceived as “privileged” who had raped a poor, black working girl. Several faculty members at Duke as well as the ever-present Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson all wanted these players’ collective liver on a stick (some faculty even went so far as to take out a full-page newspaper ad revealing their disdain for these “criminals”). Now that the charges have been proved false, the prosecutor has been disbarred and may well be held in criminal contempt with requisite jail time although it is reported that he may only face 30 days. Is this “just” in light of the fact that he virtually took more than a year from each of these young men’s lives?
The moronic “public” which demanded that nothing less than tar-and-feathering would be good enough for these men who have since been publicly vindicated remains strangely silent, but certainly not for the sake of “justice”. The boys had been suspended from school for merely being accused. Now that it has been proved that these young men were, in fact, the real victims, only the prosecutor stands to lose anything. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Duke faculty stroll merely along as the narrow-minded zealots they are because there is no entity that exists which can hold them accountable for their eagerness to deny the lacrosse players their constitutionally protected “due process” while zealously advocating “due process” for another.
How can any sort of balance be achieved in such matters? If a crime has been committed, this is news worthy of press coverage. If someone is arrested in connection with said crime, it is still news but the dynamic is changed, for now someone is entitled to due process by fair and impartial players who are being fed by photos, accusations, and speculation. After the public has been suitably saturated with such reporting, a select few will be asked to disregard all that has been reported and hear nothing but fact. The accused begins his or her trial behind the eight ball. And if, as in the case of the two boys, there is a video tape that has been publicly disseminated on the local news shows, there is not much left to discuss except what sort of sentence can be meted out and whether the 15-year-old should be tried as a juvenile or an adult.
Are those who are caught on tape any less worthy of a presumption of innocence? A picture is worth a thousand words, and it would ideally contain irrefutable evidence. Outside of the photo frame, can there be mitigating circumstances that may diminish or enhance the severity of the crime? If so, should the public have such unlimited access before such a case is even brought to trial? Does the press have unlimited freedom to present what is potentially evidence to the public? If we are swayed by what we see – and we are – and the accused is “guilty” in our eyes, has there been a violation of a constitutional right to due process? Has freedom of the press been overstated?
It seems to me that once an accused person has been arrested, the reporting must necessarily end there. A police investigation has come far enough to warrant reasonable suspicion, but evidence that is gathered in the course of such an investigation must be handled carefully so as not to be tainted or manipulated. Our public speculation about collected evidence is irrelevant. Once this evidence is presented in trial, ideally for the first time in public, it can then be reported as fact and not mere speculation.
Absent an alternative, ours is still the best legal system in the world. We lament about rights of the accused which seem to disregard or overshadow the victims who also deserve to see justice done, but we must always be mindful of the whole premise of our legal system which maintains one’s innocence until proven otherwise. The judicial system seems to be doing its part. I suppose now it is up to the rest of us not to jump to conclusions, secure in the hope that the same constitutional courtesies would be extended to us.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
It Happened in 1977
* Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat was the first Arab to visit Israel and acknowledge her right to exist.
* MRI is first used
* “Son of Sam” murderer is arrested
* Panama Canal treaty was signed by then-President Carter
* The first Concord flight departs from NY’s JFK airport
* The Alaskan pipeline is completed
* The first black Miss Universe was crowned
* President Jimmy Carter pardons Vietnam-era draft dodgers
* First female Episcopal priest was ordained
* Elvis Presley died
* Some of the greatest people I know graduated from high school in Dumas AR
Thirty years later we all gathered in our hometown to say hello, catch up on the past, remember some funny and sometimes embarrassing moments, and attempt to turn back the clock if only for a day.
It was great to see so many of those whom I had actually known since kindergarten. Life, and families, and towns were not so transient then. We had a few classmates come and go, many now long forgotten, but my own children are constantly amazed at how long I had known so many since they were forced to move often early in my career life.
It never fails that I get a little melancholy whenever I visit my hometown, especially when it comes time to leave but leave I must. Dumas is no longer my home although it will always be my hometown. Though my parents still live in Dumas, I don’t think this hometown concept will change much once their time is past. Spending so many years with the same people during the formative years of childhood creates a special attachment that I think can never be severed even as distance, careers, and age come between us. For good or bad, we will always be the class of ’77. This reality is actually much more profound than it sounds because as I shared with the class during a speech in honor and in memory of our classmates who have since passed on, we are each a part of another’s past. Whether the impact of one’s life has been positive or negative, it is there nevertheless and can never be eradicated – not completely. We can only pray that the negative will be forgiven.
I think about my classmates often especially since I am still a student. I was a less-than-stellar student during those years, and many of my classmates tried to encourage me to do better in school. I did my level best to drink away my last two years of school, but all that was accomplished by this was that I spent a lot of money I’ll never see again. All the encouragement that was offered to me, however, did not take root until years later. I’m still pursuing that ever-elusive college degree, but I’m doing it stone sober and with the support of a wonderful family who picked up where those God-given classmates left off.
My prayer, in remembering how much these people meant to me then and still mean to me now, is that maybe in some small way I was able to bless them as they have all blessed me.
My best to the Dumas High School class of 1977. Good health and the Lord’s peace be with each of you and those whom you love.
Michael
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Choices
2 Kings 5:1-14
Galatians 6:1-16
Luke 10:1-11, 16-20
There is not a day that goes by when we don’t make choices. Some choices are subtle and almost unconsciously done out of sheer force of habit; others are planned and intentional or are knee-jerk reactions to a particular situation. Most of the time, however, we as rational humans can be pretty sure that if we take the time to weigh all the information available to us and examine the potential outcome, including possible consequences, we will make at least better choices than if we are pushed into a situation in which we may feel compelled to make a rash decision that will be based more on emotions we are feeling at that moment rather than on facts we may have available at the time.
Like Naaman from 2 Kings 5, the choices we make will almost always have been made according to its potential outcome and how it will affect us personally or those whom we love. And also like Naaman, sometimes our choices will be the result of our willingness to believe the information that is being offered to us out of desperation, even information which could be coming from questionable sources. Naaman’s source of information that Israel’s prophet would be able to cure his leprosy came from a young, captured girl from Israel. Naaman, being a warrior, might have smelled a rat under other circumstances. After all, he could be walking into a trap since the Israelite girl could possibly have something to gain by Naaman falling. According to what is written, however, Naaman could very well have also been a vain man. He obviously had everything going for him except for one thing: his physical appearance was marred by leprosy. Evidently it was, to him, worth any possible risk, or he could have been arrogant enough to believe that he would be able to overcome any threat to himself.
Often it is, I think, that the rewards or consequences of the choices we make will not always be so readily apparent. For this reason it can sometimes be easy to lose heart and give up prematurely when we set out to work intentionally for the Lord such as when we get all fired up about a new ministry opportunity. We see the disciples whom Jesus dispatched to spread the Gospel return to Him and report on what happened during their time out among the people. They apparently enjoyed enough evidence that they were, in the name of the Lord, able to excise demons! Not a bad pay-off for an honest day’s work to be able to see right away the results of faithful attention.
What about the rest of us? I cannot recall ever seeing such a transformation in anyone as a result of something I did or said and I certainly don’t recall ever “seeing” any demons submit themselves to me, so reading such Gospel stories as in Luke makes me wonder if perhaps I’m doing something wrong or not doing something enough. Worse still, I wonder if I possess the faith necessary to be able to make something like this happen or that my motive is suspect. I’ve asked the Lord for plenty for the sake of someone else but have seen more rejection than acceptance. For this reason some Bible stories are difficult for me because I wonder why such things happened then but don’t seem to happen now, and I know I’m not alone.
I think the greatest hindrance to being able to do such things is wrapped up in the fact that most of us, though we may claim the title ‘disciple’, have secular jobs that require so much of our time and attention. We just don’t have the time to devote to such discipleship that those in Jesus’ time obviously did, or at least those in this Gospel story. I don’t think this means we are excused; it just may mean that we have to focus in a different direction. I also wonder if maybe we take such readings a little too literally (“Lord, in Your name even the demons submit…”). We may have a mistaken image of evil-looking ghosts rising out of a poor person’s body and bowing down before the disciples! That image may be a little over the top for us!
But this passage does not focus on “demons”, per se, more than it focuses on the success of the ministry and the announcement that the "kingdom is near", regardless of how the message is received. The disciples are excited about what they’ve experienced, and it would appear that they could not wait to return to Jesus to tell Him what had been happening while they were out among the people. Keep in mind, however, that they were warned before they were sent out to be prepared for rejections. Given this, then, the disciples went out into the world with their eyes wide open. In other words, they were given all the instructions they would need in order to make a conscious choice in favor of the Gospel. No promises, no illusions of grandeur.
Jesus was – is – well aware that there will be rejections of the Gospel. It’s hard to imagine such rejection, but we are also aware that the Word of the Lord challenges us to reject the promises of this world in favor of promises yet to come, promises not tangible, not readily evident. For any disciple, that’s a pretty tall order. It is a daily challenge for disciples who are “of the Spirit” to reject what would normally be considered “success” for ourselves in this life in favor of a kingdom we cannot see.
We must also be mindful of Jesus’ admonition to the disciples who were overly pleased with themselves that “the demons submitted…” Maybe it is that there was reason to be joyful over submissive demons but according to Jesus, there is much more to it than they can see. According to the text, the disciples “saw” something; exactly what they were seeing we cannot be sure of, but the results of their work seemed to be immediate. The gratification we so desperately seek in this life came to them; they could see their results and know that their work was not in vain. They made a choice to serve the Lord and they were able to see something because of the choice they made, but Jesus told them that their true reward is yet to come.
The choices we have before us are not always clear. We adults can oftentimes fall back on our experiences to lead and guide us, but the danger in this is that our experiences are based on how the WORLD responds and reacts and our choices will be made accordingly.
The people of God, however, are of a whole new and different reality. It cannot be much different than the new reality of Israel as Joshua led the people into the Promised Land against all odds and formed a new nation. “Therefore, fear the Lord; serve Him in sincerity and in truth and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Joshua 24:14-15
The choice is before us everyday whether we make intentional or subconscious choices. We can choose in favor of the world, “the gods of the Amorites”, or we can make our choice in favor of the world that is to come. “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants my live; that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days…” Deuteronomy 30:19-20a
Life is always a good choice. Choose well.
Galatians 6:1-16
Luke 10:1-11, 16-20
There is not a day that goes by when we don’t make choices. Some choices are subtle and almost unconsciously done out of sheer force of habit; others are planned and intentional or are knee-jerk reactions to a particular situation. Most of the time, however, we as rational humans can be pretty sure that if we take the time to weigh all the information available to us and examine the potential outcome, including possible consequences, we will make at least better choices than if we are pushed into a situation in which we may feel compelled to make a rash decision that will be based more on emotions we are feeling at that moment rather than on facts we may have available at the time.
Like Naaman from 2 Kings 5, the choices we make will almost always have been made according to its potential outcome and how it will affect us personally or those whom we love. And also like Naaman, sometimes our choices will be the result of our willingness to believe the information that is being offered to us out of desperation, even information which could be coming from questionable sources. Naaman’s source of information that Israel’s prophet would be able to cure his leprosy came from a young, captured girl from Israel. Naaman, being a warrior, might have smelled a rat under other circumstances. After all, he could be walking into a trap since the Israelite girl could possibly have something to gain by Naaman falling. According to what is written, however, Naaman could very well have also been a vain man. He obviously had everything going for him except for one thing: his physical appearance was marred by leprosy. Evidently it was, to him, worth any possible risk, or he could have been arrogant enough to believe that he would be able to overcome any threat to himself.
Often it is, I think, that the rewards or consequences of the choices we make will not always be so readily apparent. For this reason it can sometimes be easy to lose heart and give up prematurely when we set out to work intentionally for the Lord such as when we get all fired up about a new ministry opportunity. We see the disciples whom Jesus dispatched to spread the Gospel return to Him and report on what happened during their time out among the people. They apparently enjoyed enough evidence that they were, in the name of the Lord, able to excise demons! Not a bad pay-off for an honest day’s work to be able to see right away the results of faithful attention.
What about the rest of us? I cannot recall ever seeing such a transformation in anyone as a result of something I did or said and I certainly don’t recall ever “seeing” any demons submit themselves to me, so reading such Gospel stories as in Luke makes me wonder if perhaps I’m doing something wrong or not doing something enough. Worse still, I wonder if I possess the faith necessary to be able to make something like this happen or that my motive is suspect. I’ve asked the Lord for plenty for the sake of someone else but have seen more rejection than acceptance. For this reason some Bible stories are difficult for me because I wonder why such things happened then but don’t seem to happen now, and I know I’m not alone.
I think the greatest hindrance to being able to do such things is wrapped up in the fact that most of us, though we may claim the title ‘disciple’, have secular jobs that require so much of our time and attention. We just don’t have the time to devote to such discipleship that those in Jesus’ time obviously did, or at least those in this Gospel story. I don’t think this means we are excused; it just may mean that we have to focus in a different direction. I also wonder if maybe we take such readings a little too literally (“Lord, in Your name even the demons submit…”). We may have a mistaken image of evil-looking ghosts rising out of a poor person’s body and bowing down before the disciples! That image may be a little over the top for us!
But this passage does not focus on “demons”, per se, more than it focuses on the success of the ministry and the announcement that the "kingdom is near", regardless of how the message is received. The disciples are excited about what they’ve experienced, and it would appear that they could not wait to return to Jesus to tell Him what had been happening while they were out among the people. Keep in mind, however, that they were warned before they were sent out to be prepared for rejections. Given this, then, the disciples went out into the world with their eyes wide open. In other words, they were given all the instructions they would need in order to make a conscious choice in favor of the Gospel. No promises, no illusions of grandeur.
Jesus was – is – well aware that there will be rejections of the Gospel. It’s hard to imagine such rejection, but we are also aware that the Word of the Lord challenges us to reject the promises of this world in favor of promises yet to come, promises not tangible, not readily evident. For any disciple, that’s a pretty tall order. It is a daily challenge for disciples who are “of the Spirit” to reject what would normally be considered “success” for ourselves in this life in favor of a kingdom we cannot see.
We must also be mindful of Jesus’ admonition to the disciples who were overly pleased with themselves that “the demons submitted…” Maybe it is that there was reason to be joyful over submissive demons but according to Jesus, there is much more to it than they can see. According to the text, the disciples “saw” something; exactly what they were seeing we cannot be sure of, but the results of their work seemed to be immediate. The gratification we so desperately seek in this life came to them; they could see their results and know that their work was not in vain. They made a choice to serve the Lord and they were able to see something because of the choice they made, but Jesus told them that their true reward is yet to come.
The choices we have before us are not always clear. We adults can oftentimes fall back on our experiences to lead and guide us, but the danger in this is that our experiences are based on how the WORLD responds and reacts and our choices will be made accordingly.
The people of God, however, are of a whole new and different reality. It cannot be much different than the new reality of Israel as Joshua led the people into the Promised Land against all odds and formed a new nation. “Therefore, fear the Lord; serve Him in sincerity and in truth and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Joshua 24:14-15
The choice is before us everyday whether we make intentional or subconscious choices. We can choose in favor of the world, “the gods of the Amorites”, or we can make our choice in favor of the world that is to come. “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants my live; that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days…” Deuteronomy 30:19-20a
Life is always a good choice. Choose well.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Sitting on the edge of Faith
My faith is such that a good spiritual cleansing is usually in order. What I mean by this is that I am always up for a doctrinal or theological challenge that forces me to confront my own sense of faith and causes me to critically analyze what I believe, what I think I believe, and what I perhaps ought to believe. It’s not always easy and more often than not it seems to cause me more than a little distress, but it is necessary for me to be confronted where I am because my life is far less than the perfect portrait of what a disciple of Christ ought to be.
It is put best by writer George H. Birkett who wrote, “While I have yet to doubt God, I do doubt some of the claims that people make about God. When individuals claim to have found God and know Him as no man can, bless them; I am pleased for them, but I have my doubts. When they attach themselves to some few scriptures that particularly suit them, when they cite these scriptures as being THE answer, when they insist that all who wish salvation must follow the path THEY have chosen, I have my doubts. When the words of the Bible are cited as being as infallible as God, I have my doubts.”
Me, too. And oddly enough, my doubts and questions have come as a result of religious, doctrinal, and theological education and training. One might think that such a pursuit of education might actually help to strengthen one’s faith and not push one closer to the edge of the abyss of doubt. Still it does this and more because I have found myself more and more critical and doubtful not only of my own place as a Christian and as a preacher, but I seriously question those others who serve in the same capacity. And those preachers on TV who wear expensive jewelry and custom tailored suits are, to me, nothing more than religious entertainers because they also present themselves as possessors of absolute truth and knowledge.
To make matters worse, whenever I choose to confide in some whom I consider to be fellow disciples on the same spiritual journey of exploration, they want to dismiss my doubts as the “work of the devil” who is constantly on the prowl and seeking to destroy faith wherever he can find it. Can the answer be so simple? I know I’ve encountered some who will live and breathe in such proclamations. I just don’t happen to believe that the devil himself sees me as much of a threat one way or the other. In fact, I tend to believe that those who believe that the devil is personally out to destroy them or their faith are over-the-top arrogant. And I tend to think that those who try to present themselves as “holier than thou” are vainly trying to convince themselves of something they are as unsure of. My cynical nature being what it is, there are very few persons who demonstrate to me that their faith is as real as it ought to be, as real to them as I want my faith to be to me.
This is not to suggest that anyone owes me anything beyond the respect every human person inherently deserves, but why must I set aside anything I believe or even question in favor of those who make such proclamations of “absolute” truth? Why can’t every disciple acknowledge that life on this earth is a constant journey of discovery in which we, as humans and without exception, have the capacity to learn something new everyday that we did not know before? Why can we not embrace the words of the prophet who reminds us that the Lord’s mind is His own and not ours? It grieves me in some ways that I seem to be missing out on something these others claim to possess. It causes me to wonder two things: a) is there just no such thing, or b) is there is a divine being who is just not talking to me. I tend toward the latter.
Granted, I don’t pay nearly enough attention to my spiritual life, and there is no one to blame but myself. I spend entirely too much time at work (secular). My time away from work is split between my family and my schooling which seems to have no end in site since I can only attend part time. That leaves precious little time to devote to my pastorate, let alone my own spiritual needs; and because I spend so little time in serious contemplation, my doubts and my failures as a Christian threaten to overwhelm me. It is little wonder that those who encounter me cannot tell by my speech and demeanor that I am a church pastor.
Here’s the thing, though. I am painfully aware of my failings as a Christian, as a husband, as a father, and as a pastor (thankfully, I’m doing pretty well at school!), but I also wonder if it is possible that I am only making things harder than they have to be. Could it really be as simple as “be saved”? I have a very hard time with that overly simplistic theology because I happen to believe that the Lord expects more from us and because I believe this to be true, I spend too much of my time feeling like a failure. Work is mundane and routine, and school seems altogether pointless because I am having such a difficult time finding my footing.
One thing I can do until I find my way is to remember that I certainly do not possess all knowledge of all truth, that I am trapped by my shortcomings because I cannot let go of the requisite guilt. I can also remember that, at the very least, I have a conscience that bothers me; thus, it is still working. I can also remember that even as a pastor, I am merely on a journey with everyone else. Whether I am ordained by God or man is of little consequence if I fail to remember that even the Savior came to serve and not be served. If only we could all be so mindful.
It is put best by writer George H. Birkett who wrote, “While I have yet to doubt God, I do doubt some of the claims that people make about God. When individuals claim to have found God and know Him as no man can, bless them; I am pleased for them, but I have my doubts. When they attach themselves to some few scriptures that particularly suit them, when they cite these scriptures as being THE answer, when they insist that all who wish salvation must follow the path THEY have chosen, I have my doubts. When the words of the Bible are cited as being as infallible as God, I have my doubts.”
Me, too. And oddly enough, my doubts and questions have come as a result of religious, doctrinal, and theological education and training. One might think that such a pursuit of education might actually help to strengthen one’s faith and not push one closer to the edge of the abyss of doubt. Still it does this and more because I have found myself more and more critical and doubtful not only of my own place as a Christian and as a preacher, but I seriously question those others who serve in the same capacity. And those preachers on TV who wear expensive jewelry and custom tailored suits are, to me, nothing more than religious entertainers because they also present themselves as possessors of absolute truth and knowledge.
To make matters worse, whenever I choose to confide in some whom I consider to be fellow disciples on the same spiritual journey of exploration, they want to dismiss my doubts as the “work of the devil” who is constantly on the prowl and seeking to destroy faith wherever he can find it. Can the answer be so simple? I know I’ve encountered some who will live and breathe in such proclamations. I just don’t happen to believe that the devil himself sees me as much of a threat one way or the other. In fact, I tend to believe that those who believe that the devil is personally out to destroy them or their faith are over-the-top arrogant. And I tend to think that those who try to present themselves as “holier than thou” are vainly trying to convince themselves of something they are as unsure of. My cynical nature being what it is, there are very few persons who demonstrate to me that their faith is as real as it ought to be, as real to them as I want my faith to be to me.
This is not to suggest that anyone owes me anything beyond the respect every human person inherently deserves, but why must I set aside anything I believe or even question in favor of those who make such proclamations of “absolute” truth? Why can’t every disciple acknowledge that life on this earth is a constant journey of discovery in which we, as humans and without exception, have the capacity to learn something new everyday that we did not know before? Why can we not embrace the words of the prophet who reminds us that the Lord’s mind is His own and not ours? It grieves me in some ways that I seem to be missing out on something these others claim to possess. It causes me to wonder two things: a) is there just no such thing, or b) is there is a divine being who is just not talking to me. I tend toward the latter.
Granted, I don’t pay nearly enough attention to my spiritual life, and there is no one to blame but myself. I spend entirely too much time at work (secular). My time away from work is split between my family and my schooling which seems to have no end in site since I can only attend part time. That leaves precious little time to devote to my pastorate, let alone my own spiritual needs; and because I spend so little time in serious contemplation, my doubts and my failures as a Christian threaten to overwhelm me. It is little wonder that those who encounter me cannot tell by my speech and demeanor that I am a church pastor.
Here’s the thing, though. I am painfully aware of my failings as a Christian, as a husband, as a father, and as a pastor (thankfully, I’m doing pretty well at school!), but I also wonder if it is possible that I am only making things harder than they have to be. Could it really be as simple as “be saved”? I have a very hard time with that overly simplistic theology because I happen to believe that the Lord expects more from us and because I believe this to be true, I spend too much of my time feeling like a failure. Work is mundane and routine, and school seems altogether pointless because I am having such a difficult time finding my footing.
One thing I can do until I find my way is to remember that I certainly do not possess all knowledge of all truth, that I am trapped by my shortcomings because I cannot let go of the requisite guilt. I can also remember that, at the very least, I have a conscience that bothers me; thus, it is still working. I can also remember that even as a pastor, I am merely on a journey with everyone else. Whether I am ordained by God or man is of little consequence if I fail to remember that even the Savior came to serve and not be served. If only we could all be so mindful.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Dear Madam Speaker:
Speaker Pelosi, do tell. The Congress has the lowest approval rating perhaps ever in its history, and you continue to disavow any part in it even though you have been a part of that institution since 1988. You merely wring your hands and state, “Congress has never been popular.” Why do you suppose this to be an accurate assessment? Could it be that the only thing the Congress can be counted on to accomplish is that which would professionally and financially benefit its members or its member’s families? Of course, this could not be it. It must be those darned Republicans/Democrats (depending on who’s speaking into the microphone at the time).
The Congress overall is perhaps the most ineffective government institution, and yet individual members continue to blame “________” (fill in the blank. Any answer is as good as the next.). And with a presidential race already – and prematurely, I might add – heating up, the American people can expect little else beyond what we are seeing now: two opposing parties desperately clambering for more control (read “power”) and a greater majority, wasting time wishing for something instead of dealing with the existing realities. What we have before us in the Congress is nothing more than a school-yard shoving and shouting match with most communication (read “name-calling”, “finger-pointing”) being done via media sound bites. Nothing will be accomplished just as nothing has been accomplished because few have the temerity or the tenacity to put a stop to it, especially those so-called “leaders”. It is much easier to blame someone else than to step up to the plate like the LEADER each claims to be. After all, there is an election season right around the corner. DOING the right thing is not nearly as effective as speaking into a well-placed microphone about who is to blame for the right thing never having been done, and it is especially effective to blame the institution itself as inherently troubled and beyond the scope and reach of man to correct.
Sad to say, however, that Speaker Pelosi’s statement about Congress “never” having been popular is a sorry reflection of the general voting public. In a nutshell, we are getting what we asked for. How can it be, for instance, that Congress as a body and as an institution has “never” been popular with the people, yet an individual incumbent has a better than 90% chance that he or she will be reelected? What does this say about the American public? Not much, I’m afraid, and what little such things do say about the voting public is not favorable. We are complacent, and soon we will pay dearly for our lack of attention. The truth is, while the Democrats insist that they are trying to hold the president accountable, there is no one willing to hold the Congress accountable.
One of the big congressional issues currently being tossed back and forth as the other party’s “fault” is earmarks, better known as “pork barrel politics” by which incumbents bring home the bacon to congressional districts as “proof” that they are as effective as legislators as their campaign materials would have us to believe. The issue at hand on these earmarks is whether or not the mark’s sponsor should be identified at the outset. To be perfectly honest, how this is an issue in and of itself is a mystery to me considering that the congressman or senator is all too happy to attach his or her name to the cash once it reaches its intended destination with more than enough photo ops to go around on reelection circulars.
Earmarks, however, are not as much of a congressional procedural problem as they are a payoff to a complacent voting public that continues to demand irresponsible stewardship of limited resources while decrying deficit spending, apparently failing to realize where the money comes from. While we are happy to have new opportunities presented to our districts that may translate into new jobs, we fail to make the connection between these millions of dollars in not-so-important projects and the budget deficit or the national debt; it is much easier to blame the sitting president. It is our ignorance of basic civics that allows us to get caught up in the blame-gaming and name-calling. Since the president is only one person with a name, he is much easier to blame especially since a budget proposal actually comes from the office of the President. After it reaches the Congress, however, it’s a whole new ball game. By the time a finalized version of this same budget makes it to the president, he can sign it or veto it since it is highly unlikely that the new budget will look anything like what he originally proposed. The ultimate power to spend money rests with the Congress and no other, the very same Congress that currently enjoys a 20% approval rating which is, incidentally, much lower than the president’s current approval rating.
There is indeed a problem, Madam Speaker, but I am more inclined to believe that the problem which does exist in the Congress is merely indicative of a greater problem, and the problem will continue for as long as a complacent voting public continues to vote for a more familiar name instead of actually paying attention to the business of this nation.
Do tell, indeed.
The Congress overall is perhaps the most ineffective government institution, and yet individual members continue to blame “________” (fill in the blank. Any answer is as good as the next.). And with a presidential race already – and prematurely, I might add – heating up, the American people can expect little else beyond what we are seeing now: two opposing parties desperately clambering for more control (read “power”) and a greater majority, wasting time wishing for something instead of dealing with the existing realities. What we have before us in the Congress is nothing more than a school-yard shoving and shouting match with most communication (read “name-calling”, “finger-pointing”) being done via media sound bites. Nothing will be accomplished just as nothing has been accomplished because few have the temerity or the tenacity to put a stop to it, especially those so-called “leaders”. It is much easier to blame someone else than to step up to the plate like the LEADER each claims to be. After all, there is an election season right around the corner. DOING the right thing is not nearly as effective as speaking into a well-placed microphone about who is to blame for the right thing never having been done, and it is especially effective to blame the institution itself as inherently troubled and beyond the scope and reach of man to correct.
Sad to say, however, that Speaker Pelosi’s statement about Congress “never” having been popular is a sorry reflection of the general voting public. In a nutshell, we are getting what we asked for. How can it be, for instance, that Congress as a body and as an institution has “never” been popular with the people, yet an individual incumbent has a better than 90% chance that he or she will be reelected? What does this say about the American public? Not much, I’m afraid, and what little such things do say about the voting public is not favorable. We are complacent, and soon we will pay dearly for our lack of attention. The truth is, while the Democrats insist that they are trying to hold the president accountable, there is no one willing to hold the Congress accountable.
One of the big congressional issues currently being tossed back and forth as the other party’s “fault” is earmarks, better known as “pork barrel politics” by which incumbents bring home the bacon to congressional districts as “proof” that they are as effective as legislators as their campaign materials would have us to believe. The issue at hand on these earmarks is whether or not the mark’s sponsor should be identified at the outset. To be perfectly honest, how this is an issue in and of itself is a mystery to me considering that the congressman or senator is all too happy to attach his or her name to the cash once it reaches its intended destination with more than enough photo ops to go around on reelection circulars.
Earmarks, however, are not as much of a congressional procedural problem as they are a payoff to a complacent voting public that continues to demand irresponsible stewardship of limited resources while decrying deficit spending, apparently failing to realize where the money comes from. While we are happy to have new opportunities presented to our districts that may translate into new jobs, we fail to make the connection between these millions of dollars in not-so-important projects and the budget deficit or the national debt; it is much easier to blame the sitting president. It is our ignorance of basic civics that allows us to get caught up in the blame-gaming and name-calling. Since the president is only one person with a name, he is much easier to blame especially since a budget proposal actually comes from the office of the President. After it reaches the Congress, however, it’s a whole new ball game. By the time a finalized version of this same budget makes it to the president, he can sign it or veto it since it is highly unlikely that the new budget will look anything like what he originally proposed. The ultimate power to spend money rests with the Congress and no other, the very same Congress that currently enjoys a 20% approval rating which is, incidentally, much lower than the president’s current approval rating.
There is indeed a problem, Madam Speaker, but I am more inclined to believe that the problem which does exist in the Congress is merely indicative of a greater problem, and the problem will continue for as long as a complacent voting public continues to vote for a more familiar name instead of actually paying attention to the business of this nation.
Do tell, indeed.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Spending the Dash
“The Dash”
Linda Ellis
I read of a man who stood to speak
At the funeral of a friend.
He referred to the dates on her tombstone
From the beginning to the end.
He noted that first came the date of her birth
And spoke the following date with tears,
But he said what matter most of all
Was the dash between those years.
For that dash represents all the time
That she spent alive on earth
And now only those who loved her
Know what that little line is worth.
For it matters not how much we own;
The cars, the house, the cash.
What matters most is how we live and love
And how we spend our dash.
So think about this long and hard.
Are there things you’d like to change?
For you never know how much time is left
That can still be rearranged.
If we could just slow down enough
To consider what’s true and real
And always try to understand
The way other people feel.
And be less quick to anger
And show appreciation more
And love the people in our lives
Like we’ve never loved before.
If we treat each other with respect
And more often wear a smile
Remembering that this special dash
Might only last a little while.
So when you’re eulogy is being read
With your life’s actions to rehash
Would you be proud of the things they say
About how you spent your dash?
Usually around late August and early September, comics that feature kids will almost always show them standing before the class reading their first homework assignment for the school term: an essay entitled, “How I spent my summer vacation”. Then the stories that usually follow include going to the mountains, to the beach, to grandma’s house, or to the amusement park. And oddly enough, I cannot recall too many instances in which the kids reported on their summer vacations with much enthusiasm. Maybe it was that the value of the summer vacation had been diminished by being reduced to a homework assignment.
I can remember such assignments from when I was in elementary school but, sadly, we never did much in the way of summer vacations when I was growing up. I can recall one trip to Six Flags over Texas and another to Branson MO but there were never any “family vacations” because my father was always working away from home and never took any time off from work, so our vacations were spent wherever he was. I cannot say that I feel deprived, but I also cannot say that much was accomplished. Unfortunately for my family now, that lack of vacationing is being passed on. We just never seem to get around to actually taking a “family vacation”. I just honestly don’t give it a lot of thought.
Now consider the life of actress Angelina Jolie (there is a point; I promise!). I read a recent interview with her in Parade magazine in which she spoke of her understanding of community service from what she learned as a child from her mother. Even though Ms. Jolie has walked on the wild side in her lifetime and lives a life many would disapprove of, I cannot help but to admire her sense of community responsibility in her work as a good will ambassador for the United Nations and for opening her home to adopted children even as she is able to bear children herself. She says she was taught from childhood that giving of herself in such a way is not just a chance to feel good about herself or get her name in the paper. Rather, it was imparted to her from her mother as her duty and responsibility as a member of the human race. Very Christ-like even as I do not know whether she even practices a particular religion.
It is unfortunate that we pay close attention when we are reminded that domestic violence is a learned behavior passed from one generation to the next, but we fail to make such a generational connection when it comes to positive, uplifting behavior that is also passed on from generation to generation. We fail to fully recognize that our children will never come to understand their place in society, their duties as Christians and the opportunities that come as a result, unless they are shown the way. Raising our children in church is a good start, but their Christian education must be broadened beyond the doors of the Church or the Sunday school classroom.
As I get older I often wonder how the “dash” in my own life will be defined. What sort of legacy am I leaving? What can be said about me at my eulogy beyond, “He was a loud preacher who did not need a microphone”? But far more important than how I lived my life will be how I will have taught my children and the children of the churches I serve how to define their own “dash” - because the impact of my time and yours on this earth will be measured for generations, well beyond the moment when the lids to our coffins are closed.
“Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” Jesus rebuked them, “You don’t know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”
Luke 9:54b-56a
Following Jesus in the footsteps of righteousness means the edification – building up – of the lives of others, not attempting to tear them down. Lord knows even Christians cannot agree on much of anything, never mind the non-believers! But here’s the thing: no one is going to recognize Jesus unless they are shown His true portrait; one of service to others and not self-serving. The epitome of self-sacrifice is evidenced on the Cross – that same Cross I will remind you that Jesus DID NOT WANT (“Father, let this cup pass from Me…”)
The question of our dash at the time of our passing must include that moment of surrender to the Lord, most certainly, but beyond the grave it is told to us by Paul that simply claiming the name of Christ will not be enough if we did not live according to the Spirit that was granted to us. And notice that Paul’s list of that of building up vs. tearing down (Galatians 5:13-25).
Let our dash be one of life-building acknowledgements and service to others in the name of the Lord’s Covenant. Let our dash be that of a true witness who teaches children about the positive path of service and enlightenment, and let the path of our dash be lighted by the Word … the Word made flesh.
Linda Ellis
I read of a man who stood to speak
At the funeral of a friend.
He referred to the dates on her tombstone
From the beginning to the end.
He noted that first came the date of her birth
And spoke the following date with tears,
But he said what matter most of all
Was the dash between those years.
For that dash represents all the time
That she spent alive on earth
And now only those who loved her
Know what that little line is worth.
For it matters not how much we own;
The cars, the house, the cash.
What matters most is how we live and love
And how we spend our dash.
So think about this long and hard.
Are there things you’d like to change?
For you never know how much time is left
That can still be rearranged.
If we could just slow down enough
To consider what’s true and real
And always try to understand
The way other people feel.
And be less quick to anger
And show appreciation more
And love the people in our lives
Like we’ve never loved before.
If we treat each other with respect
And more often wear a smile
Remembering that this special dash
Might only last a little while.
So when you’re eulogy is being read
With your life’s actions to rehash
Would you be proud of the things they say
About how you spent your dash?
Usually around late August and early September, comics that feature kids will almost always show them standing before the class reading their first homework assignment for the school term: an essay entitled, “How I spent my summer vacation”. Then the stories that usually follow include going to the mountains, to the beach, to grandma’s house, or to the amusement park. And oddly enough, I cannot recall too many instances in which the kids reported on their summer vacations with much enthusiasm. Maybe it was that the value of the summer vacation had been diminished by being reduced to a homework assignment.
I can remember such assignments from when I was in elementary school but, sadly, we never did much in the way of summer vacations when I was growing up. I can recall one trip to Six Flags over Texas and another to Branson MO but there were never any “family vacations” because my father was always working away from home and never took any time off from work, so our vacations were spent wherever he was. I cannot say that I feel deprived, but I also cannot say that much was accomplished. Unfortunately for my family now, that lack of vacationing is being passed on. We just never seem to get around to actually taking a “family vacation”. I just honestly don’t give it a lot of thought.
Now consider the life of actress Angelina Jolie (there is a point; I promise!). I read a recent interview with her in Parade magazine in which she spoke of her understanding of community service from what she learned as a child from her mother. Even though Ms. Jolie has walked on the wild side in her lifetime and lives a life many would disapprove of, I cannot help but to admire her sense of community responsibility in her work as a good will ambassador for the United Nations and for opening her home to adopted children even as she is able to bear children herself. She says she was taught from childhood that giving of herself in such a way is not just a chance to feel good about herself or get her name in the paper. Rather, it was imparted to her from her mother as her duty and responsibility as a member of the human race. Very Christ-like even as I do not know whether she even practices a particular religion.
It is unfortunate that we pay close attention when we are reminded that domestic violence is a learned behavior passed from one generation to the next, but we fail to make such a generational connection when it comes to positive, uplifting behavior that is also passed on from generation to generation. We fail to fully recognize that our children will never come to understand their place in society, their duties as Christians and the opportunities that come as a result, unless they are shown the way. Raising our children in church is a good start, but their Christian education must be broadened beyond the doors of the Church or the Sunday school classroom.
As I get older I often wonder how the “dash” in my own life will be defined. What sort of legacy am I leaving? What can be said about me at my eulogy beyond, “He was a loud preacher who did not need a microphone”? But far more important than how I lived my life will be how I will have taught my children and the children of the churches I serve how to define their own “dash” - because the impact of my time and yours on this earth will be measured for generations, well beyond the moment when the lids to our coffins are closed.
“Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” Jesus rebuked them, “You don’t know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”
Luke 9:54b-56a
Following Jesus in the footsteps of righteousness means the edification – building up – of the lives of others, not attempting to tear them down. Lord knows even Christians cannot agree on much of anything, never mind the non-believers! But here’s the thing: no one is going to recognize Jesus unless they are shown His true portrait; one of service to others and not self-serving. The epitome of self-sacrifice is evidenced on the Cross – that same Cross I will remind you that Jesus DID NOT WANT (“Father, let this cup pass from Me…”)
The question of our dash at the time of our passing must include that moment of surrender to the Lord, most certainly, but beyond the grave it is told to us by Paul that simply claiming the name of Christ will not be enough if we did not live according to the Spirit that was granted to us. And notice that Paul’s list of that of building up vs. tearing down (Galatians 5:13-25).
Let our dash be one of life-building acknowledgements and service to others in the name of the Lord’s Covenant. Let our dash be that of a true witness who teaches children about the positive path of service and enlightenment, and let the path of our dash be lighted by the Word … the Word made flesh.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
In Defense of Offense
Does a purely defensive military posture suggest a level of tolerance of a known threat to which we simply acquiesce? Jerusalem Post columnist Saul Singer’s recent statement that “Bush is right that terrorism cannot be beaten with defensive measures” should cause one to wonder about the more appropriate strategy and response to the ongoing war against terror, especially during this very early battle for the White House in which Democrats are talking about how and when to get out of Iraq while Republicans are still trying to define victory, or at least a victory that is palpable to the American voting public. Answering the question may also have as much to do with whether one actually believes that this war would cease to exist if the US were to simply withdraw from it.
Is it merely a question of whether or not we are actually at war? Former US senator and Democratic presidential wanna-be John Edwards recently stated that the “war on terror” was nothing more than a bumper-sticker slogan concocted by the Bush administration. By this, we can only assume he meant that the situation with worldwide terrorism is not as dire as this administration would have us believe, which is incredibly naïve coming from someone who pretends to be presidential material. We can easily see that there is a war on and that American servicemen are literally putting their lives on the line each day they go to work.
The question of whether or not this nation is at war, however, may be at the heart of the current debate about whether it is time to remove our forces from Iraq. Should we choose this course of action, would it also necessitate the removal of US forces from Afghanistan? Whether the US was justified in the invasion of Iraq is now irrelevant because of the matter at hand even if there were – and still are – many who believed that the war on terror lost its focus when the US invaded a sovereign nation. Now we are in the midst of a fight on yet another front whose focus has been removed from Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida and the insurgency against the newly installed government.
Ideally the US could withdraw and assume a more defensive military posture and do nothing more than to fight back if directly attacked. Unfortunately, we have chosen to wage a war that will not go away regardless of our physical presence. To the point where we find ourselves, the president is correct: offense is now our only defense. The insurgency must be brought under control if for no other reason than that of law and order. Anything less will most likely mean another direct attack on American soil.
Is it merely a question of whether or not we are actually at war? Former US senator and Democratic presidential wanna-be John Edwards recently stated that the “war on terror” was nothing more than a bumper-sticker slogan concocted by the Bush administration. By this, we can only assume he meant that the situation with worldwide terrorism is not as dire as this administration would have us believe, which is incredibly naïve coming from someone who pretends to be presidential material. We can easily see that there is a war on and that American servicemen are literally putting their lives on the line each day they go to work.
The question of whether or not this nation is at war, however, may be at the heart of the current debate about whether it is time to remove our forces from Iraq. Should we choose this course of action, would it also necessitate the removal of US forces from Afghanistan? Whether the US was justified in the invasion of Iraq is now irrelevant because of the matter at hand even if there were – and still are – many who believed that the war on terror lost its focus when the US invaded a sovereign nation. Now we are in the midst of a fight on yet another front whose focus has been removed from Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida and the insurgency against the newly installed government.
Ideally the US could withdraw and assume a more defensive military posture and do nothing more than to fight back if directly attacked. Unfortunately, we have chosen to wage a war that will not go away regardless of our physical presence. To the point where we find ourselves, the president is correct: offense is now our only defense. The insurgency must be brought under control if for no other reason than that of law and order. Anything less will most likely mean another direct attack on American soil.
Splitting Hairs
What do we think we know about the Law and Grace, and do we know enough to differentiate between the two? Or is it, as I suspect, that the two are one and the same? I often wonder how many hairs have been split since the time of Christ so much so that we have finally reached a point where we simply make things up as we go in our continuing efforts to justify ourselves, and doctrine that has the potential to fully inform our sense of theology gets completely fouled up to the point of irrelevancy.
One case in point involves the difference between “transubstantiation” (literal presence) and “real presence” as it pertains to the Eucharist. They both mean essentially the same thing and both hold fast to the words of Jesus who proclaimed that “when two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there …” Whether He is “literally” there or “really” there is a serious splitting of hairs and does nothing more than to highlight a dispute which has existed for centuries.
Another case in point is the current argument in the UMC in which a Study of Ministry proposal has determined that Local (licensed) Pastors should not be consecrating the elements of the Eucharist, preferring instead to have an ordained elder bless the elements but allow the LP to deliver. One argument for the proposal, in order to address logistical concerns, suggests that Local Pastors be ordained as Local Elders to resolve the “problem”. Well, I am licensed and appointed by the Conference, by the Bishop, and by the Cabinet. What has not happened is that a bishop has not put his hands on my head, and this will not likely happen unless or until I graduate from a seminary. So by another splitting of the hairs, somehow calling me an “elder” rather than a “pastor”, presumably without changing anything else other than the bishop’s hands, will make all the difference in the world as to the nature of the Eucharist and the effectiveness of my prayer to ask the Lord to bless them. I will reserve further comment on this one lest I miss making my point.
In either case, we split hairs when we take exception to a particular terminology while overlooking the essential elements of a concept. I think this is where we are when we talk about the Law and try to wade through St Paul’s seeming arguments AGAINST the Law in favor of grace. Truth be told, I have always had a hard time understanding what Paul means when he writes about “the works of the Law”.
In Galatians 2:15-16, he almost seems to contradict himself. Notice that he uses his “Jewishness” to distinguish himself from “Gentile sinners” while referring to his “knowledge” as a Jew “that a person is justified not by the works of the law…”, but how can he – in the same statement as a Jew – refer to “faith in Christ”?
It seems to me that we go back into that “splitting of hairs” when we insist that we are “not under the law”, yet still revere the so-called Ten Commandments, a direct reference to THE LAW, that “document” which demands our obedience. Jesus Himself reminds us that He “did not come to do away with the Law …” yet we also, by our doctrines, know Jesus as grace personified even while Jesus refers to Himself as “the law fulfilled”.
It may also be telling that while we would continue to insist that we are “not under the law” but would continue to fight with our state and federal legislators in insisting that the “ten commandments” be upheld by force of law.
“If you love Me, keep My commandments.” In the Gospel of John (14:15), Jesus makes a direct reference to “commandments” but the answer we get from asking which commandments He is referring to will depend on whom we ask. Since the text makes reference to plural commandments – as in more than one – many will suggest He is referring to THE Ten Commandments, but is it Exodus 20 or Exodus 34? Christians will refer to Exodus 20 as the more commonly referred-to commandments, but Exodus 34 actually refers to the “ten commandments”. Others will suggest that the “commandments” to which Jesus refers will be the two “greatest commandments” to love the Lord God with all we have and to love neighbor as self.
My point in all this is that we tend to pigeon-hole ourselves and our doctrines when we attempt to so narrowly define such terms as “grace” or “law”, but many of us get tripped up when we read Paul suggesting to us that “the works of the law” are very nearly useless. It is important to remember that in Galatians, Paul is addressing the problems that are being created by the “Judiazers” who are insisting to new converts that they must still be circumcised, that even though they are to ultimately become Christians they must still adhere to Jewish law. And lest we forget, Jesus was Jewish and adhered to the Law. Circumcision goes all the way back to the covenant the Lord made with Abraham, and there is nothing written in the Law which negates this. Yet in the context of Galatians, these are perhaps the “the works of the law” to which Paul refers.
So what is a Christian to do? More importantly perhaps, what is a Christian supposed to teach a seeker who is trying to develop a relationship with the Lord? Is there such a thing as a conflict which may exist between what we know as “law” and what we think we know as “grace”? If there is such a conflict between the two, it comes close to suggesting a more Gnostic understanding of the nature of the Divine in which there is an OT God of the Hebrews and a NT God and Father of the Christ. One insists on “law” – physical matter and acts, and the other is more abiding in “grace” – spiritual matters and acts.
Circumcision, though an outward and physical sign of a covenant, is still an inward act because Christian and Jewish men are obviously not going to walk around naked so that everyone can see our faith. And this robe I wear today may identify me as a pastor, but it says nothing of my sense of spirituality and could actually cause a conflict with those who would suggest that a licensed pastor should not be wearing a robe at all, certainly not a stole (which I won’t wear). And we would conduct these arguments while eating catfish (unclean) at a restaurant on the Sabbath!
I am not suggesting that the Law does not matter and I also don’t think Paul is suggesting such a thing to the Galatians, but I will suggest that there is more to his argument than we give proper attention to. After all, the Law prohibits stealing. Can we say that it’s ok to steal if we really want to because we are “not under the law”? Of course not. Jesus even tells His disciples that we prove our love for Him by obedience; without the Law, there is nothing to obey. There is nothing to differentiate between right and wrong except what seems ok to us and even Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates did not agree on right, wrong, and reason though they would split hairs on what constitutes “moral law”, “natural law”, and “civil law” or their basis of existence. I think all would agree, though, that there must be a societal standard of conduct.
The Mosaic Law is a community system of standards, and this law distinguishes a people. But Jesus uses the woman as a portrait of how it all works together, that there is not a distinction between Law and Grace because each is of a Divine Source. The Law creates a community, violation of that Law is a sign of brokenness, and Grace is that means by which we are brought back into that community. The Pharisee with whom Jesus was dining had cast this woman out of the community because of the community’s standard, but without the grace by which we are restored to the community was lacking. And the Lord God is nothing if not “restorative”; hence the Covenant of Christ.
Do not disregard the Law, but do not forget that it is but one side of a two-sided coin. Jesus is indeed Grace personified, but He also fulfills the Law rather than “doing away with it”. It is the complete and total picture of the ONE true God and Father of all creation. It is His community; it is His standard, and it is His alone to restore.
One case in point involves the difference between “transubstantiation” (literal presence) and “real presence” as it pertains to the Eucharist. They both mean essentially the same thing and both hold fast to the words of Jesus who proclaimed that “when two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there …” Whether He is “literally” there or “really” there is a serious splitting of hairs and does nothing more than to highlight a dispute which has existed for centuries.
Another case in point is the current argument in the UMC in which a Study of Ministry proposal has determined that Local (licensed) Pastors should not be consecrating the elements of the Eucharist, preferring instead to have an ordained elder bless the elements but allow the LP to deliver. One argument for the proposal, in order to address logistical concerns, suggests that Local Pastors be ordained as Local Elders to resolve the “problem”. Well, I am licensed and appointed by the Conference, by the Bishop, and by the Cabinet. What has not happened is that a bishop has not put his hands on my head, and this will not likely happen unless or until I graduate from a seminary. So by another splitting of the hairs, somehow calling me an “elder” rather than a “pastor”, presumably without changing anything else other than the bishop’s hands, will make all the difference in the world as to the nature of the Eucharist and the effectiveness of my prayer to ask the Lord to bless them. I will reserve further comment on this one lest I miss making my point.
In either case, we split hairs when we take exception to a particular terminology while overlooking the essential elements of a concept. I think this is where we are when we talk about the Law and try to wade through St Paul’s seeming arguments AGAINST the Law in favor of grace. Truth be told, I have always had a hard time understanding what Paul means when he writes about “the works of the Law”.
In Galatians 2:15-16, he almost seems to contradict himself. Notice that he uses his “Jewishness” to distinguish himself from “Gentile sinners” while referring to his “knowledge” as a Jew “that a person is justified not by the works of the law…”, but how can he – in the same statement as a Jew – refer to “faith in Christ”?
It seems to me that we go back into that “splitting of hairs” when we insist that we are “not under the law”, yet still revere the so-called Ten Commandments, a direct reference to THE LAW, that “document” which demands our obedience. Jesus Himself reminds us that He “did not come to do away with the Law …” yet we also, by our doctrines, know Jesus as grace personified even while Jesus refers to Himself as “the law fulfilled”.
It may also be telling that while we would continue to insist that we are “not under the law” but would continue to fight with our state and federal legislators in insisting that the “ten commandments” be upheld by force of law.
“If you love Me, keep My commandments.” In the Gospel of John (14:15), Jesus makes a direct reference to “commandments” but the answer we get from asking which commandments He is referring to will depend on whom we ask. Since the text makes reference to plural commandments – as in more than one – many will suggest He is referring to THE Ten Commandments, but is it Exodus 20 or Exodus 34? Christians will refer to Exodus 20 as the more commonly referred-to commandments, but Exodus 34 actually refers to the “ten commandments”. Others will suggest that the “commandments” to which Jesus refers will be the two “greatest commandments” to love the Lord God with all we have and to love neighbor as self.
My point in all this is that we tend to pigeon-hole ourselves and our doctrines when we attempt to so narrowly define such terms as “grace” or “law”, but many of us get tripped up when we read Paul suggesting to us that “the works of the law” are very nearly useless. It is important to remember that in Galatians, Paul is addressing the problems that are being created by the “Judiazers” who are insisting to new converts that they must still be circumcised, that even though they are to ultimately become Christians they must still adhere to Jewish law. And lest we forget, Jesus was Jewish and adhered to the Law. Circumcision goes all the way back to the covenant the Lord made with Abraham, and there is nothing written in the Law which negates this. Yet in the context of Galatians, these are perhaps the “the works of the law” to which Paul refers.
So what is a Christian to do? More importantly perhaps, what is a Christian supposed to teach a seeker who is trying to develop a relationship with the Lord? Is there such a thing as a conflict which may exist between what we know as “law” and what we think we know as “grace”? If there is such a conflict between the two, it comes close to suggesting a more Gnostic understanding of the nature of the Divine in which there is an OT God of the Hebrews and a NT God and Father of the Christ. One insists on “law” – physical matter and acts, and the other is more abiding in “grace” – spiritual matters and acts.
Circumcision, though an outward and physical sign of a covenant, is still an inward act because Christian and Jewish men are obviously not going to walk around naked so that everyone can see our faith. And this robe I wear today may identify me as a pastor, but it says nothing of my sense of spirituality and could actually cause a conflict with those who would suggest that a licensed pastor should not be wearing a robe at all, certainly not a stole (which I won’t wear). And we would conduct these arguments while eating catfish (unclean) at a restaurant on the Sabbath!
I am not suggesting that the Law does not matter and I also don’t think Paul is suggesting such a thing to the Galatians, but I will suggest that there is more to his argument than we give proper attention to. After all, the Law prohibits stealing. Can we say that it’s ok to steal if we really want to because we are “not under the law”? Of course not. Jesus even tells His disciples that we prove our love for Him by obedience; without the Law, there is nothing to obey. There is nothing to differentiate between right and wrong except what seems ok to us and even Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates did not agree on right, wrong, and reason though they would split hairs on what constitutes “moral law”, “natural law”, and “civil law” or their basis of existence. I think all would agree, though, that there must be a societal standard of conduct.
The Mosaic Law is a community system of standards, and this law distinguishes a people. But Jesus uses the woman as a portrait of how it all works together, that there is not a distinction between Law and Grace because each is of a Divine Source. The Law creates a community, violation of that Law is a sign of brokenness, and Grace is that means by which we are brought back into that community. The Pharisee with whom Jesus was dining had cast this woman out of the community because of the community’s standard, but without the grace by which we are restored to the community was lacking. And the Lord God is nothing if not “restorative”; hence the Covenant of Christ.
Do not disregard the Law, but do not forget that it is but one side of a two-sided coin. Jesus is indeed Grace personified, but He also fulfills the Law rather than “doing away with it”. It is the complete and total picture of the ONE true God and Father of all creation. It is His community; it is His standard, and it is His alone to restore.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Now THAT'S Ethical!
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not only challenging Defense Department policy regarding reimbursements to the US Treasury for family members accompanying a lawmaker on government business-related travel but is also challenging the very essence of “sweeping” ethics reforms she believes the Democrats spear-headed in their new congressional majority.
There was action taken earlier this year regarding gifts to lawmakers and their staff from lobbyists, an idea that was long overdue, but there now appears to be an issue regarding “protocol” when a lawmaker travels on official business. Apparently a lawmaker’s spouse is expected to travel with the lawmaker while on official business. In the absence of a spouse, an adult child of that lawmaker is apparently expected to fill the void for the sake of proper protocol. Additionally, Ms. Pelosi apparently is having difficulty understanding the difference between “policy” (which is official, written, and unambiguous) and “practice” (which is unofficial, unwritten, and rightfully under scrutiny for the sake of ethics reform).
“It has been longstanding policy that, in the absence of a congressional spouse, the adult child of a member of Congress may accompany the member on official U.S. government travel abroad for protocol reasons and without reimbursing the U.S. Treasury,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said according to “The Hill”.
Pentagon officials say the policy is that the Treasury must be reimbursed at commercial rates for children who accompany members on such trips, often called codels. It would seem, then, that since there is a name for the practice of children accompanying their lawmaking parents, it must therefore be the POLICY of the US government that children of members of Congress do not travel for free. Besides, the children of the lawmakers (nor spouses, for that matter) were not elected to office and do not serve in any official capacity, protocol considerations notwithstanding. It makes perfect sense, then, that taxpayers not be required to fund these junkets. If they want to take a road trip with mom or dad, fine. Just do not expect it to be a freebie; pay for it like the rest of us.
Here’s the thing. This elitist, privileged-class attitude among members of Congress is pervasive throughout the entire body, Democrat or Republican. There is a reason why otherwise ordinary citizens are willing to spend millions of dollars trying to convince us that our sorry lives will never be quite right unless we elect them to office. There is no longer any such thing as a member of Congress who is “of the people”, and their continued efforts to enhance their own privilege above that which is afforded the rest of us is a constant reminder of how absolutely power does, indeed, corrupt.
There was action taken earlier this year regarding gifts to lawmakers and their staff from lobbyists, an idea that was long overdue, but there now appears to be an issue regarding “protocol” when a lawmaker travels on official business. Apparently a lawmaker’s spouse is expected to travel with the lawmaker while on official business. In the absence of a spouse, an adult child of that lawmaker is apparently expected to fill the void for the sake of proper protocol. Additionally, Ms. Pelosi apparently is having difficulty understanding the difference between “policy” (which is official, written, and unambiguous) and “practice” (which is unofficial, unwritten, and rightfully under scrutiny for the sake of ethics reform).
“It has been longstanding policy that, in the absence of a congressional spouse, the adult child of a member of Congress may accompany the member on official U.S. government travel abroad for protocol reasons and without reimbursing the U.S. Treasury,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said according to “The Hill”.
Pentagon officials say the policy is that the Treasury must be reimbursed at commercial rates for children who accompany members on such trips, often called codels. It would seem, then, that since there is a name for the practice of children accompanying their lawmaking parents, it must therefore be the POLICY of the US government that children of members of Congress do not travel for free. Besides, the children of the lawmakers (nor spouses, for that matter) were not elected to office and do not serve in any official capacity, protocol considerations notwithstanding. It makes perfect sense, then, that taxpayers not be required to fund these junkets. If they want to take a road trip with mom or dad, fine. Just do not expect it to be a freebie; pay for it like the rest of us.
Here’s the thing. This elitist, privileged-class attitude among members of Congress is pervasive throughout the entire body, Democrat or Republican. There is a reason why otherwise ordinary citizens are willing to spend millions of dollars trying to convince us that our sorry lives will never be quite right unless we elect them to office. There is no longer any such thing as a member of Congress who is “of the people”, and their continued efforts to enhance their own privilege above that which is afforded the rest of us is a constant reminder of how absolutely power does, indeed, corrupt.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Truth or Dare...
Though it is not necessarily a noble claim, I freely admit that I am as much a conservative Christian as there can be. For my simple way of thinking, some things that have always been wrong will always be as wrong as they are presently wrong. In other words, as biblical teachings and moral guidance can go, there are fundamental standards based on centuries of teachings and traditions. Lately, however, evangelical and/or conservative Christians have taken quite a beating in the media for being narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant, judgmental, etc. Sadly, however, we seem to have come by such accusations honestly; we’ve earned them. We’ve earned them by demanding that others live according to what we believe to be best. Oddly, we resist a government which sometimes seems to demand the same of us while we demand of this same government to force “them” to tow “our” line. Wow.
Still, being conservative means that I don’t have to keep up with the latest fads, and I don’t have to worry about whether my preaching is “hip” or “with it” (it probably isn’t, anyway, considering my dated word choices). I need only be thorough, sufficiently convinced that what I offer from the pulpit is something useful for the congregation, and relevant. I pray and hope that I’ve done at least this much. Sadly, the fruits of my efforts may not be apparent for generations, if at all.
Being conservative is not as simple, however, as merely rejecting everything I happen to disagree with (though guilty, I’m sure). Every situation, perhaps especially those of a social nature, requires that I think through it within the context of what I happen to believe because more often than not, things are not what they seem and the line between “liberal” and “conservative” becomes blurred. We are then challenged to think beyond the surface issue and consider a particular issue’s more profound implications.
This is what we face with the Arkansas Family Council’s stated intent to submit a ballot proposal to the state’s attorney general which, if approved, would ask Arkansas residents to vote directly on whether we will ban adoptions and foster parent applications by homosexuals. While we’re at it, let’s vote on whether unmarried, cohabitating couples could also be considered less fit to serve as parents, foster or otherwise, to this state’s 3,000 children who currently have no home to call their own. After all, are we talking about sin in general or just one particular sin?
Whether one advocates for or against homosexual rights is, I think, irrelevant. The primary matter at hand should be that which concerns the children who belong to this state. And by “state”, I do not mean some nameless, faceless, unidentifiable entity with no soul and no sense of moral direction. Rather, the “state” is comprised of us citizens who elect others to conduct the state’s business in our behalf. And since we cannot seem to agree about the whole homosexual thing, let’s at least agree that these children belong to us and require our attention.
The purpose of the proposal to be put before us is whether we believe innocent children will be emotionally or mentally or morally harmed, perhaps irreparably, by exposure to a lifestyle some consider to be immoral. The question is whether or not a child can be properly nurtured in such an environment. The problem, however, is that heterosexual married couples are not exactly beating down the door of state services offering to open up their “normal” homes to these children, which brings us back to where we started: making a demand without knowing exactly what we seek to accomplish. Are we trying to put homosexual citizens in their place, or are we seeking a remedy to a problem that involves children?
The problem with this whole scenario is that we have yet to truly identify the real problem. Is the problem centered on homosexuals who want to provide homes to children who need them (or maybe “recruit” them?), or is it children who need nurturing, stable, and permanent homes? It seems to me that up to this point, we are seeking a solution to a problem we have yet to isolate. These two issues, homosexual rights and foster children, are mutually exclusive. One has nothing to do with the other.
If there is any harm to be done, it is being done now while we use innocent children as political and/or moral leverage. There truly is a moral issue at stake; I’m just not sure that it is religious or doctrinal in nature.
Still, being conservative means that I don’t have to keep up with the latest fads, and I don’t have to worry about whether my preaching is “hip” or “with it” (it probably isn’t, anyway, considering my dated word choices). I need only be thorough, sufficiently convinced that what I offer from the pulpit is something useful for the congregation, and relevant. I pray and hope that I’ve done at least this much. Sadly, the fruits of my efforts may not be apparent for generations, if at all.
Being conservative is not as simple, however, as merely rejecting everything I happen to disagree with (though guilty, I’m sure). Every situation, perhaps especially those of a social nature, requires that I think through it within the context of what I happen to believe because more often than not, things are not what they seem and the line between “liberal” and “conservative” becomes blurred. We are then challenged to think beyond the surface issue and consider a particular issue’s more profound implications.
This is what we face with the Arkansas Family Council’s stated intent to submit a ballot proposal to the state’s attorney general which, if approved, would ask Arkansas residents to vote directly on whether we will ban adoptions and foster parent applications by homosexuals. While we’re at it, let’s vote on whether unmarried, cohabitating couples could also be considered less fit to serve as parents, foster or otherwise, to this state’s 3,000 children who currently have no home to call their own. After all, are we talking about sin in general or just one particular sin?
Whether one advocates for or against homosexual rights is, I think, irrelevant. The primary matter at hand should be that which concerns the children who belong to this state. And by “state”, I do not mean some nameless, faceless, unidentifiable entity with no soul and no sense of moral direction. Rather, the “state” is comprised of us citizens who elect others to conduct the state’s business in our behalf. And since we cannot seem to agree about the whole homosexual thing, let’s at least agree that these children belong to us and require our attention.
The purpose of the proposal to be put before us is whether we believe innocent children will be emotionally or mentally or morally harmed, perhaps irreparably, by exposure to a lifestyle some consider to be immoral. The question is whether or not a child can be properly nurtured in such an environment. The problem, however, is that heterosexual married couples are not exactly beating down the door of state services offering to open up their “normal” homes to these children, which brings us back to where we started: making a demand without knowing exactly what we seek to accomplish. Are we trying to put homosexual citizens in their place, or are we seeking a remedy to a problem that involves children?
The problem with this whole scenario is that we have yet to truly identify the real problem. Is the problem centered on homosexuals who want to provide homes to children who need them (or maybe “recruit” them?), or is it children who need nurturing, stable, and permanent homes? It seems to me that up to this point, we are seeking a solution to a problem we have yet to isolate. These two issues, homosexual rights and foster children, are mutually exclusive. One has nothing to do with the other.
If there is any harm to be done, it is being done now while we use innocent children as political and/or moral leverage. There truly is a moral issue at stake; I’m just not sure that it is religious or doctrinal in nature.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Proper Authority
Coming up soon is a proposal for United Methodist General Conference which will essentially remove the authority of the licensed pastor to administer the Sacraments at the charge to which he or she is appointed. One district superintendent has already come forth to defend the Discipline and the ministry of the licensed pastor. Another ordained elder has come out clearly against the sacramental authority of the local pastor. As a licensed pastor myself, I take exception to his arguments for maintaining the "purity" of the ordained and hope to work out for myself what my ministry means. And I must also say that this particular elder has all but confirmed what I have long suspected: there are many elders who seem to resent the local pastor administering the sacraments.
Don't get me wrong. I have encountered many ordained elders who have worked tirelessly to support the ministry of the local pastor, my own district superintendent included. Not by mere words but by solid action, these elders have proved that they take the ministry and the necessity of the local pastor quite seriously. However, this particular elder who believes that "set apart is set apart" has actually presented his case in a most elite fashion of supposing that merely having been ordained by man imparts some mystical power, an attitude that lends itself to the same kinds of superstitions that Wesley himself accused the Roman church of projecting.
The elder who seems to resent the ministry of the licensed pastor acknowledged the DS's "logistical" considerations but maintained that the issue is quite theological. I happen to agree that there is a theological element that must take precedence over any logistical concerns, but he lost me when he quoted the United Methodist Hymnal instead of Holy Scripture and referenced Charles and John Wesley instead of Jesus of Nazareth and St. Paul. If there is to be a theological argument made against the ministry of the local pastor, we are going to have to go a little deeper than a music book.
There are too many points that the elder attempted to make, but I want to focus primarily on one particular statement that has really stuck in my craw. He stated, "If the bread and wine somehow become the Body and Blood, then the question becomes: who is responsible for facilitating that change? Can just anyone say the words? I can only imagine how John Wesley might answer that question."
I think perhaps it goes right to the heart of his point of "anyone" saying the words. What words are we referring to? Is there a magical, hocus-pocus formula-type of incantation by which the Holy Spirit of the Lord God would be compelled to bless the elements whether He would choose to or not, or were Jesus' words true enough that "whenever there are two or more gathered in My name, I will be there"? I suppose I resent the good reverend's implication that only an elder's prayer is a genuine prayer that can truly count. And I know that many Methodists will cringe at such a statement, but who is John Wesley that we should seek to quote him rather than the Scriptures he himself quoted often?
And lest we forget, John Wesley was not Methodist nor was he a bishop in the church he served. If there is to be a succession of apostolic authority, one might suggest that Wesley was in direct violation of his contemporary discipline which reserved the authority to ordain for bishops. We already know that Mr. Wesley torqued a lot of screws with those in authority over him, but he sought to address a need that is as acute today as then.
As it stands now, licensed pastors such as I have fulfilled the educational requirements as set forth in the Discipline and under proper authority have earned the privilege of administering the Sacraments of the Church in the charge to which we are appointed. Why has it become significant in the life of the church that this authority be recalled and the credentials of the licensed pastor be declared null and void? Are elders really going to be willing to rise at O dark:thirty to cover the 5 or 6 churches in his or her immediate proximity in order to administer the Sacraments? Oh, Rev. Elder did suggest that we local pastors may serve as his altar boys by coming to him for his "blessing" upon the elements so that the magical transformation may take place even as he repudiates the notion of transubstantiation, "just like John Wesley".
I have tried to be kind and hold my tongue and will continue to try, but I suppose I am a little resentful because of what is afoot within this church. We have problems to face and deal with, but I just don't happen to think this is one of them. And if there is, as I suspect, a move on the part of ordained clergy to protect their "country club" network and elite hierarchy, the fallout from that alone will likely be more than the United Methodist Church can bear because, sadly, the ordained pastor is not held in as high esteem as in the past. Pretending to be a cut above the mere laity will surely back-fire.
I don't mean to diminish the role of the ordained. I refuse to wear a stole and am extremely uncomfortable being addressed as "reverend" because I view it as a professional title that has been earned, theologically or otherwise. The ordained elder is also free to administer the Sacraments anywhere and at any time whereas the licensed pastor is restricted to the charge to which appointed. Fair enough. So I only ask that the role and ministry of the licensed pastor be offered this very same level of respect until or unless all ordained clergy show a willingness to travel to so many churches because I, for one, have not been called to carry table scraps from one church to another.
Don't get me wrong. I have encountered many ordained elders who have worked tirelessly to support the ministry of the local pastor, my own district superintendent included. Not by mere words but by solid action, these elders have proved that they take the ministry and the necessity of the local pastor quite seriously. However, this particular elder who believes that "set apart is set apart" has actually presented his case in a most elite fashion of supposing that merely having been ordained by man imparts some mystical power, an attitude that lends itself to the same kinds of superstitions that Wesley himself accused the Roman church of projecting.
The elder who seems to resent the ministry of the licensed pastor acknowledged the DS's "logistical" considerations but maintained that the issue is quite theological. I happen to agree that there is a theological element that must take precedence over any logistical concerns, but he lost me when he quoted the United Methodist Hymnal instead of Holy Scripture and referenced Charles and John Wesley instead of Jesus of Nazareth and St. Paul. If there is to be a theological argument made against the ministry of the local pastor, we are going to have to go a little deeper than a music book.
There are too many points that the elder attempted to make, but I want to focus primarily on one particular statement that has really stuck in my craw. He stated, "If the bread and wine somehow become the Body and Blood, then the question becomes: who is responsible for facilitating that change? Can just anyone say the words? I can only imagine how John Wesley might answer that question."
I think perhaps it goes right to the heart of his point of "anyone" saying the words. What words are we referring to? Is there a magical, hocus-pocus formula-type of incantation by which the Holy Spirit of the Lord God would be compelled to bless the elements whether He would choose to or not, or were Jesus' words true enough that "whenever there are two or more gathered in My name, I will be there"? I suppose I resent the good reverend's implication that only an elder's prayer is a genuine prayer that can truly count. And I know that many Methodists will cringe at such a statement, but who is John Wesley that we should seek to quote him rather than the Scriptures he himself quoted often?
And lest we forget, John Wesley was not Methodist nor was he a bishop in the church he served. If there is to be a succession of apostolic authority, one might suggest that Wesley was in direct violation of his contemporary discipline which reserved the authority to ordain for bishops. We already know that Mr. Wesley torqued a lot of screws with those in authority over him, but he sought to address a need that is as acute today as then.
As it stands now, licensed pastors such as I have fulfilled the educational requirements as set forth in the Discipline and under proper authority have earned the privilege of administering the Sacraments of the Church in the charge to which we are appointed. Why has it become significant in the life of the church that this authority be recalled and the credentials of the licensed pastor be declared null and void? Are elders really going to be willing to rise at O dark:thirty to cover the 5 or 6 churches in his or her immediate proximity in order to administer the Sacraments? Oh, Rev. Elder did suggest that we local pastors may serve as his altar boys by coming to him for his "blessing" upon the elements so that the magical transformation may take place even as he repudiates the notion of transubstantiation, "just like John Wesley".
I have tried to be kind and hold my tongue and will continue to try, but I suppose I am a little resentful because of what is afoot within this church. We have problems to face and deal with, but I just don't happen to think this is one of them. And if there is, as I suspect, a move on the part of ordained clergy to protect their "country club" network and elite hierarchy, the fallout from that alone will likely be more than the United Methodist Church can bear because, sadly, the ordained pastor is not held in as high esteem as in the past. Pretending to be a cut above the mere laity will surely back-fire.
I don't mean to diminish the role of the ordained. I refuse to wear a stole and am extremely uncomfortable being addressed as "reverend" because I view it as a professional title that has been earned, theologically or otherwise. The ordained elder is also free to administer the Sacraments anywhere and at any time whereas the licensed pastor is restricted to the charge to which appointed. Fair enough. So I only ask that the role and ministry of the licensed pastor be offered this very same level of respect until or unless all ordained clergy show a willingness to travel to so many churches because I, for one, have not been called to carry table scraps from one church to another.
The Real Issue is ...
As of this writing, Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA, has voluntarily stepped down from his congressional committee assignment in light of the federal indictments he must now face. There is, however, no indication that he will voluntarily resign his congressional seat and to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure that he should even though there does seem to be a “smoking gun” related to the charges against him. Still, being under indictment in this country is not the same as having been convicted and if we believe in equal protection and presumed innocence until proved otherwise, I see no need for his resignation.
Of course Republicans are going to try to get as much mileage as they can from this situation just as Democrats decried the Republican “culture of corruption” when so many, including “Scooter” Libby, were facing indictments and/or prison time. The problem as it seems, however, is that this very political Congress has over the years digressed into a tit-for-tat mentality that will only get worse after each election cycle because no politician I can think of has the guts or the will to end it. Unfortunately, they cannot be held completely responsible because we voters are the ones who continue to reelect them due, I think primarily, to our complacency and apathy.
Back to the topic at hand. Mr. Jefferson has not been convicted, yet there are ethics investigations pending in the Congress to try and determine whether the congressman has violated any House rules. I suppose for the sake of expediency, Mr. Jefferson may need to consider such a move since he will have a difficult time getting anything done until this matter is put to rest. There are not only Republicans demanding his liver on a stick but a few Democrats as well, fearing as they should the accusation of that same “culture of corruption” that politically dogged the Republicans for so long. Being distracted by the federal indictments and then also facing an ethics inquiry within the House means that Mr. Jefferson will be under suspicion from now until the time he is convicted or exonerated. Considering the time line for a typical trial, this could take months. In the meantime, the good people of Louisiana’s District 2 will be out their duly elected representative.
It’s too bad that as implied by this impending House ethics committee investigation that there is a complete disconnect between service as a member of Congress, law and order, and jurisprudence. The House committee investigation is also somewhat lagging in relevance considering that this investigation has been going on for two years. The House leadership cannot say this is all new to them; in fact, it was the former Republican speaker Dennis Hastert who raised such a stink when the FBI searched Mr. Jefferson’s congressional office last year, maintaining that the separation of powers prohibited such a search, disregarding the cash that had already been found in the congressman’s home freezer. Still, the cloud of suspicion existed and no one seemed interested in an ethics investigation until now when official federal indictments have been issued.
The fact that a sitting US congressman is under indictment is genuine news that affects us all to one degree or another but politically speaking, what is the issue that concerns the US House specifically? The gentleman from Louisiana must now answer the indictments - and it will be a matter between his attorney and the prosecutors - but does the Congress as a body have any real dog in this fight beyond the Democrat vs. Republican political ramifications? Of course not. The matter is between the people of the United States and Mr. Jefferson himself not as a congressman but as a citizen who is accused of criminal activity while serving as a congressman. That he is accused of using his office to make special deals is merely incidental though certainly mitigating. Would any among us be more or less guilty as mere citizens under similar indictments? Politically, yes; legally and constitutionally, no.
We citizens are the ones who have a real and compelling interest in this matter as it unfolds because the real issue now is whether or not Mr. Jefferson is presumed innocent before trial or is guilty by mere accusation. Accused child molesters and rapists face the very same public risk once their names and faces are pasted all over the news media and are forevermore permanently connected to the crimes whether. In the eyes of the public – and potential jurors – they are guilty as charged.
Of course Republicans are going to try to get as much mileage as they can from this situation just as Democrats decried the Republican “culture of corruption” when so many, including “Scooter” Libby, were facing indictments and/or prison time. The problem as it seems, however, is that this very political Congress has over the years digressed into a tit-for-tat mentality that will only get worse after each election cycle because no politician I can think of has the guts or the will to end it. Unfortunately, they cannot be held completely responsible because we voters are the ones who continue to reelect them due, I think primarily, to our complacency and apathy.
Back to the topic at hand. Mr. Jefferson has not been convicted, yet there are ethics investigations pending in the Congress to try and determine whether the congressman has violated any House rules. I suppose for the sake of expediency, Mr. Jefferson may need to consider such a move since he will have a difficult time getting anything done until this matter is put to rest. There are not only Republicans demanding his liver on a stick but a few Democrats as well, fearing as they should the accusation of that same “culture of corruption” that politically dogged the Republicans for so long. Being distracted by the federal indictments and then also facing an ethics inquiry within the House means that Mr. Jefferson will be under suspicion from now until the time he is convicted or exonerated. Considering the time line for a typical trial, this could take months. In the meantime, the good people of Louisiana’s District 2 will be out their duly elected representative.
It’s too bad that as implied by this impending House ethics committee investigation that there is a complete disconnect between service as a member of Congress, law and order, and jurisprudence. The House committee investigation is also somewhat lagging in relevance considering that this investigation has been going on for two years. The House leadership cannot say this is all new to them; in fact, it was the former Republican speaker Dennis Hastert who raised such a stink when the FBI searched Mr. Jefferson’s congressional office last year, maintaining that the separation of powers prohibited such a search, disregarding the cash that had already been found in the congressman’s home freezer. Still, the cloud of suspicion existed and no one seemed interested in an ethics investigation until now when official federal indictments have been issued.
The fact that a sitting US congressman is under indictment is genuine news that affects us all to one degree or another but politically speaking, what is the issue that concerns the US House specifically? The gentleman from Louisiana must now answer the indictments - and it will be a matter between his attorney and the prosecutors - but does the Congress as a body have any real dog in this fight beyond the Democrat vs. Republican political ramifications? Of course not. The matter is between the people of the United States and Mr. Jefferson himself not as a congressman but as a citizen who is accused of criminal activity while serving as a congressman. That he is accused of using his office to make special deals is merely incidental though certainly mitigating. Would any among us be more or less guilty as mere citizens under similar indictments? Politically, yes; legally and constitutionally, no.
We citizens are the ones who have a real and compelling interest in this matter as it unfolds because the real issue now is whether or not Mr. Jefferson is presumed innocent before trial or is guilty by mere accusation. Accused child molesters and rapists face the very same public risk once their names and faces are pasted all over the news media and are forevermore permanently connected to the crimes whether. In the eyes of the public – and potential jurors – they are guilty as charged.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Observations of Innocence
Attending a 6th grade awards ceremony recently, my wife and I had more than our share of proud moments as the fruits of Emily’s hard work paid off in some awards of recognition for outstanding grades and as well as achievement in other endeavors. Additionally, she shared an award for Outstanding 6th Grade Student with one other girl and two boys from her class. It was indeed a proud moment for the parents as well as for the children but as proud as we were, these awards were not what struck me so profoundly. I share all this not to brag but to (hopefully) make a point.
There is a classmate named Ben who is confined to a wheelchair, suffering from NBIA (Neurodegeneration with Brain Iron Accumulation) which affects the nervous system. I don’t pretend to understand the intricacies of this disorder, and I’m even less sure that it matters much. What I do know is that the entire 6th grade class was recognized for having raised over $500 in a “Pennies for Ben” drive to benefit continued research on this dreaded disorder. To be perfectly honest, I was so choked up with emotion that it was hard to hear anything else going on because what touched me most was not so much the pity I felt for Ben (though there was plenty of that) but rather, the pride and the sense of hope for tomorrow that I felt for the rest of the class.
They wheeled young Ben up to the stage as the check was presented to his family. My weakness is seeing young children in such conditions that they cannot enjoy the childhood most of us are so familiar with, the childhood we adults sometimes long for a return to, those days of innocence and wonderment when the most important decisions we had to make was whether to play with friend A or friend B or whether to ride bikes or walk to the swimming pool. Ben will never know such a life as this. In fact, I’m not even sure of his level of cognizance though I would imagine that he is at least aware of his surroundings. He just cannot physically respond to them.
Children never cease to amaze me in that I not-so-fondly recall how cruel they can sometimes be. Yet in the glow of achievement, these children seemed to remember a classmate who will never reach their level of achievement and may never know of such carefree moments and memories the likes of which we adults tend to draw back to when life threatens to overwhelm us. These precious children remembered even as they struggled through the school year that there is a classmate who needs a little help, and they did what they could to offer assistance to a friend in need.
I guess the reason such images provoke these emotions in me is that in my own personal and professional ambitions, I oftentimes forget how truly blessed I am, being more concerned about what I lack rather than what I already have. Worse, I forget and am too soon reminded that I am blessed not because I’m lucky or loved or favored, at least not necessarily or exclusively so. I am blessed, as so many of us are blessed, because those like Ben or the blessed children caught up in the genocide at Darfur and other parts of the world have needs that far exceed even our wildest and most vivid imaginations. We are so richly blessed not just so we can enjoy our lives or certain advantages but because someone else knows nothing but misery and pain. We are given much because much is expected of us (Luke 12:48).
Even beyond this knowledge and sometimes overwhelming sense of guilt, I forget to see that the Lord God is perfected and at His very best in the life of young Ben and so many other children who are surrounded by we who enjoy abundant blessings and forget that the meaningless drivel of our doctrinal disputes matter not at all to these innocent and – I believe - most favored of our Holy Father. These are the ones who are wounded by life’s daily grind, haunted by needs we cannot imagine nor appreciate. These children are ignored or forgotten altogether, sort of how the Lord must feel as we get too busy to pay attention to the things that really matter.
Here’s the thing about all this, though. The Bible teaches us to “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2), calling us – in fact, CHALLENGING us – to share in the suffering of those who need so desperately because if we are enjoying a life of abundance, we are absent the suffering that “produces endurance”. And if we are absent the endurance, then we are absent the character that endurance produces. And if we are absent the character, we will lack the one thing that gives us reason to endure: HOPE (Romans 5:1-5). And if we lack hope, then Paul may be suggesting to the Romans an absence of the presence of the Holy Spirit, the giver of the life and hope every living person so desperately needs.
The funny thing about endurance is that far too many of us who live within this “instant gratification” society are seriously lacking. Instant Gratification is perhaps the single greatest enemy of the innocence into which we are born because it then when we cross the rather narrow divide between innocence and self-centeredness. Instant Gratification demands of us a knowledge and an appreciation for this world and everything material that it has to offer so much so that our greatest pursuit in life is “MORE”. And if we happen to think about it, Ben and the children of Darfur might get whatever we have left over – that is, once we have acquired all that we think we need or want.
Character, at least the kind of character Paul writes about, is that nature of humanity which understands that our capacity for “more” is in focusing on those who do not have as well as helping those who have yet to “cross over” from innocence to a state of self-indulgence when we fall into the trappings of “zero down” and “easy financing”, lacking as we do the discipline required to be patient and the character to work toward more noble goals.
It is not about manual labor or physical endurance, however. It is about having a state of mind that understands the virtues of patience (faith) and hard work. It is about understanding that the world does not revolve around us and our own particular needs especially when our needs are fulfilled at least tenfold. It is about understanding the nature of the character St Paul is trying to impart to the Romans and to the Galatians. It is about knowing that a little hard work and its requisite suffering – translated “allowing” - is necessary to attain that level of character Paul writes about because the challenges to be faced will indeed seem insurmountable to those who lack the strength of character – and the faith of innocence - to endure.
Absent the sort of character to which St Paul alludes, it will be virtually impossible for us today to hear the Spirit of Truth. Jesus told His disciples, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” John 16:12
I wonder if we can bear them today. Innocence makes many observations that we fail to notice because we have become far too world-wise for our own good and for the good of others who desperately need us to hear the voice of the Spirit of Truth to offer to them the hope that comes only from the Lord, the same Hope you and I once had and can have again.
There is a classmate named Ben who is confined to a wheelchair, suffering from NBIA (Neurodegeneration with Brain Iron Accumulation) which affects the nervous system. I don’t pretend to understand the intricacies of this disorder, and I’m even less sure that it matters much. What I do know is that the entire 6th grade class was recognized for having raised over $500 in a “Pennies for Ben” drive to benefit continued research on this dreaded disorder. To be perfectly honest, I was so choked up with emotion that it was hard to hear anything else going on because what touched me most was not so much the pity I felt for Ben (though there was plenty of that) but rather, the pride and the sense of hope for tomorrow that I felt for the rest of the class.
They wheeled young Ben up to the stage as the check was presented to his family. My weakness is seeing young children in such conditions that they cannot enjoy the childhood most of us are so familiar with, the childhood we adults sometimes long for a return to, those days of innocence and wonderment when the most important decisions we had to make was whether to play with friend A or friend B or whether to ride bikes or walk to the swimming pool. Ben will never know such a life as this. In fact, I’m not even sure of his level of cognizance though I would imagine that he is at least aware of his surroundings. He just cannot physically respond to them.
Children never cease to amaze me in that I not-so-fondly recall how cruel they can sometimes be. Yet in the glow of achievement, these children seemed to remember a classmate who will never reach their level of achievement and may never know of such carefree moments and memories the likes of which we adults tend to draw back to when life threatens to overwhelm us. These precious children remembered even as they struggled through the school year that there is a classmate who needs a little help, and they did what they could to offer assistance to a friend in need.
I guess the reason such images provoke these emotions in me is that in my own personal and professional ambitions, I oftentimes forget how truly blessed I am, being more concerned about what I lack rather than what I already have. Worse, I forget and am too soon reminded that I am blessed not because I’m lucky or loved or favored, at least not necessarily or exclusively so. I am blessed, as so many of us are blessed, because those like Ben or the blessed children caught up in the genocide at Darfur and other parts of the world have needs that far exceed even our wildest and most vivid imaginations. We are so richly blessed not just so we can enjoy our lives or certain advantages but because someone else knows nothing but misery and pain. We are given much because much is expected of us (Luke 12:48).
Even beyond this knowledge and sometimes overwhelming sense of guilt, I forget to see that the Lord God is perfected and at His very best in the life of young Ben and so many other children who are surrounded by we who enjoy abundant blessings and forget that the meaningless drivel of our doctrinal disputes matter not at all to these innocent and – I believe - most favored of our Holy Father. These are the ones who are wounded by life’s daily grind, haunted by needs we cannot imagine nor appreciate. These children are ignored or forgotten altogether, sort of how the Lord must feel as we get too busy to pay attention to the things that really matter.
Here’s the thing about all this, though. The Bible teaches us to “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2), calling us – in fact, CHALLENGING us – to share in the suffering of those who need so desperately because if we are enjoying a life of abundance, we are absent the suffering that “produces endurance”. And if we are absent the endurance, then we are absent the character that endurance produces. And if we are absent the character, we will lack the one thing that gives us reason to endure: HOPE (Romans 5:1-5). And if we lack hope, then Paul may be suggesting to the Romans an absence of the presence of the Holy Spirit, the giver of the life and hope every living person so desperately needs.
The funny thing about endurance is that far too many of us who live within this “instant gratification” society are seriously lacking. Instant Gratification is perhaps the single greatest enemy of the innocence into which we are born because it then when we cross the rather narrow divide between innocence and self-centeredness. Instant Gratification demands of us a knowledge and an appreciation for this world and everything material that it has to offer so much so that our greatest pursuit in life is “MORE”. And if we happen to think about it, Ben and the children of Darfur might get whatever we have left over – that is, once we have acquired all that we think we need or want.
Character, at least the kind of character Paul writes about, is that nature of humanity which understands that our capacity for “more” is in focusing on those who do not have as well as helping those who have yet to “cross over” from innocence to a state of self-indulgence when we fall into the trappings of “zero down” and “easy financing”, lacking as we do the discipline required to be patient and the character to work toward more noble goals.
It is not about manual labor or physical endurance, however. It is about having a state of mind that understands the virtues of patience (faith) and hard work. It is about understanding that the world does not revolve around us and our own particular needs especially when our needs are fulfilled at least tenfold. It is about understanding the nature of the character St Paul is trying to impart to the Romans and to the Galatians. It is about knowing that a little hard work and its requisite suffering – translated “allowing” - is necessary to attain that level of character Paul writes about because the challenges to be faced will indeed seem insurmountable to those who lack the strength of character – and the faith of innocence - to endure.
Absent the sort of character to which St Paul alludes, it will be virtually impossible for us today to hear the Spirit of Truth. Jesus told His disciples, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” John 16:12
I wonder if we can bear them today. Innocence makes many observations that we fail to notice because we have become far too world-wise for our own good and for the good of others who desperately need us to hear the voice of the Spirit of Truth to offer to them the hope that comes only from the Lord, the same Hope you and I once had and can have again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)