Exodus 16:2-5, 11-15
John 6:2-35
“Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?” Romans 6:16
Many of us are slaves to certain habits and behaviors, but not all habits and behaviors are inherently destructive. While it is true that some of us are slaves to alcohol, gambling, tobacco, work, and even food; others among us are slaves to physical fitness (ok, some of YOU might be), financial discipline, and healthy eating. In fact, it may be that we are all slaves, in one sense or another, to something in our lives and not really be consciously aware of it. They are not always such bad things to have in our lives, but all behaviors speak to a certain human trait I believe to be inherent in all of us: we are creatures of habit. And because we have within us a certain “survival instinct”, we are also possessed of certain self-serving, though not necessarily selfish, behaviors. If something works for us in the beginning, we will pretty much stick with it and even protect it almost at all cost.
So as we identify those habits we could probably live without, we sometimes create new habits with which to offset the old. And sometimes we don’t. Old habits are hard to break, and it really doesn’t matter how we come by these habits or even why, although knowing why we do things might help us to stop if we truly want to stop. I remember my aunt trying – IN VAIN – to get me to stop biting my fingernails by putting that awful-tasting stuff on my nails. My initial fear was that this “stuff” might look like gloss, but it dries well. My second fear was the inevitable “change” that would come as a result if I were to stop biting my nails. Then it occurred to me: stop putting the nasty stuff on my fingernails! That problem was solved pretty quickly … but I still bite my nails.
Captivity has a nature all its very own, but we rarely associate “being held captive” with “being creatures of habit”. We typically understand habits as learned behavior, of course, but we also more often enter into these habits of our own free will, if subconsciously. That is to say, we are not often forced into habitual behavior by external forces even as we are certainly influenced. Regardless of how or why we learn certain behaviors, by the time we figure out that a substantial portion of our lives is devoted to these habits, whether good or bad, it’s very nearly too late. We are hooked and, thus, enslaved.
It might be easy to confuse “habit” with “hobby”, especially if we have hobbies we devote a great deal of time to. Some hobbies are downright addictive! And if we devote such time to these hobbies that the things we must deal with are ignored, there is a problem. It is “patterned” behavior that compels us to act very nearly mindlessly, and this is not how we were created.
Witness the people of Israel in the wilderness, suddenly free. Because the nation had been captive for 400 years, the concept of freedom is completely alien to Moses’ generation. They are unable to conceive of it or act within it - and because they are so limited even in their ability to think independently, they remember with FONDNESS the “pots of meat and … bread to the full” they once had (Exodus 16:3). It does not seem to occur to them that they were being “tended” like so much livestock because they simply did not know any better! If we re-read the first chapter of Exodus, we will be reminded that the people of Israel were not “captured” in battle. Rather, they were slowly and “shrewdly” enslaved over a period of time. It all happened because the Egyptians realized that the vast Hebrew population could spell trouble for them “in the event of war” with Egypt’s enemies (Exodus 1:10). Israel failed to realize it was being enslaved until it was too late, likely because their essential needs were being met for them even as they were being mistreated.
Jesus expresses a similar sentiment to the crowd that sought Him out on the other side of the sea: “You are looking for Me not because you saw signs but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (John 6:26). Whether these of the crowd were poor who were finally able to “eat their fill” on the other side of the sea is not nearly as relevant as the fact that they were willing to mindlessly follow a free meal, having completely missed the “big picture”. And these were likely of the same crowd from the other side willing to take Jesus “by force” to make Him their king (John 6:15). Jesus met their basic and most essential physical need and because of this, they were willing to hand over their very lives to Him without fully realizing or even appreciating Him for who He really was (is!).
Right off the cuff, one may be tempted to ask how being drawn to Jesus could be a bad thing, even if blindly and involuntarily drawn. The short answer, of course, is that there is nothing “bad” about being drawn to Jesus. The long answer goes deeper, though, in that if folks could be drawn to Jesus with just bread and fish, they could be drawn to anyone with just bread and fish. Modern-day “false prophets” know exactly what people want, and they know how to provide what people want. And if a person’s immediate and crucial need is met, whether that need is social, personal, financial, or physical, the “provider” of that relief soon becomes the “taskmaster” after having initially – and temporarily - served as “savior”. The relationship never was one of trust or even respect, and there was certainly no element of freedom or voluntary action. Like the bad habits we acquire over a period of time, we are soon “captured” without ever having been consciously aware.
I cannot say I care for Paul’s choice of words in referring to himself as a “prisoner”, though he does say “in” the Lord rather than “of” the Lord. And we do know that Paul’s “captivity” was strictly voluntary on his part; he is still possessed of his own, independent mind. Before his encounter on the road to Damascus, he was possessed of the minds of others by seeking to persecute, and ultimately destroy, this “new” movement of Christians by what we now know as “legalistic” religion that demands mindless obedience; aka, “following the crowd”, rather than a free will response.
And this is the proclamation we should acknowledge for ourselves when we freely choose to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Just as we offer our gifts, we offer ourselves completely and entirely when we freely choose to come forward and “commune” with Christ. When we hand ourselves over to Him through this Sacrament, and when we do it with our minds wide open, we are making a bold proclamation of liberty, having been set free from our sinful past. We proclaim the New Life that is offered to us, and we freely pledge our allegiance to the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Be warned, however. If you or I choose to participate in this Sacrament only because we think we are expected to, we are still prisoners of our past – and this divine Gift becomes nothing more than a mindless habit to which we are involuntarily held captive. Even worse still, it becomes poison rather than nourishment (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).
Jesus never asked for “mindless slaves”. He called His disciples His “friends” with whom He shared all He had received from the Father so that they, too, would be “in the know” (John 15:14). And we are further reminded in Luke 14:25-33 that we are to enter into a relationship with the Lord through Christ after having taken everything into consideration, to “count the cost”. If it is blind obedience He gets from us, there is no relationship, “love” is reduced to nothing more than a word, and our hearts – which He wants above all else – are not in the relationship. We are simply “mindless slaves” who have been “captured” rather than “redeemed”.
Come forward today in this Sacrament, and every day in your daily living, not because you feel obligated … but because you are loved. And because you are loved, you are thus set free.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
When Rhetoric No Longer Works
It is very simple, politically at least, in the case of President Obama and his tumbling numbers in light of the people’s genuine and legitimate concerns about health care “reform”. Mr. Obama has offered little more than rhetoric in defense of undefined and unqualified “reform”, and voters are beginning to see through it – and him. After all, how much can a man know and define what he wants if he leaves sticky details to another; in this case, the Congress? In defense of “reform” and lacking any hard information, Mr. Obama has offered little more than rhetoric (45 million Americans are without health insurance, for instance. A big number, but lacking definition and qualification). And when the polls and job approval ratings numbers begin to fall as they have, Mr. Obama turns to rhetoric in self-defense.
Intangibles are easy to defend because there is nothing tangible to point to, no hard numbers or sound data. Intangibles are most often emotional and, thus, difficult to refute even as they are so broadly defined. For instance, former VP and former US senator and former tobacco farmer Al Gore seemed fond of sharing with the nation his feelings about tobacco use following his sister’s death from lung cancer even though he continued to benefit financially from tobacco for years after her death. Well, who is going to argue with a man who still grieves the loss of a sibling? Indeed, who can? The one tangible argument in that sea of intangibles, however, is simply this: there is no cure for cancer because its cause is indeterminate. Not everyone is going to battle cancer, and not all smokers will die from lung cancer or even emphysema. Not that tobacco consumption can be a healthy endeavor, but it is hard to ignore 70- and 80-year-olds who have been using tobacco in one form or another since their teenage years.
Because President Obama has nothing tangible to hold onto during this challenging time in his administration, he has returned to the campaign trail in the sense that he is reminding voters that things would not be where and what they are had it not been for the Bush administration. It is as if he is still trying to convince us that President Bush is still running for office, while asking Americans to disregard his own lack of leadership in the health care “reform” debates, his own lack of substantial input. In his rhetoric, Obama is still attempting to demonize rich people in general and Mr. Bush specifically and offering nothing of substance to the debate. Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon said the strategy of blaming the previous team has been effective. "I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it?" she said. "Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months." (Washington Times, July 29, 2009, Joseph Curl)
“Way worse” is relative. Look at a cumulative deficit of $500 billion over the course of 8 years verses 6 months. It is apparently President Bush’s fault that President Obama took a $500 billion deficit and doubled it in the first 6 months of his administration by rhetorically demanding, and getting, a $787 billion “stimulus” package passed by congressional Democrats with a substantial majority that was nothing but rhetoric and has produced nothing but intangibles. It is a very “feel good about progress” measure that has produced virtually nothing since its inception.
It is apparently Mr. Bush’s fault that the US economy continues to shed jobs at a rate of roughly half a million per month, but the Congress – at the insistence of the president – is spending money as if plenty of taxpayers are still on the rolls. Of course we’re still in the throes of residual effects of a harsh recession, but reaching back for rhetoric (intangibles) instead of moving forward toward hard and fast solutions (tangibles) is all this US president apparently has at his disposal. That it is politically effective and used purely for political gain speaks volumes about this president’s call for “change” when it is nothing more than simply more of the same: whatever it takes to get through the next election cycle.
Intangibles are easy to defend because there is nothing tangible to point to, no hard numbers or sound data. Intangibles are most often emotional and, thus, difficult to refute even as they are so broadly defined. For instance, former VP and former US senator and former tobacco farmer Al Gore seemed fond of sharing with the nation his feelings about tobacco use following his sister’s death from lung cancer even though he continued to benefit financially from tobacco for years after her death. Well, who is going to argue with a man who still grieves the loss of a sibling? Indeed, who can? The one tangible argument in that sea of intangibles, however, is simply this: there is no cure for cancer because its cause is indeterminate. Not everyone is going to battle cancer, and not all smokers will die from lung cancer or even emphysema. Not that tobacco consumption can be a healthy endeavor, but it is hard to ignore 70- and 80-year-olds who have been using tobacco in one form or another since their teenage years.
Because President Obama has nothing tangible to hold onto during this challenging time in his administration, he has returned to the campaign trail in the sense that he is reminding voters that things would not be where and what they are had it not been for the Bush administration. It is as if he is still trying to convince us that President Bush is still running for office, while asking Americans to disregard his own lack of leadership in the health care “reform” debates, his own lack of substantial input. In his rhetoric, Obama is still attempting to demonize rich people in general and Mr. Bush specifically and offering nothing of substance to the debate. Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon said the strategy of blaming the previous team has been effective. "I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it?" she said. "Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months." (Washington Times, July 29, 2009, Joseph Curl)
“Way worse” is relative. Look at a cumulative deficit of $500 billion over the course of 8 years verses 6 months. It is apparently President Bush’s fault that President Obama took a $500 billion deficit and doubled it in the first 6 months of his administration by rhetorically demanding, and getting, a $787 billion “stimulus” package passed by congressional Democrats with a substantial majority that was nothing but rhetoric and has produced nothing but intangibles. It is a very “feel good about progress” measure that has produced virtually nothing since its inception.
It is apparently Mr. Bush’s fault that the US economy continues to shed jobs at a rate of roughly half a million per month, but the Congress – at the insistence of the president – is spending money as if plenty of taxpayers are still on the rolls. Of course we’re still in the throes of residual effects of a harsh recession, but reaching back for rhetoric (intangibles) instead of moving forward toward hard and fast solutions (tangibles) is all this US president apparently has at his disposal. That it is politically effective and used purely for political gain speaks volumes about this president’s call for “change” when it is nothing more than simply more of the same: whatever it takes to get through the next election cycle.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Getting It Right
By most accounts, Democrats do not have the votes necessary to ramrod this much-debated health legislation through the US House. Strangely enough, it is the Democratic “Blue Dogs” who are putting up most of the resistance (I wonder where these “fiscally conservative” Dogs were when the $787 billion stimulus package was rushed through the Congress with few questions or challenges?) who, along with Republicans, are concerned about the long-range financial and economic impact this legislation might have. Rep. Mike Ross, D-AR, maintains that it is more important that the Congress get this “right” rather than “quick”. Better late than never, I suppose, Mr. Ross.
Most would agree the need exists to provide a buffer to those who cannot afford adequate health care, but I cannot agree that permanent government health insurance is the way to go. In fact, the nation pretty much put a stop to such thinking in the early days of the Clinton administration when the Congress and the people saw little more than a brand-new government agency that could (and probably would) quickly grow out of control. And given that Medicare and Medicaid are both facing tremendous challenges just to stay afloat and the VA with a less-than-impressive score card (depending, of course, on who is doing the scoring), these three government entities do not exactly instill voter confidence in the government’s ability to provide such an overreaching service, let alone administer it efficiently or effectively.
Still, the debate has lost its focus. Ultimately, we are talking about access to adequate health care and not affordable health insurance, even if health insurance is the primary vehicle by which many have access to adequate health care. We must not confuse the two, however, because they are two separate issues. That 45 million Americans lack health insurance (a dubious, if unqualified, number) does not mean that our health care system cannot provide reasonable, adequate, and needed care. It may mean that we should approach this issue from another angle, especially in light of the $1 trillion deficit this nation already faces (which means the government cannot pay its bills). And this deficit will only get worse because government spending is increasing at an alarming rate, and jobs in this country are still being eliminated at a rate of roughly 500,000 per month (June was 554,000). These are formerly tax-paying citizens who are losing their jobs; this is revenue the government can never hope to recover. And to add to the current debate and existing problem, a substantial percentage of these 554,000 citizens likely just lost whatever health insurance they may have had through their former employers. COBRA is little help since the former employee is only guaranteed coverage IF he or she can afford to pay the entire premium. The problem continues to multiply as long as the US economy continues to eliminate jobs on such a grand scale.
There is a reordering of priorities that has become necessary if confidence is to be restored in the Congress and the entire legislative process. Right now the Democrats are acutely aware that mid-terms elections are just around the corner. The waning popularity of the Democratic president could spell trouble for the Democratic majority in the Congress in general, and for Democratic members of Congress from traditionally conservative states and districts. What this means is that moving too quickly on health-related legislation is dangerous for the nation as a whole because politicians from both sides will be too busy worrying about election campaigns than to be bothered with such trivial nonsense as doing what is right for the nation as a whole.
Rather than attempt to revamp the entire health-care industry at this critical moment, perhaps it might be best to begin incrementally with such stop-gap measures as expanded Medicaid coverage for those who have lost jobs. Yes, it will mean spending more money, but it will be a far sight less than the projected $1.6 trillion the proposed legislation is projected to cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and will not require another “czar” or level of bureaucracy. And by its very nature, this expansion can be made temporary, with a defined benefit period as with unemployment insurance, rather than to become a permanent fixture of the US government. Such a stop-gap, emergency measure could then help the Congress to focus on THE most important matter at hand: creating an environment with policies that will encourage business expansion and ultimately provide new jobs. More incentives could actually encourage employers to continue offering health insurance coverage, and the government would get back the money it “lost” in corporate income taxes by way of personal income taxes paid by folks making their own way.
There are countless ways the Congress can actually help besides simply thinking up new campaign slogans or overwhelming us with legislation few can even comprehend. Now is not the time for the government to expand its reach lest we wake up one morning and discover who actually answers to whom.
Most would agree the need exists to provide a buffer to those who cannot afford adequate health care, but I cannot agree that permanent government health insurance is the way to go. In fact, the nation pretty much put a stop to such thinking in the early days of the Clinton administration when the Congress and the people saw little more than a brand-new government agency that could (and probably would) quickly grow out of control. And given that Medicare and Medicaid are both facing tremendous challenges just to stay afloat and the VA with a less-than-impressive score card (depending, of course, on who is doing the scoring), these three government entities do not exactly instill voter confidence in the government’s ability to provide such an overreaching service, let alone administer it efficiently or effectively.
Still, the debate has lost its focus. Ultimately, we are talking about access to adequate health care and not affordable health insurance, even if health insurance is the primary vehicle by which many have access to adequate health care. We must not confuse the two, however, because they are two separate issues. That 45 million Americans lack health insurance (a dubious, if unqualified, number) does not mean that our health care system cannot provide reasonable, adequate, and needed care. It may mean that we should approach this issue from another angle, especially in light of the $1 trillion deficit this nation already faces (which means the government cannot pay its bills). And this deficit will only get worse because government spending is increasing at an alarming rate, and jobs in this country are still being eliminated at a rate of roughly 500,000 per month (June was 554,000). These are formerly tax-paying citizens who are losing their jobs; this is revenue the government can never hope to recover. And to add to the current debate and existing problem, a substantial percentage of these 554,000 citizens likely just lost whatever health insurance they may have had through their former employers. COBRA is little help since the former employee is only guaranteed coverage IF he or she can afford to pay the entire premium. The problem continues to multiply as long as the US economy continues to eliminate jobs on such a grand scale.
There is a reordering of priorities that has become necessary if confidence is to be restored in the Congress and the entire legislative process. Right now the Democrats are acutely aware that mid-terms elections are just around the corner. The waning popularity of the Democratic president could spell trouble for the Democratic majority in the Congress in general, and for Democratic members of Congress from traditionally conservative states and districts. What this means is that moving too quickly on health-related legislation is dangerous for the nation as a whole because politicians from both sides will be too busy worrying about election campaigns than to be bothered with such trivial nonsense as doing what is right for the nation as a whole.
Rather than attempt to revamp the entire health-care industry at this critical moment, perhaps it might be best to begin incrementally with such stop-gap measures as expanded Medicaid coverage for those who have lost jobs. Yes, it will mean spending more money, but it will be a far sight less than the projected $1.6 trillion the proposed legislation is projected to cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and will not require another “czar” or level of bureaucracy. And by its very nature, this expansion can be made temporary, with a defined benefit period as with unemployment insurance, rather than to become a permanent fixture of the US government. Such a stop-gap, emergency measure could then help the Congress to focus on THE most important matter at hand: creating an environment with policies that will encourage business expansion and ultimately provide new jobs. More incentives could actually encourage employers to continue offering health insurance coverage, and the government would get back the money it “lost” in corporate income taxes by way of personal income taxes paid by folks making their own way.
There are countless ways the Congress can actually help besides simply thinking up new campaign slogans or overwhelming us with legislation few can even comprehend. Now is not the time for the government to expand its reach lest we wake up one morning and discover who actually answers to whom.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
In the matter and manner of Intrusion
"We are reminded that this decision [Roe v Wade] not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose." President Barack Obama, January 23, 2009
Intrusion, I think, is a matter of perspective especially under such circumstances as those pertaining to abortion. President Obama says the government should not intrude in those “most private family matters” as abortion (flawed logic, that), but this statement was also made the day he reversed the so-called “Mexico City Policy” which had previously banned US taxpayer funds from being used to promote or provide abortion abroad. In his aversion to intrusion, President Obama has pretty much given the US government an overwhelmingly intrusive, rather than a more appropriate neutral, role. The Congress seems willing, if eager, to help.
The US House just passed HR 2410, the “Foreign Affairs Reauthorization Act”, which now goes to the US Senate for its consideration. Within this Act is the creation of a new office within the US State Department called the “Office for Global Women’s Issues”. My own congressman, US Rep. Mike Ross, D-AR, in response to my concerns about what I believe to be the understated issues and back door advances involved in the creation of such an office, said that HR 2410 had nothing to do with abortion or the Mexico City policy. If this much is true, then HR2410 is little more than an appropriations bill for the US State Department. If Mr. Ross was wrong in his assessment – and this remains to be seen in full – then he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly naïve. In a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is quoted as having said, “We are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care” and that “reproductive health includes access to abortion.” In the case of Mike Ross and his assessment (he voted in favor of HR2410), my vote is for his naiveté (after all, he is a “good ol’ boy, I reckon).
US Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, offered an amendment that would have prevented funding for such an office of “empowerment”, but his amendment was defeated. Such a move leads me to believe that abortion and the Mexico City Policy have everything to do with the creation of such an office as designed to "coordinate efforts of the United States Government regarding gender integration and women’s empowerment in United States foreign policy." To this end, it sounds to me as though government “intrusion” is exactly what the creation of this office is all about, but the intrusion will reach far beyond the borders of the United States. This new office of “empowerment” also sounds a lot like a conduit through which these previously banned US funds (Mexico City policy) can be channeled. The “good will” of the United States is no longer about the principles of democracy. It is, instead, about the intentional destruction of unwanted children like so many litters of puppies and kittens.
What I find even more disconcerting than a government in debt spending even more on such an abhorrent act is the rather aggressive position this administration is taking on the issue of abortion, as if suggesting that there is not nearly enough death in this crazy world, that the US government needs to export and finance even more – and apparently to countries where there is not enough. It is one thing to remain neutral and acknowledge that each of us has, I suppose, an inherent “right” to destroy our own lives if we so choose; it is quite another thing to actively and aggressively promote as “foreign aid” that “right” by which we destroy the lives of others, presuming that such destruction of life will somehow enhance our own. The world and this administration may consider the willful destruction of innocent life to be “empowerment”, but there will soon be a terrible price to be paid for our cavalier attitude regarding our own children’s very right to exist. Are there really so many cold-blooded members of this Congress and this administration that they actually consider such death and destruction a “right” to be celebrated and protected and even funded, no matter the cost or concern?
This administration, indeed this entire government, has long crossed a line that should never have been crossed, but this administration and this Congress seem to believe we’ve not gone far enough. “Intrusion” will soon be the least of our worries. What this nation cannot see through such despicable policies is that the US government is involved in population control within sovereign territories outside of US control under the pretense of empowering women, which will likely take place within national borders of those nations and cultures in which women are still considered second-class citizens or outright possessions. How will destroying future generations change this attitude or enhance life and the future of these nations?
It is a sad day indeed when our nation, and far too many of this nation’s Christians, have allowed us all to digress to such a point when we consider the destruction of innocent human life to be “progress”. That is the perspective of this administration and this Congress, and we are allowing it to take place. The blood of these millions of children will demand an accounting soon enough and it will be as the 19th century American philosopher, Elbert Hubbard, once said: “We will be punished by our sins, not for them.” Shame on them for bringing this to us; shame on us for allowing it.
Intrusion, I think, is a matter of perspective especially under such circumstances as those pertaining to abortion. President Obama says the government should not intrude in those “most private family matters” as abortion (flawed logic, that), but this statement was also made the day he reversed the so-called “Mexico City Policy” which had previously banned US taxpayer funds from being used to promote or provide abortion abroad. In his aversion to intrusion, President Obama has pretty much given the US government an overwhelmingly intrusive, rather than a more appropriate neutral, role. The Congress seems willing, if eager, to help.
The US House just passed HR 2410, the “Foreign Affairs Reauthorization Act”, which now goes to the US Senate for its consideration. Within this Act is the creation of a new office within the US State Department called the “Office for Global Women’s Issues”. My own congressman, US Rep. Mike Ross, D-AR, in response to my concerns about what I believe to be the understated issues and back door advances involved in the creation of such an office, said that HR 2410 had nothing to do with abortion or the Mexico City policy. If this much is true, then HR2410 is little more than an appropriations bill for the US State Department. If Mr. Ross was wrong in his assessment – and this remains to be seen in full – then he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly naïve. In a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is quoted as having said, “We are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care” and that “reproductive health includes access to abortion.” In the case of Mike Ross and his assessment (he voted in favor of HR2410), my vote is for his naiveté (after all, he is a “good ol’ boy, I reckon).
US Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, offered an amendment that would have prevented funding for such an office of “empowerment”, but his amendment was defeated. Such a move leads me to believe that abortion and the Mexico City Policy have everything to do with the creation of such an office as designed to "coordinate efforts of the United States Government regarding gender integration and women’s empowerment in United States foreign policy." To this end, it sounds to me as though government “intrusion” is exactly what the creation of this office is all about, but the intrusion will reach far beyond the borders of the United States. This new office of “empowerment” also sounds a lot like a conduit through which these previously banned US funds (Mexico City policy) can be channeled. The “good will” of the United States is no longer about the principles of democracy. It is, instead, about the intentional destruction of unwanted children like so many litters of puppies and kittens.
What I find even more disconcerting than a government in debt spending even more on such an abhorrent act is the rather aggressive position this administration is taking on the issue of abortion, as if suggesting that there is not nearly enough death in this crazy world, that the US government needs to export and finance even more – and apparently to countries where there is not enough. It is one thing to remain neutral and acknowledge that each of us has, I suppose, an inherent “right” to destroy our own lives if we so choose; it is quite another thing to actively and aggressively promote as “foreign aid” that “right” by which we destroy the lives of others, presuming that such destruction of life will somehow enhance our own. The world and this administration may consider the willful destruction of innocent life to be “empowerment”, but there will soon be a terrible price to be paid for our cavalier attitude regarding our own children’s very right to exist. Are there really so many cold-blooded members of this Congress and this administration that they actually consider such death and destruction a “right” to be celebrated and protected and even funded, no matter the cost or concern?
This administration, indeed this entire government, has long crossed a line that should never have been crossed, but this administration and this Congress seem to believe we’ve not gone far enough. “Intrusion” will soon be the least of our worries. What this nation cannot see through such despicable policies is that the US government is involved in population control within sovereign territories outside of US control under the pretense of empowering women, which will likely take place within national borders of those nations and cultures in which women are still considered second-class citizens or outright possessions. How will destroying future generations change this attitude or enhance life and the future of these nations?
It is a sad day indeed when our nation, and far too many of this nation’s Christians, have allowed us all to digress to such a point when we consider the destruction of innocent human life to be “progress”. That is the perspective of this administration and this Congress, and we are allowing it to take place. The blood of these millions of children will demand an accounting soon enough and it will be as the 19th century American philosopher, Elbert Hubbard, once said: “We will be punished by our sins, not for them.” Shame on them for bringing this to us; shame on us for allowing it.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Defining a Christian Nation
Since President Obama’s speech in Cairo a few weeks ago, there has been a renewed interest in debate over whether the United States can accurately or even aesthetically be described as a “Christian” nation and whether such a designation can be attributed to a matter of ideology or is a manner of semantics. While some polls indicate roughly 80% of Americans claiming a Christian affiliation, this surely cannot be the sole means by which we make a determination about whether America is a “Christian” nation. For the faithful, the reason why this nation should be a nation under God is biblically clear as well as by the numerous examples and quotes from the days of our founding and beyond, all as expressions of individual, rather than collective, faith. And while the “Creator” (as well as “Nature’s God”, and “Divine Providence”) is acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence, it must be remembered in this particular context that we – presumably as Christians seeking our Christian independence – were demanding independence from another Christian nation, one in which the king himself was officially not only the head of state but also head of the Church, the monarch often referred to as “defender of the faith”.
Arguments have been made that many (“many” being relative, of course) chose to flee England precisely because of the lack of religious freedom, but is it not fair to say that England was “officially” a Christian nation? If this is true, and I think it must be, then what sort of religious freedom were we seeking that we would flee a religious, if Christian, nation in search of another? If the argument is then made that we just didn’t like that religion, that it was too Catholic or too Anglican or too near to the king, then what sort of religious expression might we choose to enforce as a means and a standard by which we can be clearly distinguished as a Christian nation, especially since we were defined as such in Europe but chose to run away from it? Religionists may not have cared for a king or a pope, but were they not all commonly defined by the New Covenant?
What of the flag-waving Christian patriots who clearly love America but just as clearly hate Americans, especially those Americans with whom they disagree? White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants had a corner on “official” Christianity in the early days of this republic that was just as repressive, if not more so, than that which was experienced in Europe. How is American Christianity somehow better than European Christianity, and how has American Christianity brought a nation closer to Divine Providence? How is hating on one’s neighbor indicative of a New Covenant Christian who demands adherence to and enforcement of his or her own Christian ideals while pure, raw, unadulterated hatred burns in the pit of his or her soul? Can anyone spell A-Y-A-T-O-L-L-A-H?
Are we a Christian nation, or are we a nation predominately populated by Christians? To infer that we are a Christian nation is to suggest that official government policies and practices exist, or once existed and have since been undermined, for the sole purpose of supporting and maintaining exclusively Christianity. The existence of abortion alone (a most unholy act of human destruction!), as supported by this government and its courts but clearly and officially renounced by the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant Christians, challenges the notion that this nation is distinctly Christian down to the very core. Even before this, however, is the absolute and constitutional reality that this nation is decidedly and officially not Christian nor Jewish nor Muslim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
This much, at least, seems clear. The United States government is prohibited from engaging in religious practice lest the government somehow be accused of engaging in religious establishment. It matters not whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other number of religions existing around the world. What should matter, and what seems equally clear from history, is that disaster has usually resulted from any government engaging in the act of supporting, imposing, or enforcing any religion upon its people. By this very same token, the government is equally clearly prohibited from engaging in the act of “prohibiting the free exercise …” of any religion. In the matter of religion, the government is constitutionally compelled to remain neutral in matters of religious faith but because the government cannot prohibit the “free exercise” of religion, it seems inferred that the government is duty-bound to defend one’s right to “free exercise”.
This nation’s history cannot be ignored, however, and it is that many did choose to come to these shores to flee religious persecution, but it is the very context of this persecution that should be a cause of alarm among flag-waving Christians who would insist upon a “Christian” nation. Christianity, as practiced, is as diverse and as varied as its population. There is a reason why there are, among Christians, those Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Pentecostalists, etc. that cannot (or will not) agree on particular theological or doctrinal standards. There are core differences in liturgical practices and in understanding the difference between what constitutes a “holy ordinance” and a “holy sacrament” such as matrimony, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. Shall it be the majority that gets to make the call? In this context, it must be remembered that the “majority” would never have allowed slaves to be freed, let alone be granted their inherent humanity.
None of this is to say that we Christians cannot live and worship as we see fit, but all of it is to insist that we at least respect, and be respected by, those who do not agree with us. This much is constitutionally protected. However, this freedom we have has not been granted to us by Divine Providence or by man’s law as a means by which to demand anything of anyone other than ourselves. If there is anything to be proved, the burden of this proof lays squarely on the shoulders of we who insist that our beliefs and practices do indeed offer a better way of life. As it is so often said, “the proof is in the pudding”.
The United States is a nation of Christians, many of whom took upon themselves the responsibility of defending a nation’s principles and ideals. The United States is also a nation of non-Christians, religious and not, who have also borne upon themselves the duties and responsibilities of defending not exclusively Christianity (or any other religion) but, rather, a nation; a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men (humanity) are created equal”, absent any religious qualifiers. This is the fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded and built, and it is upon this principle that this nation must stand. It is a very Christian notion of freedom and liberty that offers rather than demands, that is edifying rather than destructive, that is selfless rather than selfish.
There is a substantial difference between the principles of our nation and the fundamentals of our faith; Christians especially should be grateful, rather than hateful, for these differences.
Arguments have been made that many (“many” being relative, of course) chose to flee England precisely because of the lack of religious freedom, but is it not fair to say that England was “officially” a Christian nation? If this is true, and I think it must be, then what sort of religious freedom were we seeking that we would flee a religious, if Christian, nation in search of another? If the argument is then made that we just didn’t like that religion, that it was too Catholic or too Anglican or too near to the king, then what sort of religious expression might we choose to enforce as a means and a standard by which we can be clearly distinguished as a Christian nation, especially since we were defined as such in Europe but chose to run away from it? Religionists may not have cared for a king or a pope, but were they not all commonly defined by the New Covenant?
What of the flag-waving Christian patriots who clearly love America but just as clearly hate Americans, especially those Americans with whom they disagree? White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants had a corner on “official” Christianity in the early days of this republic that was just as repressive, if not more so, than that which was experienced in Europe. How is American Christianity somehow better than European Christianity, and how has American Christianity brought a nation closer to Divine Providence? How is hating on one’s neighbor indicative of a New Covenant Christian who demands adherence to and enforcement of his or her own Christian ideals while pure, raw, unadulterated hatred burns in the pit of his or her soul? Can anyone spell A-Y-A-T-O-L-L-A-H?
Are we a Christian nation, or are we a nation predominately populated by Christians? To infer that we are a Christian nation is to suggest that official government policies and practices exist, or once existed and have since been undermined, for the sole purpose of supporting and maintaining exclusively Christianity. The existence of abortion alone (a most unholy act of human destruction!), as supported by this government and its courts but clearly and officially renounced by the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant Christians, challenges the notion that this nation is distinctly Christian down to the very core. Even before this, however, is the absolute and constitutional reality that this nation is decidedly and officially not Christian nor Jewish nor Muslim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
This much, at least, seems clear. The United States government is prohibited from engaging in religious practice lest the government somehow be accused of engaging in religious establishment. It matters not whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other number of religions existing around the world. What should matter, and what seems equally clear from history, is that disaster has usually resulted from any government engaging in the act of supporting, imposing, or enforcing any religion upon its people. By this very same token, the government is equally clearly prohibited from engaging in the act of “prohibiting the free exercise …” of any religion. In the matter of religion, the government is constitutionally compelled to remain neutral in matters of religious faith but because the government cannot prohibit the “free exercise” of religion, it seems inferred that the government is duty-bound to defend one’s right to “free exercise”.
This nation’s history cannot be ignored, however, and it is that many did choose to come to these shores to flee religious persecution, but it is the very context of this persecution that should be a cause of alarm among flag-waving Christians who would insist upon a “Christian” nation. Christianity, as practiced, is as diverse and as varied as its population. There is a reason why there are, among Christians, those Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Pentecostalists, etc. that cannot (or will not) agree on particular theological or doctrinal standards. There are core differences in liturgical practices and in understanding the difference between what constitutes a “holy ordinance” and a “holy sacrament” such as matrimony, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. Shall it be the majority that gets to make the call? In this context, it must be remembered that the “majority” would never have allowed slaves to be freed, let alone be granted their inherent humanity.
None of this is to say that we Christians cannot live and worship as we see fit, but all of it is to insist that we at least respect, and be respected by, those who do not agree with us. This much is constitutionally protected. However, this freedom we have has not been granted to us by Divine Providence or by man’s law as a means by which to demand anything of anyone other than ourselves. If there is anything to be proved, the burden of this proof lays squarely on the shoulders of we who insist that our beliefs and practices do indeed offer a better way of life. As it is so often said, “the proof is in the pudding”.
The United States is a nation of Christians, many of whom took upon themselves the responsibility of defending a nation’s principles and ideals. The United States is also a nation of non-Christians, religious and not, who have also borne upon themselves the duties and responsibilities of defending not exclusively Christianity (or any other religion) but, rather, a nation; a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men (humanity) are created equal”, absent any religious qualifiers. This is the fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded and built, and it is upon this principle that this nation must stand. It is a very Christian notion of freedom and liberty that offers rather than demands, that is edifying rather than destructive, that is selfless rather than selfish.
There is a substantial difference between the principles of our nation and the fundamentals of our faith; Christians especially should be grateful, rather than hateful, for these differences.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Not For Everyone
“As a public church, we are called to address significant social issues that affect the common good. We seek to bring God’s justice not only in the world but also in the church. The social statements of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are social policy documents, adopted by the churchwide assembly in accordance with our policies and procedures.” Evangelical Lutheran preamble to Social Statements
ABORTION:
We in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are united with all human beings and the whole creation because God has created us and all that exists ...
Induced abortion, the act of intentionally terminating a developing life in the womb, is one of the issues about which members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have serious differences. These differences are also found within society ...
A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb expresses a common commitment to life. This requires that we move beyond the usual "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" language in discussing abortion ...
Women, faced with unintended pregnancies, are called to be good stewards of life by making responsible decisions in light of these relationships ...
All of life is a mysterious, awesome gift of God ...
Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity ...
Sin is evident in the many ways human lives are not given equal respect or treated with high value, but are subject to abuse, violence, and neglect by individuals, groups, and entire societies. We are caught up in a web of sin in which we both sin and are sinned against ...
Our faith is to be active in love and our freedom used for the benefit of one another ...
… our love for neighbor embraces especially those who are most vulnerable, including both the pregnant woman and the life in her womb ...
Because we believe that God is the creator of life, the number of induced abortions is a source of deep concern to this church. We mourn the loss of life that God has created …
****************
George Tiller, the late-term abortion provider who was shot and killed in church recently, was in attendance at an Evangelical Lutheran Church. Because of Tiller’s chosen profession and apparent sense of religion (I have no idea the state of his faith), an examination of what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA) has to say about abortion seemed in order.
This is no attempt to vilify or implicate specifically the ECLA (not to be confused with the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, which is distinctly pro-life) in the doctor’s personal and professional choices and endeavors. Indeed, as a United Methodist pastor, I have issues with my own denomination’s stance on abortion (absolutely no, under certain circumstances; kinda sorta maybe under others). In a culture such as ours, however, and in light of the reality that more and more persons are moving away from church attendance and active participation in church life, it is interesting to read official church statements, especially those statements that attempt to take a stand but seem to work harder at including “something for everyone” without actually taking a stand, and then wonder why there seems to be so much confusion and falling away among the faithful.
It is noteworthy, in a society such as ours in which it seems decreed by far too many churches that the value of human life is measured only by our willingness to support and defend that life, that children are gunning down children in the streets all across America with reckless abandon and with absolutely no respect for human life nor sensing any value of such life. These children kill as it suits their own selfish purposes just as we kill unborn children and feebly attempt to justify our decisions while condemning theirs. The message is just not consistent, and there is no firm belief to embrace. It’s a “kinda sorta” proposition that refuses to name an evil and call it what it is for fear of upsetting or offending, perhaps in an effort to prevent an exodus of members, only to discover that such efforts to appease everyone was ultimately in vain.
The ELCA [non]stand on abortion is not unique to the ELCA but is, instead, indicative of far too many “connectional” churches as well as many independent and non-denominational churches that celebrate “diversity” by diversifying essentials of the faith so as to be considered “inclusive” but actually being rendered “impotent”. Life itself as a “gift of God” is as essential and as basic as “essentials of faith” can be; Evangelical Lutherans and United Methodists (among many others) do their level best to avoid nasty confrontations by refusing to come down on one side or the other and do a great disservice to those who look for a faith and a God that will not shift according to cultural or political winds. To do so is to not only earn but also embrace the true meaning of “hypocrisy”.
The Roman Catholic Church may take a lot of flak from a lot of folks, but the RCC can be counted on to stand firm in what it professes to be true. There is no “popular” vote with regard to Church doctrine, and some things are not open to secular discussion or debate. There is no vain attempt to be culturally relevant, and there is no feeble celebration of “cultural diversity” when it comes to sound doctrine. Those who insist that the Church needs to “get with the times” fail to understand that the Church’s refusal to negotiate is actually what was once known as “doctrinal integrity”.
Refusing to be swayed by the prevailing secular humanist or relativist culture grants to the Church the necessary moral authority to speak to such matters. All other churches that seek to be “culturally relevant” to worldly standards and practices and vainly attempt to appease those who cannot or will not embrace such absolutes as the divine nature of life itself fail to understand or embrace the standards of the Kingdom of Heaven and our call to be relevant toward that Kingdom rather than to the worldly culture we live in.
In the end, although the Christian faith is for anyone who is willing to enter into the New Covenant and walk the walk of Christ, the harsh truth is that it is not for everyone. There will always be those unwilling or even unable to enter into this life-changing and life-SUSTAINING Covenant. Sad, but true. And this includes entire churches that surrender their moral authority to the prevailing cultural authority.
ABORTION:
We in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are united with all human beings and the whole creation because God has created us and all that exists ...
Induced abortion, the act of intentionally terminating a developing life in the womb, is one of the issues about which members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have serious differences. These differences are also found within society ...
A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb expresses a common commitment to life. This requires that we move beyond the usual "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" language in discussing abortion ...
Women, faced with unintended pregnancies, are called to be good stewards of life by making responsible decisions in light of these relationships ...
All of life is a mysterious, awesome gift of God ...
Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity ...
Sin is evident in the many ways human lives are not given equal respect or treated with high value, but are subject to abuse, violence, and neglect by individuals, groups, and entire societies. We are caught up in a web of sin in which we both sin and are sinned against ...
Our faith is to be active in love and our freedom used for the benefit of one another ...
… our love for neighbor embraces especially those who are most vulnerable, including both the pregnant woman and the life in her womb ...
Because we believe that God is the creator of life, the number of induced abortions is a source of deep concern to this church. We mourn the loss of life that God has created …
****************
George Tiller, the late-term abortion provider who was shot and killed in church recently, was in attendance at an Evangelical Lutheran Church. Because of Tiller’s chosen profession and apparent sense of religion (I have no idea the state of his faith), an examination of what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA) has to say about abortion seemed in order.
This is no attempt to vilify or implicate specifically the ECLA (not to be confused with the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, which is distinctly pro-life) in the doctor’s personal and professional choices and endeavors. Indeed, as a United Methodist pastor, I have issues with my own denomination’s stance on abortion (absolutely no, under certain circumstances; kinda sorta maybe under others). In a culture such as ours, however, and in light of the reality that more and more persons are moving away from church attendance and active participation in church life, it is interesting to read official church statements, especially those statements that attempt to take a stand but seem to work harder at including “something for everyone” without actually taking a stand, and then wonder why there seems to be so much confusion and falling away among the faithful.
It is noteworthy, in a society such as ours in which it seems decreed by far too many churches that the value of human life is measured only by our willingness to support and defend that life, that children are gunning down children in the streets all across America with reckless abandon and with absolutely no respect for human life nor sensing any value of such life. These children kill as it suits their own selfish purposes just as we kill unborn children and feebly attempt to justify our decisions while condemning theirs. The message is just not consistent, and there is no firm belief to embrace. It’s a “kinda sorta” proposition that refuses to name an evil and call it what it is for fear of upsetting or offending, perhaps in an effort to prevent an exodus of members, only to discover that such efforts to appease everyone was ultimately in vain.
The ELCA [non]stand on abortion is not unique to the ELCA but is, instead, indicative of far too many “connectional” churches as well as many independent and non-denominational churches that celebrate “diversity” by diversifying essentials of the faith so as to be considered “inclusive” but actually being rendered “impotent”. Life itself as a “gift of God” is as essential and as basic as “essentials of faith” can be; Evangelical Lutherans and United Methodists (among many others) do their level best to avoid nasty confrontations by refusing to come down on one side or the other and do a great disservice to those who look for a faith and a God that will not shift according to cultural or political winds. To do so is to not only earn but also embrace the true meaning of “hypocrisy”.
The Roman Catholic Church may take a lot of flak from a lot of folks, but the RCC can be counted on to stand firm in what it professes to be true. There is no “popular” vote with regard to Church doctrine, and some things are not open to secular discussion or debate. There is no vain attempt to be culturally relevant, and there is no feeble celebration of “cultural diversity” when it comes to sound doctrine. Those who insist that the Church needs to “get with the times” fail to understand that the Church’s refusal to negotiate is actually what was once known as “doctrinal integrity”.
Refusing to be swayed by the prevailing secular humanist or relativist culture grants to the Church the necessary moral authority to speak to such matters. All other churches that seek to be “culturally relevant” to worldly standards and practices and vainly attempt to appease those who cannot or will not embrace such absolutes as the divine nature of life itself fail to understand or embrace the standards of the Kingdom of Heaven and our call to be relevant toward that Kingdom rather than to the worldly culture we live in.
In the end, although the Christian faith is for anyone who is willing to enter into the New Covenant and walk the walk of Christ, the harsh truth is that it is not for everyone. There will always be those unwilling or even unable to enter into this life-changing and life-SUSTAINING Covenant. Sad, but true. And this includes entire churches that surrender their moral authority to the prevailing cultural authority.
Without Exception
Whether one would see a glass as half-empty or half-full would depend entirely on one’s outlook on life. Whether one is a pessimist or an optimist depends, in large measure, on whether one has the faith to get through from one day to the next. It is a given, of course, that even Christians get a little “down in the mouth” from time to time; the world has a way of closing in around us whenever money is tight or the kids have too much going on or there are sick friends and family members or … or …
It also occurred to me not long ago that we Christians are sometimes a little too free with negative thoughts, for instance, when we refer to those who are terminally ill as “dying”. Such a mindset helps to lend credence to such laws – clearly laws “of the flesh” - as those created in Washington State and Oregon known as “death with dignity”, laws that appear noble on the surface but come up severely short in biblical and practical wisdom especially when we consider and then dismiss the sacred nature and value of human life, regardless of the state of that life. Terminally ill patients are indeed dying, as is so often said, but no more or less so than any one of us at any given time. We are all on borrowed time.
Death is imminent; without exception, we are all going to pass from this world sooner or later but until life passes from us, we are all, also without exception, very much alive. Our existence, our very being has intrinsic value that goes far beyond the human capacity to adequately or accurately measure. So it must necessarily be not a choice between “living and dying” but, rather, “alive or dead”. There can be no in-between without creating the so-called “gray areas” in which the definition of a “life worth living” becomes a debatable topic subject only to the secular value our society chooses to assign according to the usefulness of that life.
In such “slippery slope” areas as abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and euthanasia, divine value is not even taken into consideration not only because such value is immeasurable and incomprehensible by human standards but also because, by these same human standards, the value of life becomes relative. Relative to what would remain to be seen and is ambiguous at best, but that relativity is defined only in moment-to-moment social situations and political circumstances. Not only does such thinking violate the premise that Life is in the realm of our Holy Father and no other, but “slippery slopes” lead to such deranged thinking as human life being only slightly more advanced than that of a monkey or a rat or any other “lab” animal subject to human experimentation. Think of the Nazi era.
The divine value of human life is poetically expressed in Isaiah when the prophet is called forth in chapter 6. The prophet acknowledges his unworthiness as with “unclean lips” from among a people of “unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5) especially while in the Divine Presence. In spite of his perceived unworthiness and in spite of his perceived unworthiness of the people whom Isaiah will be preaching to, the Lord sees fit to continue to reach out, refusing to disavow His own people, His own creation. They are all, without exception, still very much alive and worth the effort; even those who will ultimately reject Him. They are all, without exception, of intrinsic value not only to one another but to the Lord and His purposes. It is, by decree of the Lord alone, that all life has value and cannot – in fact, must not – be subjected to measure by man’s arbitrary, conditional, fickle and, ultimately, finite standards.
In the book, "Seven Theories of Human Nature", Leslie Stevens writes, “The Christian doctrine of man sees him primarily in relation to God, who has created him to occupy a special position in the universe. Man is made in the image of God, to have dominion over the rest of creation; he is unique in that he has in him something of the self-consciousness and ability to love freely which is characteristic of God Himself. God created man for fellowship with Himself, so man fulfills the purpose of his life only when he loves and serves his Creator ... It is a common and recurrent misinterpretation of Christian doctrine that it asserts a dualism between the material body and an immaterial soul …” (pg 45)
Think of it in Paul’s terms of our being “debtors … to the Spirit” (Romans 8:12-13), that whole sum and source of our existence by which our true and genuine value is not only given but is also divinely measured. Living “according to the flesh” places a finite and limited value on our existence; we’re only good and useful until we die. And if we choose to live “according to the flesh … [we] will die”, Paul writes, as opposed to our ability to “freely choose” to reflect the characteristics of our divine nature with and in our physical, mortal selves, having been called into being by our Divine Creator. Our existence is measured by our own choices but is ultimately assigned its value by the Lord from the very beginning.
Even though we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14), we cannot deny that we are born of flesh and Jesus does make such a distinction between the two and even suggests a certain “dualism” in John 3:6; “What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of Spirit is Spirit”. Jesus implies a distinction between our physical, fleshly selves and the Divine Nature which comes when we are in communion with the Spirit. It is only then when there can be a fellowship between God and man. Nevertheless, we are still occupying our mortal bodies and using our mortal minds. And it strikes Jesus as strange that Nicodemus, “a teacher of Israel” (vs 10), lacks a clear understanding of this spiritual – and Scriptural – reality.
In Isaiah 44:3 it is written, “I will pour water on him who is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour My Spirit on your descendants and My blessing on your offspring.” It is also written in Ezekiel 36:26, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you”.
Spiritual restoration, then, is not an exclusively New Testament doctrine. It was the Lord’s intent to restore Israel after the Exile even after they betrayed Him and profaned His Name by their actions, and these were mortal, physical bodies that were to be restored. It is the intent of the Holy Father to restore us all to that Divine Image in which we were first created. And it is by His Hand and His decree alone that humanity is restored to that Divine Fellowship for which we were “fearfully and wonderfully made”. And Jesus wraps it all up nice and neat with this statement: “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17).
If we, then, know and appreciate and even embrace this Truth, then we must surely know and appreciate that the Lord is no respecter of persons. That is, He does not play favorites. He loves totally and completely ALL of His creation. That which is in store for you and for me is also what is in store for others. Having been born again through baptism, that Sacrament of the Church by which we are brought into the New Covenant and given the gift of Life by the Holy Spirit, it then becomes incumbent upon us to serve as witnesses of this Truth: Life is God, and God is Life. There is nothing ambiguous about it. And the Scripture is clear: the value of our lives is not measured according to our fleshly usefulness though it is our flesh that “freely chooses” that Great Gift.
The passing of our mortal bodies is a given and will come to us all sooner or later but for those who “freely choose” to walk and live in the Spirit, Life is far from over and we are NOT “dying”. We are LIVING … and will forevermore.
It also occurred to me not long ago that we Christians are sometimes a little too free with negative thoughts, for instance, when we refer to those who are terminally ill as “dying”. Such a mindset helps to lend credence to such laws – clearly laws “of the flesh” - as those created in Washington State and Oregon known as “death with dignity”, laws that appear noble on the surface but come up severely short in biblical and practical wisdom especially when we consider and then dismiss the sacred nature and value of human life, regardless of the state of that life. Terminally ill patients are indeed dying, as is so often said, but no more or less so than any one of us at any given time. We are all on borrowed time.
Death is imminent; without exception, we are all going to pass from this world sooner or later but until life passes from us, we are all, also without exception, very much alive. Our existence, our very being has intrinsic value that goes far beyond the human capacity to adequately or accurately measure. So it must necessarily be not a choice between “living and dying” but, rather, “alive or dead”. There can be no in-between without creating the so-called “gray areas” in which the definition of a “life worth living” becomes a debatable topic subject only to the secular value our society chooses to assign according to the usefulness of that life.
In such “slippery slope” areas as abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and euthanasia, divine value is not even taken into consideration not only because such value is immeasurable and incomprehensible by human standards but also because, by these same human standards, the value of life becomes relative. Relative to what would remain to be seen and is ambiguous at best, but that relativity is defined only in moment-to-moment social situations and political circumstances. Not only does such thinking violate the premise that Life is in the realm of our Holy Father and no other, but “slippery slopes” lead to such deranged thinking as human life being only slightly more advanced than that of a monkey or a rat or any other “lab” animal subject to human experimentation. Think of the Nazi era.
The divine value of human life is poetically expressed in Isaiah when the prophet is called forth in chapter 6. The prophet acknowledges his unworthiness as with “unclean lips” from among a people of “unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5) especially while in the Divine Presence. In spite of his perceived unworthiness and in spite of his perceived unworthiness of the people whom Isaiah will be preaching to, the Lord sees fit to continue to reach out, refusing to disavow His own people, His own creation. They are all, without exception, still very much alive and worth the effort; even those who will ultimately reject Him. They are all, without exception, of intrinsic value not only to one another but to the Lord and His purposes. It is, by decree of the Lord alone, that all life has value and cannot – in fact, must not – be subjected to measure by man’s arbitrary, conditional, fickle and, ultimately, finite standards.
In the book, "Seven Theories of Human Nature", Leslie Stevens writes, “The Christian doctrine of man sees him primarily in relation to God, who has created him to occupy a special position in the universe. Man is made in the image of God, to have dominion over the rest of creation; he is unique in that he has in him something of the self-consciousness and ability to love freely which is characteristic of God Himself. God created man for fellowship with Himself, so man fulfills the purpose of his life only when he loves and serves his Creator ... It is a common and recurrent misinterpretation of Christian doctrine that it asserts a dualism between the material body and an immaterial soul …” (pg 45)
Think of it in Paul’s terms of our being “debtors … to the Spirit” (Romans 8:12-13), that whole sum and source of our existence by which our true and genuine value is not only given but is also divinely measured. Living “according to the flesh” places a finite and limited value on our existence; we’re only good and useful until we die. And if we choose to live “according to the flesh … [we] will die”, Paul writes, as opposed to our ability to “freely choose” to reflect the characteristics of our divine nature with and in our physical, mortal selves, having been called into being by our Divine Creator. Our existence is measured by our own choices but is ultimately assigned its value by the Lord from the very beginning.
Even though we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14), we cannot deny that we are born of flesh and Jesus does make such a distinction between the two and even suggests a certain “dualism” in John 3:6; “What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of Spirit is Spirit”. Jesus implies a distinction between our physical, fleshly selves and the Divine Nature which comes when we are in communion with the Spirit. It is only then when there can be a fellowship between God and man. Nevertheless, we are still occupying our mortal bodies and using our mortal minds. And it strikes Jesus as strange that Nicodemus, “a teacher of Israel” (vs 10), lacks a clear understanding of this spiritual – and Scriptural – reality.
In Isaiah 44:3 it is written, “I will pour water on him who is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour My Spirit on your descendants and My blessing on your offspring.” It is also written in Ezekiel 36:26, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you”.
Spiritual restoration, then, is not an exclusively New Testament doctrine. It was the Lord’s intent to restore Israel after the Exile even after they betrayed Him and profaned His Name by their actions, and these were mortal, physical bodies that were to be restored. It is the intent of the Holy Father to restore us all to that Divine Image in which we were first created. And it is by His Hand and His decree alone that humanity is restored to that Divine Fellowship for which we were “fearfully and wonderfully made”. And Jesus wraps it all up nice and neat with this statement: “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17).
If we, then, know and appreciate and even embrace this Truth, then we must surely know and appreciate that the Lord is no respecter of persons. That is, He does not play favorites. He loves totally and completely ALL of His creation. That which is in store for you and for me is also what is in store for others. Having been born again through baptism, that Sacrament of the Church by which we are brought into the New Covenant and given the gift of Life by the Holy Spirit, it then becomes incumbent upon us to serve as witnesses of this Truth: Life is God, and God is Life. There is nothing ambiguous about it. And the Scripture is clear: the value of our lives is not measured according to our fleshly usefulness though it is our flesh that “freely chooses” that Great Gift.
The passing of our mortal bodies is a given and will come to us all sooner or later but for those who “freely choose” to walk and live in the Spirit, Life is far from over and we are NOT “dying”. We are LIVING … and will forevermore.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Testimony of Life
Yesterday was a big day but by no means extraordinary. Strangely enough, what made the day so big was the conviction placed upon me and my soul that someone out in that cold, cruel world needs me, and I am somehow withholding myself. Strange, huh? I am, after all, the pastor of a church. I’m all about doing the Lord’s work, right? It’s what one might think, and yet I can easily see that there will never be a day in which the measure of my work can be compared to the misery that exists in this world. How can we ever do enough, especially when we can readily see the seemingly insurmountable tasks before us? Starvation abounds, and it is not restricted only to the physical shortage or lack of food.
Abortion is a big issue. I maintain there can be no “middle ground”, no compromise between abortion foes and abortion supporters in spite of the president’s naiveté (or downright arrogance) because the conflict is inherent to the nature of each: one cannot advocate for life while supporting the destruction of life, and one cannot advocate the death of one as a means of life for another. Life either is or it ain’t, but it cannot be anything less than what it is. We support the substance of life, or we do not. It really is that simple.
So it must necessarily be for the murder of “Tiller the Killer”, George Tiller, the late-term abortion provider operating out of Kansas. It is said throughout the media that Tiller is “one of the few” late term abortion providers in the nation, and he was shot and killed in church this Sunday past. I feel absolutely nothing toward this man though I have a particular disdain for his chosen profession, and I absolutely resent and reject the broad statement issued by his family that “the nation lost a woman’s health care provider”. The nation lost an abortionist, not a health care provider, but his family lost a dear loved one. This should matter to me, but it does not beyond that part of me that cannot imagine the horror of a loved one actually witnessing the murder of their beloved. Though Mrs. Tiller was not with her husband when he was shot, she was in church seated with the choir. Close enough.
That shooting was entirely too random to be so random since no one else was hit (a couple of fellow church-goers were allegedly threatened by the gunman for trying to intervene). It was reasonable to suspect that Tiller was the intended target (he was), and it is reasonable (though not fair) to assume the shooter was targeting Tiller because of his work as an abortionist (he was). Other abortionists have been shot at, threatened, hit, and killed by a fringe element consisting of substantially overzealous, if maladjusted, pro-lifers, some of whom have actually claimed to have been “instructed” to shot and/or kill these abortionists. The murder of this man was no more justified than the many murders by this very man’s hands.
It is strangely ironic that Tiller was in his Lutheran church when he was gunned down, but I am not sure how the Lutherans as a denomination feel about abortion. Not that it matters much because I do know of so-called “pro-choice” Catholics who number themselves among the “enlightened” who have decided that, yes, man does have this legitimate “choice” in determining who lives and who dies, regardless of the reason or lack of one. And killing unborn children is the easiest way because, as it is said, one cannot hear screaming from the womb. Regardless of noble intent, the inescapable fact is that a human life is being cruelly and painfully terminated. Any “religious” person who cannot see this unalterable fact is spiritually starved either through willful ignorance, arrogance, or neglect. And any church that attempts to water down the Word of the Lord as anything less than a celebration of the great gift of life surrenders its moral authority. This also includes the senseless murder of an abortionist.
Abortion is a big issue. I maintain there can be no “middle ground”, no compromise between abortion foes and abortion supporters in spite of the president’s naiveté (or downright arrogance) because the conflict is inherent to the nature of each: one cannot advocate for life while supporting the destruction of life, and one cannot advocate the death of one as a means of life for another. Life either is or it ain’t, but it cannot be anything less than what it is. We support the substance of life, or we do not. It really is that simple.
So it must necessarily be for the murder of “Tiller the Killer”, George Tiller, the late-term abortion provider operating out of Kansas. It is said throughout the media that Tiller is “one of the few” late term abortion providers in the nation, and he was shot and killed in church this Sunday past. I feel absolutely nothing toward this man though I have a particular disdain for his chosen profession, and I absolutely resent and reject the broad statement issued by his family that “the nation lost a woman’s health care provider”. The nation lost an abortionist, not a health care provider, but his family lost a dear loved one. This should matter to me, but it does not beyond that part of me that cannot imagine the horror of a loved one actually witnessing the murder of their beloved. Though Mrs. Tiller was not with her husband when he was shot, she was in church seated with the choir. Close enough.
That shooting was entirely too random to be so random since no one else was hit (a couple of fellow church-goers were allegedly threatened by the gunman for trying to intervene). It was reasonable to suspect that Tiller was the intended target (he was), and it is reasonable (though not fair) to assume the shooter was targeting Tiller because of his work as an abortionist (he was). Other abortionists have been shot at, threatened, hit, and killed by a fringe element consisting of substantially overzealous, if maladjusted, pro-lifers, some of whom have actually claimed to have been “instructed” to shot and/or kill these abortionists. The murder of this man was no more justified than the many murders by this very man’s hands.
It is strangely ironic that Tiller was in his Lutheran church when he was gunned down, but I am not sure how the Lutherans as a denomination feel about abortion. Not that it matters much because I do know of so-called “pro-choice” Catholics who number themselves among the “enlightened” who have decided that, yes, man does have this legitimate “choice” in determining who lives and who dies, regardless of the reason or lack of one. And killing unborn children is the easiest way because, as it is said, one cannot hear screaming from the womb. Regardless of noble intent, the inescapable fact is that a human life is being cruelly and painfully terminated. Any “religious” person who cannot see this unalterable fact is spiritually starved either through willful ignorance, arrogance, or neglect. And any church that attempts to water down the Word of the Lord as anything less than a celebration of the great gift of life surrenders its moral authority. This also includes the senseless murder of an abortionist.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Promise Fulfilled; Promise to Come, Part II
Acts 2:1-21 John 15:26-27; 16:4b-15
Two questions: a) how much have we been given, and b) how much are we willing to give in return?
These were the two questions I posed to you last Sunday in anticipation of Pentecost Sunday, today being, for all intents and purposes, the “birth day” of the Christian Church. A movement is still underway, begun long ago, to proclaim a message of redemption and hope. It is reasonable to assume that all who would come forward, Jew or Gentile, should be baptized and welcomed in. It is the Spirit of the Living and Eternal God that sweeps across the apostles and gives to each of them the strength, the push, and the heart to move forward. They had been “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49) as Jesus had promised, and it was time to move.
Those many “devout Jews” gathered in Jerusalem who were witnesses to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles had no clue what they were seeing. Based on the very strange behavior of the apostles, several among these witnesses could only conclude that the “Jesus crew” was hammered! There was no other reasonable or logical explanation … except for one tiny detail. These apostles were Galileans of a common language, yet the many witnesses who were NOT Galilean were hearing not only unintelligible languages and speech but were also able to discern from that noise their own native languages being spoken by these Galileans. Those who did not outright reject the situation as drunken behavior were filled enough with wonder to bother asking, “What does this mean?”
Pentecost actually has its beginnings in Judaism though it is better known as the Festival of Weeks or Festival of the First Fruits. In Hebrew it is called Shavu’ot and is counted down from Passover to the day before Shavu’ot, 49 days or 7 full weeks of harvest and anticipation. It is also historically significant to both Jews and Christians as commemorating the giving of Torah at Mt Sinai. Even still, it is maintained primarily by Jews that there is no similarity between the Jewish Pentecost and the Christian one. While there are significant historic differences between the two, the theological similarities are striking enough to bear scrutiny by the faithful so that the full flavor of all it means is not lost in religious disputes because what it seems to boil down to is the Lord making His presence known to humanity. Thus it is that the Festival of the Giving of the Torah emphasizes the GIVING of Torah rather than receiving it. It is the Lord’s initiative, not man’s. And we are still talking about ONE Lord, ONE God, ONE Word.
Throughout one’s spiritual journey, it is important to always bear in mind that it is the Lord who must always comes first not only because it is called the “greatest commandment” by Jesus but also because it is always the Lord who acts first; Methodists call it “prevenient grace”. It is by the Lord’s initiative that the Torah was given to Moses even if Moses’ own curiosity initially led him to the mountain. And it is by the Lord’s initiative that the Holy Spirit is sent down upon those who spent the last few years of their lives following and learning from Jesus. It is especially important to understand that the gift of the Holy Spirit is not something we can call down upon ourselves. It is a gift that is divinely bestowed by His Favor alone; “it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:9). His Word and His Grace are from His own benevolence, and He ushered in the Law (His Word) and His Spirit (His Word) in spite of man’s unworthiness. He acted first.
But what are we to make of this gift? It is reasonable and encouraged that we should ask for and seek this divine gift, but what are we prepared to do with such a wondrous gift should the Lord decree that we are able to handle it? And what of the many gifts that come from the Holy Spirit? How can we know what is appropriate for us as having come from Him so that we use these gifts not only responsibly but also with extreme reverence? We are, after all, still talking about the very real presence of the Lord – manifest in His gifts.
“The fruit of the Spirit”, Paul writes to the Galatians, “is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal 5:22-23). These things come as a result of spiritual gifts divinely bestowed and used not for the edification of self but, rather, for the edification of the Church, the Body of Christ. And the gifts are many, as Paul writes to the Corinthians, but there can be only One Body, One Church, One Christ, One Covenant. And because there can be only One Body, there can be only one purpose: to worship and glorify the Lord God. So when these gifts are given in such abundance, and received gratefully and used well and reverently, others will see the glory of the Lord God, as the many witnessed in Jerusalem, and they will also bother to ask: “What does this mean?”
In his journal entry on August 15, 1750, John Wesley wrote: “the grand reason the miraculous gifts were so soon withdrawn was not only that faith and holiness were well nigh lost, but that dry, formal, orthodox men began even then to ridicule whatever gifts they had not themselves, and to decry them all as either madness or imposture.”
Wesley was speaking to a belief that the Holy Spirit had been, for some reason, withdrawn from man sometime during the 2nd or 3rd century because there seemed to be a lack of evidence of His divine presence. Things got ugly, as history points out, and the Church lost its flavor and its luster as a place of Holy Sanctuary and became not much more than a gathering place for human power and control to the exclusion of those unwilling to bend and flex for these “dry, formal, orthodox men”. In other words, it seems the Church lost its footing and, ultimately, its moral authority to speak on behalf of the Lord, and soon His favor was withdrawn, according to some.
Both Jeremiah (23) and Ezekiel (34) speak of times when the Lord becomes so disgusted with those “dry, formal, orthodox men”, presumably meaning priests and prophets who have proclaimed themselves “spiritual leaders” but have failed to tell the Truth, that He will seek out and rescue His people himself; the ultimate judgment will fall upon those who perhaps possessed these certain gifts but enabled evil but attempted to disable righteousness. Both prophets, however, are clear: the Lord is still very much present in the lives of His people, and His Mighty Hand is still stretched out to those who cry out for Him.
It seems clear enough that the presence of the Lord by way of His gifts has always been with humanity, but it seems equally clear that His gifts were misused in such a way that the Eternal Word – which has stood for centuries – has been misused and abused, sometimes for selfish gain, other times for popularity. The people were lied to and still are being lied to today. Our culture and our society call it “tolerance” and “understanding”, and far too many churches are buying into such mindsets in vain attempts to be “relevant”; and therein lay the danger and the deception.
The “relevance” of the Body of Christ is in accordance with our gifts and how we use them. In other words, the relevance by which we are measured is in accordance with our compatibility to the Kingdom of Heaven, not according to the world’s standards and demands whose “ruler … has been condemned” (John 16:11). Trying to be “world friendly” is a losing game, the outcome of which has already been determined. The gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed on those who understand the true meaning of “stewardship” and embrace the certain reality that we are given so that we may give, blessed so that we may bless, loved so that we may also love. And all in the Name of the One who gave and blessed and loved FIRST.
It is by devotion, prayer, fasting, worship, and attending to the sacraments of the Church that we are able to count the many blessings we have received, and it is also by these same means by which we will be led to give back as much as we have given.
Two questions: a) how much have we been given, and b) how much are we willing to give in return?
These were the two questions I posed to you last Sunday in anticipation of Pentecost Sunday, today being, for all intents and purposes, the “birth day” of the Christian Church. A movement is still underway, begun long ago, to proclaim a message of redemption and hope. It is reasonable to assume that all who would come forward, Jew or Gentile, should be baptized and welcomed in. It is the Spirit of the Living and Eternal God that sweeps across the apostles and gives to each of them the strength, the push, and the heart to move forward. They had been “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49) as Jesus had promised, and it was time to move.
Those many “devout Jews” gathered in Jerusalem who were witnesses to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles had no clue what they were seeing. Based on the very strange behavior of the apostles, several among these witnesses could only conclude that the “Jesus crew” was hammered! There was no other reasonable or logical explanation … except for one tiny detail. These apostles were Galileans of a common language, yet the many witnesses who were NOT Galilean were hearing not only unintelligible languages and speech but were also able to discern from that noise their own native languages being spoken by these Galileans. Those who did not outright reject the situation as drunken behavior were filled enough with wonder to bother asking, “What does this mean?”
Pentecost actually has its beginnings in Judaism though it is better known as the Festival of Weeks or Festival of the First Fruits. In Hebrew it is called Shavu’ot and is counted down from Passover to the day before Shavu’ot, 49 days or 7 full weeks of harvest and anticipation. It is also historically significant to both Jews and Christians as commemorating the giving of Torah at Mt Sinai. Even still, it is maintained primarily by Jews that there is no similarity between the Jewish Pentecost and the Christian one. While there are significant historic differences between the two, the theological similarities are striking enough to bear scrutiny by the faithful so that the full flavor of all it means is not lost in religious disputes because what it seems to boil down to is the Lord making His presence known to humanity. Thus it is that the Festival of the Giving of the Torah emphasizes the GIVING of Torah rather than receiving it. It is the Lord’s initiative, not man’s. And we are still talking about ONE Lord, ONE God, ONE Word.
Throughout one’s spiritual journey, it is important to always bear in mind that it is the Lord who must always comes first not only because it is called the “greatest commandment” by Jesus but also because it is always the Lord who acts first; Methodists call it “prevenient grace”. It is by the Lord’s initiative that the Torah was given to Moses even if Moses’ own curiosity initially led him to the mountain. And it is by the Lord’s initiative that the Holy Spirit is sent down upon those who spent the last few years of their lives following and learning from Jesus. It is especially important to understand that the gift of the Holy Spirit is not something we can call down upon ourselves. It is a gift that is divinely bestowed by His Favor alone; “it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:9). His Word and His Grace are from His own benevolence, and He ushered in the Law (His Word) and His Spirit (His Word) in spite of man’s unworthiness. He acted first.
But what are we to make of this gift? It is reasonable and encouraged that we should ask for and seek this divine gift, but what are we prepared to do with such a wondrous gift should the Lord decree that we are able to handle it? And what of the many gifts that come from the Holy Spirit? How can we know what is appropriate for us as having come from Him so that we use these gifts not only responsibly but also with extreme reverence? We are, after all, still talking about the very real presence of the Lord – manifest in His gifts.
“The fruit of the Spirit”, Paul writes to the Galatians, “is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal 5:22-23). These things come as a result of spiritual gifts divinely bestowed and used not for the edification of self but, rather, for the edification of the Church, the Body of Christ. And the gifts are many, as Paul writes to the Corinthians, but there can be only One Body, One Church, One Christ, One Covenant. And because there can be only One Body, there can be only one purpose: to worship and glorify the Lord God. So when these gifts are given in such abundance, and received gratefully and used well and reverently, others will see the glory of the Lord God, as the many witnessed in Jerusalem, and they will also bother to ask: “What does this mean?”
In his journal entry on August 15, 1750, John Wesley wrote: “the grand reason the miraculous gifts were so soon withdrawn was not only that faith and holiness were well nigh lost, but that dry, formal, orthodox men began even then to ridicule whatever gifts they had not themselves, and to decry them all as either madness or imposture.”
Wesley was speaking to a belief that the Holy Spirit had been, for some reason, withdrawn from man sometime during the 2nd or 3rd century because there seemed to be a lack of evidence of His divine presence. Things got ugly, as history points out, and the Church lost its flavor and its luster as a place of Holy Sanctuary and became not much more than a gathering place for human power and control to the exclusion of those unwilling to bend and flex for these “dry, formal, orthodox men”. In other words, it seems the Church lost its footing and, ultimately, its moral authority to speak on behalf of the Lord, and soon His favor was withdrawn, according to some.
Both Jeremiah (23) and Ezekiel (34) speak of times when the Lord becomes so disgusted with those “dry, formal, orthodox men”, presumably meaning priests and prophets who have proclaimed themselves “spiritual leaders” but have failed to tell the Truth, that He will seek out and rescue His people himself; the ultimate judgment will fall upon those who perhaps possessed these certain gifts but enabled evil but attempted to disable righteousness. Both prophets, however, are clear: the Lord is still very much present in the lives of His people, and His Mighty Hand is still stretched out to those who cry out for Him.
It seems clear enough that the presence of the Lord by way of His gifts has always been with humanity, but it seems equally clear that His gifts were misused in such a way that the Eternal Word – which has stood for centuries – has been misused and abused, sometimes for selfish gain, other times for popularity. The people were lied to and still are being lied to today. Our culture and our society call it “tolerance” and “understanding”, and far too many churches are buying into such mindsets in vain attempts to be “relevant”; and therein lay the danger and the deception.
The “relevance” of the Body of Christ is in accordance with our gifts and how we use them. In other words, the relevance by which we are measured is in accordance with our compatibility to the Kingdom of Heaven, not according to the world’s standards and demands whose “ruler … has been condemned” (John 16:11). Trying to be “world friendly” is a losing game, the outcome of which has already been determined. The gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed on those who understand the true meaning of “stewardship” and embrace the certain reality that we are given so that we may give, blessed so that we may bless, loved so that we may also love. And all in the Name of the One who gave and blessed and loved FIRST.
It is by devotion, prayer, fasting, worship, and attending to the sacraments of the Church that we are able to count the many blessings we have received, and it is also by these same means by which we will be led to give back as much as we have given.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Promise Fulfilled; Promise to Come
Luke 24:44-53
It is impossible to imagine the emotions the apostles must have been experiencing at Bethany as Jesus was preparing to depart from this earth. It had not been that long before when all hope seemed lost, as the life was quite literally being beaten from Jesus’ body before He was finally hung on the Cross and left to hang until dead. This was Messiah, the Promised One, who talked a good show, made a lot of promises, told some great stories, and performed a lot of pretty neat tricks, but one day this “Son of God” gets man-handled all the way to His doom – or what appeared to be His doom. It was so bad, the doom and gloom so thick, the hopelessness so apparent, that many fled. There was nothing left to hang around for – it was over. Done. Finished.
Those who fled lived in fear in the ensuing days prior to that first Easter, fear that all which had befallen Jesus would soon come upon them because of their devotion to Him. The group behind the arrest and Crucifixion of Jesus was not a very forgiving bunch, so it was not unreasonable to assume that what happened to Jesus would soon happen to all who had professed allegiance to Him. Imagine living in such a state of fear as to be virtually paralyzed only to discover that you were wrong about the demise of Messiah, that something remarkable, if miraculous, has taken place, beyond description, certainly beyond “neat trick”!
A Promise had been fulfilled right before their very eyes, the New Covenant made manifest in the Resurrection of the Christ that would leave no doubt that “though one may die, so may he live” (John 11:25). The reality of this Promise has arrived, has been fulfilled, and has been made manifest in the presence of the Risen Christ. But now He is leaving yet again, only the circumstances are not quite the same as before. He is leaving us with a few words and is issuing yet another Promise that “help is on the way” very soon; we need only the patience, faith, and courage to hold on and wait. We have just witnessed the Reality of Eternal Life, and we have been redeemed from the bondage of our sins. What other “help” can we possibly need?
Very clearly, the story is still unfolding. While it might seem that the Ascension would be pretty close to the end of the Story, as it needs to be told, the truth is the Story is not quite finished. There is much more to see, much more to learn, much more to do, much more even to endure. And life on this earth, for the faithful, is going to get much harder – and also easier – because of the words that Jesus not only left them with at Bethany (“wait until you are clothed with power from on high”) but also because of the words Jesus imparted to them according to Matthew’s Gospel (in addition to the others): “They will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake” (24:9).
It occurred to me that if we are not standing firm in the faith, we will endure no real challenges, no real hassles. There will be no “hatred”, no name-calling, no tribulation by the hands of non-believers. However, if the Church stands firm in thousands of years of human history and tradition and refuses to bend and flex according to the world’s standards and the world’s demands, there will be much “wailing and knashing of teeth” among the non-believers. Consider the recent slander of Miss California who dared to stand firm in her faith and express what she believed to be true. She did not thrust this belief on the world; the world demanded to know. And she was all but burned at the stake for what she believes.
Another case in point: the French First Lady has taken to blaming Pope Benedict for her loss of faith. She claims that the Church’s teachings have left her feeling “profoundly secular”, and she continues the criticism that was leveled against John Paul II regarding artificial birth control and AIDS in Africa. She claims that this particular means of birth control is the “only existing protection”, and these many continue to suggest that AIDS would simply go away if the Church will simply shut up.
Now I quite frankly do not care what many believe or think about birth control, but I do care that we all acknowledge there is something much more sinister at work here than whether or not Africans use birth control. Those who criticize the Church fail to see the “big picture”, but the Church – and specifically the pope – are taking a lot of flak over its teachings. Would it be easier to simply succumb to the world’s demands? Of course it would be easier and many Protestant churches have done exactly that, but Jesus did not call us to a life of ease or leisure. And it appears to me that there wouldn’t be much of a difference anyway. Several methods of birth control already exist, and so do unplanned pregnancies, AIDS, and other STD’s. Other biblical prohibitions against certain behaviors also exist, but that does not seem to stop the many from violating these prohibitions. So why the fight over merely condoms? It seems to me that we cannot see the forest for the trees.
It also seems ironic that an unbelieving world has accused Christianity of “creating [a] god in man’s own image” while desperately seeking to create for themselves a “god” more pleasing to their own ideals and standards; a “god” that will allow them to live as they see fit, do “it” (whatever “it” may happen to be on a particular day) as long as it “feels good”, a “god” that will expect little from them but will ultimately demand so much more from them than they will ever be willing to give.
But I digress. What the Church is called to do goes far beyond one doctrinal belief about one particular thing and while birth control is not mentioned in the Bible, those acts which cause unintended pregnancies and AIDS are specifically mentioned in the Bible, but the world seems intent on demanding that the Church remain silent about even these things. Even still, where are our duties defined? And do we even need to be talking about such things? What matters most? What is the point of the apostles being “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49b) if we are called to make peace with the world, tell the world what it wants to hear rather than what it needs to hear, assimilate ourselves into the worldly culture, and simply remain silent on those points at which we disagree? I don’t think we need ‘power from on high’ to sit on our hands. And it seems clear that Promises coming from Christ for the days to come do not involve our silence, our inactivity, or our complacency.
In Luke 12:35-48 Jesus tells the parable of the Faithful Servant and the Evil Servant. Long story short, Jesus ends the parable with this: “for everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more” (48).
This leaves the faithful with these two questions: how much has been given to us, and how much are we willing to give in return?
It is impossible to imagine the emotions the apostles must have been experiencing at Bethany as Jesus was preparing to depart from this earth. It had not been that long before when all hope seemed lost, as the life was quite literally being beaten from Jesus’ body before He was finally hung on the Cross and left to hang until dead. This was Messiah, the Promised One, who talked a good show, made a lot of promises, told some great stories, and performed a lot of pretty neat tricks, but one day this “Son of God” gets man-handled all the way to His doom – or what appeared to be His doom. It was so bad, the doom and gloom so thick, the hopelessness so apparent, that many fled. There was nothing left to hang around for – it was over. Done. Finished.
Those who fled lived in fear in the ensuing days prior to that first Easter, fear that all which had befallen Jesus would soon come upon them because of their devotion to Him. The group behind the arrest and Crucifixion of Jesus was not a very forgiving bunch, so it was not unreasonable to assume that what happened to Jesus would soon happen to all who had professed allegiance to Him. Imagine living in such a state of fear as to be virtually paralyzed only to discover that you were wrong about the demise of Messiah, that something remarkable, if miraculous, has taken place, beyond description, certainly beyond “neat trick”!
A Promise had been fulfilled right before their very eyes, the New Covenant made manifest in the Resurrection of the Christ that would leave no doubt that “though one may die, so may he live” (John 11:25). The reality of this Promise has arrived, has been fulfilled, and has been made manifest in the presence of the Risen Christ. But now He is leaving yet again, only the circumstances are not quite the same as before. He is leaving us with a few words and is issuing yet another Promise that “help is on the way” very soon; we need only the patience, faith, and courage to hold on and wait. We have just witnessed the Reality of Eternal Life, and we have been redeemed from the bondage of our sins. What other “help” can we possibly need?
Very clearly, the story is still unfolding. While it might seem that the Ascension would be pretty close to the end of the Story, as it needs to be told, the truth is the Story is not quite finished. There is much more to see, much more to learn, much more to do, much more even to endure. And life on this earth, for the faithful, is going to get much harder – and also easier – because of the words that Jesus not only left them with at Bethany (“wait until you are clothed with power from on high”) but also because of the words Jesus imparted to them according to Matthew’s Gospel (in addition to the others): “They will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake” (24:9).
It occurred to me that if we are not standing firm in the faith, we will endure no real challenges, no real hassles. There will be no “hatred”, no name-calling, no tribulation by the hands of non-believers. However, if the Church stands firm in thousands of years of human history and tradition and refuses to bend and flex according to the world’s standards and the world’s demands, there will be much “wailing and knashing of teeth” among the non-believers. Consider the recent slander of Miss California who dared to stand firm in her faith and express what she believed to be true. She did not thrust this belief on the world; the world demanded to know. And she was all but burned at the stake for what she believes.
Another case in point: the French First Lady has taken to blaming Pope Benedict for her loss of faith. She claims that the Church’s teachings have left her feeling “profoundly secular”, and she continues the criticism that was leveled against John Paul II regarding artificial birth control and AIDS in Africa. She claims that this particular means of birth control is the “only existing protection”, and these many continue to suggest that AIDS would simply go away if the Church will simply shut up.
Now I quite frankly do not care what many believe or think about birth control, but I do care that we all acknowledge there is something much more sinister at work here than whether or not Africans use birth control. Those who criticize the Church fail to see the “big picture”, but the Church – and specifically the pope – are taking a lot of flak over its teachings. Would it be easier to simply succumb to the world’s demands? Of course it would be easier and many Protestant churches have done exactly that, but Jesus did not call us to a life of ease or leisure. And it appears to me that there wouldn’t be much of a difference anyway. Several methods of birth control already exist, and so do unplanned pregnancies, AIDS, and other STD’s. Other biblical prohibitions against certain behaviors also exist, but that does not seem to stop the many from violating these prohibitions. So why the fight over merely condoms? It seems to me that we cannot see the forest for the trees.
It also seems ironic that an unbelieving world has accused Christianity of “creating [a] god in man’s own image” while desperately seeking to create for themselves a “god” more pleasing to their own ideals and standards; a “god” that will allow them to live as they see fit, do “it” (whatever “it” may happen to be on a particular day) as long as it “feels good”, a “god” that will expect little from them but will ultimately demand so much more from them than they will ever be willing to give.
But I digress. What the Church is called to do goes far beyond one doctrinal belief about one particular thing and while birth control is not mentioned in the Bible, those acts which cause unintended pregnancies and AIDS are specifically mentioned in the Bible, but the world seems intent on demanding that the Church remain silent about even these things. Even still, where are our duties defined? And do we even need to be talking about such things? What matters most? What is the point of the apostles being “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49b) if we are called to make peace with the world, tell the world what it wants to hear rather than what it needs to hear, assimilate ourselves into the worldly culture, and simply remain silent on those points at which we disagree? I don’t think we need ‘power from on high’ to sit on our hands. And it seems clear that Promises coming from Christ for the days to come do not involve our silence, our inactivity, or our complacency.
In Luke 12:35-48 Jesus tells the parable of the Faithful Servant and the Evil Servant. Long story short, Jesus ends the parable with this: “for everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more” (48).
This leaves the faithful with these two questions: how much has been given to us, and how much are we willing to give in return?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Congress the shepherd: pity the sheep
The president will sign a bill into law this week that will essentially end some unfair credit practices lenders have initiated over the years which many consumers had no protection against. These practices include interest rates going sky-high overnight and virtually without notice because a customer is late with a payment (even just once) or exceeds the credit limit which, incidentally, is not likely to happen except when one is charged extra fees for late payments. These fees are added to the total balance and if that balance exceeds the credit limit, one is then hammered not only for the late payment but is now also on the hook for a “exceeding the credit limit” penalty. It is all, of course, in the fine print.
The horror stories are many, and credit card companies are the bad guys. Never mind that Americans voluntarily signed up for such practices but never bothered to read the fine print. What they got was a credit card that enabled them to buy stuff they could not previously afford. Well, guess what? It turns out they couldn’t afford the stuff after all! Believe me; I know of which I speak because “they” was “me” and thousands of other consumers who lacked the patience, the diligence, and the discipline required to save for such purchases. And it is not incidental that money saved is money loaned and money earned on these loans. Win-Win, as they say. Wiser consumers understand that if one cannot afford to put aside a little money each week or each month to save, it is highly unlikely that one can afford a new monthly payment obligation. Elementary, we shudda thunk.
Now US Senator Mark Pryor, D-AR, is going to hold hearings this summer to monitor the credit card industry’s response to this legislation. The industry is certainly going to have to make some adjustments, to be sure, because there will likely be certain losses associated with this congressional clamp. In this regard, Congress did the right thing. Sad, still, that the American consumer needs be protected from himself. What Sen. Pryor is expecting to discover is that credit card issuers will likely tighten requirements for qualification, might re-implement annual fees just for the privilege of having the credit card and may even charge interest from day one after a credit purchase is made. And “that right there”, said Sen. Pryor, “is the problem with the credit card industry …” (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/21/09, pg 8a).
Sorry, Mr. Pryor, but “that right there” is not the problem. It was not that many years ago when it was not so easy to obtain a credit card. It was not that many years ago when all users paid an annual fee. And it still is that if one takes out a short-term loan from a bank, interest is charged on the loan in addition to other fees originating from day one. Once the bank cuts the check, the borrower is on the hook for the amount borrowed in addition to the fees and interest. It is how lenders make money, it is how the credit markets work, and there is nothing unfair about any of it. So what is “punitive” about a credit card issuer doing the same? If a purchase is made on a credit card, it is essentially borrowed money; no one I know of gets “free” loans. Credit costs money although judging by what this government spends, regardless of incoming revenue, Congress may not actually know this.
The worst idea to ever invade this country is revolving credit accounts. Those who were able to sell more stuff on these types of credit accounts likely believed them to be a boon to the economy and to their bottom line. They were moving more merchandise and making money hand-over-fist. Consumers could suddenly “afford” to purchase more and more … until the bills came due and the compounded interest on these revolving accounts in addition to the “other” purchases made because there was still “available credit” left on the card made the debt virtually impossible to pay off. And here we are today.
Few would dare to argue that any business practice must be above board, and any loan contract must contain all necessary information relevant to charges and the repayment of the loan. And credit cards themselves are not such a bad idea, but revolving accounts should be eliminated entirely because it is clear these types of accounts cannot be managed because these types of accounts never seem to go away. These are perpetual debts that make money on top of money month after month … with no end in sight except for those who can make payments larger than the required minimum. There is nothing good that can come from these types of accounts even if it is that stores may not move merchandise at previous levels when consumers were spending money they did not have for crap they did not need and could not save up for in the first place.
Whether Congress can actually protect the American consumer from his own stupidity and naiveté remains to be seen, but it does not mean they will not try. And in the end, what we could not previously afford will end up costing much more than anyone could ever have anticipated.
The horror stories are many, and credit card companies are the bad guys. Never mind that Americans voluntarily signed up for such practices but never bothered to read the fine print. What they got was a credit card that enabled them to buy stuff they could not previously afford. Well, guess what? It turns out they couldn’t afford the stuff after all! Believe me; I know of which I speak because “they” was “me” and thousands of other consumers who lacked the patience, the diligence, and the discipline required to save for such purchases. And it is not incidental that money saved is money loaned and money earned on these loans. Win-Win, as they say. Wiser consumers understand that if one cannot afford to put aside a little money each week or each month to save, it is highly unlikely that one can afford a new monthly payment obligation. Elementary, we shudda thunk.
Now US Senator Mark Pryor, D-AR, is going to hold hearings this summer to monitor the credit card industry’s response to this legislation. The industry is certainly going to have to make some adjustments, to be sure, because there will likely be certain losses associated with this congressional clamp. In this regard, Congress did the right thing. Sad, still, that the American consumer needs be protected from himself. What Sen. Pryor is expecting to discover is that credit card issuers will likely tighten requirements for qualification, might re-implement annual fees just for the privilege of having the credit card and may even charge interest from day one after a credit purchase is made. And “that right there”, said Sen. Pryor, “is the problem with the credit card industry …” (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/21/09, pg 8a).
Sorry, Mr. Pryor, but “that right there” is not the problem. It was not that many years ago when it was not so easy to obtain a credit card. It was not that many years ago when all users paid an annual fee. And it still is that if one takes out a short-term loan from a bank, interest is charged on the loan in addition to other fees originating from day one. Once the bank cuts the check, the borrower is on the hook for the amount borrowed in addition to the fees and interest. It is how lenders make money, it is how the credit markets work, and there is nothing unfair about any of it. So what is “punitive” about a credit card issuer doing the same? If a purchase is made on a credit card, it is essentially borrowed money; no one I know of gets “free” loans. Credit costs money although judging by what this government spends, regardless of incoming revenue, Congress may not actually know this.
The worst idea to ever invade this country is revolving credit accounts. Those who were able to sell more stuff on these types of credit accounts likely believed them to be a boon to the economy and to their bottom line. They were moving more merchandise and making money hand-over-fist. Consumers could suddenly “afford” to purchase more and more … until the bills came due and the compounded interest on these revolving accounts in addition to the “other” purchases made because there was still “available credit” left on the card made the debt virtually impossible to pay off. And here we are today.
Few would dare to argue that any business practice must be above board, and any loan contract must contain all necessary information relevant to charges and the repayment of the loan. And credit cards themselves are not such a bad idea, but revolving accounts should be eliminated entirely because it is clear these types of accounts cannot be managed because these types of accounts never seem to go away. These are perpetual debts that make money on top of money month after month … with no end in sight except for those who can make payments larger than the required minimum. There is nothing good that can come from these types of accounts even if it is that stores may not move merchandise at previous levels when consumers were spending money they did not have for crap they did not need and could not save up for in the first place.
Whether Congress can actually protect the American consumer from his own stupidity and naiveté remains to be seen, but it does not mean they will not try. And in the end, what we could not previously afford will end up costing much more than anyone could ever have anticipated.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Public Debate ... or not
Carrie Prejean, Miss California and recent Miss USA runner-up, is now being considered for replacement in her capacity as Miss California. The firestorm began, of course, when she chose a truthful answer in the Miss USA pageant rather than a politically correct or socially popular (if questionable) one. How one feels about the whole gay marriage thing is not relevant to Ms. Prejean’s honest answer: she was asked for her opinion, which she gave. What she did not know, although she may have suspected, was that the homo who asked the question, Perez Hilton, was either deliberately trying to set her up or was seeking an endorsement from a potentially soon-to-be national celebrity. He may have believed he had a weak-minded “beauty queen” who would say or do anything to win and help to further his own personal political agenda. He would never have suspected he was likely dealing with a person with some sense of moral integrity and a mind of her own. And his intellect was revealed the very next day when he apparently sought to engage in public debate over the whole issue by calling Ms. Prejean a “dumb bitch”. Nice.
Now the Miss California organization has taken their own “bold step” to seek Ms. Prejean’s replacement because Miss California is currently, and wisely, laying low. Considering the firestorm that followed the Miss USA pageant and the venom and bile that has spewed forth from the likes of Hilton and other Hollywood voices who all apparently believe in one’s “rights” only if one is in agreement with them, Ms. Prejean – and the Miss California crew - would be foolish not to consider her physical safety and well-being. Homosexual advocates are flirting with legislation on the federal level now that extends hate-crime legislation to include speech, but they are only serious about it if someone says something mean about homos; they don’t mean themselves. They advocate for this ridiculous legislation that is a direct affront to one’s constitutional free-speech rights, and then violate the very spirit of the legislation they seek to endorse to the extent that a young woman would reasonably fear for her own safety. The Miss California organization is trying to use her “absence” as an excuse to replace her because she cannot fulfill her official and public duties while in hiding. Nice.
Now there are some ‘racy’ photos floating around the ‘net that Ms. Prejean did some time back as a model. I’ve seen the photos; they are no “racier” than the swimsuit competition. Let’s get real. There is no honest debate going on, and there can be no respect. The homos and their advocates fully intend to bully and intimidate not only Ms. Prejean but her potential replacement into towing the homo line. There is nothing “gay” about any of this. Pitiful. Just pitiful.
Now the Miss California organization has taken their own “bold step” to seek Ms. Prejean’s replacement because Miss California is currently, and wisely, laying low. Considering the firestorm that followed the Miss USA pageant and the venom and bile that has spewed forth from the likes of Hilton and other Hollywood voices who all apparently believe in one’s “rights” only if one is in agreement with them, Ms. Prejean – and the Miss California crew - would be foolish not to consider her physical safety and well-being. Homosexual advocates are flirting with legislation on the federal level now that extends hate-crime legislation to include speech, but they are only serious about it if someone says something mean about homos; they don’t mean themselves. They advocate for this ridiculous legislation that is a direct affront to one’s constitutional free-speech rights, and then violate the very spirit of the legislation they seek to endorse to the extent that a young woman would reasonably fear for her own safety. The Miss California organization is trying to use her “absence” as an excuse to replace her because she cannot fulfill her official and public duties while in hiding. Nice.
Now there are some ‘racy’ photos floating around the ‘net that Ms. Prejean did some time back as a model. I’ve seen the photos; they are no “racier” than the swimsuit competition. Let’s get real. There is no honest debate going on, and there can be no respect. The homos and their advocates fully intend to bully and intimidate not only Ms. Prejean but her potential replacement into towing the homo line. There is nothing “gay” about any of this. Pitiful. Just pitiful.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
A Strange Solicitation
Sitting at my office trying to work up a sermon for this coming Sunday, I took a very strange call from a man with a very heavy accent trying to get me to commit to coming to a Baptist Church in a nearby town later this month to learn the “real truth” about radical Islam and the threat it poses. Once I told the man I would not be attending and had no real interest in such things, he came pretty near to questioning my patriotism (??) and wondered how I could continue to live in my blind ignorance of the threat posed by such “jihadists”. Once I informed him that I was probably better informed about the world situation than your typical phone solicitor, I suddenly realized that I had allowed myself to be sucked into this ridiculous discussion. As I could virtually hear him shuffle for the page likely marked “successful responses to typical declinations”, I wished him a good day and hung up. Still, he obviously did not know he was talking to a "right-wing extremist" who is considered a "potential" threat to national security.
It occurred to me that during the time of Jesus, the people of Israel believed the Romans to be the real, or at least most grave, threat to the well-being of the people. When Jesus was no longer useful to them in facing this threat, they turned on Him and wished Him dead for all the good He was doing them and Israel.
It also occurred to me that my first real encounter with a so-called “clergy killer” was one who objected when I suggested that Islam and Muslims pose no threat to Christians, Christianity, or the United States … certainly no threat to the Lord Himself. Those like this particular gentleman need enemies to accommodate the pain, bitterness, loneliness, and hatred that permeates their very soul. All that soul-draining energy needs someplace to go, and Muslims are just as good a target now as blacks were in the 40’s and 50’s or the Jews in Nazi Germany in the 20’s and 30’s. Few realize how much energy it takes to hate, and that energy must have an outlet. So all anyone needs is a scape goat, something or someone to blame for their sorry lot in life. All that pain, bitterness, and hatred has to have somewhere to go.
It rarely occurs to these haters of whence the true enemy lies. And it never occurs to them what kind of energy it actually took to torture and nail to a cross an Innocent Man.
It occurred to me that during the time of Jesus, the people of Israel believed the Romans to be the real, or at least most grave, threat to the well-being of the people. When Jesus was no longer useful to them in facing this threat, they turned on Him and wished Him dead for all the good He was doing them and Israel.
It also occurred to me that my first real encounter with a so-called “clergy killer” was one who objected when I suggested that Islam and Muslims pose no threat to Christians, Christianity, or the United States … certainly no threat to the Lord Himself. Those like this particular gentleman need enemies to accommodate the pain, bitterness, loneliness, and hatred that permeates their very soul. All that soul-draining energy needs someplace to go, and Muslims are just as good a target now as blacks were in the 40’s and 50’s or the Jews in Nazi Germany in the 20’s and 30’s. Few realize how much energy it takes to hate, and that energy must have an outlet. So all anyone needs is a scape goat, something or someone to blame for their sorry lot in life. All that pain, bitterness, and hatred has to have somewhere to go.
It rarely occurs to these haters of whence the true enemy lies. And it never occurs to them what kind of energy it actually took to torture and nail to a cross an Innocent Man.
Confessions of a Right-Wing Extremist
It has come to my attention that I am considered by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be a “potential” national security threat because of my opposition to abortion, my concern that DHS and/or the Congress are not doing enough to secure our borders (a big ol’ fence?? Are you serious?? Was the Berlin Wall not once only a “fence”?), that I vehemently disagree with the strong leftward shift this government is taking, and that I am extremely concerned that the states’ constitutionally enumerated rights may actually be in jeopardy (and few seem to notice or care) by an overbearing and overbloated federal government. Though DHS’s latest document acknowledges that my cohorts nor I are actively planning any violent activities (at least, none they are actually aware of), it seems nevertheless to be issuing a subtle, yet direct, warning to me and others like me to be aware that we are apparently not fooling anyone. The DHS paper may also be suggesting, now that we domestic “threats” have been identified, that we are being watched.
This may be seen as a “tongue-in-cheek” essay to poke some fun at those on the federal level who cannot seem to justify their existence unless there is a “boogie man” lurking around some corner, but the truth is this memo from DHS could be construed as an even graver threat than any I could dream up. To think that because I have serious issues with what I consider to be an “extreme” government, I could be deemed a “threat”, potential or otherwise, merely because of my beliefs, my opposition to the Obama administration, and my willingness to make these beliefs known. The implications of such accusations simply stagger the imagination. That such a document is taken seriously by the US government on any level suggests an extreme shift far and away from the so-called “liberal” (a derivative of “liberty”) to the downright fascist. Perhaps it is that Homeland Security is having a tough time justifying its very existence and needs to continue creating threats. Who knows? What I know is that I am no threat to the US government, and I resent such imply threats on such a broad and general scale.
I suppose we should have seen this coming, especially after the reponses from many in what used to be OUR Congress, after the TEA parties (yes, you are all also highly suspect!!) held across the nation that simply expressed the dismay of many citizens that our government’s already-staggering debt, which had been at least partially blamed for the mess we were already in, was more than doubled so as to somehow make it better. I chose not to actively align myself with the local version of the national protest (not for any particular reason), but it appears I may as well have since I am already lumped into the “threat” category by DHS (assuming there are stages, or levels, of threat?), perhaps a far graver threat because of my unwillingness to come into the light.
I don’t know where this DHS paper will go or where our government may take it from here. This much I do know: I am not aware of the Arkansas congressional delegation expressing any concern for this move by DHS to essentially categorize general opposition to Obama’s government as “national security threat”. This should say something to Arkansans who re-elected the Democrat to the Senate and the three Democrats to the House but refused to vote for Obama. Something is amiss. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but indications are that “liberal” is about to be redefined and no longer very “libre”.
This may be seen as a “tongue-in-cheek” essay to poke some fun at those on the federal level who cannot seem to justify their existence unless there is a “boogie man” lurking around some corner, but the truth is this memo from DHS could be construed as an even graver threat than any I could dream up. To think that because I have serious issues with what I consider to be an “extreme” government, I could be deemed a “threat”, potential or otherwise, merely because of my beliefs, my opposition to the Obama administration, and my willingness to make these beliefs known. The implications of such accusations simply stagger the imagination. That such a document is taken seriously by the US government on any level suggests an extreme shift far and away from the so-called “liberal” (a derivative of “liberty”) to the downright fascist. Perhaps it is that Homeland Security is having a tough time justifying its very existence and needs to continue creating threats. Who knows? What I know is that I am no threat to the US government, and I resent such imply threats on such a broad and general scale.
I suppose we should have seen this coming, especially after the reponses from many in what used to be OUR Congress, after the TEA parties (yes, you are all also highly suspect!!) held across the nation that simply expressed the dismay of many citizens that our government’s already-staggering debt, which had been at least partially blamed for the mess we were already in, was more than doubled so as to somehow make it better. I chose not to actively align myself with the local version of the national protest (not for any particular reason), but it appears I may as well have since I am already lumped into the “threat” category by DHS (assuming there are stages, or levels, of threat?), perhaps a far graver threat because of my unwillingness to come into the light.
I don’t know where this DHS paper will go or where our government may take it from here. This much I do know: I am not aware of the Arkansas congressional delegation expressing any concern for this move by DHS to essentially categorize general opposition to Obama’s government as “national security threat”. This should say something to Arkansans who re-elected the Democrat to the Senate and the three Democrats to the House but refused to vote for Obama. Something is amiss. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but indications are that “liberal” is about to be redefined and no longer very “libre”.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Misguided Notion - and demise - of Social Security
The Pittsburgh Tribune reported Saturday that Vice President Joe Biden has been drawing Social Security benefits since November 2008 when he turned 66 and became eligible for full benefits under the law. For those not familiar with Mr. Biden, he has been a member of the United States Senate since 1973 up until he was selected as Mr. Obama’s running mate in the 2008 presidential race. Mr. Biden’s salary in 2008 was $169,300 as a US senator. As the vice president of the nation, he will earn $227,300 for as long as he serves in that capacity.
Eventually he will retire altogether and, due to his extraordinary length of service time, will be genuinely entitled to a pretty generous government pension. The issue at hand is the “entitlement” mindset of Social Security that allows everyone to draw, regardless of work status or income bracket. That Mr. Biden had to pay taxes on a large portion of his Social Security earnings is beside the point. Why, pray tell, would he feel compelled – or entitled - to draw this money on any level, particularly while he is still drawing a substantial salary? This same article reported that the Bidens disclosed income in 2008 of $253,866, of which $6,534 was Social Security income. I would hardly consider $247,332 an income that requires subsidy. Incidentally, this same article also reported that former VP Dick Cheney, who is a year older than Mr. Biden, did not report Social Security income in 2008. Whether he will attempt to claim these benefits in 2009 or ever, I suppose, remains to be seen.
Former President Bush took quite a beating in his last term over Social Security in debates that never actually took place except in the media. The opposition to Mr. Bush’s privatization proposals amounted to a lot of political posturing and chest-thumping by Democratic blowhards such as Marion Berry, D-AR, who “assured” his elderly constituents that as long as he had breath in his body, he would protect their benefits even though currently paid benefits were never in jeopardy, according to Mr. Bush’s proposal. Mr. Berry never directly addressed the actual proposals, and he never made a serious contribution to the debate or discussion except to engage in a lot of name-calling and scare tactics. What he and so many others like him did was to ensure that the “sacred cow” of Social Security will continue to pay out more than it collects under this misguided notion of entitlement that does not consider genuine need, which was the founding intent of Social Security to begin with, and continues Social Security’s downward spiral toward insolvency until drastic action will be required to maintain this “entitlement”. That fund was intended to keep our nation’s elderly from starving to death; it was not meant as an income subsidy for a more lavish lifestyle or more expensive vacations or play money for slot machines.
I realize Social Security is a hot-button issue for the majority of Americans. I also recognize the political reality that if Mr. Bush had engaged in such a discussion in his first term, it is highly unlikely he would have seen a second term as US president due to this issue alone. This is the rub, though, isn’t it? The state of this nation’s mindset is such that the government has, over the years, taken so much from us that we feel somewhat compelled to take back from this government whatever we can to sort of balance the scales. It was also a mistake for the Social Security Administration to begin sending out quarterly statements to individuals so as to suggest that the fund is “holding” the money we pay in trust now for our own private, individual use later.
In simple terms, Social Security funds withheld from paychecks is a tax that is paid out directly to those who qualify for benefits. I doubt that many working Americans ever conceived of the day when we would be subsidizing the US vice president’s salary, which is paid from income and other federal taxes, while giving his total annual income a boost from the Social Security funds withheld from our earnings.
It is said by many that our current economic situation will get worse before it gets better. My guess is that the Social Security situation, as it is now, will get worse but never better because Americans and our Congress lack the courage to face up to certain realities. It has become the task of each member of the Congress to get and keep the job they have, not to actually do the job that has been entrusted to them. It will be our demise sooner or later.
Eventually he will retire altogether and, due to his extraordinary length of service time, will be genuinely entitled to a pretty generous government pension. The issue at hand is the “entitlement” mindset of Social Security that allows everyone to draw, regardless of work status or income bracket. That Mr. Biden had to pay taxes on a large portion of his Social Security earnings is beside the point. Why, pray tell, would he feel compelled – or entitled - to draw this money on any level, particularly while he is still drawing a substantial salary? This same article reported that the Bidens disclosed income in 2008 of $253,866, of which $6,534 was Social Security income. I would hardly consider $247,332 an income that requires subsidy. Incidentally, this same article also reported that former VP Dick Cheney, who is a year older than Mr. Biden, did not report Social Security income in 2008. Whether he will attempt to claim these benefits in 2009 or ever, I suppose, remains to be seen.
Former President Bush took quite a beating in his last term over Social Security in debates that never actually took place except in the media. The opposition to Mr. Bush’s privatization proposals amounted to a lot of political posturing and chest-thumping by Democratic blowhards such as Marion Berry, D-AR, who “assured” his elderly constituents that as long as he had breath in his body, he would protect their benefits even though currently paid benefits were never in jeopardy, according to Mr. Bush’s proposal. Mr. Berry never directly addressed the actual proposals, and he never made a serious contribution to the debate or discussion except to engage in a lot of name-calling and scare tactics. What he and so many others like him did was to ensure that the “sacred cow” of Social Security will continue to pay out more than it collects under this misguided notion of entitlement that does not consider genuine need, which was the founding intent of Social Security to begin with, and continues Social Security’s downward spiral toward insolvency until drastic action will be required to maintain this “entitlement”. That fund was intended to keep our nation’s elderly from starving to death; it was not meant as an income subsidy for a more lavish lifestyle or more expensive vacations or play money for slot machines.
I realize Social Security is a hot-button issue for the majority of Americans. I also recognize the political reality that if Mr. Bush had engaged in such a discussion in his first term, it is highly unlikely he would have seen a second term as US president due to this issue alone. This is the rub, though, isn’t it? The state of this nation’s mindset is such that the government has, over the years, taken so much from us that we feel somewhat compelled to take back from this government whatever we can to sort of balance the scales. It was also a mistake for the Social Security Administration to begin sending out quarterly statements to individuals so as to suggest that the fund is “holding” the money we pay in trust now for our own private, individual use later.
In simple terms, Social Security funds withheld from paychecks is a tax that is paid out directly to those who qualify for benefits. I doubt that many working Americans ever conceived of the day when we would be subsidizing the US vice president’s salary, which is paid from income and other federal taxes, while giving his total annual income a boost from the Social Security funds withheld from our earnings.
It is said by many that our current economic situation will get worse before it gets better. My guess is that the Social Security situation, as it is now, will get worse but never better because Americans and our Congress lack the courage to face up to certain realities. It has become the task of each member of the Congress to get and keep the job they have, not to actually do the job that has been entrusted to them. It will be our demise sooner or later.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
A Fool's Game
Every effort, every movement, every song, every dance must have a beginning. There is little in our physical world that is perpetual, as without beginning or ending. A finite world has finite stuff. So although I consider yesterday’s TEA parties to have been a colossal waste of time, the protest that was the theme has been looking for a voice for a very long time; it had to start somewhere. I have to say, however, that not many politicians took notice, and even fewer Democrats bothered to show at all. And why would they? It was the Democratic majority in the Congress that pushed through an $800 billion “stimulus” package that few bothered to read, and fewer still really understood. That “stimulus”, I think, is at the heart of the protest.
Here’s the thing, though. Politicians do not typically pay attention to protests, and Democrats have such a commanding majority in the Congress that they will spend no time worrying about a few Republicans in the streets scattered across the country. Politicians do not worry much about anything unless or until their political advisors tell them to worry, and that anxiety is directly related to chances for re-election. Put THAT in jeopardy, and notice the attention given such as in Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-AR, starting up her re-election campaign two years before Election Day. Obama and Hillary started a new trend with the last election, so I guess now we’re stuck with two-year-long, perpetual political campaigns.
It is noteworthy that Sen. Lincoln’s last go-round was against a Republican whom she outspent by millions … and she won re-election by the skin of her teeth. She spent millions; he spent a few thousand. Now she is cranking up her re-election machine even earlier to gather even more money, and there is no indication that she really understands the collective mind of the electorate she purports to represent. What she does know is that the last election was a bit too close for comfort, so she seems to believe that campaigning longer and making promises for her NEXT term (as opposed to staying on top of THIS term’s business) is all it will take to keep her job. The point? Voters got her attention four years ago, and she has not yet forgotten.
The apparent evidence in this particular case has not been lost on Sen. Lincoln, and it will likely be that she will vote these last two years of this term much more conservatively than she has voted in the previous four. She and her political advisors know well the short attention span of voters. Now that voters are sufficiently angry and she having won her last election by a very narrow margin, expect her to do a lot more schmoozing. Voters and circumstances have her undivided attention, and it is clear she is afraid.
Though I am not excited about the prospects of perpetual campaigns, I like the idea that a politician would know that he or she will need at least two years to convince me they are worth keeping and are worthy of the job. What I will certainly not like is the reality that these politicians and their advisors will spend these two years “marketing” their product. They will spend an inordinate amount of time trying to keep the job and not enough time actually doing the job. And this, dear reader, is the state of American politics. It is not about public policy or governing; it is about re-elections.
Beyond the money spent for re-elections, consider the federal budget. We’re now in the trillions … with a T! My guess is that most normal people cannot count that high, or comprehend that number. And all that money has to come from somewhere. And let’s be reasonable: you can screw around with wealthy people for only so long. Heck, even their money has limits. Then you and I, middle America, will be “asked” (though they never really seem to ask, do they?) to give it up for the good of the country. Only we will discovered that it is not the country, per se, more than it is the bloated government that is now completely out of control, and a budget that is geared toward getting one party or the other re-elected. “For the good of the country”, my eye. I’m not falling for it any longer, but I am not going to waste my time walking the streets or carrying signs. Nor should you.
I am not advocating term limits, though I would not be completely opposed. Term limits, however, will require constitutional amendments, and that takes a lot of time. Besides, there is a much easier way. Democrat or Republican, federal or state, no incumbents are re-elected. Then, and only then, will the Congress finally notice our protests. Clearly, there is no other way. We can march in the streets all we want but until these politicians feel threatened in their own job security, they will not care or respond. They don’t have to because of voter complacency. And as long as voters willingly roll over for the obligatory tummy scratch from a condescending politician, nothing will change except, perhaps, the tension on the leash.
Be very careful and aware, America. Our freedom is on the line, and we’re being played for fools.
Here’s the thing, though. Politicians do not typically pay attention to protests, and Democrats have such a commanding majority in the Congress that they will spend no time worrying about a few Republicans in the streets scattered across the country. Politicians do not worry much about anything unless or until their political advisors tell them to worry, and that anxiety is directly related to chances for re-election. Put THAT in jeopardy, and notice the attention given such as in Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-AR, starting up her re-election campaign two years before Election Day. Obama and Hillary started a new trend with the last election, so I guess now we’re stuck with two-year-long, perpetual political campaigns.
It is noteworthy that Sen. Lincoln’s last go-round was against a Republican whom she outspent by millions … and she won re-election by the skin of her teeth. She spent millions; he spent a few thousand. Now she is cranking up her re-election machine even earlier to gather even more money, and there is no indication that she really understands the collective mind of the electorate she purports to represent. What she does know is that the last election was a bit too close for comfort, so she seems to believe that campaigning longer and making promises for her NEXT term (as opposed to staying on top of THIS term’s business) is all it will take to keep her job. The point? Voters got her attention four years ago, and she has not yet forgotten.
The apparent evidence in this particular case has not been lost on Sen. Lincoln, and it will likely be that she will vote these last two years of this term much more conservatively than she has voted in the previous four. She and her political advisors know well the short attention span of voters. Now that voters are sufficiently angry and she having won her last election by a very narrow margin, expect her to do a lot more schmoozing. Voters and circumstances have her undivided attention, and it is clear she is afraid.
Though I am not excited about the prospects of perpetual campaigns, I like the idea that a politician would know that he or she will need at least two years to convince me they are worth keeping and are worthy of the job. What I will certainly not like is the reality that these politicians and their advisors will spend these two years “marketing” their product. They will spend an inordinate amount of time trying to keep the job and not enough time actually doing the job. And this, dear reader, is the state of American politics. It is not about public policy or governing; it is about re-elections.
Beyond the money spent for re-elections, consider the federal budget. We’re now in the trillions … with a T! My guess is that most normal people cannot count that high, or comprehend that number. And all that money has to come from somewhere. And let’s be reasonable: you can screw around with wealthy people for only so long. Heck, even their money has limits. Then you and I, middle America, will be “asked” (though they never really seem to ask, do they?) to give it up for the good of the country. Only we will discovered that it is not the country, per se, more than it is the bloated government that is now completely out of control, and a budget that is geared toward getting one party or the other re-elected. “For the good of the country”, my eye. I’m not falling for it any longer, but I am not going to waste my time walking the streets or carrying signs. Nor should you.
I am not advocating term limits, though I would not be completely opposed. Term limits, however, will require constitutional amendments, and that takes a lot of time. Besides, there is a much easier way. Democrat or Republican, federal or state, no incumbents are re-elected. Then, and only then, will the Congress finally notice our protests. Clearly, there is no other way. We can march in the streets all we want but until these politicians feel threatened in their own job security, they will not care or respond. They don’t have to because of voter complacency. And as long as voters willingly roll over for the obligatory tummy scratch from a condescending politician, nothing will change except, perhaps, the tension on the leash.
Be very careful and aware, America. Our freedom is on the line, and we’re being played for fools.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Dear President Obama
Dear President Obama,
May I first congratulate you on your hard-won victory and ascendency to the presidency. You, like many before you, have inspired new generations of young Americans who look upon such an election and finally come to realize one of the greatest blessings of this nation: anyone can aspire to one day become President of the United States. The trick is to want it badly enough to prepare for it.
I must tell you, Mr. President, that I was not among those dancing in the streets upon your election. Truth be told, I was sorely disappointed because I was then, and still am, quite uncertain about your public policy philosophy or your preparedness for such a daunting task. Given my cynicism toward campaign rhetoric, it is extremely difficult to listen objectively when I am internally convinced that public office seekers will say and do almost anything to win votes. Why else would senators and representatives have political advisors? Aside from my cynicism, you seem to believe government to be the answer to all citizen’s prayers whereas I believe government is constitutionally restricted in what it can or even should do. Having said this, however, I was prepared to embrace your election and give you the benefit of the doubt because, after all, this is my country. You are now the duly elected president. You became, therefore, my president.
I have a couple of issues, however, that have caused me to step back and question my allegiance to the office, and I will be blunt and succinct. Mr. President, with the stroke of a pen you put the people of the United States on the financial hook for worldwide abortions. Essentially it is, Mr. President, that you are forcing me to pay for abortions in other countries. The United States has gotten into the business of actually and actively exporting and promoting death, and I am sorely disappointed that any human being with a conscience would or could do such a thing, or at the very least, pretend to speak for an entire nation in moral issues as this. Life is fundamental, Mr. President. It is the foundation of our very existence; to actively promote abortion itself as a fundamental right is to deny this reality. To actually put money out there to finance such a heinous practice is, to say the least, absurd in light of the extreme economic circumstances we face here at home. At most, it is teaching younger generations that human life only has the value governments choose to assign it. This was the worst thing you could have done.
You did it, however, and you did in fact promise that you would. This great and progressive nation took a giant step backward as it pertains to defining an enduring civilization and a culture that intends to survive by announcing to the world that if there are women across the globe who want to kill their unborn children, the US will provide the necessary funds to make it happen. We publicly loathe the Chinese “one child” policy, and yet you singlehandedly have offered to finance this very policy in other parts of the world. Very poorly done, Mr. President. My disappointment cannot be adequately expressed in words, and you cannot give any speech that will salve the open sores you have agitated.
Even beyond this, however, I must also take exception to your calling upon the American people to be prepared to “make sacrifices”, presumably for the sake of the federal budget, the deficit, and ultimately the national debt. Often there have been questions pertaining to the willingness of the American public to make sacrifices for the good of the country. Many recall with fondness the evident patriotism expressed in the many sacrifices made during the WWII era, there, too, for the war effort and the “good of the country”. It was indeed a different time and a different people, a whole other generation that still believed in our government. This was a government of, by, and for the people, a government that believed in the survival of subsequent generations, not their destruction. This was the government that led the prosecution efforts at Nuremberg against Nazis for their heinous crimes against humanity. Little would we know then that one day this very government would actually embrace the abhorent practices we once prosecuted and condemned.
Today the support and the confidence is just not there. Not only do I believe that younger generations are predominately of a “me first” attitude, but I also believe that government officials who live like royalty, vote themselves pay increases, work to protect their own interests, and spend money as a means of gaining public favor (and votes) regardless of the financial or economic consequences have actually contributed to such selfish attitudes and have no right or business asking Americans to sacrifice even more, especially when it is abundantly clear that American “public servants” are unwilling to share in these sacrifices. Yes, it happens on the state level as well when, in the big middle of a horrific recession that will get worse before it gets better, our own state legislature votes itself a pay increase and justifies it, as our house speaker did, by saying, “I need the money; my wife’s pregnant.” Clueless, Mr. President. Or complacent. Or selfish.
Let us be clear, Mr. President. I do not percieve that you are a leader; it seems more that you are willing to follow the Democratic majority in the Congress, this same Congress (regardless of party dominance, incidentally) which has been running roughshod over the American public for far too long. But because far too many members of this Congress have ignored the people of this country for far too long by working to protect their own interests above the interests of the nation, I for one am no longer willing to offer any sort of “sacrifice” to this or any other government. I once proudly wore the uniform of the US armed forces and was willing to do my part in defense of this nation. But until I see more of a willingness from you and the members of Congress to give more of themselves, I am no longer interested in “sacrifice”. My country is not my God.
I do not pretend to speak for others, Mr. President, though many may agree with me. And this piece may never make it beyond my own personal blog, but I do hope these thoughts and the upcoming TEA PARTY’s which will be held across the nation this April 15 may actually survive to the next election, and I sincerely hope that at least half the current members of Congress lose their jobs. Only then, I am convinced, will this government begin to turn around and actually represent the people rather than the party.
Respectfully,
Michael P. Daniel
Magnolia AR
May I first congratulate you on your hard-won victory and ascendency to the presidency. You, like many before you, have inspired new generations of young Americans who look upon such an election and finally come to realize one of the greatest blessings of this nation: anyone can aspire to one day become President of the United States. The trick is to want it badly enough to prepare for it.
I must tell you, Mr. President, that I was not among those dancing in the streets upon your election. Truth be told, I was sorely disappointed because I was then, and still am, quite uncertain about your public policy philosophy or your preparedness for such a daunting task. Given my cynicism toward campaign rhetoric, it is extremely difficult to listen objectively when I am internally convinced that public office seekers will say and do almost anything to win votes. Why else would senators and representatives have political advisors? Aside from my cynicism, you seem to believe government to be the answer to all citizen’s prayers whereas I believe government is constitutionally restricted in what it can or even should do. Having said this, however, I was prepared to embrace your election and give you the benefit of the doubt because, after all, this is my country. You are now the duly elected president. You became, therefore, my president.
I have a couple of issues, however, that have caused me to step back and question my allegiance to the office, and I will be blunt and succinct. Mr. President, with the stroke of a pen you put the people of the United States on the financial hook for worldwide abortions. Essentially it is, Mr. President, that you are forcing me to pay for abortions in other countries. The United States has gotten into the business of actually and actively exporting and promoting death, and I am sorely disappointed that any human being with a conscience would or could do such a thing, or at the very least, pretend to speak for an entire nation in moral issues as this. Life is fundamental, Mr. President. It is the foundation of our very existence; to actively promote abortion itself as a fundamental right is to deny this reality. To actually put money out there to finance such a heinous practice is, to say the least, absurd in light of the extreme economic circumstances we face here at home. At most, it is teaching younger generations that human life only has the value governments choose to assign it. This was the worst thing you could have done.
You did it, however, and you did in fact promise that you would. This great and progressive nation took a giant step backward as it pertains to defining an enduring civilization and a culture that intends to survive by announcing to the world that if there are women across the globe who want to kill their unborn children, the US will provide the necessary funds to make it happen. We publicly loathe the Chinese “one child” policy, and yet you singlehandedly have offered to finance this very policy in other parts of the world. Very poorly done, Mr. President. My disappointment cannot be adequately expressed in words, and you cannot give any speech that will salve the open sores you have agitated.
Even beyond this, however, I must also take exception to your calling upon the American people to be prepared to “make sacrifices”, presumably for the sake of the federal budget, the deficit, and ultimately the national debt. Often there have been questions pertaining to the willingness of the American public to make sacrifices for the good of the country. Many recall with fondness the evident patriotism expressed in the many sacrifices made during the WWII era, there, too, for the war effort and the “good of the country”. It was indeed a different time and a different people, a whole other generation that still believed in our government. This was a government of, by, and for the people, a government that believed in the survival of subsequent generations, not their destruction. This was the government that led the prosecution efforts at Nuremberg against Nazis for their heinous crimes against humanity. Little would we know then that one day this very government would actually embrace the abhorent practices we once prosecuted and condemned.
Today the support and the confidence is just not there. Not only do I believe that younger generations are predominately of a “me first” attitude, but I also believe that government officials who live like royalty, vote themselves pay increases, work to protect their own interests, and spend money as a means of gaining public favor (and votes) regardless of the financial or economic consequences have actually contributed to such selfish attitudes and have no right or business asking Americans to sacrifice even more, especially when it is abundantly clear that American “public servants” are unwilling to share in these sacrifices. Yes, it happens on the state level as well when, in the big middle of a horrific recession that will get worse before it gets better, our own state legislature votes itself a pay increase and justifies it, as our house speaker did, by saying, “I need the money; my wife’s pregnant.” Clueless, Mr. President. Or complacent. Or selfish.
Let us be clear, Mr. President. I do not percieve that you are a leader; it seems more that you are willing to follow the Democratic majority in the Congress, this same Congress (regardless of party dominance, incidentally) which has been running roughshod over the American public for far too long. But because far too many members of this Congress have ignored the people of this country for far too long by working to protect their own interests above the interests of the nation, I for one am no longer willing to offer any sort of “sacrifice” to this or any other government. I once proudly wore the uniform of the US armed forces and was willing to do my part in defense of this nation. But until I see more of a willingness from you and the members of Congress to give more of themselves, I am no longer interested in “sacrifice”. My country is not my God.
I do not pretend to speak for others, Mr. President, though many may agree with me. And this piece may never make it beyond my own personal blog, but I do hope these thoughts and the upcoming TEA PARTY’s which will be held across the nation this April 15 may actually survive to the next election, and I sincerely hope that at least half the current members of Congress lose their jobs. Only then, I am convinced, will this government begin to turn around and actually represent the people rather than the party.
Respectfully,
Michael P. Daniel
Magnolia AR
Monday, April 06, 2009
Palm Sunday 2009 ... "What Triumph?"
Mark 11:1-11
There are a couple of items related to Mark’s text that should be noted. First, it is said by some scholars that Mark may be the first known Gospel text and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a reference. There is also a belief that a disciple named “Mark” may have actually been a disciple of St. Peter’s. Though I don’t know it can be proved, it is believed by some that “Mark” may have actually written this account as told to him by Peter which would give the account substantial credibility. Second, verse 10 of the text may be the truest indicator and best summary of exactly what was on the minds of those who were enthusiastically greeting Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem: “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!”
It finally comes down to this. Jesus is about to enter into the city of Jerusalem and is hailed as something of a conquering hero even though nothing has been conquered … at least not yet. What is worse is that the people who are greeting Him are very likely clueless as to exactly what is taking place or what is about to take place. What they do know is that they are Jews, and the pagan Romans are in charge of their lives and their homeland, the land once known as the “Promised Land”, the land of a Covenant. What they also know is that this Man coming into town on a donkey’s colt is the One often referred to as the “Son of David”, David being the late, great warrior king, the eagerly anticipated “ancestor” and protector of that “Covenant Land”.
What they also know is that theirs is a miserable lot in life living under the thumb screws of the overbearing and secular “state”, a “state” that does not share their values or their God, and they would like to see some changes. Serious, radical, and QUICK changes. For an anxious people of faith, scripture such as Psalm 37:7 should offer some solace: “Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him”, yet patience seems no longer an affordable luxury. And Scripture is not what these people want to hear. It is what they NEED, but it is not what they are after. The LORD is not what they desire at this moment unless the LORD is willing to agree with them and give them what they want.
“Hosanna”, translated, means “Save us, we ask”. It is an invocation of the people and should be a prayerful appeal to the Lord, but I don’t think this is true in this particular instance. And this parade is marked by these same people who are eagerly laying palm branches and even their cloaks on the road in front of Jesus and who are also calling out to Him, “Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!” It would be easy to characterize this gathering as a prayerful event sort of like a revival, but I think such a characterization would be wrong, or at the very least, misleading. It is an event filled with hope and anticipation, to be sure, but what the people seem to desire – or expect - is not necessarily consistent with the will of the Lord because the true “enemy” has yet to be exposed. For the time being, the Romans will have to do.
So what is happening? This event which is unfolding, commonly referred to as the “triumphal entry”, has often been presented as a sort of “conquest”, a “triumph” as if something has been won. It seems to read as though Jesus is now “large and in charge” and masses of people are finally handing their lives over to Him, but events as they unfold will indicate anything but. We would like to believe that the “kingdom of heaven is at hand” but for all intents and purposes, nothing is really happening. At least, not what the people want or expect. And if we stop and think it through, nothing much really changed after Jesus’ crucifixion … at least not in Jerusalem and certainly not in the lives of those who would herald His arrival now and curse His presence later.
Humans are a fickle bunch, not much given to reason. And over the course of some 2000 years, this reality has not changed. And yet Jesus, knowing this, walked right into the big middle of it. Our own Bishop Crutchfield said it best: He had a decision to make. It was a fear-filled moment. He could give in to the fear and go home to Galilee, or He could trust God and go on into Jerusalem. He chose to trust God. The people gathered around Him like a surging ocean. The shouts of the crowd accented the power of the hope in their hearts. It was a demonstration of power the Romans hated and the religious leaders feared. It was a scene that could provoke a massive reaction. He had a decision to make. He chose not to give way to fear of reprisal. He chose to trust God.
Jesus was about to enter into a very dangerous world, a snake pit really, a world filled with hatred and violence. A world filled with weapons of destruction and men trained and willing to use them. A world in which only a handful of men could make decisions that would affect whole regions filled with people who were powerless to stop them. A powder keg of a world marked by a short fuse. And Jesus surely knew the Pharisees and other religious leaders were walking with a lighted match. It was only a matter of time before the anger, the fear, the hatred, the anticipation of better days that would not come soon, would be ignited.
Yet He pressed on. There was one simple focus that drove Jesus to press on even when He knew He had other options, options that would have saved Him, options that would have been far more pleasing to His physical self AND to those who truly loved Him. The focus, of course, was the Holy Father. It was not for the people who would call on Him and praise Him when they had need or hope but would turn on Him when their own desires were not fulfilled. There was no spite for these “fair weather friends”; only compassion, pity, and mercy. Yet it was still His love for and focus on the Lord God that moved Him forward.
In the Church calendar, we mark such days as if we were there. It is much easier to embrace, even appreciate such things when we can actually find a way to be a part of the whole experience. Yet it is also fair to say that even after hundreds of re-enactments of this fateful day throughout church history, not much has changed nor will it. After this worship service, we will pretty much go on about our lives as before and all will be well. As in Jerusalem, nothing will really change.
Why should it? Why should there be any change? It seems we have it all now. We can have our cake and eat it, too. We can declare our own salvation, and continue as before. No harm, no foul. Nothing much left to do. We can continue to insist that the will of God is best defined as that which pleases us. We can continue to contribute to weapons designed to maim and kill, we can continue to proclaim “In God We Trust” when in reality it is the money upon which such a cheesy motto is imprinted that we actually and truly trust. We can and will continue to fit the Lord in whenver we find the time … after we’ve done everything else. After we have first pleased ourselves and taken care of our own needs.
Yet in spite of this sea of selfishness and greed, we are offered the Blessed Sacrament of Holy Communion. We can choose to come forward and receive this wondrous gift, never truly understanding it, but perhaps appreciating it for what it is: a moment of complete and total union, we with one another and with our brethren around the world – and most certainly with Him who is seated at the Right Hand of our Heavenly Father. He who will, by the compassion of His own heart, grant to us the peace we so desperately need, forgive us our sins and our betrayal – IF we are truly penitent - and ask us to do better while He offers to us the strength of His Blessed and Holy Spirit to endure and persevere. And in the end, all He asks is for us to REMEMBER.
Until or unless we do, nothing will change. Now or ever
There are a couple of items related to Mark’s text that should be noted. First, it is said by some scholars that Mark may be the first known Gospel text and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a reference. There is also a belief that a disciple named “Mark” may have actually been a disciple of St. Peter’s. Though I don’t know it can be proved, it is believed by some that “Mark” may have actually written this account as told to him by Peter which would give the account substantial credibility. Second, verse 10 of the text may be the truest indicator and best summary of exactly what was on the minds of those who were enthusiastically greeting Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem: “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!”
It finally comes down to this. Jesus is about to enter into the city of Jerusalem and is hailed as something of a conquering hero even though nothing has been conquered … at least not yet. What is worse is that the people who are greeting Him are very likely clueless as to exactly what is taking place or what is about to take place. What they do know is that they are Jews, and the pagan Romans are in charge of their lives and their homeland, the land once known as the “Promised Land”, the land of a Covenant. What they also know is that this Man coming into town on a donkey’s colt is the One often referred to as the “Son of David”, David being the late, great warrior king, the eagerly anticipated “ancestor” and protector of that “Covenant Land”.
What they also know is that theirs is a miserable lot in life living under the thumb screws of the overbearing and secular “state”, a “state” that does not share their values or their God, and they would like to see some changes. Serious, radical, and QUICK changes. For an anxious people of faith, scripture such as Psalm 37:7 should offer some solace: “Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him”, yet patience seems no longer an affordable luxury. And Scripture is not what these people want to hear. It is what they NEED, but it is not what they are after. The LORD is not what they desire at this moment unless the LORD is willing to agree with them and give them what they want.
“Hosanna”, translated, means “Save us, we ask”. It is an invocation of the people and should be a prayerful appeal to the Lord, but I don’t think this is true in this particular instance. And this parade is marked by these same people who are eagerly laying palm branches and even their cloaks on the road in front of Jesus and who are also calling out to Him, “Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!” It would be easy to characterize this gathering as a prayerful event sort of like a revival, but I think such a characterization would be wrong, or at the very least, misleading. It is an event filled with hope and anticipation, to be sure, but what the people seem to desire – or expect - is not necessarily consistent with the will of the Lord because the true “enemy” has yet to be exposed. For the time being, the Romans will have to do.
So what is happening? This event which is unfolding, commonly referred to as the “triumphal entry”, has often been presented as a sort of “conquest”, a “triumph” as if something has been won. It seems to read as though Jesus is now “large and in charge” and masses of people are finally handing their lives over to Him, but events as they unfold will indicate anything but. We would like to believe that the “kingdom of heaven is at hand” but for all intents and purposes, nothing is really happening. At least, not what the people want or expect. And if we stop and think it through, nothing much really changed after Jesus’ crucifixion … at least not in Jerusalem and certainly not in the lives of those who would herald His arrival now and curse His presence later.
Humans are a fickle bunch, not much given to reason. And over the course of some 2000 years, this reality has not changed. And yet Jesus, knowing this, walked right into the big middle of it. Our own Bishop Crutchfield said it best: He had a decision to make. It was a fear-filled moment. He could give in to the fear and go home to Galilee, or He could trust God and go on into Jerusalem. He chose to trust God. The people gathered around Him like a surging ocean. The shouts of the crowd accented the power of the hope in their hearts. It was a demonstration of power the Romans hated and the religious leaders feared. It was a scene that could provoke a massive reaction. He had a decision to make. He chose not to give way to fear of reprisal. He chose to trust God.
Jesus was about to enter into a very dangerous world, a snake pit really, a world filled with hatred and violence. A world filled with weapons of destruction and men trained and willing to use them. A world in which only a handful of men could make decisions that would affect whole regions filled with people who were powerless to stop them. A powder keg of a world marked by a short fuse. And Jesus surely knew the Pharisees and other religious leaders were walking with a lighted match. It was only a matter of time before the anger, the fear, the hatred, the anticipation of better days that would not come soon, would be ignited.
Yet He pressed on. There was one simple focus that drove Jesus to press on even when He knew He had other options, options that would have saved Him, options that would have been far more pleasing to His physical self AND to those who truly loved Him. The focus, of course, was the Holy Father. It was not for the people who would call on Him and praise Him when they had need or hope but would turn on Him when their own desires were not fulfilled. There was no spite for these “fair weather friends”; only compassion, pity, and mercy. Yet it was still His love for and focus on the Lord God that moved Him forward.
In the Church calendar, we mark such days as if we were there. It is much easier to embrace, even appreciate such things when we can actually find a way to be a part of the whole experience. Yet it is also fair to say that even after hundreds of re-enactments of this fateful day throughout church history, not much has changed nor will it. After this worship service, we will pretty much go on about our lives as before and all will be well. As in Jerusalem, nothing will really change.
Why should it? Why should there be any change? It seems we have it all now. We can have our cake and eat it, too. We can declare our own salvation, and continue as before. No harm, no foul. Nothing much left to do. We can continue to insist that the will of God is best defined as that which pleases us. We can continue to contribute to weapons designed to maim and kill, we can continue to proclaim “In God We Trust” when in reality it is the money upon which such a cheesy motto is imprinted that we actually and truly trust. We can and will continue to fit the Lord in whenver we find the time … after we’ve done everything else. After we have first pleased ourselves and taken care of our own needs.
Yet in spite of this sea of selfishness and greed, we are offered the Blessed Sacrament of Holy Communion. We can choose to come forward and receive this wondrous gift, never truly understanding it, but perhaps appreciating it for what it is: a moment of complete and total union, we with one another and with our brethren around the world – and most certainly with Him who is seated at the Right Hand of our Heavenly Father. He who will, by the compassion of His own heart, grant to us the peace we so desperately need, forgive us our sins and our betrayal – IF we are truly penitent - and ask us to do better while He offers to us the strength of His Blessed and Holy Spirit to endure and persevere. And in the end, all He asks is for us to REMEMBER.
Until or unless we do, nothing will change. Now or ever
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)