Joel 2:23-32
1 Corinthians 13
Luke 18:9-14
The people of Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka KS are back in the news. For some reason they’ve taken up the practice of picketing at the funerals of service members killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe because this is where they believe they can get the most attention for whatever king of message they think they have for America. As a result of their actions, many state legislatures and the US Congress have initiated laws to help protect grieving families from such displays by mandating an acceptable distance so that these families can be somewhat shielded from these people. A group called “Freedom Riders” also takes part in these funerals, with the family’s permission, by offering a motorcycle escort and barricade so that these Westboro people cannot be heard or seen by the grieving families.
Why do these people travel from Kansas to all parts of the country where families are laying their loved ones to rest? Why do they go to such lengths, such trouble, and such expense knowing as they must that they are bringing undue grief on an already grieving family? They proclaim that those killed in action are the result of the Lord’s judgment against America. In this particular instance, they were also picketing the fact that the young Marine had been raised in the Roman Catholic “monstrosity” (Westboro’s word choice). They are now being sued by this Marine’s family for causing emotional distress and for violating the family’s desire for, and right to, privacy. There may well be a constitutional issue pertaining to whether the right of free speech supersedes the implied right to privacy, but I’m not so sure that this is the issue at hand for the Lord’s faithful.
The judge had instructed the jury to determine whether the “speech” displayed by Westboro can be considered so “offensive” and “shocking” as to fall outside the acceptable parameters of 1st Amendment protection. For Christians, there are greater issues at stake than constitutionally protected “free speech”. It must be determined how such displays as those advocated by Westboro and other groups like them can in any way be construed as having come from the Lord as something that needs to be heard and particularly at the funerals of young service members whose families are grieving and who may not even be in full support of this war OR the rights of homosexuals which, incidentally, seems to be the entire focus of Westboro’s “ministry”, if “ministry” is even the appropriate word in this case.
There are those among us who will not argue for homosexuality. I will be first to say that there is a biblical prohibition against homosexuality that cannot be ignored by the faithful. I will also be the first to say that bringing such a message of judgment or warning of judgment comes with enormous responsibility that also cannot be ignored, and that responsibility is this: be very careful with handling the Word of the Lord because Jesus Himself proclaimed, “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” John 3:17 NKJV
This is huge for the faithful. If there were any during the time of Jesus’ ministry on earth who might have been in line for condemnation, it would have been the Pharisees and the scribes and the chief priests and the Sadducees. These were religionists who were constantly at odds with Jesus, and the Gospel accounts are chock full of these confrontations in which Jesus uses the words of the Hebrew Scripture against them. I suppose if there could be anyone who could be trusted with the Word, it would have been Him since He IS the Word.
Speaking the truth, however, and refusing to soft-pedal that which is clearly written is also part of the responsibility in handling the Word of the Lord but if we get caught up in a “holier than thou” war of words, we may find ourselves in the predicament of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. By his own words, the Pharisee may well have brought condemnation upon himself by his own proclamation of self-righteousness. It must also be noted in the language that the Pharisee has clearly taken it upon himself – in his PRAYER, no less – to condemn the tax collector or, at the very least, elevate himself to a spiritual position superior to that of the tax collector. It should be equally clear that the Pharisee GOT *** IT *** WRONG.
By the Word as written, the Pharisee clearly lives according to the standards of the Mosaic Law; by his actions alone, he stands as a righteous man. Where we faithful typically fail, however, is in our lack of understanding that when it comes to righteous behavior and judgment, the Lord is speaking to our personal behavior and not to us as appointed judges of others. We have problems enough of our own just trying to live up to such a holy standard as that established by Jesus. It is not reasonable or practical that we would choose to take the burdens of others upon ourselves to judge as well. We have enough to do by just trying to be the faithful witnesses we are called to be.
Even speaking of the truth as it is written, Paul also raises a pretty high standard in his First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13. St. Paul summarizes the whole thing for us in simply this: lacking genuine love in our speech or in our assessment of others, and we are only making noise; incomprehensible noise that no one can understand or even care to listen to. In our words we may be telling the truth as we see it and we may be honest in our assessment but if we lack a genuine concern for those to whom our “truth” is directed, we’re only judging others to our own condemnation.
For the faithful, it is never enough to simply be “right”. There has to be more in a richer and fuller understanding of what the Word of the Lord is all about. Yes, there are laws and yes, there are standards of conduct and behavior. There is also Paul’s admonition to Timothy as to the purpose of Scripture: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
2 Timothy 3:16-17
It’s not what the people of Westboro are saying that is so disturbing. Rather, it is the way in which they present the message. Going to a grieving family who has lost a loved one in a war the family may not even support and suggesting to them that the death of their 20-year-old son was of the Lord’s doing and then displaying signs and placards which state such reprehensible messages such as, “Thank God for IED’s” is hitting below the belt and stands to serve more as a message of alienation than a message of hope. Such messages of condemnation remove all hope, and the Gospel of the Lord is nothing if not hopeful, for all “who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Joel 2:32). Who are any of us to dare try to remove these words that come from the Word of the Lord Himself?
It is not easy to live according to the standards which have been established for us. We don’t typically want to judge others because if we use our ability to reason, we can surely understand that there is probably more that we DON’T know than that we do know. Each of us can easily think back to a time when someone jumped to conclusions about us based only on what they were only able to see with their eyes – or worse – based on what they’ve been told, and it turns out we never had a chance to begin with. It is not fair that we should have to stand up to such unfair assessments, but we do because we are left with few choices once someone gets done with us.
It is the same thing that happens when people like these Westboro folks go off on a tangent such as they do. They may well have philosophical, ideological, or religious objections to certain public policies, but none of these differences give them a legitimate calling to take this hateful message to someone who is already in pain and not necessarily responsible for such public policy. Kicking someone while they are already down is almost always counter-productive and must never be considered an act of Christian love.
I question how much of the Bible people like these actually read. In the case of Westboro people, I’m still waiting for them to get to the part where Jesus tells His disciples that if the message they bring is rejected – and these people have been rejected from coast to coast - they are to then “shake the dust from their sandals” and move along. Then again, there is a lot more that I DON’T know about these Westboro people than what I DO know. I hate what they are doing, but I must not allow my disdain for their actions overrun my emotions to the point of coming to hate them. Remember, Christ was raised for the sake of their hope as well as for ours.
This knowledge must be the key to everything we do, and this knowledge must overcome every thought we ever have when confronted with angry, hateful, blind, and ignorant people. They do more harm than good and almost always leave a swath of destruction in their wake. It is up to Christians of good faith to come along and help pick up the pieces and raise up those who have been kicked down.
We were once down but have since been raised up with nothing but a Word of Hope. Dare we offer the rest of the world anything less?
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Lobbyists-R-Us
The Arkansas legislature does not seem to show much interested in ethics reform but come to think of it, why would we attempt to “reform” ethics? Does a decent standard of behavior not come with its own expectations and demands that educated grown-ups can agree upon? Apparently not if a recent turn of events is any indication.
Lobbyists have long been a thorn in the side of the general public. The perception is that members of Congress are too busy trying to please “big” (name your industry) with little regard for “little” America (although “big” is demonized during reelection campaigns and “little” America is schmoozed). To this end there have been attempts at both the state and federal levels to require certain reporting standards by members of legislatures to make public how much they receive from “big” such as lunches, gifts, trips, etc. And each time such reporting issues come forward, there is always a reason why such reporting requirements cannot be agreed up although the one thing most public officials can agree on is that it is ok to accept freebies from groups who otherwise would not have given them the time of day were they not somewhat influential.
The truth is, lobbyists serve a need and like it or not, they do in fact represent “little” as surely as they represent “big”. After all, what is a lobbyist but a specialist in a particular field or someone who has access to such specialists and who approach members of Congress or a state’s legislature to present their case? The lobbyist speaks for a group or an industry made up of numbers sometimes too great for legislators to ignore. It is not only “big” oil, et al, who is doing the talking. There are other social groups such as “Right to Life” and PETA, et al, who also have the numbers and capability to gang up on members of Congress or legislatures in order to be heard. On a rational level, I think Americans can accept this concept. What they have a hard time digesting is that legislators seem to believe it is ok to use the office which actually belongs to the public for his or her own personal gain. After all, if a member of Congress accepts a free trip to the Bahamas from a lobbying group, how does this possibly benefit his or her constituents? Is hearing and reasoning somehow more acute in such an environment than in, say, Washington DC or Little Rock AR?
I think it is not lobbyists who are the problem. These are sales persons who will do whatever they must do to get a legislator’s attention. It is up to the legislator to draw the line because it is he or she who is – like it or not – accountable to the public, and not the lobbyist. The legislator has been enabled by a complacent public to get away with seemingly endless perks and privileges because voters do not pay attention to anything but sound bites and TV personas – and legislators know this because they have hired professional political consultants who actually do pay attention to “little” America. They see how our eyes light up at the offer of “shiny beads” political promises, and they know how to feed that appetite.
This will not end until voters end it. Two things have to happen: 1) there must be at least a 50% turnover in the Congress and the state legislature, and 2) the replacements must be sent it with an agenda. It is possible, but it will require a committed and informed voting public. But as long as Congress and the state legislature enjoys a better than 90% incumbency rate, we may as well resign ourselves to higher and higher taxes and more and more government control over our lives. This is the reality of our future on the present course.
Lobbyists have long been a thorn in the side of the general public. The perception is that members of Congress are too busy trying to please “big” (name your industry) with little regard for “little” America (although “big” is demonized during reelection campaigns and “little” America is schmoozed). To this end there have been attempts at both the state and federal levels to require certain reporting standards by members of legislatures to make public how much they receive from “big” such as lunches, gifts, trips, etc. And each time such reporting issues come forward, there is always a reason why such reporting requirements cannot be agreed up although the one thing most public officials can agree on is that it is ok to accept freebies from groups who otherwise would not have given them the time of day were they not somewhat influential.
The truth is, lobbyists serve a need and like it or not, they do in fact represent “little” as surely as they represent “big”. After all, what is a lobbyist but a specialist in a particular field or someone who has access to such specialists and who approach members of Congress or a state’s legislature to present their case? The lobbyist speaks for a group or an industry made up of numbers sometimes too great for legislators to ignore. It is not only “big” oil, et al, who is doing the talking. There are other social groups such as “Right to Life” and PETA, et al, who also have the numbers and capability to gang up on members of Congress or legislatures in order to be heard. On a rational level, I think Americans can accept this concept. What they have a hard time digesting is that legislators seem to believe it is ok to use the office which actually belongs to the public for his or her own personal gain. After all, if a member of Congress accepts a free trip to the Bahamas from a lobbying group, how does this possibly benefit his or her constituents? Is hearing and reasoning somehow more acute in such an environment than in, say, Washington DC or Little Rock AR?
I think it is not lobbyists who are the problem. These are sales persons who will do whatever they must do to get a legislator’s attention. It is up to the legislator to draw the line because it is he or she who is – like it or not – accountable to the public, and not the lobbyist. The legislator has been enabled by a complacent public to get away with seemingly endless perks and privileges because voters do not pay attention to anything but sound bites and TV personas – and legislators know this because they have hired professional political consultants who actually do pay attention to “little” America. They see how our eyes light up at the offer of “shiny beads” political promises, and they know how to feed that appetite.
This will not end until voters end it. Two things have to happen: 1) there must be at least a 50% turnover in the Congress and the state legislature, and 2) the replacements must be sent it with an agenda. It is possible, but it will require a committed and informed voting public. But as long as Congress and the state legislature enjoys a better than 90% incumbency rate, we may as well resign ourselves to higher and higher taxes and more and more government control over our lives. This is the reality of our future on the present course.
The Ottoman Empire and American Politics
The US Congress, with its usual efficiency, sound reasoning and lightening speed, and under its glorious 24% (or less, depending on which poll) approval rating, is moving to condemn an early 20th century Turkish government for the genocide of Armenians in its early days after the fall of the Ottoman Empire some 90-plus years after the fact (perhaps it took that long to move the legislation out of committee?). Those who are pushing this legislation are somehow gratified, reasoning that it's about time we "did" something while following the lead of other nations. Meanwhile, the present-day Turkish government is set on edge and is making veiled threats that could compromise the existing relationship with the US. There are few reasonable persons who might try to deny that there is genocide currently
taking place in another part of the world which could be more forcefully addressed by this US Congress with a similar resolution, but we certainly would not want to offend an oil-producing nation such as the Sudan. After all, we have an economic reality with which we must contend. And given that it only took us 90-plus years to condemn an empire which no longer exists and long after time in which more appropriate action could be undertaken, we should be able to get around to condemning Sudan in perhaps lesser time. That'll show 'em, and all those who suffered such a cruel fate will be vindicated.
There is nothing funny about genocide nor is there anything funny about the move afoot in the Congress to address this tragedy. What responsible persons in the US government must know - or should know - is that such a move now has already upset a valuable ally in a volatile region in which US military personnel are currently engaged in combat operations and will get worse if the full House actually passes this resolution. For the life of me, I cannot determine exactly the Democrats hope to accomplish.
History is never kind to those who have something to be ashamed of because truth, although stranger than fiction, is also the single most potent force at mankind's disposal. There are simply matters of history that cannot be denied though revision is another matter altogether. Because it happened and because it is recorded by too many witnesses, only the most foolhardy would undertake such an action as to proclaim aloud that it never really happened. Just look at the president of Iran and his persistent denial of the Holocaust. Does anyone really take this man seriously at all when he makes such ridiculous statements? Does he present himself as a statesman on any level or with the credibility to make such a statement? He certainly tries, but he must surely be the only one who believes what he says though
that must be arguable.
More to the point, however, is that the Iranian president's denial changes nothing. The Holocaust is no more or less true simply because of a raving lunatic regardless of his status as president of anything. In the same way, Turkey can deny complicity with what happened nearly 100 years ago because the truth is, there is likely no one left alive who actually had a part in it. Does this mean, however, that such things can be swept under a rug since those who were actually responsible can no longer be held responsible?
The question that this congress must answer for itself is this: what purpose will this resolution serve? What overwhelming issue of national significance is so important that this particular resolution will directly affect, and is this issue so significant that it is worth the risk of alienating a not-so-insignificant ally? The Democrat-controlled Congress and especially those Democrats running for president are insistent that the Bush administration has so enraged and alienated the entire world that they will work to "restore" our national credibility. Is this resolution a step in that restorative direction? It hardly seems so especially in light of the fact that the Turkish ambassador to the US has already been recalled by
his government, and it could get worse.
Further, this matter risks not only offending a major US ally but also puts US military operations at great risk since Turkey is one of our major supply routes into Iraq. Risking this resupply route puts our soldiers on the ground in Iraq in a very tenuous position. Is this worth the risk if we support the troops like we say we do?
Finally, how can we take such an impotent resolution seriously as a proclamation that we "must never forget" while we are witnesses to a current event happening right under our noses? How much time must elapse before we issue a similar proclamation against another nation while absolving ourselves of responsibility when we had the knowledge and the wherewithal to do something while it is happening? The Armenian situation will not go away, true enough, but its time is past. Darfur is here and now, and we are apparently powerless or without the will to anything about it.
If history has taught us anything with respect to acts of genocide, the lesson is this: we've learned absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.
taking place in another part of the world which could be more forcefully addressed by this US Congress with a similar resolution, but we certainly would not want to offend an oil-producing nation such as the Sudan. After all, we have an economic reality with which we must contend. And given that it only took us 90-plus years to condemn an empire which no longer exists and long after time in which more appropriate action could be undertaken, we should be able to get around to condemning Sudan in perhaps lesser time. That'll show 'em, and all those who suffered such a cruel fate will be vindicated.
There is nothing funny about genocide nor is there anything funny about the move afoot in the Congress to address this tragedy. What responsible persons in the US government must know - or should know - is that such a move now has already upset a valuable ally in a volatile region in which US military personnel are currently engaged in combat operations and will get worse if the full House actually passes this resolution. For the life of me, I cannot determine exactly the Democrats hope to accomplish.
History is never kind to those who have something to be ashamed of because truth, although stranger than fiction, is also the single most potent force at mankind's disposal. There are simply matters of history that cannot be denied though revision is another matter altogether. Because it happened and because it is recorded by too many witnesses, only the most foolhardy would undertake such an action as to proclaim aloud that it never really happened. Just look at the president of Iran and his persistent denial of the Holocaust. Does anyone really take this man seriously at all when he makes such ridiculous statements? Does he present himself as a statesman on any level or with the credibility to make such a statement? He certainly tries, but he must surely be the only one who believes what he says though
that must be arguable.
More to the point, however, is that the Iranian president's denial changes nothing. The Holocaust is no more or less true simply because of a raving lunatic regardless of his status as president of anything. In the same way, Turkey can deny complicity with what happened nearly 100 years ago because the truth is, there is likely no one left alive who actually had a part in it. Does this mean, however, that such things can be swept under a rug since those who were actually responsible can no longer be held responsible?
The question that this congress must answer for itself is this: what purpose will this resolution serve? What overwhelming issue of national significance is so important that this particular resolution will directly affect, and is this issue so significant that it is worth the risk of alienating a not-so-insignificant ally? The Democrat-controlled Congress and especially those Democrats running for president are insistent that the Bush administration has so enraged and alienated the entire world that they will work to "restore" our national credibility. Is this resolution a step in that restorative direction? It hardly seems so especially in light of the fact that the Turkish ambassador to the US has already been recalled by
his government, and it could get worse.
Further, this matter risks not only offending a major US ally but also puts US military operations at great risk since Turkey is one of our major supply routes into Iraq. Risking this resupply route puts our soldiers on the ground in Iraq in a very tenuous position. Is this worth the risk if we support the troops like we say we do?
Finally, how can we take such an impotent resolution seriously as a proclamation that we "must never forget" while we are witnesses to a current event happening right under our noses? How much time must elapse before we issue a similar proclamation against another nation while absolving ourselves of responsibility when we had the knowledge and the wherewithal to do something while it is happening? The Armenian situation will not go away, true enough, but its time is past. Darfur is here and now, and we are apparently powerless or without the will to anything about it.
If history has taught us anything with respect to acts of genocide, the lesson is this: we've learned absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.
Them's My Young-un's!
I'm 'bout happy's a pig in slop. Our young-un's kin git hitched - long's they gits purmishun from they maw and paw. An' soons I git a tar on mah truck and hitch up mah overalls, I'ma gonna go yonder to the state house and thank them thar state house fokes fer givin' me purmishun to raise mah own young-un's the way I sees fit.
I ain't never saw no sucha mess as the one fixin' to happen down yonder to Lil' Rock. Dun awready bin a mess over yonder at Binton County whar th' judge dun tol' a gurl's maw thet her young-un cud git hitched if'n she wonted to 'cause the fokes in Lil' Rock dun messed in they own cer'al. See, whut's funny 'bout all this is they's 'posed to be a buncha edge-ee-kaited ol' boys down to th' state house but near's ah'cn figger, they kain't spell 'not'. Or mebee it is thet they kin spell 'not' jes' fine but just ain't shur whut t' do withit onest they dun spelt it.
Whut ain't so funny is that they's this buncha fokes called a "cumit-ee" thet's 'pos'd t' fix what sum dun said is a mis-take in the language. But this heer judge dun said, 'naw, it ain't thet easy'. Says if they's a wurd stuck in thar, then its 'pos'd to be thar. If'n you wus ta take that wurd out, then it don't mean the same thang no more. Them politishuns, the judge dun said, shulda took care a that 'fore they dun signed they names to it 'cuz thet thar cumit-ee ain't bin voted fir. This cumit-ee has they job t' do, and the politishuns gots they own job t' do. Sump'n 'bout the state cons'tooshun.
Makes plenty since t' me 'cuz if'n I say 'ain't' and you-uns ain't heer'd me say 'ain't', then you-un's might thank I dun said, 'ok'. If'n I say 'ain't', I means it 'cuz I ain't gonna say nuthin' I ain't meant t' say. Reckon them politishuns shulda dun know'd thet? Most of 'em dun been t' law skool. Ain't thet why they's so miny foks dun voted fir 'em t' bugin with, 'cause they's so et up w' the learnin'? I'da thunk so.
Now thu guv'nir says he ain't agonna brang the state 'sembly in so's they kin fix it. I ain't shur whut ain't fix't, but I'm purty shur whut ain't needin' t' be dun. We-un's don't need them edge-ee-kaited geen-us's atellin' us how t' raise young-un's or whut they kin or kain't do. I figger this nu law dun give us what we-un's needed t' bugin with: permishun t' duh-cide whut we-un's thank is best for are young-un's. We's the ones gotta live withit, ain't we?
Shoot. Who sez we's back-ards?
I ain't never saw no sucha mess as the one fixin' to happen down yonder to Lil' Rock. Dun awready bin a mess over yonder at Binton County whar th' judge dun tol' a gurl's maw thet her young-un cud git hitched if'n she wonted to 'cause the fokes in Lil' Rock dun messed in they own cer'al. See, whut's funny 'bout all this is they's 'posed to be a buncha edge-ee-kaited ol' boys down to th' state house but near's ah'cn figger, they kain't spell 'not'. Or mebee it is thet they kin spell 'not' jes' fine but just ain't shur whut t' do withit onest they dun spelt it.
Whut ain't so funny is that they's this buncha fokes called a "cumit-ee" thet's 'pos'd t' fix what sum dun said is a mis-take in the language. But this heer judge dun said, 'naw, it ain't thet easy'. Says if they's a wurd stuck in thar, then its 'pos'd to be thar. If'n you wus ta take that wurd out, then it don't mean the same thang no more. Them politishuns, the judge dun said, shulda took care a that 'fore they dun signed they names to it 'cuz thet thar cumit-ee ain't bin voted fir. This cumit-ee has they job t' do, and the politishuns gots they own job t' do. Sump'n 'bout the state cons'tooshun.
Makes plenty since t' me 'cuz if'n I say 'ain't' and you-uns ain't heer'd me say 'ain't', then you-un's might thank I dun said, 'ok'. If'n I say 'ain't', I means it 'cuz I ain't gonna say nuthin' I ain't meant t' say. Reckon them politishuns shulda dun know'd thet? Most of 'em dun been t' law skool. Ain't thet why they's so miny foks dun voted fir 'em t' bugin with, 'cause they's so et up w' the learnin'? I'da thunk so.
Now thu guv'nir says he ain't agonna brang the state 'sembly in so's they kin fix it. I ain't shur whut ain't fix't, but I'm purty shur whut ain't needin' t' be dun. We-un's don't need them edge-ee-kaited geen-us's atellin' us how t' raise young-un's or whut they kin or kain't do. I figger this nu law dun give us what we-un's needed t' bugin with: permishun t' duh-cide whut we-un's thank is best for are young-un's. We's the ones gotta live withit, ain't we?
Shoot. Who sez we's back-ards?
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Selective Hearing
Lamentations 1:1-6
Habakkuk 1:1-4, 2:1-4
Luke 17:5-10
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts or evidence."
John Adams
President Adams made an undeniable observation, but such statements also open the door to discussions about exactly what constitutes the difference between "fact" and "truth". A pastor friend of mine was reminded of what so many people of faith are tempted to say: God is; whether or not we choose to believe it does not alter this "fact". For people of faith this is true enough; His presence cannot be denied. What happens to this “fact” during those times when His presence cannot be felt? Does this make Him any less real?
In such a dramatic instance as the Holocaust it is impossible to speculate as to whether the Lord God was present or absent though it would be equally impossible to say that He is omnipresent and simultaneously absent during any particular period in human history. However, during such moments of trial and tribulation it is easy to blame the Lord for "allowing" such things to occur and not accept some of the blame ourselves.
We would rather not be held accountable because it is much easier to blame some invisible cosmic force without acknowledging that we could perhaps avoid certain disasters and heartaches if we were more intentional about and confident with our faith. Holocaust survivors such as Elie Wiesel have made similar observations – understandably, with a certain amount of bitterness - not only about the Lord's perceived silence but also about the world's silence during this horrific period in human history.
At the time I found it unsettling, to say the least, that some evangelists and preachers claimed that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were the result of the Lord's judgment against America and for a brief period following these attacks, churches across the nation were "standing room only". More reasonable voices countered that the Lord would not use evil men with evil intent to accomplish His worthy goals because such thoughts can lend credence to and legitimize such cowardly and dastardly acts, yet evil acts perpetuated against the Jewish people are recorded in the Hebrew scriptures and are directly attributed to the Lord as judgment, according to the prophets, against His people for turning their backs on Him and turning their attention to "foreign gods". Such records can only be denied by people who live in denial.
Humans are a funny breed, and people of faith are no exception. We hear what we want to hear, and we apply what we care to apply according to what is pleasing to us and suits us. We have what is before us some of the most "negative" readings I can recall assigned by the lection for a particular Sunday. Readings from Lamentations pine for the days when Glory was present which makes its absence that much more profoundly felt; blessings that were once abundantly present are now notably absent. The writer of Habakkuk laments not about the "absence" of the Lord but rather, the "deaf ear" that does not seem to hear the cries of the people. And Jesus seems to be encouraging us to be reminded that we are essentially no good as independent human thinkers but that we are of some use as "slaves" and must remember "our place" as such.
Such readings come across as somewhat dehumanizing on the surface, maybe even more so for western Christians because we live in societies that are not so heavily controlled or regulated according to how a government thinks we should act or worship. We are free to do as we please and if someone somehow interferes with that freedom, we have been "violated" and our rights endangered.
We should be mindful, however, that these readings serve a useful purpose on so many levels. These kinds of readings may not be the uplifting, "everything-will-be-ok", messages we prefer, but they are still soul-saving reminders that we do, in fact, belong to Someone and that being a member of such a family comes with it certain expectations. We are owned lock, stock, and barrel.
I get the impression that ancient Israelite society was a lot like ours though certainly not to the American degree. It seems obvious as it is written that Israelites were free to choose their own courses of action, and it is equally clear that they often chose poorly. As a result of those poor choices, the chickens came home to roost. Come to think of it, this could help to explain the restrictive notions of the Pharisees and their legalistic interpretations of the Law.
Notice what happened, though. As the Israelites, through their "freedom", sought to assimilate themselves into such cultures and societies foreign (in every sense of the word) from their own, this is precisely what they got though the assimilation was less than voluntary and was certainly not what they had in mind. The lamentations come from a society that wants to "have its cake and eat it, too". Sort of reminds us to be careful what we wish for, doesn't it?
As a result, what has happened? The city, the Holy City, the Beacon that was supposed to be a shining example to the world, has disappeared. In the vision of Lamentations, the city that was once full of life and full of people sits empty and void. It is not as if it never existed because the writer is painfully aware of what is absent and why it all disappeared. Habakkuk is painfully aware of the strange silence within a city that once heeded the Voice that called a people forth from bondage and slavery, but the Voice that called them forth from bondage was the Voice they were willing – in fact, eager – to hear. The Voice that established standards and set limits, however, either did not seem so clear or was not so willingly received.
I do not suggest that the Holocaust was a judgment against the Jews nor do I suggest that 9/11 was a judgment against America. This is not my call and it is utterly unfair for any human to make such a proclamation. However, we must also be aware that the Lord is willing and able to speak to us through calamity. It is through disaster and heartache, however, when we are most able AND WILLING to listen.
The Message itself is the same, and the Voice is still the same Voice. We are a people set free and called forth for His Glory and not our own, to serve His purpose and not our own, to serve and not be served. And when we are true to this Message of hope and redemption, we are a City filled with Life and with Purpose and with Meaning. We are a City with a Mission, and we are His. Let us hear always the Voice that calls us forth in good times as well as in bad.
Habakkuk 1:1-4, 2:1-4
Luke 17:5-10
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts or evidence."
John Adams
President Adams made an undeniable observation, but such statements also open the door to discussions about exactly what constitutes the difference between "fact" and "truth". A pastor friend of mine was reminded of what so many people of faith are tempted to say: God is; whether or not we choose to believe it does not alter this "fact". For people of faith this is true enough; His presence cannot be denied. What happens to this “fact” during those times when His presence cannot be felt? Does this make Him any less real?
In such a dramatic instance as the Holocaust it is impossible to speculate as to whether the Lord God was present or absent though it would be equally impossible to say that He is omnipresent and simultaneously absent during any particular period in human history. However, during such moments of trial and tribulation it is easy to blame the Lord for "allowing" such things to occur and not accept some of the blame ourselves.
We would rather not be held accountable because it is much easier to blame some invisible cosmic force without acknowledging that we could perhaps avoid certain disasters and heartaches if we were more intentional about and confident with our faith. Holocaust survivors such as Elie Wiesel have made similar observations – understandably, with a certain amount of bitterness - not only about the Lord's perceived silence but also about the world's silence during this horrific period in human history.
At the time I found it unsettling, to say the least, that some evangelists and preachers claimed that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were the result of the Lord's judgment against America and for a brief period following these attacks, churches across the nation were "standing room only". More reasonable voices countered that the Lord would not use evil men with evil intent to accomplish His worthy goals because such thoughts can lend credence to and legitimize such cowardly and dastardly acts, yet evil acts perpetuated against the Jewish people are recorded in the Hebrew scriptures and are directly attributed to the Lord as judgment, according to the prophets, against His people for turning their backs on Him and turning their attention to "foreign gods". Such records can only be denied by people who live in denial.
Humans are a funny breed, and people of faith are no exception. We hear what we want to hear, and we apply what we care to apply according to what is pleasing to us and suits us. We have what is before us some of the most "negative" readings I can recall assigned by the lection for a particular Sunday. Readings from Lamentations pine for the days when Glory was present which makes its absence that much more profoundly felt; blessings that were once abundantly present are now notably absent. The writer of Habakkuk laments not about the "absence" of the Lord but rather, the "deaf ear" that does not seem to hear the cries of the people. And Jesus seems to be encouraging us to be reminded that we are essentially no good as independent human thinkers but that we are of some use as "slaves" and must remember "our place" as such.
Such readings come across as somewhat dehumanizing on the surface, maybe even more so for western Christians because we live in societies that are not so heavily controlled or regulated according to how a government thinks we should act or worship. We are free to do as we please and if someone somehow interferes with that freedom, we have been "violated" and our rights endangered.
We should be mindful, however, that these readings serve a useful purpose on so many levels. These kinds of readings may not be the uplifting, "everything-will-be-ok", messages we prefer, but they are still soul-saving reminders that we do, in fact, belong to Someone and that being a member of such a family comes with it certain expectations. We are owned lock, stock, and barrel.
I get the impression that ancient Israelite society was a lot like ours though certainly not to the American degree. It seems obvious as it is written that Israelites were free to choose their own courses of action, and it is equally clear that they often chose poorly. As a result of those poor choices, the chickens came home to roost. Come to think of it, this could help to explain the restrictive notions of the Pharisees and their legalistic interpretations of the Law.
Notice what happened, though. As the Israelites, through their "freedom", sought to assimilate themselves into such cultures and societies foreign (in every sense of the word) from their own, this is precisely what they got though the assimilation was less than voluntary and was certainly not what they had in mind. The lamentations come from a society that wants to "have its cake and eat it, too". Sort of reminds us to be careful what we wish for, doesn't it?
As a result, what has happened? The city, the Holy City, the Beacon that was supposed to be a shining example to the world, has disappeared. In the vision of Lamentations, the city that was once full of life and full of people sits empty and void. It is not as if it never existed because the writer is painfully aware of what is absent and why it all disappeared. Habakkuk is painfully aware of the strange silence within a city that once heeded the Voice that called a people forth from bondage and slavery, but the Voice that called them forth from bondage was the Voice they were willing – in fact, eager – to hear. The Voice that established standards and set limits, however, either did not seem so clear or was not so willingly received.
I do not suggest that the Holocaust was a judgment against the Jews nor do I suggest that 9/11 was a judgment against America. This is not my call and it is utterly unfair for any human to make such a proclamation. However, we must also be aware that the Lord is willing and able to speak to us through calamity. It is through disaster and heartache, however, when we are most able AND WILLING to listen.
The Message itself is the same, and the Voice is still the same Voice. We are a people set free and called forth for His Glory and not our own, to serve His purpose and not our own, to serve and not be served. And when we are true to this Message of hope and redemption, we are a City filled with Life and with Purpose and with Meaning. We are a City with a Mission, and we are His. Let us hear always the Voice that calls us forth in good times as well as in bad.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Cosmic Reality
One of my favorite movies has to be “The Rookie” with Dennis Quaid playing the part of Jim Morris, the real-life west Texas high school science teacher who took a shot at trying out for major league baseball well past his prime. The essential theme of the story is that it is never too late to pursue dreams. Just before he was called up from the minors and he was feeling dejected and more than a little homesick, he remembered what his father had told him: it’s ok to dream about what you want to do until it’s time to do what you are meant to do. By the time he had reached a decision to stop “playing” baseball, go home, and resume teaching science and coaching high school baseball, he was called up to the major leagues.
There is nothing wrong with having dreams. These are a huge part of what makes getting out of bed every morning worth the effort. There is also nothing wrong with wanting more out of life than whatever is set before us, but there is something desperately wrong with being so dissatisfied with life that we spin ourselves off into several different directions in efforts to find that happy place where all our dreams might come true and in so doing actually neglecting those things that do matter more than anything else. There are still bills to be paid and children to be raised and educated. And in a society in which divorce has become the “easy” option as a means by which we try to “find ourselves”, there is effort required to be put into one’s marriage and working on maintaining the relationship rather than neglect it to the point of disrepair.
Whether one is meant to do something as part of some cosmic destiny or is only a matter of having entered into certain commitments, the first obligations remain. There is still such a thing as “first things first”. Things get harder as we get older especially if we become dissatisfied with the way things are and try to think back on where we might have “missed the boat”. We question the wisdom of certain decisions while failing to realize that even the mistakes made in youthful haste are part and parcel of who we have become. Life is what it is, but there is also the element that life can be what we choose for it to be.
For grown-ups, some things will have to wait. We are owed nothing and are guaranteed even less than that, but we must find the happy place in our hearts when we can finally become at least content with what life has given us. It has everything to do with being satisfied that we are blessed even when we think we are cursed.
There is nothing wrong with having dreams. These are a huge part of what makes getting out of bed every morning worth the effort. There is also nothing wrong with wanting more out of life than whatever is set before us, but there is something desperately wrong with being so dissatisfied with life that we spin ourselves off into several different directions in efforts to find that happy place where all our dreams might come true and in so doing actually neglecting those things that do matter more than anything else. There are still bills to be paid and children to be raised and educated. And in a society in which divorce has become the “easy” option as a means by which we try to “find ourselves”, there is effort required to be put into one’s marriage and working on maintaining the relationship rather than neglect it to the point of disrepair.
Whether one is meant to do something as part of some cosmic destiny or is only a matter of having entered into certain commitments, the first obligations remain. There is still such a thing as “first things first”. Things get harder as we get older especially if we become dissatisfied with the way things are and try to think back on where we might have “missed the boat”. We question the wisdom of certain decisions while failing to realize that even the mistakes made in youthful haste are part and parcel of who we have become. Life is what it is, but there is also the element that life can be what we choose for it to be.
For grown-ups, some things will have to wait. We are owed nothing and are guaranteed even less than that, but we must find the happy place in our hearts when we can finally become at least content with what life has given us. It has everything to do with being satisfied that we are blessed even when we think we are cursed.
What do Americans Want?
Heading into a new election year, a year that promises to be anything but civil, what are Americans’ expectations? What do the people want? It is said that Republicans lost control of the Congress over the war in Iraq and even congressional Democrats are not faring well in public opinion polls because they are not doing all that was expected from them to end the US presence in Iraq.
The Democrat-controlled Congress just passed a bill to expand SCHIP, a program intended to provide health insurance coverage to poor children, which will now include “children” up to the age of 25 and will also include “poor” households with income in excess of $80,000.00 by substantially raising taxes on tobacco, a product most prominently used by lower-income folks. HillaryCare promises health insurance for everyone (actually, the proposal “mandates” coverage) to the tune of $10 billion per year while decrying the careless budget deficits of the Bush administration. The proposal also claims to be able to make the US health care system more efficient but is a little short on specifics. The Democrats have been handed a nearly made-to-order attorney general nominee but are suggesting that confirmation hearings will be delayed in an effort to force the administration’s hand over documents related to the FORMER attorney general while speaking of how desperately the US needs a new attorney general in place as soon as possible.
This is going to be an election season of “transactional politics”, to borrow a phrase from Time magazine, in which support for Democratic presidential candidates will go not necessarily to the highest bidder but will instead go for the highest bid, the candidate who will offer the most give-aways. Why is it that in a nation where freedom and liberty are claimed to be the cornerstones of our society, a society that expresses “fear” of illegal or unconstitutional wiretaps as a threat to our freedom even if for the sake of our national security, we seem to see no need to be fearful of a potential government that seeks to control nearly every facet of our existence? Why do we not see in these give-aways express threats to the very freedom and liberty we claim to embrace? Essentially it is that whenever the government dictates what we will or won’t do, what we can or cannot have and how much or how little we are allowed to have, the essential liberty we believe to have been ordained to us by divine authority is taken from us by government authority.
This is the fundamental philosophy that defines the difference between Republicans and Democrats. What is unfortunate is that so many – actually, too many – have come to believe that government give-away programs that attempt to manage and control our lives enhance freedom rather than restrict it. This must be the very reason why the late, great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. He didn’t demand equality of outcome of every enterprise. Instead he expressed faith in the reality that man, regardless of skin color, is capable of thinking for himself and is due the right to succeed or fail according to his individual effort. Dr. King did not ask for public give-aways; he demanded that obstacles be moved away. It is the very principle by which a Republican president was compelled to face down a Democratic governor in 1957 to do nothing more than to enforce the law of the land, the law which demands that individual rights be respected … period.
We would all do well to avoid “pied piper” politicians who sound a good theme by promising something for nothing but are actually leading us to our own destruction, destruction of the very freedom Dr. King was willing to die for.
The Democrat-controlled Congress just passed a bill to expand SCHIP, a program intended to provide health insurance coverage to poor children, which will now include “children” up to the age of 25 and will also include “poor” households with income in excess of $80,000.00 by substantially raising taxes on tobacco, a product most prominently used by lower-income folks. HillaryCare promises health insurance for everyone (actually, the proposal “mandates” coverage) to the tune of $10 billion per year while decrying the careless budget deficits of the Bush administration. The proposal also claims to be able to make the US health care system more efficient but is a little short on specifics. The Democrats have been handed a nearly made-to-order attorney general nominee but are suggesting that confirmation hearings will be delayed in an effort to force the administration’s hand over documents related to the FORMER attorney general while speaking of how desperately the US needs a new attorney general in place as soon as possible.
This is going to be an election season of “transactional politics”, to borrow a phrase from Time magazine, in which support for Democratic presidential candidates will go not necessarily to the highest bidder but will instead go for the highest bid, the candidate who will offer the most give-aways. Why is it that in a nation where freedom and liberty are claimed to be the cornerstones of our society, a society that expresses “fear” of illegal or unconstitutional wiretaps as a threat to our freedom even if for the sake of our national security, we seem to see no need to be fearful of a potential government that seeks to control nearly every facet of our existence? Why do we not see in these give-aways express threats to the very freedom and liberty we claim to embrace? Essentially it is that whenever the government dictates what we will or won’t do, what we can or cannot have and how much or how little we are allowed to have, the essential liberty we believe to have been ordained to us by divine authority is taken from us by government authority.
This is the fundamental philosophy that defines the difference between Republicans and Democrats. What is unfortunate is that so many – actually, too many – have come to believe that government give-away programs that attempt to manage and control our lives enhance freedom rather than restrict it. This must be the very reason why the late, great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. He didn’t demand equality of outcome of every enterprise. Instead he expressed faith in the reality that man, regardless of skin color, is capable of thinking for himself and is due the right to succeed or fail according to his individual effort. Dr. King did not ask for public give-aways; he demanded that obstacles be moved away. It is the very principle by which a Republican president was compelled to face down a Democratic governor in 1957 to do nothing more than to enforce the law of the land, the law which demands that individual rights be respected … period.
We would all do well to avoid “pied piper” politicians who sound a good theme by promising something for nothing but are actually leading us to our own destruction, destruction of the very freedom Dr. King was willing to die for.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Dare to Hope
Former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took quite a beating from the Democratic congressional majority after having been accused of ignoring the needs of the people by serving the needs of the Bush administration in the ongoing war on terror. In the interests of the nation as a whole, then, Mr. Gonzales decided it best to resign his position. Since his resignation, the Democrats have been demanding a candidate who will be qualified for the position and who respects the rule of law.
In this unique moment in US history, President Bush has nominated a candidate who can meet all the requirements of the office, all the expectations of the Democrats, and all the needs of the people of the United States during this time of war. And during this time of war in this unique moment in US history, we are presented with a gentleman who is uniquely qualified to lead the Justice Department. Judge Michael Mukasey has been presented to the people of the United States and will soon be presented to the US Senate for confirmation.
Let us hope that the Democrats are as serious about their commitment “not to obstruct or impede” as they claim to be about the rule of law and public service in this country. Let us hope that the irresponsible talk of holding up the nomination of Judge Mukasey in an ongoing effort to locate the ever-allusive “smoking gun” of the US attorney matter is just that: talk. Let us hope (dare we hope?) that the Democratic leadership is as serious and as committed to the rule of law and sound leadership at the Justice Department as they claim to be. Let us hope that they recognize during this time of war and the unique legal challenges this country has faced for the sake of national security that we have been presented with a genuine leader who has faced these unique challenges with “extraordinary skill and patience, assuring fairness to the prosecution and to each defendant, with helpfulness to the jury” (US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in congratulating Judge Mukasey in his exceptional handling of a terror trial).
It will not get much better than this.
In this unique moment in US history, President Bush has nominated a candidate who can meet all the requirements of the office, all the expectations of the Democrats, and all the needs of the people of the United States during this time of war. And during this time of war in this unique moment in US history, we are presented with a gentleman who is uniquely qualified to lead the Justice Department. Judge Michael Mukasey has been presented to the people of the United States and will soon be presented to the US Senate for confirmation.
Let us hope that the Democrats are as serious about their commitment “not to obstruct or impede” as they claim to be about the rule of law and public service in this country. Let us hope that the irresponsible talk of holding up the nomination of Judge Mukasey in an ongoing effort to locate the ever-allusive “smoking gun” of the US attorney matter is just that: talk. Let us hope (dare we hope?) that the Democratic leadership is as serious and as committed to the rule of law and sound leadership at the Justice Department as they claim to be. Let us hope that they recognize during this time of war and the unique legal challenges this country has faced for the sake of national security that we have been presented with a genuine leader who has faced these unique challenges with “extraordinary skill and patience, assuring fairness to the prosecution and to each defendant, with helpfulness to the jury” (US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in congratulating Judge Mukasey in his exceptional handling of a terror trial).
It will not get much better than this.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Claim the Name!
Jeremiah 4:11-12; 22-28
Revelation 2:1-7
Matthew 10:16-25
The other night my daughter asked me what it means to be a Methodist. The sad part of this inquiry is that she has been a Methodist all her cognitive life. She is baptized and confirmed as a Methodist Christian. The sadder part still, her Methodist preacher dad could not answer her question except to point out some differences between Methodist theology and other denominations that see things a little differently.
I have long maintained that the matter of our denomination affiliation is not nearly as important as the manner in which we live out a life of faith. Being a faithful Methodist is not nearly as important as being a faithful disciple of Christ. I almost wrote that it is slightly akin to being a faithful Democrat or Republican above being a faithful American, but this is not a fair analogy – at least not in the realm of theology. In fact, I would come close to saying that while we should be profoundly grateful and daily count our blessings for living in such a country as ours, it must necessarily be considered primarily in a theological sense in that we recognize that we were born Americans for a reason when we could just as easily have been born in any other country. It is, after all, a very big world, and everyone has to be born somewhere.
For Methodists – actually, for all Christians - one must consider what is written in the greeting in the Book of Discipline as this book defines who and what we are as Methodists: “it affirms with John Wesley that solitary religion is invalid and that Christ lays claim upon the WHOLE life of those who accept Him as Lord and Savior.”
The United Methodist Church “is an inclusive society without regard to ethnic origin, economic condition, gender, age, or disabilities. It asserts that all who are baptized and confirmed are MINISTERS of Christ.”
Part of what distinguishes United Methodism from many other churches in the Protestant tradition is our connectionalism and sense of global mission as a single body, recognizing that Christ Himself is but One Body; we dare to be no less. We must never attempt to lay claim to be American Methodists above our calling to be “ministers” of Christ in willing cooperation and fellowship not only with Methodists worldwide but also with all Christians from other denominations who are willing to sit at a common table of worship in unity with Christ and with one another. We recognize that universality of the Lord.
“The underlying energy of the Wesleyan theological heritage stems from an emphasis upon practical divinity, the implementation of genuine Christianity in the lives of believers.”
Even though there have been doctrinal disputes as long as there has been religion and some new denominations and even whole religions did arise from such disputes, the Methodist movement did not set out to reformulate or create new doctrine. Rather, the Methodist Church came from an essential belief that Christianity is not only social but is also dynamic. Christianity is nothing if not social and if we are not representative of “streams of living water” – meaning MOVING water – then we are putrid, stagnant swamp water where only death can flourish. Our stated mission is simple: to make disciples of Christ. Since it should be obvious that this monumental, worldwide task cannot be accomplished within a single hour during only one day of the week, it must necessarily be what we affirm: solitary religion is invalid, and Christ lays claim over the WHOLE life.
How strange it is that ancient “Egyptians did not really have a name for religion as such because it was an inseparable element of the world order to which Egyptian society belonged.” (pg 14, Duiker, 3rd edition, Essential World History) Because Egypt lay in the Nile River Valley, agriculture became the society and the abundant produce may have been a driving force behind creating their many gods. And even though trade certainly flourished, Egypt was largely geographically isolated from invading armies. There is harsh desert to the east and to the west, the Mediterranean Sea is to the north, and there are so-called “cataracts” in the Nile River to the south. So they were largely a society unto themselves. Religion was not a “part” of their society. Rather, their society seemed to revolve around religion. It might be said that society and culture were a “part” of their religion.
The same cannot be said of American Christianity or American Christians. Obviously we have our jobs and our businesses that lay claim to a big chunk of our lives, and we cannot set them aside. We have families to support and bills to pay. Growing children are constantly in need of new shoes, and they eat! The world in which we live has become very expensive and we are directly connected into it. Be aware, however, that this may be reality but it is only because we have allowed it to be so. It has not necessarily been willed upon us by our Holy Father.
I try never to put too much stock into national polls. The sampling is always going to be inherently flawed because it is just not possible to contact every single person in the US nor is it fair to say that a sampling of white, middle-aged American men can speak on behalf of ALL white, middle-aged American men. Nevertheless, it is interesting that when polls are done regarding religion in America, the question “how important a part of your life is your religion”? Do you see the flaw in the question? It is already designed, even if unintentionally, to categorize our faith. Even if we answer that religion is VERY important, we nevertheless answer that religion – though important – is still only a PART of our lives. Hence the problem as per the Lord’s judgment in Jeremiah and the Lord’s admonishment in The Revelation.
Jesus warns His followers that they are going out into a strange world where they actually do not belong, yet they are sent to proclaim the Word. And for what reason? It must surely be the knowledge that there are others out in that strange world who cannot find their way back, and the only way to get them back is to go to them and provide the Light that has been granted to us. In order to do this effectively, we must become more attuned to not only our religion but, more importantly, the faith we proclaim. This, though perhaps overly simplified, is the Methodist movement in a nutshell.
Regardless of our station in life, there is always going to be a gap, a void, if Christ is not present foremost. It is never an easy calling to take on the role of “witness”, yet it is a calling that belongs to all who have claimed the Name above all names. It is a calling we dare not reject lest we be rejected. And the time we spend in witness may be hard as we face the temptations this world offers to us, but that time is short compared to the Time Rewarded to those who remember FIRST – the FIRST LOVE. The desolate land envisioned in Jeremiah is a land void of the Word, void of “witnesses”, void of “streams of living water”. It is a world lost BUT NOT COMPLETELY.
It is still a world worthy of redemption – as are they all – as are we. AMEN.
Revelation 2:1-7
Matthew 10:16-25
The other night my daughter asked me what it means to be a Methodist. The sad part of this inquiry is that she has been a Methodist all her cognitive life. She is baptized and confirmed as a Methodist Christian. The sadder part still, her Methodist preacher dad could not answer her question except to point out some differences between Methodist theology and other denominations that see things a little differently.
I have long maintained that the matter of our denomination affiliation is not nearly as important as the manner in which we live out a life of faith. Being a faithful Methodist is not nearly as important as being a faithful disciple of Christ. I almost wrote that it is slightly akin to being a faithful Democrat or Republican above being a faithful American, but this is not a fair analogy – at least not in the realm of theology. In fact, I would come close to saying that while we should be profoundly grateful and daily count our blessings for living in such a country as ours, it must necessarily be considered primarily in a theological sense in that we recognize that we were born Americans for a reason when we could just as easily have been born in any other country. It is, after all, a very big world, and everyone has to be born somewhere.
For Methodists – actually, for all Christians - one must consider what is written in the greeting in the Book of Discipline as this book defines who and what we are as Methodists: “it affirms with John Wesley that solitary religion is invalid and that Christ lays claim upon the WHOLE life of those who accept Him as Lord and Savior.”
The United Methodist Church “is an inclusive society without regard to ethnic origin, economic condition, gender, age, or disabilities. It asserts that all who are baptized and confirmed are MINISTERS of Christ.”
Part of what distinguishes United Methodism from many other churches in the Protestant tradition is our connectionalism and sense of global mission as a single body, recognizing that Christ Himself is but One Body; we dare to be no less. We must never attempt to lay claim to be American Methodists above our calling to be “ministers” of Christ in willing cooperation and fellowship not only with Methodists worldwide but also with all Christians from other denominations who are willing to sit at a common table of worship in unity with Christ and with one another. We recognize that universality of the Lord.
“The underlying energy of the Wesleyan theological heritage stems from an emphasis upon practical divinity, the implementation of genuine Christianity in the lives of believers.”
Even though there have been doctrinal disputes as long as there has been religion and some new denominations and even whole religions did arise from such disputes, the Methodist movement did not set out to reformulate or create new doctrine. Rather, the Methodist Church came from an essential belief that Christianity is not only social but is also dynamic. Christianity is nothing if not social and if we are not representative of “streams of living water” – meaning MOVING water – then we are putrid, stagnant swamp water where only death can flourish. Our stated mission is simple: to make disciples of Christ. Since it should be obvious that this monumental, worldwide task cannot be accomplished within a single hour during only one day of the week, it must necessarily be what we affirm: solitary religion is invalid, and Christ lays claim over the WHOLE life.
How strange it is that ancient “Egyptians did not really have a name for religion as such because it was an inseparable element of the world order to which Egyptian society belonged.” (pg 14, Duiker, 3rd edition, Essential World History) Because Egypt lay in the Nile River Valley, agriculture became the society and the abundant produce may have been a driving force behind creating their many gods. And even though trade certainly flourished, Egypt was largely geographically isolated from invading armies. There is harsh desert to the east and to the west, the Mediterranean Sea is to the north, and there are so-called “cataracts” in the Nile River to the south. So they were largely a society unto themselves. Religion was not a “part” of their society. Rather, their society seemed to revolve around religion. It might be said that society and culture were a “part” of their religion.
The same cannot be said of American Christianity or American Christians. Obviously we have our jobs and our businesses that lay claim to a big chunk of our lives, and we cannot set them aside. We have families to support and bills to pay. Growing children are constantly in need of new shoes, and they eat! The world in which we live has become very expensive and we are directly connected into it. Be aware, however, that this may be reality but it is only because we have allowed it to be so. It has not necessarily been willed upon us by our Holy Father.
I try never to put too much stock into national polls. The sampling is always going to be inherently flawed because it is just not possible to contact every single person in the US nor is it fair to say that a sampling of white, middle-aged American men can speak on behalf of ALL white, middle-aged American men. Nevertheless, it is interesting that when polls are done regarding religion in America, the question “how important a part of your life is your religion”? Do you see the flaw in the question? It is already designed, even if unintentionally, to categorize our faith. Even if we answer that religion is VERY important, we nevertheless answer that religion – though important – is still only a PART of our lives. Hence the problem as per the Lord’s judgment in Jeremiah and the Lord’s admonishment in The Revelation.
Jesus warns His followers that they are going out into a strange world where they actually do not belong, yet they are sent to proclaim the Word. And for what reason? It must surely be the knowledge that there are others out in that strange world who cannot find their way back, and the only way to get them back is to go to them and provide the Light that has been granted to us. In order to do this effectively, we must become more attuned to not only our religion but, more importantly, the faith we proclaim. This, though perhaps overly simplified, is the Methodist movement in a nutshell.
Regardless of our station in life, there is always going to be a gap, a void, if Christ is not present foremost. It is never an easy calling to take on the role of “witness”, yet it is a calling that belongs to all who have claimed the Name above all names. It is a calling we dare not reject lest we be rejected. And the time we spend in witness may be hard as we face the temptations this world offers to us, but that time is short compared to the Time Rewarded to those who remember FIRST – the FIRST LOVE. The desolate land envisioned in Jeremiah is a land void of the Word, void of “witnesses”, void of “streams of living water”. It is a world lost BUT NOT COMPLETELY.
It is still a world worthy of redemption – as are they all – as are we. AMEN.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Who is kidding Whom?
Unless I am mistaken, I seem to recall that not long after the attacks of 9/11/01 the television networks took a stand perhaps at the request of the White House and declared that Osama bin-Laden’s time on American television would be ended. Now he’s back in the news and is being quoted and shown on news networks for all to see, and I don’t understand how we have come to such a pass that we would allow this man to have free air time on American television.
Of course he’s still news and what he does and all that he’s involved in still concerns many Americans. However, there is no justification for allowing this murderer time in the American media to pontificate about his perverted religion (whatever it is, it ain’t Islam!) and his even more perverted world views. Why should anyone in the United States give one whit about what this man has to say? Is being willing to hear this mass murderer’s thoughts what it means to be enlightened? If so, darkness now appears the better alternative because this man is not capable of rational discourse.
Unlike Democrats, I am willing to trust Homeland Security, the CIA, and the FBI to get to the heart of what this maniac is up to and to do what needs to be done to maintain reasonable national security since, as far as I can tell, they’ve done a pretty remarkable job since 9/11/01. Though I am a freedom-loving libertarian Republican, I also acknowledge that in matters of national security there are some things I don’t need to know because if I as a citizen who reads in public can have access to inside information, so can bin-Laden and his band of marauders. This alone is a compelling reason why citizens should be well informed about potential candidates for public office. We have to be able to trust them to make sound decisions.
It is not a matter of choosing to live in ignorance. As a student of politics and as an informed voter I am painfully aware of what is happening around me. As a somewhat reasonable man, I am equally aware that there is only so much I can do to protect myself against irrational “martyrs” who are willing to die in their crazed efforts to accomplish whatever mission they feel compelled to fulfill. I am not willing to receive a voice that claims to speak on behalf of such perverted minds, and I expect US media to respect that bin-Laden and his organization are still actively at war with the United States. How dare they think that this person has something to say to America worth listening to, let alone repeating over and over again?
While we continue to bury our beloved countrymen, we must be subjected to this criminal trying to convince us that we had it coming and then offering a veiled threat against us unless we repent? I think not.
Of course he’s still news and what he does and all that he’s involved in still concerns many Americans. However, there is no justification for allowing this murderer time in the American media to pontificate about his perverted religion (whatever it is, it ain’t Islam!) and his even more perverted world views. Why should anyone in the United States give one whit about what this man has to say? Is being willing to hear this mass murderer’s thoughts what it means to be enlightened? If so, darkness now appears the better alternative because this man is not capable of rational discourse.
Unlike Democrats, I am willing to trust Homeland Security, the CIA, and the FBI to get to the heart of what this maniac is up to and to do what needs to be done to maintain reasonable national security since, as far as I can tell, they’ve done a pretty remarkable job since 9/11/01. Though I am a freedom-loving libertarian Republican, I also acknowledge that in matters of national security there are some things I don’t need to know because if I as a citizen who reads in public can have access to inside information, so can bin-Laden and his band of marauders. This alone is a compelling reason why citizens should be well informed about potential candidates for public office. We have to be able to trust them to make sound decisions.
It is not a matter of choosing to live in ignorance. As a student of politics and as an informed voter I am painfully aware of what is happening around me. As a somewhat reasonable man, I am equally aware that there is only so much I can do to protect myself against irrational “martyrs” who are willing to die in their crazed efforts to accomplish whatever mission they feel compelled to fulfill. I am not willing to receive a voice that claims to speak on behalf of such perverted minds, and I expect US media to respect that bin-Laden and his organization are still actively at war with the United States. How dare they think that this person has something to say to America worth listening to, let alone repeating over and over again?
While we continue to bury our beloved countrymen, we must be subjected to this criminal trying to convince us that we had it coming and then offering a veiled threat against us unless we repent? I think not.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The {court-appointed} President - NOT!
Hi. My name is Michael, and I am an op-ed, “letters to the editor” junkie. There is little I love more than to read actual news articles and then read someone else’s assessment. I know full well that many writers play loose with facts in order to make their point and, though certainly unintentional, I may well be guilty myself from time to time. However, my name means a little more to me than my opinion so in matters of being right or being fair, I choose fair.
It is also easy to see, at least for the informed reader, that many “letters to the editor” are based more on headlines and sound bites than on the whole story. It is part of the reason why I sometimes cringe knowing that even those who don’t bother getting the whole story are allowed the same vote as I and others who do bother to read the whole story. Still it must be acknowledged that being informed does not necessarily equate with being right.
Having said all this, I must say that if I read one more “letter to the editor” from another sour-grapes munchin’ Democrat about how President Bush was “appointed” to his position by the US Supreme Court, I am going to choke! These letters that convey an attitude of partisan spin, misinformation and downright ignorance only serve as yet another reminder that the majority of Americans are lacking in the basic tenets of American civics. The lack of civility in these letters is equally appalling.
The decision by the US Supreme Court came as a result of Florida’s carelessness and Al Gore’s blind ambition. Upon learning that the vote count might be close enough to trigger an automatic recount, Mr. Gore retracted the concession he had already made to Mr. Bush only an hour before. The vote was 2,909,135 to Bush, 2,907,351 to Gore, but the first lawsuit filed was in a challenge to Florida’s “butterfly ballots”. This all happened on November 8.
On November 9 Mr. Gore’s campaign requested a manual recount in four Florida counties where the votes were actually too close to call especially in light of some seeming inconsistencies in reporting as well as allegations of fraud in addition to some voters claiming to have been duped by the so-called “butterfly ballots”. Remember the charges from some voters who claimed that what they actually selected was not what they meant to select? Even by now it’s beginning to get a little ridiculous if somewhat entertaining, but it is important business to see to it that all ballots are counted and counted properly.
On November 11, Siegel vs. LePore is filed in federal court on behalf of Mr. Bush and a collection of voters to halt the manual recounts, alleging constitutional violations of equal protection among other violations. On November 12 Palm Beach County begins its manual recount.
On November 13 a US District judge rejects the Siegel plea to halt manual recounts, but on November 14 a circuit court judge rules that Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris may enforce a statutory 5pm deadline for county reporting of returns but also held that she may not arbitrarily refuse to include late filed returns. On November 15 Secretary Harris indicated that she will not consider further returns from counties that had already made their submissions.
November 17 was the deadline for receiving overseas absentee ballots, and circuit judge Terry Lewis refused to compel Secretary Harris to consider late returns. One must infer from this that the judge simply upheld Florida law in that anything received after the state-mandated deadlines are void. From there the Florida Supreme Court had intervened at the behest of the Gore campaign, and Secretary Harris was prohibited from certifying election results without further word from that Court.
In the big middle of this confusion, Miami-Dade County had begun its recount on November 19 and by November 21 the Florida Supreme Court refused to halt the manual recounts but required that results be completed by November 26-27. It is at this point, actually on the 22nd, that the Bush campaign filed a petition to the US Supreme Court asking that the Florida Supreme Court ruling be reviewed. On the 23rd the Florida Supreme Court rejected the Gore campaign request that Miami-Dade be compelled to complete a now-suspended recount of all ballots.
On the 24th the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the Bush campaign’s petition that challenged the legality of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to allow recounts and extend state-mandated deadlines.
The final ruling from the US Supreme Court on December 12 held that any recounts at this point could not be properly recounted “in a constitutional manner” in the time remaining. On the 13th the Gore campaign finally conceded the election when it determined that there were no other legal options available.
Bear in mind that this count/recount/court petition/court ruling is being split between circuit courts, state courts, and federal courts up to and including the US Supreme Court. During this time the Gore campaign challenged almost every facet of the Florida election process in nearly every imaginable venue. In the end, however, the Secretary of State certified the election results and the Florida legislature assigned its electors.
If it can even come close to being construed that President Bush was “appointed” by the US Supreme Court it is only because Mr. Gore and/or his supporters got the courts involved in the first place, but that’s the beauty of our system. It was obvious that no one was willing to concede anything. Under our system of government, these kinds of disputes are precisely what the US and state court systems were designed to settle. It is either this or pistols at 20 paces.
Is the matter completely settled? Not in the minds of Gore supporters who are still evidently licking their wounds nearly seven years later and applying “Republican Secretary of State/Republican & Brother Governor” salve on these still-open wounds. To be fair, however, there are still “I hate Clinton” letters floating around here and there. Now I would love to believe that they are only trying to “remind” voters that Clinton and White House together is not a good thing but here’s the thing: name recognition goes a long way because voters don’t pay enough attention to details which brings me to my point and my conclusion.
President Bush is the legal and duly elected president of the United States. If you have a point to make against a lame-duck president who cannot run for office again, please make it and then move back down to the shallow end of the kiddie pool where the water is a little warmer.
It is also easy to see, at least for the informed reader, that many “letters to the editor” are based more on headlines and sound bites than on the whole story. It is part of the reason why I sometimes cringe knowing that even those who don’t bother getting the whole story are allowed the same vote as I and others who do bother to read the whole story. Still it must be acknowledged that being informed does not necessarily equate with being right.
Having said all this, I must say that if I read one more “letter to the editor” from another sour-grapes munchin’ Democrat about how President Bush was “appointed” to his position by the US Supreme Court, I am going to choke! These letters that convey an attitude of partisan spin, misinformation and downright ignorance only serve as yet another reminder that the majority of Americans are lacking in the basic tenets of American civics. The lack of civility in these letters is equally appalling.
The decision by the US Supreme Court came as a result of Florida’s carelessness and Al Gore’s blind ambition. Upon learning that the vote count might be close enough to trigger an automatic recount, Mr. Gore retracted the concession he had already made to Mr. Bush only an hour before. The vote was 2,909,135 to Bush, 2,907,351 to Gore, but the first lawsuit filed was in a challenge to Florida’s “butterfly ballots”. This all happened on November 8.
On November 9 Mr. Gore’s campaign requested a manual recount in four Florida counties where the votes were actually too close to call especially in light of some seeming inconsistencies in reporting as well as allegations of fraud in addition to some voters claiming to have been duped by the so-called “butterfly ballots”. Remember the charges from some voters who claimed that what they actually selected was not what they meant to select? Even by now it’s beginning to get a little ridiculous if somewhat entertaining, but it is important business to see to it that all ballots are counted and counted properly.
On November 11, Siegel vs. LePore is filed in federal court on behalf of Mr. Bush and a collection of voters to halt the manual recounts, alleging constitutional violations of equal protection among other violations. On November 12 Palm Beach County begins its manual recount.
On November 13 a US District judge rejects the Siegel plea to halt manual recounts, but on November 14 a circuit court judge rules that Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris may enforce a statutory 5pm deadline for county reporting of returns but also held that she may not arbitrarily refuse to include late filed returns. On November 15 Secretary Harris indicated that she will not consider further returns from counties that had already made their submissions.
November 17 was the deadline for receiving overseas absentee ballots, and circuit judge Terry Lewis refused to compel Secretary Harris to consider late returns. One must infer from this that the judge simply upheld Florida law in that anything received after the state-mandated deadlines are void. From there the Florida Supreme Court had intervened at the behest of the Gore campaign, and Secretary Harris was prohibited from certifying election results without further word from that Court.
In the big middle of this confusion, Miami-Dade County had begun its recount on November 19 and by November 21 the Florida Supreme Court refused to halt the manual recounts but required that results be completed by November 26-27. It is at this point, actually on the 22nd, that the Bush campaign filed a petition to the US Supreme Court asking that the Florida Supreme Court ruling be reviewed. On the 23rd the Florida Supreme Court rejected the Gore campaign request that Miami-Dade be compelled to complete a now-suspended recount of all ballots.
On the 24th the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the Bush campaign’s petition that challenged the legality of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to allow recounts and extend state-mandated deadlines.
The final ruling from the US Supreme Court on December 12 held that any recounts at this point could not be properly recounted “in a constitutional manner” in the time remaining. On the 13th the Gore campaign finally conceded the election when it determined that there were no other legal options available.
Bear in mind that this count/recount/court petition/court ruling is being split between circuit courts, state courts, and federal courts up to and including the US Supreme Court. During this time the Gore campaign challenged almost every facet of the Florida election process in nearly every imaginable venue. In the end, however, the Secretary of State certified the election results and the Florida legislature assigned its electors.
If it can even come close to being construed that President Bush was “appointed” by the US Supreme Court it is only because Mr. Gore and/or his supporters got the courts involved in the first place, but that’s the beauty of our system. It was obvious that no one was willing to concede anything. Under our system of government, these kinds of disputes are precisely what the US and state court systems were designed to settle. It is either this or pistols at 20 paces.
Is the matter completely settled? Not in the minds of Gore supporters who are still evidently licking their wounds nearly seven years later and applying “Republican Secretary of State/Republican & Brother Governor” salve on these still-open wounds. To be fair, however, there are still “I hate Clinton” letters floating around here and there. Now I would love to believe that they are only trying to “remind” voters that Clinton and White House together is not a good thing but here’s the thing: name recognition goes a long way because voters don’t pay enough attention to details which brings me to my point and my conclusion.
President Bush is the legal and duly elected president of the United States. If you have a point to make against a lame-duck president who cannot run for office again, please make it and then move back down to the shallow end of the kiddie pool where the water is a little warmer.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Yes, but ....
Before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker even made it to the halls of Congress to give a progress report on the troop surge in Iraq, before one word has even been spoken aloud, the general’s remarks had already been dismissed. Senator Joe Biden, D-DE, made headlines by declaring – before the general had officially submitted his required report to the Congress or answered any questions, mind you – that “General Petraeus is dead, flat wrong …”
Bear in mind that the general and the ambassador have both been on the ground in Iraq on a steady basis and have been constantly in the mix, both politically and militarily, as opposed to Sen. Biden and many other members of Congress who make an appearance, smile for the cameras, press a little flesh, and determine by such brief interludes that they have the whole picture, the only point being that there will be no serious discussions beyond what it will take to make headlines. Rather than even pretend to be serious about such an astounding commitment the US has made to the people of Iraq, the focus will be directed more toward what will be required to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Just as a side note, this is part of the reason why I have such serious misgivings about current office holders seeking higher office. To a cynic like me, everything said and done is highly suspect. Everything is about political posturing.
It makes one wonder what alternatives really are available if there is nothing but finger-pointing and name-calling with Harry Reid leading the way. Seriously, what is the alternative? What do Democrats hope to achieve by demanding withdrawal of all troops? Is there a master plan in the offing? Because if there is, it is time to show. It is not enough to point fingers, call names, and find fault. Any one single person among all Americans, regardless of experience or knowledge, can find fault to one degree or another. It takes no real insight to see something and just know that something does not add up. Then again, we’re not talking about Joe-on-the-street. We’re talking about senators who want to be the next president, senators who want their respective parties in control of the Congress and the White House, and senators and members of the House who have been in government and – presumably – in the know for years. Why is it that now in the advent of an election year, the best we are offered is what’s wrong? And we’re supposed to take these candidates seriously for what reason?
It is almost as if Democrats would wish for the return of Saddam Hussein if it were possible. At least during his time of terror, the Democrats could (and did) strut around making empty gestures (and headlines) directed at Saddam and his designs on regional domination. “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” William Jefferson Clinton
Now that Saddam is out of the picture and the imminent threat which apparently existed during the reign of a Democratic president but somehow disappeared with no evidence of disposal prior to President Bush taking office, the Democrats have forgotten. Eight years, after all, is a long time. I freely admit that it is often I don’t remember at noon what I had for breakfast that day, but while Mr. Clinton was in office the threat seemed so obvious, so clear, so “imminent”. Now we’ve attacked and dismantled an “innocent” dictator/butcher and have done nothing but make the world a more dangerous place. Even more, all we have to do – according to the Democratic “plan”, if there is one – is withdraw our troops immediately, and this will all go away and there will be peace and prosperity for all.
The time has come for serious legislators to come forward and put aside the political nonsense that has come to be known among right-thinking Americans as the electoral process. It is time for the Congress to come to terms with its lower-than-George-Bush approval rating and get busy doing the job they begged for the chance to do. It is time to recognize that it is perfectly ok to express concerns without rejecting experience out of hand before having heard the first word or asked the first question. It is time to move forward. As it is now, Osama bin-Laden is currently getting as much press time in the US as the Congress. Who is being taken more seriously?
Bear in mind that the general and the ambassador have both been on the ground in Iraq on a steady basis and have been constantly in the mix, both politically and militarily, as opposed to Sen. Biden and many other members of Congress who make an appearance, smile for the cameras, press a little flesh, and determine by such brief interludes that they have the whole picture, the only point being that there will be no serious discussions beyond what it will take to make headlines. Rather than even pretend to be serious about such an astounding commitment the US has made to the people of Iraq, the focus will be directed more toward what will be required to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Just as a side note, this is part of the reason why I have such serious misgivings about current office holders seeking higher office. To a cynic like me, everything said and done is highly suspect. Everything is about political posturing.
It makes one wonder what alternatives really are available if there is nothing but finger-pointing and name-calling with Harry Reid leading the way. Seriously, what is the alternative? What do Democrats hope to achieve by demanding withdrawal of all troops? Is there a master plan in the offing? Because if there is, it is time to show. It is not enough to point fingers, call names, and find fault. Any one single person among all Americans, regardless of experience or knowledge, can find fault to one degree or another. It takes no real insight to see something and just know that something does not add up. Then again, we’re not talking about Joe-on-the-street. We’re talking about senators who want to be the next president, senators who want their respective parties in control of the Congress and the White House, and senators and members of the House who have been in government and – presumably – in the know for years. Why is it that now in the advent of an election year, the best we are offered is what’s wrong? And we’re supposed to take these candidates seriously for what reason?
It is almost as if Democrats would wish for the return of Saddam Hussein if it were possible. At least during his time of terror, the Democrats could (and did) strut around making empty gestures (and headlines) directed at Saddam and his designs on regional domination. “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” William Jefferson Clinton
Now that Saddam is out of the picture and the imminent threat which apparently existed during the reign of a Democratic president but somehow disappeared with no evidence of disposal prior to President Bush taking office, the Democrats have forgotten. Eight years, after all, is a long time. I freely admit that it is often I don’t remember at noon what I had for breakfast that day, but while Mr. Clinton was in office the threat seemed so obvious, so clear, so “imminent”. Now we’ve attacked and dismantled an “innocent” dictator/butcher and have done nothing but make the world a more dangerous place. Even more, all we have to do – according to the Democratic “plan”, if there is one – is withdraw our troops immediately, and this will all go away and there will be peace and prosperity for all.
The time has come for serious legislators to come forward and put aside the political nonsense that has come to be known among right-thinking Americans as the electoral process. It is time for the Congress to come to terms with its lower-than-George-Bush approval rating and get busy doing the job they begged for the chance to do. It is time to recognize that it is perfectly ok to express concerns without rejecting experience out of hand before having heard the first word or asked the first question. It is time to move forward. As it is now, Osama bin-Laden is currently getting as much press time in the US as the Congress. Who is being taken more seriously?
Monday, September 10, 2007
We Must Never Forget
“Do not wait for leaders. Do it alone: person to person.” Mother Teresa
Since 2001 there have been remembrances and ceremonies by which we strive to honor those who lost their lives on that dreadful day in September. Writers will write, speakers will speak, and the faithful will pray; and while there are those who certainly have a talent for waxing eloquent about the events of 9/11/01 and the needless loss of life, there is still the harsh reality that we cannot turn back the clock. There are no words that can adequately convey our anger, our anguish, or even perhaps our fears.
This date is worthy of our time and reflection. The families whose loved ones lost their lives deserve every consideration, thought, and prayer we can offer them. The men and women of our armed forces and their families who keep the home fires burning also deserve no less than our profound respect, admiration, and support. We must also remember the first-responders here at home – police, firefighters, and other emergency personnel and the families who offer these brave men and women to us – who are always at the ready to serve and protect our communities.
For those who have gone before us, it is too late to offer them our admiration and respect; we can only mourn with the loved ones who are left behind. For those who are still with us, however, now is the time to remind them of how important their service is to us and how important they themselves are to us but not with empty words or meaningless gestures. Instead, let us perform random acts of community service to benefit not only those (and their families) who stand ready to protect us but to also serve as witness to our sense of duty and service to one another regardless of economic status, race, or creed. Let us be witness to the reality that the United States of America is not only a place but an ideal. Let us be, not only on this date but for all time, united in principle, purpose, and justice. The Lord has already blessed the USA. Let us now choose to bless Him by blessing one another.
Since 2001 there have been remembrances and ceremonies by which we strive to honor those who lost their lives on that dreadful day in September. Writers will write, speakers will speak, and the faithful will pray; and while there are those who certainly have a talent for waxing eloquent about the events of 9/11/01 and the needless loss of life, there is still the harsh reality that we cannot turn back the clock. There are no words that can adequately convey our anger, our anguish, or even perhaps our fears.
This date is worthy of our time and reflection. The families whose loved ones lost their lives deserve every consideration, thought, and prayer we can offer them. The men and women of our armed forces and their families who keep the home fires burning also deserve no less than our profound respect, admiration, and support. We must also remember the first-responders here at home – police, firefighters, and other emergency personnel and the families who offer these brave men and women to us – who are always at the ready to serve and protect our communities.
For those who have gone before us, it is too late to offer them our admiration and respect; we can only mourn with the loved ones who are left behind. For those who are still with us, however, now is the time to remind them of how important their service is to us and how important they themselves are to us but not with empty words or meaningless gestures. Instead, let us perform random acts of community service to benefit not only those (and their families) who stand ready to protect us but to also serve as witness to our sense of duty and service to one another regardless of economic status, race, or creed. Let us be witness to the reality that the United States of America is not only a place but an ideal. Let us be, not only on this date but for all time, united in principle, purpose, and justice. The Lord has already blessed the USA. Let us now choose to bless Him by blessing one another.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Evil among us
Last night (9/5/07) during the Republican presidential debate, the dominating theme seemed to be directed toward the war on terror and, more specifically, the US presence in Iraq. During the debate, there were questions posed to the candidates not only from the three moderators but also from patrons in a nearby restaurant who were watching the debate on TV. A gentleman who was identified as a sheriff’s deputy directed his question toward Mitt Romney and was focused on a comment Gov. Romney had made several weeks ago somehow comparing his sons’ service to his campaign to the service of military personnel on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. The deputy acknowledged that Mr. Romney had already apologized but still continued to berate the candidate for ever having said it at all.
Mr. Romney apologized again by reminding everyone that service to this country in the armed forces cannot be fairly compared to much else and he did a good job of paying tribute to our military members, but he missed a greater opportunity that would have brought the entire war on terror into sharper focus and, I believe, proper perspective.
Perhaps more than anyone, a police officer can certainly understand that crime is a perpetual problem that will never go away. I believe it was President Bush who said something early on to the effect that as long as there are men willing to commit evil acts against innocent people, we must be prepared and willing to confront them. Terror activity is a series of criminal acts against innocent civilians designed to weaken the resolve of governments by holding mothers and children hostage to threats of future attacks. These are murderers, not uniformed soldiers, and they serve a perverted ideology and not a nation with borders. As long as nations such as Iran and Syria are willing to finance their activities, these criminals will not go away. Mr. Romney missed his chance to remind the deputy that no matter how many criminals die, or are killed, or are incarcerated, there will always be others waiting and willing to take their place.
It serves no useful purpose to continue to berate the president or the Congress about whether the US should ever have gone into Iraq, as Congressman Ron Paul seems intent on doing. Gov. Mike Huckabee said it best: we broke it. Now it’s up to us to fix it as a nation united in the fight against these mindless criminals. That the battle seems to be centered in Iraq only serves to remind us that, even while Sunnis and Shias fight amongst themselves, there are still substantial foreign fighters in Iraq doing battle against the coalition and the popularly elected Iraqi government. It is no more their fight than, as Democrats or Ron Paul would suggest, our own.
It has often been said that the US and her allies were successful in WWII partly because there were strict controls (yes, censors) on what was to be allowed published in US newspapers. The nation at war did not see the war in all its horrifying splendor. We see all too well what the conflict in Iraq looks like, and we mournfully read the names, ages, and biographies of young men who have given their all in this battle. These are our sons, our fathers whether we are directly related or not. We share the pain of those families who are forced to bury their beloved all too soon. In the face of all this, of course we might be inclined to isolate ourselves as some would and pretend that such ugliness does not exist.
Unfortunately it does exist, has always existed in one form or fashion, and will always exist to one degree or another. These criminals will not go away as long as they honestly and earnestly believe in their cause, and religious fanatics are the worst of worse. The nature of their religion is irrelevant.
This is not a crusade in which we are trying to reclaim the holy land, and it is not a battle for control of oil fields. This conflict also cannot be reduced to a border skirmish with defined goals or an obscure “exit strategy” not because one does not exist but because one cannot exist as long as evil resides among us. This war is international in its scope and is therefore without borders. It is a sobering recognition of the sad fact that this fight will exist with us or without us, and President Bush and the Congress that once supported him has made a sound choice to wage this war on someone else’s soil rather than our own. Our future president, whoever it may be, must be willing to embrace this reality or be willing to apologize for failing to act appropriately.
Mr. Romney apologized again by reminding everyone that service to this country in the armed forces cannot be fairly compared to much else and he did a good job of paying tribute to our military members, but he missed a greater opportunity that would have brought the entire war on terror into sharper focus and, I believe, proper perspective.
Perhaps more than anyone, a police officer can certainly understand that crime is a perpetual problem that will never go away. I believe it was President Bush who said something early on to the effect that as long as there are men willing to commit evil acts against innocent people, we must be prepared and willing to confront them. Terror activity is a series of criminal acts against innocent civilians designed to weaken the resolve of governments by holding mothers and children hostage to threats of future attacks. These are murderers, not uniformed soldiers, and they serve a perverted ideology and not a nation with borders. As long as nations such as Iran and Syria are willing to finance their activities, these criminals will not go away. Mr. Romney missed his chance to remind the deputy that no matter how many criminals die, or are killed, or are incarcerated, there will always be others waiting and willing to take their place.
It serves no useful purpose to continue to berate the president or the Congress about whether the US should ever have gone into Iraq, as Congressman Ron Paul seems intent on doing. Gov. Mike Huckabee said it best: we broke it. Now it’s up to us to fix it as a nation united in the fight against these mindless criminals. That the battle seems to be centered in Iraq only serves to remind us that, even while Sunnis and Shias fight amongst themselves, there are still substantial foreign fighters in Iraq doing battle against the coalition and the popularly elected Iraqi government. It is no more their fight than, as Democrats or Ron Paul would suggest, our own.
It has often been said that the US and her allies were successful in WWII partly because there were strict controls (yes, censors) on what was to be allowed published in US newspapers. The nation at war did not see the war in all its horrifying splendor. We see all too well what the conflict in Iraq looks like, and we mournfully read the names, ages, and biographies of young men who have given their all in this battle. These are our sons, our fathers whether we are directly related or not. We share the pain of those families who are forced to bury their beloved all too soon. In the face of all this, of course we might be inclined to isolate ourselves as some would and pretend that such ugliness does not exist.
Unfortunately it does exist, has always existed in one form or fashion, and will always exist to one degree or another. These criminals will not go away as long as they honestly and earnestly believe in their cause, and religious fanatics are the worst of worse. The nature of their religion is irrelevant.
This is not a crusade in which we are trying to reclaim the holy land, and it is not a battle for control of oil fields. This conflict also cannot be reduced to a border skirmish with defined goals or an obscure “exit strategy” not because one does not exist but because one cannot exist as long as evil resides among us. This war is international in its scope and is therefore without borders. It is a sobering recognition of the sad fact that this fight will exist with us or without us, and President Bush and the Congress that once supported him has made a sound choice to wage this war on someone else’s soil rather than our own. Our future president, whoever it may be, must be willing to embrace this reality or be willing to apologize for failing to act appropriately.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Exploring the Candidates: John Edwards
Is it just me, or does every Democratic presidential wanna-be come with an inherent savior complex? During the 2000 campaign and debates between George W. and Al Gore, Mr. Bush acknowledged that the differences in opinion between himself and Mr. Gore were not a matter of who’s right and who’s wrong but were, rather, a difference in opinion based on a sense of philosophy regarding government responsibilities. They each shared a passion for America and they each believed in what they were standing for but my recollection of that campaign is that Mr. Gore expressed an intense desire to “fight for” us (not sure exactly whom he meant), diligently working to convince presumably middle or poor America of their “victim” status at the hands of rich, mean ol’ Republicans and promising virtually millions in give-away programs to whomever desired to belly up to the government trough in order to make it right. In a nut shell, Mr. Gore promised to be all things to all people, to be our nurturer, our provider.
While I do not intend to unfairly or inaccurately pigeon-hole Democrats in general, I might because it seems to me that this Robin Hood mentality of government’s role has become quite expensive over the years and continues to be a major theme in American politics now, essentially attempting to literally buy votes. It also seems as though each time the government “helps” the working families, these families wind up taking it in the shorts in the long run because members of Congress will invariably protect their own interests first.
During this presidential race, there is another wanna-be messiah on the campaign trail offering, heck, promising to save us from big oil, big pharmacy, big auto, big health care …. well, I think you get the idea. Former US Senator John Edwards is promising to save our poor souls from everything “big” except, of course, “big” government. Even more strange, Mr. Edwards is somehow going to take on “big” government by doing battle with the “inside-the-beltway” folks and straightening out the entire establishment. A man who is worth about a bazillion dollars and lives in a bazillion-square-foot home somehow feels our pain (oddly familiar ring to that one, I think), “understands” us, and is coming to our rescue.
The conflict I have with such “transactional” campaigns (to borrow a term from Time) is that, like most Americans, those who are lacking or are disenfranchised are easily seen or at least reported on, yet it is difficult to know for sure if a political candidate is sincere in seeking to help those who earnestly need it or if they are only attempting to buy votes.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times recently wrote an excellent piece with compelling arguments in favor of government’s obligation to see to it that young children have access to adequate health care beyond the ER. It is abundantly clear that corporate America will shut down an operation and move it overseas or south of the border where labor is substantially cheaper, so there are obviously a lot of Americans being forced to look elsewhere for work. Social Security problems are still looming that will have to be addressed sooner or later, and there is an incredibly expensive war going on with no end in sight. In short, there are problems that government can and must address. Whether government itself can – or should – actually attempt to solve all these problems is perhaps the “philosophical” difference which exists between Democrats and Republicans. Yet it is abundantly clear that genuine problems exist.
The late American industrialist Henry Ford seemed to have the best grasp on social duties and responsibilities when he was quoted as having said, “There are two fools in this world. One is the millionaire who thinks that by hoarding money he can somehow accumulate real power, and the other is the penniless reformer who thinks that if only he can take the money from one class and give it to another, all the world's ills will be cured.”
Money may not be able to buy happiness, but it can come in pretty handy for the down payment and social problems are going to be expensive one way or the other, but is money itself the only issue at stake? To hear Mr. Edwards talk, increasing tax rates on “the rich” while giving tax breaks to middle America will still enable him to provide universal health care for “everyone” (everyone who needs it, or everyone period?), college for “everyone” (who wants it, or whether they want it or not?), and anything else with a price tag that working Americans have to pay for if they want it but will apparently be provided for others who are somehow disadvantaged.
Such statements seem almost inflammatory and degrading toward those who have found themselves at the lower end of the economic scale, but the reality is that there will always be a gap between rich and poor. Trying to define an acceptable level of “gap”, however, is ambiguous at best and will ultimately require that someone’s liberty will be restricted in favor of someone else in any awkward attempt to narrow such a gap to a more acceptable level. Who will be the final authority to determine such?
There is also nothing proven except through failed communist and socialist societies that providing everything for everyone has ever worked or will ever work, but somehow vote-seekers such as Mr. Edwards try to convince Americans that they can somehow make it work. It must also be pointed out that leaders of such nations of communism or socialism have tended to live pretty high off the hog while citizens work their fingers to the bone and live in squalor in other countries like North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela to name only a few.
“The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.” The first century Greek historian Plutarch also recognized that not only will increased taxes levied against the rich not solve any social problems or create economic opportunity for the poor, but the long sought-after “freedom” that vote-seekers claim to offer is actually chains and shackles. One way or the other, to one extent or another, there is no such thing as a free ride. Everything has a price, and everything comes with conditions. Being truly free means to take on such burdens by choice and not by compulsion. The problem with vote-seekers such as Mr. Edwards is that they are adept at convincing the masses that they have a problem and that someone, most likely a rich person or a Republican, is to be blamed and deserves to be punished.
Mr. Edwards might actually believe that he has the remedy for what ails the poor and he may honestly believe in everything he is offering. In my humble opinion, however, should this be the case it should remove any doubt that Mr. Edwards is ignorant of history and economic realities and therefore unfit to serve as chief executive of this nation. Anything the government seeks to prop up financially is artificial at best and will ultimately fail because the US economy is not driven by government spending, at least not primarily; it will be doomed to fail from the start. Ours is a consumer-driven economy based on goods and services bought and sold. Goods and services are provided by employed persons who are offered jobs based on the provider’s ability to sell which in turn is based on the consumer’s ability and willingness to purchase. It is commonly referred to as a “business” cycle and not a government one for a reason: it is completely dependent on business and commerce, most of which is privately held.
Still, the fact that ours is arguably the most powerful and affluent nation on the face of this earth and the fact that farmers go under in this country while human beings go hungry flies in the face of the very essence of economic justice. We also have a serious health care problem in this country in which it seems undetermined whether adequate health care is a right to be enjoyed by all human beings or is a privilege to be reserved only for those who can afford it. Providing universal health insurance, especially for the poor, will provide them with much-needed care but will do little for the spiraling rise in care and medicines except to put a greater burden on the US government.
What can be done to address such serious issues that stand before us? Obviously the solutions will depend on many factors, the party in the majority being at the top of the list. Another factor will be whether we elect a salesman or a chief executive with a proven track record of successfully managing affairs on such a grand scale. I am just not convinced that a single term in the US Senate and a successful career as a personal injury attorney are such qualifications that identify a person suited for such a monumental task, never minding a political ideology.
Mr. Edwards’ potential administration will come with a pretty hefty price tag from a grab bag in which there seems to be something for everyone. Voters have to look very carefully at what is being offered but when reviewing presidential candidates, voters must also be mindful that these candidates can only actually do so much because of constitutional restrictions to the duties and privileges of the office. Talking a good show will go a long way with apathetic and complacent voters who fail to dig too deep, but there is only so much that any president can – or should – do. We would all do well to pay closer attention.
While I do not intend to unfairly or inaccurately pigeon-hole Democrats in general, I might because it seems to me that this Robin Hood mentality of government’s role has become quite expensive over the years and continues to be a major theme in American politics now, essentially attempting to literally buy votes. It also seems as though each time the government “helps” the working families, these families wind up taking it in the shorts in the long run because members of Congress will invariably protect their own interests first.
During this presidential race, there is another wanna-be messiah on the campaign trail offering, heck, promising to save us from big oil, big pharmacy, big auto, big health care …. well, I think you get the idea. Former US Senator John Edwards is promising to save our poor souls from everything “big” except, of course, “big” government. Even more strange, Mr. Edwards is somehow going to take on “big” government by doing battle with the “inside-the-beltway” folks and straightening out the entire establishment. A man who is worth about a bazillion dollars and lives in a bazillion-square-foot home somehow feels our pain (oddly familiar ring to that one, I think), “understands” us, and is coming to our rescue.
The conflict I have with such “transactional” campaigns (to borrow a term from Time) is that, like most Americans, those who are lacking or are disenfranchised are easily seen or at least reported on, yet it is difficult to know for sure if a political candidate is sincere in seeking to help those who earnestly need it or if they are only attempting to buy votes.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times recently wrote an excellent piece with compelling arguments in favor of government’s obligation to see to it that young children have access to adequate health care beyond the ER. It is abundantly clear that corporate America will shut down an operation and move it overseas or south of the border where labor is substantially cheaper, so there are obviously a lot of Americans being forced to look elsewhere for work. Social Security problems are still looming that will have to be addressed sooner or later, and there is an incredibly expensive war going on with no end in sight. In short, there are problems that government can and must address. Whether government itself can – or should – actually attempt to solve all these problems is perhaps the “philosophical” difference which exists between Democrats and Republicans. Yet it is abundantly clear that genuine problems exist.
The late American industrialist Henry Ford seemed to have the best grasp on social duties and responsibilities when he was quoted as having said, “There are two fools in this world. One is the millionaire who thinks that by hoarding money he can somehow accumulate real power, and the other is the penniless reformer who thinks that if only he can take the money from one class and give it to another, all the world's ills will be cured.”
Money may not be able to buy happiness, but it can come in pretty handy for the down payment and social problems are going to be expensive one way or the other, but is money itself the only issue at stake? To hear Mr. Edwards talk, increasing tax rates on “the rich” while giving tax breaks to middle America will still enable him to provide universal health care for “everyone” (everyone who needs it, or everyone period?), college for “everyone” (who wants it, or whether they want it or not?), and anything else with a price tag that working Americans have to pay for if they want it but will apparently be provided for others who are somehow disadvantaged.
Such statements seem almost inflammatory and degrading toward those who have found themselves at the lower end of the economic scale, but the reality is that there will always be a gap between rich and poor. Trying to define an acceptable level of “gap”, however, is ambiguous at best and will ultimately require that someone’s liberty will be restricted in favor of someone else in any awkward attempt to narrow such a gap to a more acceptable level. Who will be the final authority to determine such?
There is also nothing proven except through failed communist and socialist societies that providing everything for everyone has ever worked or will ever work, but somehow vote-seekers such as Mr. Edwards try to convince Americans that they can somehow make it work. It must also be pointed out that leaders of such nations of communism or socialism have tended to live pretty high off the hog while citizens work their fingers to the bone and live in squalor in other countries like North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela to name only a few.
“The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.” The first century Greek historian Plutarch also recognized that not only will increased taxes levied against the rich not solve any social problems or create economic opportunity for the poor, but the long sought-after “freedom” that vote-seekers claim to offer is actually chains and shackles. One way or the other, to one extent or another, there is no such thing as a free ride. Everything has a price, and everything comes with conditions. Being truly free means to take on such burdens by choice and not by compulsion. The problem with vote-seekers such as Mr. Edwards is that they are adept at convincing the masses that they have a problem and that someone, most likely a rich person or a Republican, is to be blamed and deserves to be punished.
Mr. Edwards might actually believe that he has the remedy for what ails the poor and he may honestly believe in everything he is offering. In my humble opinion, however, should this be the case it should remove any doubt that Mr. Edwards is ignorant of history and economic realities and therefore unfit to serve as chief executive of this nation. Anything the government seeks to prop up financially is artificial at best and will ultimately fail because the US economy is not driven by government spending, at least not primarily; it will be doomed to fail from the start. Ours is a consumer-driven economy based on goods and services bought and sold. Goods and services are provided by employed persons who are offered jobs based on the provider’s ability to sell which in turn is based on the consumer’s ability and willingness to purchase. It is commonly referred to as a “business” cycle and not a government one for a reason: it is completely dependent on business and commerce, most of which is privately held.
Still, the fact that ours is arguably the most powerful and affluent nation on the face of this earth and the fact that farmers go under in this country while human beings go hungry flies in the face of the very essence of economic justice. We also have a serious health care problem in this country in which it seems undetermined whether adequate health care is a right to be enjoyed by all human beings or is a privilege to be reserved only for those who can afford it. Providing universal health insurance, especially for the poor, will provide them with much-needed care but will do little for the spiraling rise in care and medicines except to put a greater burden on the US government.
What can be done to address such serious issues that stand before us? Obviously the solutions will depend on many factors, the party in the majority being at the top of the list. Another factor will be whether we elect a salesman or a chief executive with a proven track record of successfully managing affairs on such a grand scale. I am just not convinced that a single term in the US Senate and a successful career as a personal injury attorney are such qualifications that identify a person suited for such a monumental task, never minding a political ideology.
Mr. Edwards’ potential administration will come with a pretty hefty price tag from a grab bag in which there seems to be something for everyone. Voters have to look very carefully at what is being offered but when reviewing presidential candidates, voters must also be mindful that these candidates can only actually do so much because of constitutional restrictions to the duties and privileges of the office. Talking a good show will go a long way with apathetic and complacent voters who fail to dig too deep, but there is only so much that any president can – or should – do. We would all do well to pay closer attention.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Larry Craig's Dilemma ... or Our Own?
Senator Larry Craig’s (R-ID) post-excuse is somewhat lame coming from a US senator. However, his “explanation” seems to be rather typical of what we have come to expect from a politician: ‘I didn’t really do it. I was just being expeditious.’ To be fair to the senator, however, if it is true that the Idaho Statesman has been “investigating” his sexual orientation (what else was there?) based solely on a blogger’s claim, a claim that, like the newspaper’s, lacks any credible or “hard” evidence (the newspaper writer’s admission), then a plea-out to disorderly conduct might have seemed the most prudent course of action. Perhaps it was reasonable at the time to conclude that such a minor charge would slip quietly away without notice.
Now the Senate Republican leadership wants an ethics inquiry, and for what reason? Apparently Sen. Craig produced a card to the arresting officer identifying himself as a US senator perhaps in hopes that the matter would be handled quietly. With a newspaper reporter dogging the trail desperately hoping to finding a “smoking gun” somewhere? Good luck with that one, senator.
I suppose the fact that Sen. Craig has been so openly anti-gay while dealing with proposed legislation has this sort of thing just dripping with irony so much so that reporters would gleefully jump at the chance to have their names attached to such a scoop. To achieve what, though? How will this nation or even the good people of Idaho benefit from such exposure? What harm has been done besides what is now happening to Mr. Craig and his family, which is substantial to say the least? Have the people of Idaho been somehow let down? Do they feel cheated? Does anyone besides the people of Idaho have a legitimate gripe in the first place?
That Mr. Craig produced a US Senate card while being arrested was a cheap shot, to say the least. I have personally witnessed high-ranking public officials receive special treatment in public places (whether the officials demanded it or it was extended to them because they were public officials, I cannot say) that I considered to be inappropriate because they are citizens just as we commoners who still must wait our turn, so it could well have been a rub-the-wrong-way gesture toward the arresting officer. It was still inappropriate, no doubt, but what is happening now is not teaching anyone any kind of important lesson. Justice is not necessarily being served at this juncture, having already been served in a Minneapolis court. The man said, “guilty”, and that was that.
Today the ones who are being truly harmed are Senator Craig’s loved ones and especially his grandchildren (he is blessed with nine) who will certainly pay for granddad’s indiscretion or misjudgment or whatever it was. Beyond Mr. Craig’s lack of judgment, however, the grandchildren will pay due to the overzealous determination of a newspaper reporter who has determined for himself – absent any “hard evidence” - that Mr. Craig’s sexual orientation is a matter worth investigating. Shame on us for demanding such news.
Now the Senate Republican leadership wants an ethics inquiry, and for what reason? Apparently Sen. Craig produced a card to the arresting officer identifying himself as a US senator perhaps in hopes that the matter would be handled quietly. With a newspaper reporter dogging the trail desperately hoping to finding a “smoking gun” somewhere? Good luck with that one, senator.
I suppose the fact that Sen. Craig has been so openly anti-gay while dealing with proposed legislation has this sort of thing just dripping with irony so much so that reporters would gleefully jump at the chance to have their names attached to such a scoop. To achieve what, though? How will this nation or even the good people of Idaho benefit from such exposure? What harm has been done besides what is now happening to Mr. Craig and his family, which is substantial to say the least? Have the people of Idaho been somehow let down? Do they feel cheated? Does anyone besides the people of Idaho have a legitimate gripe in the first place?
That Mr. Craig produced a US Senate card while being arrested was a cheap shot, to say the least. I have personally witnessed high-ranking public officials receive special treatment in public places (whether the officials demanded it or it was extended to them because they were public officials, I cannot say) that I considered to be inappropriate because they are citizens just as we commoners who still must wait our turn, so it could well have been a rub-the-wrong-way gesture toward the arresting officer. It was still inappropriate, no doubt, but what is happening now is not teaching anyone any kind of important lesson. Justice is not necessarily being served at this juncture, having already been served in a Minneapolis court. The man said, “guilty”, and that was that.
Today the ones who are being truly harmed are Senator Craig’s loved ones and especially his grandchildren (he is blessed with nine) who will certainly pay for granddad’s indiscretion or misjudgment or whatever it was. Beyond Mr. Craig’s lack of judgment, however, the grandchildren will pay due to the overzealous determination of a newspaper reporter who has determined for himself – absent any “hard evidence” - that Mr. Craig’s sexual orientation is a matter worth investigating. Shame on us for demanding such news.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Sabbath of the Heart
Psalm 71:1-6
Isaiah 58:9b-14
Luke 13:10-17
“Come to Me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
Matthew 11:28
One of the things I hate most about Christmas is the feeling of a compulsory gift exchange. That is to say, whenever someone unexpectedly gives us a gift we feel compelled to go out and get something for them. It is the socially acceptable thing to do, and we are pretty sure it is expected of us even though we should also know that a gift purchased in haste will be a gift gone to waste even as we try to remind ourselves that “it’s the thought that counts.” What rubbish! We cannot know for sure if the gift-giver had an ulterior motive to begin with, but we cannot rest until we’ve returned the favor and removed that monkey from our backs! After all, we are nothing if not well versed in the social graces.
Giving gifts in hopes of getting gifts in return makes no sense. After all, if it is a matter of spending money on gifts for others as an “investment” (that is, hoping for and expecting some sort of return on that “investment”), would we not be better served if we were to save the cash and buy for ourselves what we really want rather than to gamble on spending that cash for a decent gift and getting junk in return? For this reason alone, it is not reasonable to believe that those who come bearing gifts always have something up their sleeve although if the gift comes from an unlikely source or if we hold positions of influence on any level, there may well be a good reason for suspicion. After all, virtual strangers don’t give gifts out of the goodness of their hearts. If they do, we can be pretty sure it is a gift with strings attached. Otherwise, it could well be that the gift-giver thought of us and found something they thought we might enjoy. Shame on us for questioning the motive when the gift comes from a genuine friend!
What is important to us when it comes to those gift-giving occasions? Do we focus on the contents of the package, or do we put more thought toward the one bearing the gift? And if we have a focus that leans too heavily one way or the other, does it matter? Is the gift more or less important than the one who offers the gift, or is the gift merely an extension of the gift-bearer’s affections? I hate it when folks ask me what I want on those gift-giving occasions because I think I prefer to be surprised, but I also think that I prefer to let the one proposing a gift to me know that the matter of the gift is not nearly as important to me as the manner in which it is offered. If our focus is entirely on how the gift will benefit us personally, we are in for disappointment because a material gift will likely never meet, let alone exceed, our expectations.
The Sabbath is probably the most misunderstood of all divine gifts because of the manner in which it is presented. It comes to us as a COMMANDMENT, so it already presents itself in a “thou shall not” context which sounds more negative than positive. It’s right up there with “you shall not steal”, etc, so the force of its words comes to us as more of an ultimatum, a threat. If this is our state of mind or thought, then it is little wonder that we are unable to recognize the GIFT for what it is and for what purpose it is meant to serve.
And this is no less true in Jesus’ own time. The leader of the synagogue (Luke 13:14) is positively clueless as to the intent and design of the Sabbath. As Jesus points out, where else but in worship should one expect such a healing to take place? The synagogue leader probably came by his belief about the Sabbath honestly, but this leads us to question how something as simple and as beautiful could have been so woefully misunderstood for so long. The answer may be as compelling as it would be now if we seriously question how we could have taken the Sabbath so much for granted and not appreciate it for ALL that it is to us.
The weekends are for the most part reserved for our leisure. For those of us lucky enough to have weekends free, we make plans to recreate or catch up on what was neglected during the week. We sleep in, do yard work, house work, swim, hike, or whatever else our hearts desire. On Sunday we (should) go to church, and then we go out to eat or have a nice dinner at home. From there we are back on recreation or whatever else suits us. Essentially, we use the weekend – including the Sabbath – to please ourselves.
For the most part this is not an entirely bad thing. Part of the essential element of the gift is that it is intended for our use, for our enjoyment. The Lord created human bodies to do amazing things, but He would also know better than anyone that the body – as well as the mind – needs to rest. It cannot go non-stop for days on end without eventually crashing … we call it ‘burn out’, and many of us have experienced it to one degree or another. We know that its effects are real, and the consequences can be devastating. So because our Creator is well aware of our limitations, He offers a gift. It is a MANDATE, make no mistake, but like all other commandments, we must look beyond the surface and acknowledge that there is more to the Word of the Lord than mere words.
So there must be a balance. Yes, the Sabbath is intended for our benefit – primarily, rest - and our enjoyment, but we must still be mindful that it is the Lord’s Day, a Day sanctified by our Creator Himself. What this means to us is that even while we are enjoying and recreating and resting, we must not fall into the “me first, me only” abyss of self-centeredness because, according to the prophet Isaiah, this seems to violate the spirit and the sanctity of the day blessed by the Lord.
“If you refrain from trampling the Sabbath, from pursuing your own interests on my holy day; if you call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, serving your own interests, or pursuing your own affairs; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth.” Isaiah 58:13-14a
Too often we read the prophets but don’t take from them the “practical application” of the Law. For Christians, it is difficult to read the Law or the Prophets without the New Testament perspective. The early Jews lacked this perspective, so what is written was what they had. The intent of what was written for their benefit had to stand on its own merits. I can think of no better teaching of the Sabbath than this.
Isaiah takes us far beyond the notion of the Sabbath as being used only for our benefit. In conjunction with Jesus’ point to the synagogue leader, how better to glorify the Lord than by giving of ourselves and not considering it “labor” or “work”? Of course there is the “rest” element of the Sabbath that we need, but we have to dig a little deeper to find the true meaning of Sabbath and the Lord’s intent on sanctifying this Holy Day. For our rest and comfort, sure, but giving of self is defining the truest concept of biblical love and allows us the opportunity to portray a divine gift in a practical way for others to see and to comprehend.
It almost seems like a burden to be made to feel as though we must go out and “work” on some charity if we’re going to do anything at all. If it does, then we’re back to the negativity of “commandment”, and we miss the “gift” element of the Sanctified Day. This is not to suggest that perhaps the mention of “Sabbath” and “commandment” in the same breath must somehow be realigned or perhaps be rewritten. Not at all. In order to fully appreciate the impact of the gift and its Source, however, we must receive the “mandate” as we would a loved one who forces us to take medicine that tastes, well, “mediciny”. We hate it and we would rather endure the sick than to take that nasty medicine, but the loved one who offers it then becomes rather firm in the insistence that we WILL take the medicine … and learn to like it. Or suffer the consequences.
And I will offer the consequences in this way. It has been recently revealed that Mother Teresa, almost from the beginning of her incredible ministry of service to the poorest of the poor, suffered a crisis of faith. In letters she wrote to friends, she expresses a spiritual weariness that can easily from confronting the ugliest of ugly in an unjust world and working tirelessly on behalf of those who suffer as a result of such injustice: “Where is my faith? Deep down, there is nothing but emptiness and darkness. If there be a God – please forgive me.”
In light of this revelation, some have suggested that Mother Teresa was a fraud. In the public eye, she was the epitome of faith. Otherwise, how could she have possibly continued for as many DECADES as she devoted to her ministry? “What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You are also not true.”
It seems to me that the real crisis in faith Mother Teresa experienced was a crisis that will come as a result of never taking the time to rest, the MANDATED rest sanctified by the Lord. If we work non-stop and never take time to reflect and to pray, how can we know of the presence of the Lord when we are constantly bombarded by the realities of THIS WORLD and all its ugliness? And Mother Teresa saw the worst of it – every – single – day.
This kind of depth-of-soul pain is precisely what I think the Sabbath was “commanded” to confront. The Sabbath as the true gift it really is, is designed and mandated and GIVEN for its most spiritual nature: to know that there is a God, that we are not Him, and that we are not alone, forsaken, nor forgotten. The Gift of Sabbath is given with no strings attached but with a real benefit that will always exceed our greatest expectations.
Isaiah 58:9b-14
Luke 13:10-17
“Come to Me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
Matthew 11:28
One of the things I hate most about Christmas is the feeling of a compulsory gift exchange. That is to say, whenever someone unexpectedly gives us a gift we feel compelled to go out and get something for them. It is the socially acceptable thing to do, and we are pretty sure it is expected of us even though we should also know that a gift purchased in haste will be a gift gone to waste even as we try to remind ourselves that “it’s the thought that counts.” What rubbish! We cannot know for sure if the gift-giver had an ulterior motive to begin with, but we cannot rest until we’ve returned the favor and removed that monkey from our backs! After all, we are nothing if not well versed in the social graces.
Giving gifts in hopes of getting gifts in return makes no sense. After all, if it is a matter of spending money on gifts for others as an “investment” (that is, hoping for and expecting some sort of return on that “investment”), would we not be better served if we were to save the cash and buy for ourselves what we really want rather than to gamble on spending that cash for a decent gift and getting junk in return? For this reason alone, it is not reasonable to believe that those who come bearing gifts always have something up their sleeve although if the gift comes from an unlikely source or if we hold positions of influence on any level, there may well be a good reason for suspicion. After all, virtual strangers don’t give gifts out of the goodness of their hearts. If they do, we can be pretty sure it is a gift with strings attached. Otherwise, it could well be that the gift-giver thought of us and found something they thought we might enjoy. Shame on us for questioning the motive when the gift comes from a genuine friend!
What is important to us when it comes to those gift-giving occasions? Do we focus on the contents of the package, or do we put more thought toward the one bearing the gift? And if we have a focus that leans too heavily one way or the other, does it matter? Is the gift more or less important than the one who offers the gift, or is the gift merely an extension of the gift-bearer’s affections? I hate it when folks ask me what I want on those gift-giving occasions because I think I prefer to be surprised, but I also think that I prefer to let the one proposing a gift to me know that the matter of the gift is not nearly as important to me as the manner in which it is offered. If our focus is entirely on how the gift will benefit us personally, we are in for disappointment because a material gift will likely never meet, let alone exceed, our expectations.
The Sabbath is probably the most misunderstood of all divine gifts because of the manner in which it is presented. It comes to us as a COMMANDMENT, so it already presents itself in a “thou shall not” context which sounds more negative than positive. It’s right up there with “you shall not steal”, etc, so the force of its words comes to us as more of an ultimatum, a threat. If this is our state of mind or thought, then it is little wonder that we are unable to recognize the GIFT for what it is and for what purpose it is meant to serve.
And this is no less true in Jesus’ own time. The leader of the synagogue (Luke 13:14) is positively clueless as to the intent and design of the Sabbath. As Jesus points out, where else but in worship should one expect such a healing to take place? The synagogue leader probably came by his belief about the Sabbath honestly, but this leads us to question how something as simple and as beautiful could have been so woefully misunderstood for so long. The answer may be as compelling as it would be now if we seriously question how we could have taken the Sabbath so much for granted and not appreciate it for ALL that it is to us.
The weekends are for the most part reserved for our leisure. For those of us lucky enough to have weekends free, we make plans to recreate or catch up on what was neglected during the week. We sleep in, do yard work, house work, swim, hike, or whatever else our hearts desire. On Sunday we (should) go to church, and then we go out to eat or have a nice dinner at home. From there we are back on recreation or whatever else suits us. Essentially, we use the weekend – including the Sabbath – to please ourselves.
For the most part this is not an entirely bad thing. Part of the essential element of the gift is that it is intended for our use, for our enjoyment. The Lord created human bodies to do amazing things, but He would also know better than anyone that the body – as well as the mind – needs to rest. It cannot go non-stop for days on end without eventually crashing … we call it ‘burn out’, and many of us have experienced it to one degree or another. We know that its effects are real, and the consequences can be devastating. So because our Creator is well aware of our limitations, He offers a gift. It is a MANDATE, make no mistake, but like all other commandments, we must look beyond the surface and acknowledge that there is more to the Word of the Lord than mere words.
So there must be a balance. Yes, the Sabbath is intended for our benefit – primarily, rest - and our enjoyment, but we must still be mindful that it is the Lord’s Day, a Day sanctified by our Creator Himself. What this means to us is that even while we are enjoying and recreating and resting, we must not fall into the “me first, me only” abyss of self-centeredness because, according to the prophet Isaiah, this seems to violate the spirit and the sanctity of the day blessed by the Lord.
“If you refrain from trampling the Sabbath, from pursuing your own interests on my holy day; if you call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, serving your own interests, or pursuing your own affairs; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth.” Isaiah 58:13-14a
Too often we read the prophets but don’t take from them the “practical application” of the Law. For Christians, it is difficult to read the Law or the Prophets without the New Testament perspective. The early Jews lacked this perspective, so what is written was what they had. The intent of what was written for their benefit had to stand on its own merits. I can think of no better teaching of the Sabbath than this.
Isaiah takes us far beyond the notion of the Sabbath as being used only for our benefit. In conjunction with Jesus’ point to the synagogue leader, how better to glorify the Lord than by giving of ourselves and not considering it “labor” or “work”? Of course there is the “rest” element of the Sabbath that we need, but we have to dig a little deeper to find the true meaning of Sabbath and the Lord’s intent on sanctifying this Holy Day. For our rest and comfort, sure, but giving of self is defining the truest concept of biblical love and allows us the opportunity to portray a divine gift in a practical way for others to see and to comprehend.
It almost seems like a burden to be made to feel as though we must go out and “work” on some charity if we’re going to do anything at all. If it does, then we’re back to the negativity of “commandment”, and we miss the “gift” element of the Sanctified Day. This is not to suggest that perhaps the mention of “Sabbath” and “commandment” in the same breath must somehow be realigned or perhaps be rewritten. Not at all. In order to fully appreciate the impact of the gift and its Source, however, we must receive the “mandate” as we would a loved one who forces us to take medicine that tastes, well, “mediciny”. We hate it and we would rather endure the sick than to take that nasty medicine, but the loved one who offers it then becomes rather firm in the insistence that we WILL take the medicine … and learn to like it. Or suffer the consequences.
And I will offer the consequences in this way. It has been recently revealed that Mother Teresa, almost from the beginning of her incredible ministry of service to the poorest of the poor, suffered a crisis of faith. In letters she wrote to friends, she expresses a spiritual weariness that can easily from confronting the ugliest of ugly in an unjust world and working tirelessly on behalf of those who suffer as a result of such injustice: “Where is my faith? Deep down, there is nothing but emptiness and darkness. If there be a God – please forgive me.”
In light of this revelation, some have suggested that Mother Teresa was a fraud. In the public eye, she was the epitome of faith. Otherwise, how could she have possibly continued for as many DECADES as she devoted to her ministry? “What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You are also not true.”
It seems to me that the real crisis in faith Mother Teresa experienced was a crisis that will come as a result of never taking the time to rest, the MANDATED rest sanctified by the Lord. If we work non-stop and never take time to reflect and to pray, how can we know of the presence of the Lord when we are constantly bombarded by the realities of THIS WORLD and all its ugliness? And Mother Teresa saw the worst of it – every – single – day.
This kind of depth-of-soul pain is precisely what I think the Sabbath was “commanded” to confront. The Sabbath as the true gift it really is, is designed and mandated and GIVEN for its most spiritual nature: to know that there is a God, that we are not Him, and that we are not alone, forsaken, nor forgotten. The Gift of Sabbath is given with no strings attached but with a real benefit that will always exceed our greatest expectations.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Packing for the Trip
When it comes time to travel, I am probably the world’s worst packer. For that matter, when it came time to move into our (hopefully last!) home, my wife and I were pretty much at odds as to how carefully everything should be packed. We bought a home in the same neighborhood that is only about three blocks from our old home. I just did not see the point in taking so much care to pack when the greatest care could be taken just to drive the three blocks and unload it straight into where it belongs. Why pack and unpack, with all the stuffing that goes with it, when the trip is going to be five minutes, tops? It’s not like we were moving across the country!
I just don’t worry too much about how carefully things go into a suitcase or a box. I guess a lot of it has to do with perspective. I am focused not on the journey itself but rather, on the destination. I want to get there as quickly as possible. If something does not make the trip in its proper condition, well, that’s why the Lord made Wal Mart. The same principle applies to taking a short business trip. I’ll take what I need, but I’m still so focused on the destination that I just don’t put a lot of thought into how my goods are going to survive the trip. I don’t know that such an attitude is good or bad; it just is what it is.
No matter where we choose to go, there is always going to be the journey itself which will conclude, sooner or later, with our arrival at destination. I suppose there can really be no such thing as “aimless wandering” because we are always going to eventually wind up somewhere whether we mean to or not. What is important to us, however, will reveal itself in whether we are focused on the journey or the destination. Is one more important than the other? I think not. Rather, it is the proverbial two-sided coin; there cannot be one without the other. And it seems to me that if we focus too intently on one, we may miss the significance of the other.
I have long maintained that if we focus too intently on getting to Heaven (i.e.; saving our own skin), we will miss out on the importance of why we are created in the first place. If we truly believe in the grace of the Lord, we will be more intent on the missionary journey that is discipleship and let the judgment fall into the hands of the merciful One we call “Father”. It is important – to the glory of the Lord – that we live a life worthy of Him, living the best example of Christ’s life that we possibly can. After that will be the call of the Lord God: “Well done, My good and faithful servant. Now enter into My glory.” Anything that focuses too much on “getting saved” can run dangerously close to trying to earn our way into Heaven which, of course, cannot be done.
In Luke’s Gospel reading (12:13-21), however, Jesus seems intently focused on the Final Destination while the rich man is more concerned about the journey though I would suggest that the journey of discipleship that Jesus calls us to is not the same journey the rich man is concerned with. The rich man is completely focused on himself and his own personal comfort, perhaps even his pride. He wants to hoard all that he can so that he can be sure he will never run out, or he wants everyone to SEE what he has and what he has accomplished.
The problem with such an attitude of “self” is that just as surely as there are poor and hungry people among us now, there were poor and hungry people then. In fact, Jesus says so. But “like a thief in the night”, the Lord snuck up on the rich man (again, like Jesus says so) and called him to account. It was time for the Judgment, and all the rich man had to show for his life were big barns filled with his grain and other goods. I think it is safe to say that for the rich man at that moment, all his possessions just about equaled the value of a rusted out Dodge pickup.
Greed makes us do funny things although not many people are laughing when it comes time to account for our lives. And we will, without exception, be called upon in one way or the other because nothing of this life that we can acquire by our greed will do us much good when the Day of the Lord comes. And even in this life, our greed has a tendency to sneak up on us without warning and demand of us more than we are willing to sacrifice, including our families, our children. For the greedy, “adequate” is never enough and in our quest for “more”, we are most willing to sacrifice almost anything to get what we want which is still …. NOT ENOUGH.
I would also suggest that most likely what we value most in this life will matter least in the world to come.
The journey we call “life” is not an easy one and Jesus never promised us an easy way to go, but we seem intent on making our journey as comfortable and as trouble- and worry-free as we can possibly make it. But because all our attention in focused inward on our own comfort and well-being, we miss out on our greatest opportunities to share not only from our abundance but to also receive blessings beyond worldly measure. These blessings are the “feel good” things that make life worth all the trouble and the discomfort and the inconvenience we may encounter when we choose to share rather than to hoard. And lest we forget, choosing to hoard or to share has everything to do with how much faith we are willing to place in the Lord to see to our own needs. Like I stated earlier, what is truly important to us will be revealed in the decision we make to focus on the journey or on the destination.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to go to Heaven; it is a desire we should all share in common. We know all too well, however, that there are too many non-believers out there who are just not willing to make the journey with us. More is the pity, and the reasons why they would choose to reject our path are too numerous and often too vague to even worry about. Then again, when our time comes to account for our lives it is not likely the Lord is going to ask us to answer up for someone else’s refusal to join us. I think, instead, that He will be more focused on the journey we will have chosen. The reward, the Final Reward, will take care of itself by His Grace and His Grace ALONE.
Amen.
I just don’t worry too much about how carefully things go into a suitcase or a box. I guess a lot of it has to do with perspective. I am focused not on the journey itself but rather, on the destination. I want to get there as quickly as possible. If something does not make the trip in its proper condition, well, that’s why the Lord made Wal Mart. The same principle applies to taking a short business trip. I’ll take what I need, but I’m still so focused on the destination that I just don’t put a lot of thought into how my goods are going to survive the trip. I don’t know that such an attitude is good or bad; it just is what it is.
No matter where we choose to go, there is always going to be the journey itself which will conclude, sooner or later, with our arrival at destination. I suppose there can really be no such thing as “aimless wandering” because we are always going to eventually wind up somewhere whether we mean to or not. What is important to us, however, will reveal itself in whether we are focused on the journey or the destination. Is one more important than the other? I think not. Rather, it is the proverbial two-sided coin; there cannot be one without the other. And it seems to me that if we focus too intently on one, we may miss the significance of the other.
I have long maintained that if we focus too intently on getting to Heaven (i.e.; saving our own skin), we will miss out on the importance of why we are created in the first place. If we truly believe in the grace of the Lord, we will be more intent on the missionary journey that is discipleship and let the judgment fall into the hands of the merciful One we call “Father”. It is important – to the glory of the Lord – that we live a life worthy of Him, living the best example of Christ’s life that we possibly can. After that will be the call of the Lord God: “Well done, My good and faithful servant. Now enter into My glory.” Anything that focuses too much on “getting saved” can run dangerously close to trying to earn our way into Heaven which, of course, cannot be done.
In Luke’s Gospel reading (12:13-21), however, Jesus seems intently focused on the Final Destination while the rich man is more concerned about the journey though I would suggest that the journey of discipleship that Jesus calls us to is not the same journey the rich man is concerned with. The rich man is completely focused on himself and his own personal comfort, perhaps even his pride. He wants to hoard all that he can so that he can be sure he will never run out, or he wants everyone to SEE what he has and what he has accomplished.
The problem with such an attitude of “self” is that just as surely as there are poor and hungry people among us now, there were poor and hungry people then. In fact, Jesus says so. But “like a thief in the night”, the Lord snuck up on the rich man (again, like Jesus says so) and called him to account. It was time for the Judgment, and all the rich man had to show for his life were big barns filled with his grain and other goods. I think it is safe to say that for the rich man at that moment, all his possessions just about equaled the value of a rusted out Dodge pickup.
Greed makes us do funny things although not many people are laughing when it comes time to account for our lives. And we will, without exception, be called upon in one way or the other because nothing of this life that we can acquire by our greed will do us much good when the Day of the Lord comes. And even in this life, our greed has a tendency to sneak up on us without warning and demand of us more than we are willing to sacrifice, including our families, our children. For the greedy, “adequate” is never enough and in our quest for “more”, we are most willing to sacrifice almost anything to get what we want which is still …. NOT ENOUGH.
I would also suggest that most likely what we value most in this life will matter least in the world to come.
The journey we call “life” is not an easy one and Jesus never promised us an easy way to go, but we seem intent on making our journey as comfortable and as trouble- and worry-free as we can possibly make it. But because all our attention in focused inward on our own comfort and well-being, we miss out on our greatest opportunities to share not only from our abundance but to also receive blessings beyond worldly measure. These blessings are the “feel good” things that make life worth all the trouble and the discomfort and the inconvenience we may encounter when we choose to share rather than to hoard. And lest we forget, choosing to hoard or to share has everything to do with how much faith we are willing to place in the Lord to see to our own needs. Like I stated earlier, what is truly important to us will be revealed in the decision we make to focus on the journey or on the destination.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to go to Heaven; it is a desire we should all share in common. We know all too well, however, that there are too many non-believers out there who are just not willing to make the journey with us. More is the pity, and the reasons why they would choose to reject our path are too numerous and often too vague to even worry about. Then again, when our time comes to account for our lives it is not likely the Lord is going to ask us to answer up for someone else’s refusal to join us. I think, instead, that He will be more focused on the journey we will have chosen. The reward, the Final Reward, will take care of itself by His Grace and His Grace ALONE.
Amen.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Doing the Right Thing
Moral behavior is typically defined not so narrowly as merely being upright or religiously pious. Rather, moral behavior (key word: “behavior”) is more accurately defined as acting in such a way as to benefit one’s own environment. It is not enough to simply live right and mind one’s own business and let things happen as they will because evil is pervasive and is far more powerful than even righteous people are willing to acknowledge. We tend to live according to our own dictates and never mind anyone else. What we fail to acknowledge is that by our immoral silence, we grant implicit approval to all that we see which is evil by failing to stand against it. Just being opposed to such evil is no action at all; it is nothing more than an opinion.
Often, however, we can feel a little overwhelmed by all that surrounds us and come to believe that we are powerless to confront what we know in our own hearts to be just plain wrong. We learn to live within the environment of “wrong” and submit ourselves to a certain reality that we cannot tolerate but also feel powerless to do anything about. It is this very attitude that has allowed such things which we find objectionable to become the norm, the rule rather than the exception.
The late Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority which played a key role in the election of the late President Ronald Reagan attempted to confront what it considered to be a serious “back sliding” of moral life in America by trying to play its hand in the political process. I suppose it was a good idea in its conception, but the movement eventually faded in the American landscape because it became more of an imposition of certain religious values rather than a living example. Abortion and divorce, two social examples (or evidence) of “wrong”, continued unabated even among evangelical Christians. It was not long before the “hypocrite” label was not only attached but was able to stick because such a crowd demanded moral behavior from others but failed to live by its own example, its own values and beliefs. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to convince anyone that such “right” behavior has any value at all. “Do as I say, not as I do” goes about as far in public life as it does with raising our children.
But who gets to say what is right and what is wrong? Christians insists that they have an inherent right to dictate the difference between right and wrong according to their own traditions because this is a “Christian nation”, but they fail to acknowledge that not all who come to this country – or are already here – subscribe to Christian teachings. For that matter, as stated earlier, even Christians fail to live by the teachings of the One whom they call “Savior”. Truly, speaking as a Christian, it is much easier said than done.
As “moral behavior” goes, it might be easier for all of us – regardless of religious background (or lack thereof) – to “first do no harm”. Even Christian teachings insist that if our behavior causes any sort of distress, even as we live in the liberty of Christ and are practicing what we believe to be our religion, that we are to refrain from such behavior out of consideration for others. This sort of concept is pretty far-reaching and encompasses a great deal. Would it suggest that we refrain from practicing our religion altogether if it upsets others? Only insofar as our practice or behavior interferes with others and their right to refrain, in their own pursuit of happiness, from such practices. There is nothing easy about it because there has to be a cut-off point where we can decide that others just need to “get over it”.
It’s not always as easy, as some would insist, to do the right thing because of the differences in opinion and practice and tradition that uniquely exists in America. We Christians would do well, however, to keep an eye out toward others and never mind our own rights or our own happiness. After all, if we really believe in the fundamental tenets of our own faith, we would recognize that the One whom we call “Savior” came not for His own sake but, rather, for the sake of others. It can certainly be said that He lived “right” without interfering with others. The trick is to find and maintain the balance. I’m afraid that I lack the knowledge, insight, or apostolic authority necessary to advise. Suffice it to say that until we can become more like what we are called to be, it might be best that we remain silent.
Often, however, we can feel a little overwhelmed by all that surrounds us and come to believe that we are powerless to confront what we know in our own hearts to be just plain wrong. We learn to live within the environment of “wrong” and submit ourselves to a certain reality that we cannot tolerate but also feel powerless to do anything about. It is this very attitude that has allowed such things which we find objectionable to become the norm, the rule rather than the exception.
The late Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority which played a key role in the election of the late President Ronald Reagan attempted to confront what it considered to be a serious “back sliding” of moral life in America by trying to play its hand in the political process. I suppose it was a good idea in its conception, but the movement eventually faded in the American landscape because it became more of an imposition of certain religious values rather than a living example. Abortion and divorce, two social examples (or evidence) of “wrong”, continued unabated even among evangelical Christians. It was not long before the “hypocrite” label was not only attached but was able to stick because such a crowd demanded moral behavior from others but failed to live by its own example, its own values and beliefs. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to convince anyone that such “right” behavior has any value at all. “Do as I say, not as I do” goes about as far in public life as it does with raising our children.
But who gets to say what is right and what is wrong? Christians insists that they have an inherent right to dictate the difference between right and wrong according to their own traditions because this is a “Christian nation”, but they fail to acknowledge that not all who come to this country – or are already here – subscribe to Christian teachings. For that matter, as stated earlier, even Christians fail to live by the teachings of the One whom they call “Savior”. Truly, speaking as a Christian, it is much easier said than done.
As “moral behavior” goes, it might be easier for all of us – regardless of religious background (or lack thereof) – to “first do no harm”. Even Christian teachings insist that if our behavior causes any sort of distress, even as we live in the liberty of Christ and are practicing what we believe to be our religion, that we are to refrain from such behavior out of consideration for others. This sort of concept is pretty far-reaching and encompasses a great deal. Would it suggest that we refrain from practicing our religion altogether if it upsets others? Only insofar as our practice or behavior interferes with others and their right to refrain, in their own pursuit of happiness, from such practices. There is nothing easy about it because there has to be a cut-off point where we can decide that others just need to “get over it”.
It’s not always as easy, as some would insist, to do the right thing because of the differences in opinion and practice and tradition that uniquely exists in America. We Christians would do well, however, to keep an eye out toward others and never mind our own rights or our own happiness. After all, if we really believe in the fundamental tenets of our own faith, we would recognize that the One whom we call “Savior” came not for His own sake but, rather, for the sake of others. It can certainly be said that He lived “right” without interfering with others. The trick is to find and maintain the balance. I’m afraid that I lack the knowledge, insight, or apostolic authority necessary to advise. Suffice it to say that until we can become more like what we are called to be, it might be best that we remain silent.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Right to Work
The United Methodist Book of Discipline, in its assertion that every human person has a right to work, states in its Social Principles: “Every person has the right to a job at a living wage. Where the private sector cannot or does not provide jobs for all who seek and need them, it is the responsibility of government to provide for the creation of such jobs.” The whole premise of the Social Principles is in recognition of the dignity of humanity, including the right to earn a living and provide for oneself and one’s family. Anything less subjects a person to dependence on another and violates that person’s sense of dignity, a condition not suitable for any human being under any circumstances.
Arkansas is an “at will” employment state which means that workers are free to choose their own employers, depending of course on the employer’s willingness to hire. In the same way, employers are free to hire and fire as they deem necessary within the boundaries of Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act, of course, as well as any applicable union rules and contracts. Though it would make no good business sense to do so, an employer can theoretically wake up one day and decide to fire an employee without good cause. A worker can be terminated for any reason or no reason, and this is the rub for so many who deem such a law as unfair to the American worker. On the surface it does seem unfair that someone with a stellar work record can, again theoretically, find himself or herself unemployed for no good reason, but there are two sides to this coin.
Employers are in business for one thing: to make money, to turn a profit; this is the employer’s “paycheck”. An employer invests a great deal into a business venture and has every reasonable right to expect a fair return on that investment. The employer does not get paid if things are not going so well, as opposed to employees who continue to draw a paycheck even when things are not so good; the employer completely assumes the risk of riding out the slow time, often borrowing against available credit in order to meet payroll and other operations expenses depending on business cycles. To protect the interests of the business, the employer will do whatever is necessary to remain in business and stay competitive. This would necessarily include not only hiring the right people for the right jobs but would also include letting go of those who – for whatever reason – do not suit the employer’s needs. It may seem unfair from a purely one-dimensional perspective because the employer does seem to have the upper hand but then again, one-dimensional does not offer a complete picture.
Beyond federal laws which prohibit discrimination and the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulates workplace standards and OSHA which protects workers from unsafe conditions, I would just as soon the government not become more actively involved in other conditions of my employment. I am also not the least bit interested in any sort of employment contract that “guarantees” my employment status because if a better opportunity comes along, I would like to be free to explore that opportunity. This freedom which is the prerogative of every employee is the same prerogative but is also a major expense to an employer who must decide whether to compete for the employee’s services by offering an incentive to stay or hope another qualified applicant comes along. Either could be a major expense due to lost production during turn-over or additional payroll costs.
Either way, each has a stake in the well-being of a company but it must not fall to the government to “protect” citizens in a free-market, highly competitive environment by tying an employer’s hands and forcing businesses to offer what it cannot afford or does not need. One need only to get involved with government processes and how Congress moves a spending bill through a very cumbersome process, for instance, to know that government is incapable of running an independent business from afar. It is blatantly unfair to presume that every business in America can be neatly categorized according to size and issue blanket demands that all business must ascribe to, especially as it pertains to whether or not an employer – who is taking all the risk - has determined, according to sales figures and forecasts, that he is overstaffed and must cut back in order to survive.
It is unrealistic to demand of government or private business guaranteed employment. It is in business’ – and government’s – best interest that government do nothing more than to perhaps provide tax incentives to hire as many workers as possible, but it is a huge mistake for government to manipulate or attempt to artificially stimulate American business or the economy in order to create a false sense of well-being and security, amounting to nothing more than pandering for votes. In the end it could conceivably cost far more than in the beginning and, within the boundaries of established labor laws, businesses should not have to justify themselves and their operational decisions.
Labor is a tough market for anyone but especially so for those who lack the skills or training or education required to land a particular job. For a business, there is not much of a difference. A potential business may decide that it likes the idea of selling widgets, but there is little that can be done with widgets if the market is hungry instead for wadgets. A decision has to be made to provide the wadgets that have a better chance of selling, or business can continue manufacturing widgets and hope for the best. Workers have the same fundamental decision to make in search of employment. It would do little good to train to dig ditches in an environment where no ditch digging is being done or will ever be done. Ours is a volatile free-market economy that is as fickle as the American consumer. It wants what it wants and will settle for nothing less nor ask for more than it can withstand.
Here’s the thing, though. Every human person has a God-given right to provide for himself or herself; it is the reason we work for our wages. However, even though we are free to choose our vocations and even our employers, there is nothing written or implied that we have any sort of right to be hired or retained by the employer of our choosing unless that employer is also in agreement. The employer still enjoys the same freedom to make decisions in the best interests of the business and to provide employment to the workers of his or her own choice.
Arkansas is an “at will” employment state which means that workers are free to choose their own employers, depending of course on the employer’s willingness to hire. In the same way, employers are free to hire and fire as they deem necessary within the boundaries of Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act, of course, as well as any applicable union rules and contracts. Though it would make no good business sense to do so, an employer can theoretically wake up one day and decide to fire an employee without good cause. A worker can be terminated for any reason or no reason, and this is the rub for so many who deem such a law as unfair to the American worker. On the surface it does seem unfair that someone with a stellar work record can, again theoretically, find himself or herself unemployed for no good reason, but there are two sides to this coin.
Employers are in business for one thing: to make money, to turn a profit; this is the employer’s “paycheck”. An employer invests a great deal into a business venture and has every reasonable right to expect a fair return on that investment. The employer does not get paid if things are not going so well, as opposed to employees who continue to draw a paycheck even when things are not so good; the employer completely assumes the risk of riding out the slow time, often borrowing against available credit in order to meet payroll and other operations expenses depending on business cycles. To protect the interests of the business, the employer will do whatever is necessary to remain in business and stay competitive. This would necessarily include not only hiring the right people for the right jobs but would also include letting go of those who – for whatever reason – do not suit the employer’s needs. It may seem unfair from a purely one-dimensional perspective because the employer does seem to have the upper hand but then again, one-dimensional does not offer a complete picture.
Beyond federal laws which prohibit discrimination and the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulates workplace standards and OSHA which protects workers from unsafe conditions, I would just as soon the government not become more actively involved in other conditions of my employment. I am also not the least bit interested in any sort of employment contract that “guarantees” my employment status because if a better opportunity comes along, I would like to be free to explore that opportunity. This freedom which is the prerogative of every employee is the same prerogative but is also a major expense to an employer who must decide whether to compete for the employee’s services by offering an incentive to stay or hope another qualified applicant comes along. Either could be a major expense due to lost production during turn-over or additional payroll costs.
Either way, each has a stake in the well-being of a company but it must not fall to the government to “protect” citizens in a free-market, highly competitive environment by tying an employer’s hands and forcing businesses to offer what it cannot afford or does not need. One need only to get involved with government processes and how Congress moves a spending bill through a very cumbersome process, for instance, to know that government is incapable of running an independent business from afar. It is blatantly unfair to presume that every business in America can be neatly categorized according to size and issue blanket demands that all business must ascribe to, especially as it pertains to whether or not an employer – who is taking all the risk - has determined, according to sales figures and forecasts, that he is overstaffed and must cut back in order to survive.
It is unrealistic to demand of government or private business guaranteed employment. It is in business’ – and government’s – best interest that government do nothing more than to perhaps provide tax incentives to hire as many workers as possible, but it is a huge mistake for government to manipulate or attempt to artificially stimulate American business or the economy in order to create a false sense of well-being and security, amounting to nothing more than pandering for votes. In the end it could conceivably cost far more than in the beginning and, within the boundaries of established labor laws, businesses should not have to justify themselves and their operational decisions.
Labor is a tough market for anyone but especially so for those who lack the skills or training or education required to land a particular job. For a business, there is not much of a difference. A potential business may decide that it likes the idea of selling widgets, but there is little that can be done with widgets if the market is hungry instead for wadgets. A decision has to be made to provide the wadgets that have a better chance of selling, or business can continue manufacturing widgets and hope for the best. Workers have the same fundamental decision to make in search of employment. It would do little good to train to dig ditches in an environment where no ditch digging is being done or will ever be done. Ours is a volatile free-market economy that is as fickle as the American consumer. It wants what it wants and will settle for nothing less nor ask for more than it can withstand.
Here’s the thing, though. Every human person has a God-given right to provide for himself or herself; it is the reason we work for our wages. However, even though we are free to choose our vocations and even our employers, there is nothing written or implied that we have any sort of right to be hired or retained by the employer of our choosing unless that employer is also in agreement. The employer still enjoys the same freedom to make decisions in the best interests of the business and to provide employment to the workers of his or her own choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)