John 6:56-69
Recall Matthew 15:21-28, the story of the Gentile woman who comes to Jesus begging that He heal her “severely demon-possessed daughter”. Jesus responded only to His disciples, who began begging Him to send this tenacious woman away, perhaps after giving her what she was asking for: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). The Gentile woman was relentless in her plea, and Jesus finally told her: “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs” (Matthew 15:26). In the end, the woman indicated that she would be satisfied with “crumbs which fall from the table”. At this, Jesus marveled at her faith and healed her daughter.
Then Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, indicates not only that judgment will come to “the Jew first” but also “glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first” (Romans 2:9, 10).
It seems clear, then, that the primary focus of Jesus’ ministry was “to the Jew, first”. How, then, can we reconcile His primary mission with terminology used in John that, in fact, did turn away Jews? The very idea of the consumption of human flesh is abhorrent, but the consumption of blood is expressly prohibited by command of the Lord (Genesis 9:4). Even if Jesus’ death was already a foregone conclusion and His flesh would not be “alive” with blood coursing through His veins, as some scholars suggest, there is no indication that these Jewish disciples were completely on board with what lay ahead, including the intentional and voluntary death of Jesus. The Jews fully expected a Messiah, perhaps THE Messiah, and they expected that THE Messiah would rid the world of evil and then take His place on the Eternal Throne, but there is NOTHING in prophecy that suggests for one moment that any Messiah, let alone THE Messiah, was to be “eaten” with a blood chaser!
We know from history, and this especially includes religious history, that taking the Bible too literally has probably caused more problems than have been solved. In fact, literal translations probably account for more of the separations between Christian denominations – and conflicts between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity; all of which share common scripture to one degree or another – than anything we could possibly imagine. Yet we continue to read into Bibles stories that have passed through Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin translations, little of which can be precisely translated, word for word, into English. One of THE most common mistakes I’ve observed is folks who do not speak, read, or write Hebrew attempt to make a word-for-word translation. Those who are genuinely in the know say it cannot be done, but it has likely been done here and there over time. This is part of the reason why some theology teachers in my past, for instance, have insisted that NRSV is the preferable translation because it does not attempt “transliteral acrobatics”, to use one professor’s choice of words.
What does this confusion do for us? It would, at the least, upset a delicate belief system by which we have come to understand the role of Jesus not only in human history but also within the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as “Messiah”, the bedrock of the Christian faith. For instance, I earlier referred to “a” messiah as well as “THE” Messiah. The word “messiah” is an English “rendering” (not necessarily “translated”) of the Hebrew word “Mashiach”, which means “anointed”, not “savior”. In Hebrew terms and traditions, being “anointed” has usually inferred the literal use of oil with which one is anointed to a position by proper authority, therefore including Hebrew kings and Jewish high priests among the “anointed”. So reading NKJV 1 Samuel 26:11, we hear “messiah” (or “anointed”) when David speaks: “The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s ANOINTED”, referring, of course, to King Saul who, though having been duly “anointed”, eventually lost the Lord’s favor.
So is all this language getting in the way of the Jews who objected to what Jesus had spoken when they exclaimed, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” (John 6:60)? It would be reasonable to say, “yes”; there is a part of them that cannot accept what Jesus is saying based almost entirely on His choice of words. Cannibalism is not a Jewish practice, and blood is prohibited for consumption. Clearly, then, they did not get what He was saying, but even after Jesus tried to clarify what was actually being said, those disciples who turned away had pretty much stopped listening.
Even though Jesus refers to His flesh as “food” and His blood as “drink” (John 6:55), as real as it gets, He then seems to contradict Himself when He says, “It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless” (John 6:63), meaning, of course, His human flesh. Even still, the Jews who were with Him up to this point are sufficiently “offended” and chose to walk away. They voluntarily disengaged themselves from the encounter purely because of language; to them, offensive language. They didn’t get it but perhaps more significantly, they didn’t want to get it. They “heard” His words, but they were not truly “listening”.
I would be very nearly willing to bet that at this moment, there are some who have been sufficiently “offended” by the earlier language I chose that came uncomfortably close to suggesting that Jesus is not THE Messiah by tossing in a particular Hebrew word and then suggesting that King Saul was as much “messiah” (that is, “anointed”) as Jesus. It is only because we have become accustomed to “Messiah” or “Christ” and have all but given Jesus a “last name” as Christ. It should not matter and we should be willing to listen more carefully and fully engage ourselves so that we can draw our own conclusions and, thus, our own faith, but we don’t. We get used to a certain thing a certain way, and any deviation from what we are used to is at the very least heresy; at most, blasphemy.
Notice something, though. After the other Jews had walked away, Jesus turned to His Twelve and asked whether they, too, would prefer to walk away. Peter answers for the Twelve when he says there is no one else to go to. “We have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God” (John 6:69). So how did they come to know this? Jesus said it earlier in verse 65: “… no one can come to Me unless it is granted by the Father.” He also said it in Matthew 16:17 when He had asked the Twelve whom they believed Jesus to be. Peter offered his confession to Jesus, and Jesus said that “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Faith; that Divine Gift that man cannot impart to man.
Knowledge of who Jesus really is, is knowledge divinely imparted; that is, it comes from the mouth of the Living God alone. We disciples can only witness to the Truth of this Knowledge, but we cannot impart this knowledge, this faith. It comes only from above. While it is important to participate in worship where the Word of the Lord is read and preached, it is probably more important that we fully engage ourselves as if hearing the Word proclaimed for the very first time, to put aside the man-made traditions and doctrines that put more emphasis on some individual’s understanding and stand humbly before Him as if He is about to impart to us all we need to know until the next time we choose to give Him our attention.
It is not an easy thing, nor necessarily a good thing, to disavow all that we were raised to believe, but it is always a good thing to question man’s biblical interpretations and personal opinions of the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, not accusingly but with an open mind and an open heart. We can know that Jesus is not to be “eaten”, in the purest and most literal sense of the word, but we must know that the Lord and His Eternal Word are to be taken “internally” so that He becomes as much a part of us as the Spirit will allow.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Certain Reality of Life: Death
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is portrayed in the 1970 film, “Tora! Tora! Tora!”, as saying after his attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." Whether this was actually spoken by any Japanese admiral may be subject to historic speculation, but it is a reasonable assumption that an admiral would have been at least politically aware of the certain potential of a nation with such vast resources at its disposal and a history of national resolve when directly threatened.
Now this same “sleeping giant” battle cry is being used by town hall protesters as a warning to members of Congress who have, at least prior to the August recess, all but ignored the outcry such speculation about the various health care bills floating about in Congress has brought. Some seemed genuinely surprised by what has come about from these gatherings, which is not entirely unreasonable considering the majority that carried Obama to the White House. Even still, I applaud those members of Congress who continue to hold these town hall meetings while mindful of what is likely to come as a result.
It occurred to me earlier that this outcry, resulting primarily from so much misinformation, is not unlike the outcry that came as a result of President GW Bush’s Social Security privatization proposals. Republican members of the Congress were skittish about how such proposals would be received by American voters, and Democrats were gleeful as they virtually ran to AARP-sponsored meetings and retirement homes, thumping their chests, and telling Social Security-dependent persons that GWB was going to throw them into the streets and that “George Bush will take your Social Security OVER MY DEAD BODY”! In spite of GWB’s direct and unambiguous words and specific proposed exemptions, Democrats intentionally, effectively, and successfully twisted the president’s words and put a stop to even having a national discussion/debate on addressing the very real – and very serious – problems Social Security will face in a matter of a few short years. The problems still exist, the danger is very real, but now we don’t even want to talk about it. It is much easier to claim a victory and leave well enough alone.
It would be nice to say we learned a hard lesson, but the truth is we’ve learned nothing at all. There are those “sacred cows” we can never have serious discussions about because our elected officials lack the courage and the resolve to be serious about anything other than their own reelection campaigns, and we voters lack the wherewithal to be serious and hear the unvarnished truth. Congressional incumbents will do enough damage control over the course of the next few months and will be able to convince their constituents that the outcry was “heard” and responded to. These same constituents will then be lulled back into complacency, and those members of Congress will have again successfully manipulated the voters. And health care reform – which we all agree is badly in need of serious discussion and attention – will be only a pipe dream, thrown into the annals of “nice try” history and forgotten.
Now that I have successfully taken myself completely off task, allow me to go back to the matter at hand. “End of life counseling” (aka, “death panels”) under the various House proposals will be voluntary on the part of patients but would be mandated to be made available to these patients, and doctors will be reimbursed by Medicare. What all this means is that there is a certain reality we must all face. And if it is true what President Obama said about “how the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care costs” (Washington Times, July 9 editorial), then we need to be very serious about exactly what is being done against what is being proposed.
Bottom Line: voters do not trust the government to make such decisions or even be indirectly involved in such decisions. This lack of trust is being translated to “health care will be denied to the elderly” (it’s called “reading between the lines”) so as to save a few bucks. Indeed, try to call the US government, any agency, and see how hard it can be to get a knowledgeable human being on the line. And imagine such an overtaxed system such as a national health care office where decisions to fund or not will be made daily and, quite literally, thousands of times per day. But let us not allow the language to become inflammatory. It is not, as I understand it, a matter of deliberately choosing to end the life of an elderly person. Rather, the choice will be the usefulness of thousands of dollars worth of treatment that may not be effective. There is a huge difference.
Yet even as I have nothing to lose or gain politically from this discussion, I cannot bring myself to say what needs to be said: we humans will not – repeat, NOT – live forever. It is imminent; our lives will end, but we have an aversion to such a truth as this. And even though Americans are living longer, my guess is that such longevity is not exclusively attributable to “natural” (read “pills” … and lots of them) genetics or “good, clean living”. The tricky part is defining “toward the end of their lives”, as President Obama had put it in the July 9 Washington Times editorial/interview, because no one can know exactly when the “end” will be without taking definitive measures to deliberately terminate a life. And this is where too many Americans see the US government stepping in. The government may not “pull the plug on grandma”, as Obama so callously put it, but government may well decide whether grandma is plugged in in the first place. And this, I think, is the problem.
Incidentally, the “pull the plug” claim is no more or less ridiculous than “throw grandma into the street”, as congressional Democrats gleefully proclaimed during the Social Security debate-that-never-took-place” during President Bush’s last term. But again, I digress.
The issue of health care in America is as real and as serious now as Social Security was, and still is. Whether we accomplish anything of substance remains to be seen and will be contingent upon American voters’ insistence on knowing the truth (the sleeping giant awakened AND alert!) not only about what these proposals contain but exactly how much – or how little – their senators and representatives actually know. And this cannot be determined until we actually allow them to speak. But may we also be realistic about what is at stake, and putting a 25-year-old heart into an 85-year-old body is not realistic. Nor practical.
Now this same “sleeping giant” battle cry is being used by town hall protesters as a warning to members of Congress who have, at least prior to the August recess, all but ignored the outcry such speculation about the various health care bills floating about in Congress has brought. Some seemed genuinely surprised by what has come about from these gatherings, which is not entirely unreasonable considering the majority that carried Obama to the White House. Even still, I applaud those members of Congress who continue to hold these town hall meetings while mindful of what is likely to come as a result.
It occurred to me earlier that this outcry, resulting primarily from so much misinformation, is not unlike the outcry that came as a result of President GW Bush’s Social Security privatization proposals. Republican members of the Congress were skittish about how such proposals would be received by American voters, and Democrats were gleeful as they virtually ran to AARP-sponsored meetings and retirement homes, thumping their chests, and telling Social Security-dependent persons that GWB was going to throw them into the streets and that “George Bush will take your Social Security OVER MY DEAD BODY”! In spite of GWB’s direct and unambiguous words and specific proposed exemptions, Democrats intentionally, effectively, and successfully twisted the president’s words and put a stop to even having a national discussion/debate on addressing the very real – and very serious – problems Social Security will face in a matter of a few short years. The problems still exist, the danger is very real, but now we don’t even want to talk about it. It is much easier to claim a victory and leave well enough alone.
It would be nice to say we learned a hard lesson, but the truth is we’ve learned nothing at all. There are those “sacred cows” we can never have serious discussions about because our elected officials lack the courage and the resolve to be serious about anything other than their own reelection campaigns, and we voters lack the wherewithal to be serious and hear the unvarnished truth. Congressional incumbents will do enough damage control over the course of the next few months and will be able to convince their constituents that the outcry was “heard” and responded to. These same constituents will then be lulled back into complacency, and those members of Congress will have again successfully manipulated the voters. And health care reform – which we all agree is badly in need of serious discussion and attention – will be only a pipe dream, thrown into the annals of “nice try” history and forgotten.
Now that I have successfully taken myself completely off task, allow me to go back to the matter at hand. “End of life counseling” (aka, “death panels”) under the various House proposals will be voluntary on the part of patients but would be mandated to be made available to these patients, and doctors will be reimbursed by Medicare. What all this means is that there is a certain reality we must all face. And if it is true what President Obama said about “how the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care costs” (Washington Times, July 9 editorial), then we need to be very serious about exactly what is being done against what is being proposed.
Bottom Line: voters do not trust the government to make such decisions or even be indirectly involved in such decisions. This lack of trust is being translated to “health care will be denied to the elderly” (it’s called “reading between the lines”) so as to save a few bucks. Indeed, try to call the US government, any agency, and see how hard it can be to get a knowledgeable human being on the line. And imagine such an overtaxed system such as a national health care office where decisions to fund or not will be made daily and, quite literally, thousands of times per day. But let us not allow the language to become inflammatory. It is not, as I understand it, a matter of deliberately choosing to end the life of an elderly person. Rather, the choice will be the usefulness of thousands of dollars worth of treatment that may not be effective. There is a huge difference.
Yet even as I have nothing to lose or gain politically from this discussion, I cannot bring myself to say what needs to be said: we humans will not – repeat, NOT – live forever. It is imminent; our lives will end, but we have an aversion to such a truth as this. And even though Americans are living longer, my guess is that such longevity is not exclusively attributable to “natural” (read “pills” … and lots of them) genetics or “good, clean living”. The tricky part is defining “toward the end of their lives”, as President Obama had put it in the July 9 Washington Times editorial/interview, because no one can know exactly when the “end” will be without taking definitive measures to deliberately terminate a life. And this is where too many Americans see the US government stepping in. The government may not “pull the plug on grandma”, as Obama so callously put it, but government may well decide whether grandma is plugged in in the first place. And this, I think, is the problem.
Incidentally, the “pull the plug” claim is no more or less ridiculous than “throw grandma into the street”, as congressional Democrats gleefully proclaimed during the Social Security debate-that-never-took-place” during President Bush’s last term. But again, I digress.
The issue of health care in America is as real and as serious now as Social Security was, and still is. Whether we accomplish anything of substance remains to be seen and will be contingent upon American voters’ insistence on knowing the truth (the sleeping giant awakened AND alert!) not only about what these proposals contain but exactly how much – or how little – their senators and representatives actually know. And this cannot be determined until we actually allow them to speak. But may we also be realistic about what is at stake, and putting a 25-year-old heart into an 85-year-old body is not realistic. Nor practical.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Leadership Void
It occurred to me as I was preparing a sermon last week that there are two different types of leaders in this world. One is designated by proper authority; the other earns the honor. One asks “why” and seeks to fix blame when problems arise; the other asks “where do we go from here” and seeks to fix the problem. One “cracks the whip” in order to get people to fall in line by whatever means necessary and at their ready disposal; the other motivates and moves people of their own accord. One believes himself to be the “know-it-all” and absolute authority, incapable of mistakes and seemingly eager to belittle those in his or her charge; the other recognizes his limitations, his status as a human – and fallible – person, and utilizes the gifts and talents of those in his charge to achieve the common goal. One micro-manages and trusts no one; the other delegates authority and is able to trust because this leader takes time to know those in his or her charge.
The purpose of the sermon was to distinguish between knowledge (that of knowing something) and wisdom (that of knowing what to do with that knowledge) and I came to the conclusion (though this was not in the sermon) that our government is filled with all kinds of knowledgeable persons, but there are few who evidence gifts, or even desire, of wisdom. It is not that these many are incapable of wisdom, but true wisdom is not incidental and does not necessarily come with age and/or experience. Wisdom is willfully and actively sought.
The several health reform proposals floating about in the Congress have caused a great deal of concern, confusion, and downright consternation among the populace not necessarily because the legislation itself is dangerous but because each party is using the weaker points of these many legislative proposals not to build upon but to destroy political opposition. And because each party is using what it thinks it must, even to the point of distorting genuine information, to make the other look bad, we citizens are left with little more than sound bites that lack useful substance. Because we lack good information from those we have appointed to represent us, we react angrily. Sad, but true.
Speaker Pelosi “blames” the media and monied interests for the outcry and accuses these town hall “criers” to be not only “un-American” but also implies these many to be incapable of independent thought or of disseminating such complex issues. Republicans blame Democrats, and Democrats blame Republicans. President Obama blames “all the above”, does not (or will not) subject himself to the same scrutiny and questions as congressional Democrats have endured at these town hall meetings, and still within such a heavily controlled environment gives only platitudes, emotional innuendo, and answers “questions” about very complex issues as health care and insurance from prepubescent children who are clueless about what is really at stake.
It seems clear, therefore, that this current government, from the White House to the Congress, is absolutely lacking in genuine leadership because wisdom is not only not actively sought but is, instead, intentionally avoided for the sake of political gain. Because of this, Americans have but one option: clear out the House and the Senate and begin anew. This means even the “good ol’ boy” congressman, who glad-hands so easily among the constituents a few weeks before election time and has done many personal (and political) favors, has brought home plenty of “bacon” and is well-connected, must go. No exceptions. It would be a bitter pill to swallow for many who are actually satisfied with their own representatives and senators but a necessary pill because this government will not begin to respond to the people until they fully recognize that we are not mindless sheep who can be led by the proverbial shepherd’s crook.
Ultimately, the central issue is one of trust, is it not? Though we might “like” our own members of Congress, do we really trust them to act in our behalf for the common good? Do we really trust that if there is a choice between something good for us or good for them, that they would choose us? Given the consistently low approval rating numbers according to various polls, my guess is that we do not trust the Congress to act in our behalf. So why reelect them when we know that if our own “bosses” felt the same toward us, that we would soon be unemployed? That these members of the Congress are not subject to the same scrutiny and supervision is the foundation of their abject arrogance.
Here is the simple litmus test for potential candidates: do they tear down their opposition? If so, they are not worthy of our trust. They may possess a great deal of knowledge, but it is clear that they are incapable of using this knowledge for the greater good. Knowledge of a particular issue is used only for personal, professional, or political gain. It does not take a great deal of wisdom to tear someone down and it does not even take a great deal of intelligence to find fault with another’s proposals or ideas, but it takes a real leader to think through things and offer more than simple platitudes.
And I think it really is that simple. Consider, for instance, Sarah Palin. She came out with these “death panels” because the proposed legislation allowed for “end of life” counseling to be paid for by Medicare. There is no wording in the legislation that I am aware of that grants the government any options. Rather, the available (and some very expensive) options are spelled out for the one receiving the counseling so that the patient may exercise these options and make informed choices. Mrs. Palin should know perfectly well that her words would only inflame, not inform, and her rhetoric is destructive rather than useful and constructive. Her only aim – and ONLY aim – is to discredit the president and congressional Democrats. Absent her own proposals, she really should simply remain silent until she has something useful to contribute to the discussion.
The town hall meetings were a necessary first step toward addressing this massive legislation before it turns into yet another massive, uncontrollable government program. It is sad that these meetings got so out-of-hand and downright disrespectful of those who stood in disagreement, but I think it has become necessary for the members of Congress – and potential candidates for Congress – to see and experience the utter frustration felt by voters. No single thing or person or committee is “at fault”, but it is strange to see so many members of the House who were just reelected getting hammered by that same constituency.
But let wisdom prevail. Whether “revamp” or “reform”, a lot of forward thinking and past experiences will have to enter into this national conversation. “Grandma’s plug”, Trig Palin’s disability, and other such emotional black-mail have no place in this debate. The nation has made itself clear: we want information, useful information about exactly how such proposals will “make things better” or be “deficit neutral” or will “rescue the economy”. No more apocalypse. No more “doomsday”. The facts, please; just the facts.
The purpose of the sermon was to distinguish between knowledge (that of knowing something) and wisdom (that of knowing what to do with that knowledge) and I came to the conclusion (though this was not in the sermon) that our government is filled with all kinds of knowledgeable persons, but there are few who evidence gifts, or even desire, of wisdom. It is not that these many are incapable of wisdom, but true wisdom is not incidental and does not necessarily come with age and/or experience. Wisdom is willfully and actively sought.
The several health reform proposals floating about in the Congress have caused a great deal of concern, confusion, and downright consternation among the populace not necessarily because the legislation itself is dangerous but because each party is using the weaker points of these many legislative proposals not to build upon but to destroy political opposition. And because each party is using what it thinks it must, even to the point of distorting genuine information, to make the other look bad, we citizens are left with little more than sound bites that lack useful substance. Because we lack good information from those we have appointed to represent us, we react angrily. Sad, but true.
Speaker Pelosi “blames” the media and monied interests for the outcry and accuses these town hall “criers” to be not only “un-American” but also implies these many to be incapable of independent thought or of disseminating such complex issues. Republicans blame Democrats, and Democrats blame Republicans. President Obama blames “all the above”, does not (or will not) subject himself to the same scrutiny and questions as congressional Democrats have endured at these town hall meetings, and still within such a heavily controlled environment gives only platitudes, emotional innuendo, and answers “questions” about very complex issues as health care and insurance from prepubescent children who are clueless about what is really at stake.
It seems clear, therefore, that this current government, from the White House to the Congress, is absolutely lacking in genuine leadership because wisdom is not only not actively sought but is, instead, intentionally avoided for the sake of political gain. Because of this, Americans have but one option: clear out the House and the Senate and begin anew. This means even the “good ol’ boy” congressman, who glad-hands so easily among the constituents a few weeks before election time and has done many personal (and political) favors, has brought home plenty of “bacon” and is well-connected, must go. No exceptions. It would be a bitter pill to swallow for many who are actually satisfied with their own representatives and senators but a necessary pill because this government will not begin to respond to the people until they fully recognize that we are not mindless sheep who can be led by the proverbial shepherd’s crook.
Ultimately, the central issue is one of trust, is it not? Though we might “like” our own members of Congress, do we really trust them to act in our behalf for the common good? Do we really trust that if there is a choice between something good for us or good for them, that they would choose us? Given the consistently low approval rating numbers according to various polls, my guess is that we do not trust the Congress to act in our behalf. So why reelect them when we know that if our own “bosses” felt the same toward us, that we would soon be unemployed? That these members of the Congress are not subject to the same scrutiny and supervision is the foundation of their abject arrogance.
Here is the simple litmus test for potential candidates: do they tear down their opposition? If so, they are not worthy of our trust. They may possess a great deal of knowledge, but it is clear that they are incapable of using this knowledge for the greater good. Knowledge of a particular issue is used only for personal, professional, or political gain. It does not take a great deal of wisdom to tear someone down and it does not even take a great deal of intelligence to find fault with another’s proposals or ideas, but it takes a real leader to think through things and offer more than simple platitudes.
And I think it really is that simple. Consider, for instance, Sarah Palin. She came out with these “death panels” because the proposed legislation allowed for “end of life” counseling to be paid for by Medicare. There is no wording in the legislation that I am aware of that grants the government any options. Rather, the available (and some very expensive) options are spelled out for the one receiving the counseling so that the patient may exercise these options and make informed choices. Mrs. Palin should know perfectly well that her words would only inflame, not inform, and her rhetoric is destructive rather than useful and constructive. Her only aim – and ONLY aim – is to discredit the president and congressional Democrats. Absent her own proposals, she really should simply remain silent until she has something useful to contribute to the discussion.
The town hall meetings were a necessary first step toward addressing this massive legislation before it turns into yet another massive, uncontrollable government program. It is sad that these meetings got so out-of-hand and downright disrespectful of those who stood in disagreement, but I think it has become necessary for the members of Congress – and potential candidates for Congress – to see and experience the utter frustration felt by voters. No single thing or person or committee is “at fault”, but it is strange to see so many members of the House who were just reelected getting hammered by that same constituency.
But let wisdom prevail. Whether “revamp” or “reform”, a lot of forward thinking and past experiences will have to enter into this national conversation. “Grandma’s plug”, Trig Palin’s disability, and other such emotional black-mail have no place in this debate. The nation has made itself clear: we want information, useful information about exactly how such proposals will “make things better” or be “deficit neutral” or will “rescue the economy”. No more apocalypse. No more “doomsday”. The facts, please; just the facts.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Divine Perceptions and Certain Reality
2 Samuel 18:1-33
In the movie, “Bruce Almighty”, the character “Bruce” is not having a good way with his career. His life is better than most. Like many of us he has friends and blessings he seems to take for granted and he has a job many might kill for, but he wants “more”. There is nothing wrong with a little ambition, of course, until one is blinded by this ambition, and “Bruce” was because he was so stuck on getting what he wanted that he was unable to see the good he already had.
Sound familiar? I know I’ve been there, and it took a pretty hard and painful fall before my eyes were finally opened, even if my vision is still a little fuzzy! And this is exactly what had happened with “Bruce” except that when he “fell”, his immediate reaction was that of anger. He “blamed” the Lord for being a “mean kid with a magnifying glass” who treated him as an ant on a sidewalk, taking a perverse pleasure in burning off “Bruce’s” antennas. Bruce was pretty sure the Lord was spending His days doing little more than trying to figure out ways to “smite” him. This “personal” Lord was falling down on the job! And “Bruce” believed he could do the job better.
The really sad thing is that this very strange and very narrow “theology” expressed by “Bruce” is not unlike what so many remember as the “old time” religion in which the fiery depths of hell seemed to be the primary focus to be used as a spiritual “weapon” with which to beat people into submission and get them to “tow the line”, while the grace and mercy of the Holy Father came in a distant second, if at all. The basic theme and prevailing image is that of a “God” who is interactive with humanity ONLY if He gets to clobber someone!
Some now refer to this as “or else” theology, and in some traditions it is still very much alive (though I would hesitate to say alive and “well”). There is nothing entirely untrue about such apocalyptic expressions, but over time the collective Church has come to realize – much to its dismay - that not only is such theology far too narrow but that many have chosen to walk away from such “by the sword” theology because the emphasis leans toward punishment and eternal condemnation rather than redemption and eternal life. Jesus emphatically states in John 3:17 that “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved”. Far too many took – and still take - a very strange and perverse satisfaction in the knowledge that SOMEBODY’s gonna get it in the end!
It is an odd thing that we can essentially agree on the same things but express our beliefs by different emphases. It is commonly known, for instance, that the Puritans chose to come to America to escape religious persecution, but it is not often mentioned that they chose to escape from a predominately Christian Europe, kings and queens often referred to as “defenders of the faith”. Simply stated, they did not believe in a state-sanctioned and –sponsored church and wanted a church all their own in which they would be free to express their own theology. In the end, it was John Winthrop’s own personal theology and his Massachusetts “city on a hill” that was supposed to be the ideal of Christian living and governance turned out to be far more oppressive and restrictive than the ‘government’ church from which they sought to escape. There was nothing entirely “wrong” about what Winthrop believed to be true, but his firm belief system and “state-sanctioned” church did not allow that others may not see things exactly the way he did. He became a reflection of the very repression he sought to flee from!
We all have a particular way of thinking when it comes to the Lord, and much of how we see Him has to do with how we were raised and taught and what traditions we come from, religious or otherwise. Our perceptions have to do with how we’ve been treated in the past and how we’re treated now. We are told that some women who grew up in abusive homes cannot conceive of the Lord as “Father” because their own earthly fathers were so abusive. Many see the Lord as “punisher” and “judge” while others think of Him in more redemptive terms such as “savior”. I, for one, have a hard time calling Him, or referring to Him, as simply “God” because it just seems a bit too familiar, a little too “chummy” and lacking a certain sense of reverence.
Surely we can each name someone in our past or present who absolutely rejects the usefulness of the Lord and His Church because of a bad experience with preachers, deacons, and other Christians in the past, regardless of their capacity. And of course, we can all reasonably conclude that the essence of the Lord has not changed, but many have a particular perception of Him based not on scriptural content or context but based almost entirely on personal experiences with persons associated with church.
Though I cannot say that many scholars or theologians would agree with me, I cannot help but to wonder if the writer of 2 Samuel was not using the story and conflict of King David and his son, Absalom, as an illustration of the emotions the Lord may feel toward those who actively rebel against Him and then suffer perhaps a premature death before they were able to make peace and come to terms with Him. This may not have been on the writer’s mind and we may be looking at nothing more than a historical account of the curse and reality of what David’s house was doomed to become after he impregnated Bathsheba and then order her husband’s death as a way of covering up his indiscretion and sin: “the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me … I will raise up adversity against you from your own house” (2 Samuel 12:10, 11).
It is clear that the Lord is capable of anger. If we believe in the Incarnation – that Jesus is the Lord God in the flesh – then we must necessarily believe the Lord to be capable of compassion. If we believe that King David was truly a man “after [the Lord’s] own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14), then we must believe that the Lord continued to use King David in a positive way as a ‘shepherd’ of His people in spite of the challenges with which David was personally confronted. And if we believe the Lord God to be capable of love, then we must necessarily believe Him to be capable of grief and mourning.
King David chose to flee rather than confront his own son in battle. One might come close to suggesting that David may have run out of fear, but the expression made by the King in wishing for his own death rather than having to endure the pain associated with the death of his own son makes clear that David was not concerned for his own hide. He was an experienced and savvy man of war! Absalom would not have stood a chance! To fight, rather than to flee, would have been more to David’s human nature and inclination, we might think. But to think of King David ONLY in such terms would ignore the many facets of his entire being. He was capable of much more than simply making war. Like the rest of us, he was not merely one-dimensional.
And it makes me wonder about the many dimensions of the Lord and how those dimensions are reflected in our own being, especially within the context of having been created in this same divine image. We are obviously not created to physically reflect a divine image because such a physical image does not exist. And we can be reasonably sure that we are all called forward in Christ to be a reflection of a Divine Image and New Covenant in witnessing to the entire world, beginning in our own neighborhoods and communities. But the Image we reflect is the image we perceive, and this image is not always the one we might freely choose. Rather, it is more likely to be the image that has been imposed upon us over an extended period of time that we are incapable of seeing the Lord any other way. If judge, then judge. If vindicator, then vindictive. If law-enforcer, then law-enforcing.
There is another element to consider. If our perceived image of the Lord leans more toward ‘enforcer’ than anything else, if we see Him primarily as merciless against the evil-doer, then we might be more inclined to overlook His grace and mercy – period. We become so consumed with this almighty, all-powerful “smiter” of evil that we fail to see the Holy One, our heavenly Father, who is capable of experiencing grief. We see a “warrior God” who destroys and vanquishes and banishes, but we cannot see a “Savior” because the “warrior God” is interested only in beating one into what would essentially be involuntary submission. And if we cannot “see” a Savior capable of love, it is reasonable to suggest we cannot “know” a Savior capable of love. And if we cannot know a Savior capable of love, we cannot rest and take comfort in our Savior’s love.
It is not a matter of choosing between “which God” is more pleasing to us because to dismiss one element of Him is to dismiss Him entirely. To dismiss one facet of His existence is to live in ignorance of ALL He is. It’s sort of like living with one’s spouse for years before finally one day saying, “Oh. I didn’t know that about you”. It’s not necessarily that this element of surprise did not exist, but it could be more evidence that we simply chose not to see it – out of love. You know, sort of like those annoying habits that are cute early in the marriage but soon become like fingernails on the chalkboard?!?!
David’s grief was expressed in knowing the pain he was experiencing at the loss of his child. You and I must always be consciously aware that this death that would have separated us from our Father did not happen – because the profound sacrificial love expressed by David’s willingness to die in place of his son was endured by Christ in place of His children. Judgment was rendered that very dark day, dear friends, and we were spared so that we could be finally and completely reunited with our Holy Father. This is, indeed, the very essence of love, and it is the entire Being of a redemptive Savior of the world.
In the movie, “Bruce Almighty”, the character “Bruce” is not having a good way with his career. His life is better than most. Like many of us he has friends and blessings he seems to take for granted and he has a job many might kill for, but he wants “more”. There is nothing wrong with a little ambition, of course, until one is blinded by this ambition, and “Bruce” was because he was so stuck on getting what he wanted that he was unable to see the good he already had.
Sound familiar? I know I’ve been there, and it took a pretty hard and painful fall before my eyes were finally opened, even if my vision is still a little fuzzy! And this is exactly what had happened with “Bruce” except that when he “fell”, his immediate reaction was that of anger. He “blamed” the Lord for being a “mean kid with a magnifying glass” who treated him as an ant on a sidewalk, taking a perverse pleasure in burning off “Bruce’s” antennas. Bruce was pretty sure the Lord was spending His days doing little more than trying to figure out ways to “smite” him. This “personal” Lord was falling down on the job! And “Bruce” believed he could do the job better.
The really sad thing is that this very strange and very narrow “theology” expressed by “Bruce” is not unlike what so many remember as the “old time” religion in which the fiery depths of hell seemed to be the primary focus to be used as a spiritual “weapon” with which to beat people into submission and get them to “tow the line”, while the grace and mercy of the Holy Father came in a distant second, if at all. The basic theme and prevailing image is that of a “God” who is interactive with humanity ONLY if He gets to clobber someone!
Some now refer to this as “or else” theology, and in some traditions it is still very much alive (though I would hesitate to say alive and “well”). There is nothing entirely untrue about such apocalyptic expressions, but over time the collective Church has come to realize – much to its dismay - that not only is such theology far too narrow but that many have chosen to walk away from such “by the sword” theology because the emphasis leans toward punishment and eternal condemnation rather than redemption and eternal life. Jesus emphatically states in John 3:17 that “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved”. Far too many took – and still take - a very strange and perverse satisfaction in the knowledge that SOMEBODY’s gonna get it in the end!
It is an odd thing that we can essentially agree on the same things but express our beliefs by different emphases. It is commonly known, for instance, that the Puritans chose to come to America to escape religious persecution, but it is not often mentioned that they chose to escape from a predominately Christian Europe, kings and queens often referred to as “defenders of the faith”. Simply stated, they did not believe in a state-sanctioned and –sponsored church and wanted a church all their own in which they would be free to express their own theology. In the end, it was John Winthrop’s own personal theology and his Massachusetts “city on a hill” that was supposed to be the ideal of Christian living and governance turned out to be far more oppressive and restrictive than the ‘government’ church from which they sought to escape. There was nothing entirely “wrong” about what Winthrop believed to be true, but his firm belief system and “state-sanctioned” church did not allow that others may not see things exactly the way he did. He became a reflection of the very repression he sought to flee from!
We all have a particular way of thinking when it comes to the Lord, and much of how we see Him has to do with how we were raised and taught and what traditions we come from, religious or otherwise. Our perceptions have to do with how we’ve been treated in the past and how we’re treated now. We are told that some women who grew up in abusive homes cannot conceive of the Lord as “Father” because their own earthly fathers were so abusive. Many see the Lord as “punisher” and “judge” while others think of Him in more redemptive terms such as “savior”. I, for one, have a hard time calling Him, or referring to Him, as simply “God” because it just seems a bit too familiar, a little too “chummy” and lacking a certain sense of reverence.
Surely we can each name someone in our past or present who absolutely rejects the usefulness of the Lord and His Church because of a bad experience with preachers, deacons, and other Christians in the past, regardless of their capacity. And of course, we can all reasonably conclude that the essence of the Lord has not changed, but many have a particular perception of Him based not on scriptural content or context but based almost entirely on personal experiences with persons associated with church.
Though I cannot say that many scholars or theologians would agree with me, I cannot help but to wonder if the writer of 2 Samuel was not using the story and conflict of King David and his son, Absalom, as an illustration of the emotions the Lord may feel toward those who actively rebel against Him and then suffer perhaps a premature death before they were able to make peace and come to terms with Him. This may not have been on the writer’s mind and we may be looking at nothing more than a historical account of the curse and reality of what David’s house was doomed to become after he impregnated Bathsheba and then order her husband’s death as a way of covering up his indiscretion and sin: “the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me … I will raise up adversity against you from your own house” (2 Samuel 12:10, 11).
It is clear that the Lord is capable of anger. If we believe in the Incarnation – that Jesus is the Lord God in the flesh – then we must necessarily believe the Lord to be capable of compassion. If we believe that King David was truly a man “after [the Lord’s] own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14), then we must believe that the Lord continued to use King David in a positive way as a ‘shepherd’ of His people in spite of the challenges with which David was personally confronted. And if we believe the Lord God to be capable of love, then we must necessarily believe Him to be capable of grief and mourning.
King David chose to flee rather than confront his own son in battle. One might come close to suggesting that David may have run out of fear, but the expression made by the King in wishing for his own death rather than having to endure the pain associated with the death of his own son makes clear that David was not concerned for his own hide. He was an experienced and savvy man of war! Absalom would not have stood a chance! To fight, rather than to flee, would have been more to David’s human nature and inclination, we might think. But to think of King David ONLY in such terms would ignore the many facets of his entire being. He was capable of much more than simply making war. Like the rest of us, he was not merely one-dimensional.
And it makes me wonder about the many dimensions of the Lord and how those dimensions are reflected in our own being, especially within the context of having been created in this same divine image. We are obviously not created to physically reflect a divine image because such a physical image does not exist. And we can be reasonably sure that we are all called forward in Christ to be a reflection of a Divine Image and New Covenant in witnessing to the entire world, beginning in our own neighborhoods and communities. But the Image we reflect is the image we perceive, and this image is not always the one we might freely choose. Rather, it is more likely to be the image that has been imposed upon us over an extended period of time that we are incapable of seeing the Lord any other way. If judge, then judge. If vindicator, then vindictive. If law-enforcer, then law-enforcing.
There is another element to consider. If our perceived image of the Lord leans more toward ‘enforcer’ than anything else, if we see Him primarily as merciless against the evil-doer, then we might be more inclined to overlook His grace and mercy – period. We become so consumed with this almighty, all-powerful “smiter” of evil that we fail to see the Holy One, our heavenly Father, who is capable of experiencing grief. We see a “warrior God” who destroys and vanquishes and banishes, but we cannot see a “Savior” because the “warrior God” is interested only in beating one into what would essentially be involuntary submission. And if we cannot “see” a Savior capable of love, it is reasonable to suggest we cannot “know” a Savior capable of love. And if we cannot know a Savior capable of love, we cannot rest and take comfort in our Savior’s love.
It is not a matter of choosing between “which God” is more pleasing to us because to dismiss one element of Him is to dismiss Him entirely. To dismiss one facet of His existence is to live in ignorance of ALL He is. It’s sort of like living with one’s spouse for years before finally one day saying, “Oh. I didn’t know that about you”. It’s not necessarily that this element of surprise did not exist, but it could be more evidence that we simply chose not to see it – out of love. You know, sort of like those annoying habits that are cute early in the marriage but soon become like fingernails on the chalkboard?!?!
David’s grief was expressed in knowing the pain he was experiencing at the loss of his child. You and I must always be consciously aware that this death that would have separated us from our Father did not happen – because the profound sacrificial love expressed by David’s willingness to die in place of his son was endured by Christ in place of His children. Judgment was rendered that very dark day, dear friends, and we were spared so that we could be finally and completely reunited with our Holy Father. This is, indeed, the very essence of love, and it is the entire Being of a redemptive Savior of the world.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Defining the 'Fight'
It is disheartening, to say the least, that congressional Democrats are presenting themselves at town hall meetings during the August recess only to be shouted down, jeered, booed, and threatened even to the point that it becomes necessary to involve police protection, as happened recently in Tampa FL. The confusion and downright fear of the average citizen in this whole “debate” is understandable because each political party seems more intent on scoring points than honestly discussing, debating, and presenting legislation as far-reaching and expensive as this proposed national health insurance plan (we must stop referring to it as health “care” reform), thus leaving themselves open to ridicule and downright abuse because relatively few seem to even know or understand what is on the table. Hence, the town hall meetings intended to inform.
The White House is no help with the uncivilized behavior that is being expressed and experienced by threatening to “punch back twice as hard”, as expressed by White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina. Just as President Obama recently – and suddenly – found his own foot in his mouth by referring to Cambridge MA police acting “stupidly”, Mr. Messina’s poor choice of words is only adding fuel to the fire and completely mischaracterizing exactly what is at stake.
Members of Congress are now forced to deal with the certain reality of an approximate (if appropriate) 30% approval rating. In a nutshell, 70% of these polled Americans do not trust the Congress even if they happen to like their own congressman. Strange situation, that, but I do not want to digress. The mid-term elections are more than a year away, and a more pressing problem exists now.
It does no good to engage in shouting matches at such functions as these town hall meetings because a) no one is afraid of the shouter (if this is what the shouter seeks), b) the speaker has an obligation to make his or her presentation and answer questions, c) others are in attendance because they have legitimate questions and concerns, and d) common courtesy and decorum demand a certain level of behavior conducive to an open discussion and mutual respect. The people may not like what they hear and the members of Congress may not like what they hear, but this is the life of public service. It is not a matter of shoving something down one’s constituents’ collective throat so that they will “take it and like it” (which ultimately defines ‘fascism’), but it does mean these members of Congress are obliged to listen. They can even try to sell what they believe in (as they should) so that voters can then decide for themselves how to vote in the next election, but members of Congress must never be threatened to the point of requiring police protection. They do, indeed, “work for us” (as many shouters have proclaimed), but they are not required or obligated under any circumstances to subject themselves to verbal abuse or threats of physical harm.
Top-level Democrats, including US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, and US Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, are also mischaracterizing the objections that are being expressed by these protesters and shouters by suggesting that these citizens are little more than “stooges” for monied interests. In putting too much emphasis on the frustrations of citizens as misguided or misappropriated, they risk fatal political harm to the honest debate – and perhaps to their own careers – that must necessarily take place. They fail to notice, or seriously note, that citizens are expressing their utter sense of powerlessness and lack of control within a system of government that was not intended or designed to usurp the will of the people appropriately expressed through their representatives. They have done little to allay the confusion and honest fear these protesters have of a tyrannical government that appears poised to force something on them they do not want.
In the din of confusion that is utterly and painfully apparent, it is impossible to know exactly what the fight is all about. Are we resisting a new, expansive, and expensive government program we obviously cannot afford, or are we resisting an overly expansive government that seems bent on taking without asking? If it is the latter, it leaves us with this burning question: why do we continue to reelect the same people to the same offices, knowing we will only get more of the same?
The White House is no help with the uncivilized behavior that is being expressed and experienced by threatening to “punch back twice as hard”, as expressed by White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina. Just as President Obama recently – and suddenly – found his own foot in his mouth by referring to Cambridge MA police acting “stupidly”, Mr. Messina’s poor choice of words is only adding fuel to the fire and completely mischaracterizing exactly what is at stake.
Members of Congress are now forced to deal with the certain reality of an approximate (if appropriate) 30% approval rating. In a nutshell, 70% of these polled Americans do not trust the Congress even if they happen to like their own congressman. Strange situation, that, but I do not want to digress. The mid-term elections are more than a year away, and a more pressing problem exists now.
It does no good to engage in shouting matches at such functions as these town hall meetings because a) no one is afraid of the shouter (if this is what the shouter seeks), b) the speaker has an obligation to make his or her presentation and answer questions, c) others are in attendance because they have legitimate questions and concerns, and d) common courtesy and decorum demand a certain level of behavior conducive to an open discussion and mutual respect. The people may not like what they hear and the members of Congress may not like what they hear, but this is the life of public service. It is not a matter of shoving something down one’s constituents’ collective throat so that they will “take it and like it” (which ultimately defines ‘fascism’), but it does mean these members of Congress are obliged to listen. They can even try to sell what they believe in (as they should) so that voters can then decide for themselves how to vote in the next election, but members of Congress must never be threatened to the point of requiring police protection. They do, indeed, “work for us” (as many shouters have proclaimed), but they are not required or obligated under any circumstances to subject themselves to verbal abuse or threats of physical harm.
Top-level Democrats, including US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, and US Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, are also mischaracterizing the objections that are being expressed by these protesters and shouters by suggesting that these citizens are little more than “stooges” for monied interests. In putting too much emphasis on the frustrations of citizens as misguided or misappropriated, they risk fatal political harm to the honest debate – and perhaps to their own careers – that must necessarily take place. They fail to notice, or seriously note, that citizens are expressing their utter sense of powerlessness and lack of control within a system of government that was not intended or designed to usurp the will of the people appropriately expressed through their representatives. They have done little to allay the confusion and honest fear these protesters have of a tyrannical government that appears poised to force something on them they do not want.
In the din of confusion that is utterly and painfully apparent, it is impossible to know exactly what the fight is all about. Are we resisting a new, expansive, and expensive government program we obviously cannot afford, or are we resisting an overly expansive government that seems bent on taking without asking? If it is the latter, it leaves us with this burning question: why do we continue to reelect the same people to the same offices, knowing we will only get more of the same?
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Bacon Bits and Your Congress
Members of Congress are home during the August recess and facing not-so-surprisingly hostile crowds over the health care legislation debate (actually, it’s INSURANCE they’re debating, lest we become confused. I wrote about this earlier). It is certain that most members of the Congress would expect a tough sell on nearly every level. And partisan politics being what it is, there is a lot of misinformation out there because Democrats AND Republicans are being less than honest with their constituents only in the hopes of scoring some cheap political points. Make no mistake: both sides stand accused of using scare tactics and of being obstructionist, and neither side is being completely honest or forthright in what is even on the table. Why? Because most members of Congress have no real idea of what the 1,000 + pages of this contested legislation contain.
There is another factor that is contributing to the hostility of constituents that members of Congress seem oblivious to: their collective approval rating is floating at right around 30%, depending on the poll. This means 70% of voting Americans do not trust the Congress, and it may be the bulk of this 70% that is showing up at these town hall meetings. Sad to say that since it is said that most members of Congress have not had time to even read the legislation, they are exposing themselves to questions they are unable to adequately answer. Give them credit for having the guts to do such a foolish thing, of course, but also consider that they are counting on voters’ traditionally short memories; mid-term elections are not for another whole year. That’s plenty of time for them to bring home a little extra “bacon” to turn voters’ attention away from the big picture. Think of it. Stimulus money to build a new community center … with a candy machine … and chips … and maybe some chairs. Ohhhh, shiny baubles and trinkets. And then see this new “stimulated” community center close down shortly thereafter for lack of funds to maintain and operate it.
These are the things we continually vote to keep in our lives as we continually reelect the same representatives and senators. In addition to these little “bacon bits”, they now propose to create a whole new spending program they cannot define or defend except to play with voters’ emotions by reminding them of the 45 million Americans who have no health insurance. Grossly short of facts and figures, these members of Congress depend on political advisors to help them get through the tough times so that come election time, they will know which buttons to push.
Many voters hesitate to allow a new campaign to gain much traction against an incumbent for no reason other than the adage, “better the devil you know”. Seasoned incumbents also hammer home the mantra that “experience” will always rule the day and serve us well, and voters forget that this “experience” has gotten us where we are today: $11 trillion in the hole and a deficit that is as large as the federal budget with little hope of improvement because the issue of jobs is being largely ignored. No jobs means no taxpayers. No taxpayers means no revenue. No revenue means no budget. Yet the budget continues to grow, and spending will virtually explode if government-funded health insurance (insurance the president and members of Congress will not participate in, mind you!) becomes a reality.
Listen to your congressman as he (or she) comes a-callin’. And then advise them to enjoy their last year in office. And then do the right thing: take back YOUR Congress.
There is another factor that is contributing to the hostility of constituents that members of Congress seem oblivious to: their collective approval rating is floating at right around 30%, depending on the poll. This means 70% of voting Americans do not trust the Congress, and it may be the bulk of this 70% that is showing up at these town hall meetings. Sad to say that since it is said that most members of Congress have not had time to even read the legislation, they are exposing themselves to questions they are unable to adequately answer. Give them credit for having the guts to do such a foolish thing, of course, but also consider that they are counting on voters’ traditionally short memories; mid-term elections are not for another whole year. That’s plenty of time for them to bring home a little extra “bacon” to turn voters’ attention away from the big picture. Think of it. Stimulus money to build a new community center … with a candy machine … and chips … and maybe some chairs. Ohhhh, shiny baubles and trinkets. And then see this new “stimulated” community center close down shortly thereafter for lack of funds to maintain and operate it.
These are the things we continually vote to keep in our lives as we continually reelect the same representatives and senators. In addition to these little “bacon bits”, they now propose to create a whole new spending program they cannot define or defend except to play with voters’ emotions by reminding them of the 45 million Americans who have no health insurance. Grossly short of facts and figures, these members of Congress depend on political advisors to help them get through the tough times so that come election time, they will know which buttons to push.
Many voters hesitate to allow a new campaign to gain much traction against an incumbent for no reason other than the adage, “better the devil you know”. Seasoned incumbents also hammer home the mantra that “experience” will always rule the day and serve us well, and voters forget that this “experience” has gotten us where we are today: $11 trillion in the hole and a deficit that is as large as the federal budget with little hope of improvement because the issue of jobs is being largely ignored. No jobs means no taxpayers. No taxpayers means no revenue. No revenue means no budget. Yet the budget continues to grow, and spending will virtually explode if government-funded health insurance (insurance the president and members of Congress will not participate in, mind you!) becomes a reality.
Listen to your congressman as he (or she) comes a-callin’. And then advise them to enjoy their last year in office. And then do the right thing: take back YOUR Congress.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Slaves No More
Exodus 16:2-5, 11-15
John 6:2-35
“Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?” Romans 6:16
Many of us are slaves to certain habits and behaviors, but not all habits and behaviors are inherently destructive. While it is true that some of us are slaves to alcohol, gambling, tobacco, work, and even food; others among us are slaves to physical fitness (ok, some of YOU might be), financial discipline, and healthy eating. In fact, it may be that we are all slaves, in one sense or another, to something in our lives and not really be consciously aware of it. They are not always such bad things to have in our lives, but all behaviors speak to a certain human trait I believe to be inherent in all of us: we are creatures of habit. And because we have within us a certain “survival instinct”, we are also possessed of certain self-serving, though not necessarily selfish, behaviors. If something works for us in the beginning, we will pretty much stick with it and even protect it almost at all cost.
So as we identify those habits we could probably live without, we sometimes create new habits with which to offset the old. And sometimes we don’t. Old habits are hard to break, and it really doesn’t matter how we come by these habits or even why, although knowing why we do things might help us to stop if we truly want to stop. I remember my aunt trying – IN VAIN – to get me to stop biting my fingernails by putting that awful-tasting stuff on my nails. My initial fear was that this “stuff” might look like gloss, but it dries well. My second fear was the inevitable “change” that would come as a result if I were to stop biting my nails. Then it occurred to me: stop putting the nasty stuff on my fingernails! That problem was solved pretty quickly … but I still bite my nails.
Captivity has a nature all its very own, but we rarely associate “being held captive” with “being creatures of habit”. We typically understand habits as learned behavior, of course, but we also more often enter into these habits of our own free will, if subconsciously. That is to say, we are not often forced into habitual behavior by external forces even as we are certainly influenced. Regardless of how or why we learn certain behaviors, by the time we figure out that a substantial portion of our lives is devoted to these habits, whether good or bad, it’s very nearly too late. We are hooked and, thus, enslaved.
It might be easy to confuse “habit” with “hobby”, especially if we have hobbies we devote a great deal of time to. Some hobbies are downright addictive! And if we devote such time to these hobbies that the things we must deal with are ignored, there is a problem. It is “patterned” behavior that compels us to act very nearly mindlessly, and this is not how we were created.
Witness the people of Israel in the wilderness, suddenly free. Because the nation had been captive for 400 years, the concept of freedom is completely alien to Moses’ generation. They are unable to conceive of it or act within it - and because they are so limited even in their ability to think independently, they remember with FONDNESS the “pots of meat and … bread to the full” they once had (Exodus 16:3). It does not seem to occur to them that they were being “tended” like so much livestock because they simply did not know any better! If we re-read the first chapter of Exodus, we will be reminded that the people of Israel were not “captured” in battle. Rather, they were slowly and “shrewdly” enslaved over a period of time. It all happened because the Egyptians realized that the vast Hebrew population could spell trouble for them “in the event of war” with Egypt’s enemies (Exodus 1:10). Israel failed to realize it was being enslaved until it was too late, likely because their essential needs were being met for them even as they were being mistreated.
Jesus expresses a similar sentiment to the crowd that sought Him out on the other side of the sea: “You are looking for Me not because you saw signs but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (John 6:26). Whether these of the crowd were poor who were finally able to “eat their fill” on the other side of the sea is not nearly as relevant as the fact that they were willing to mindlessly follow a free meal, having completely missed the “big picture”. And these were likely of the same crowd from the other side willing to take Jesus “by force” to make Him their king (John 6:15). Jesus met their basic and most essential physical need and because of this, they were willing to hand over their very lives to Him without fully realizing or even appreciating Him for who He really was (is!).
Right off the cuff, one may be tempted to ask how being drawn to Jesus could be a bad thing, even if blindly and involuntarily drawn. The short answer, of course, is that there is nothing “bad” about being drawn to Jesus. The long answer goes deeper, though, in that if folks could be drawn to Jesus with just bread and fish, they could be drawn to anyone with just bread and fish. Modern-day “false prophets” know exactly what people want, and they know how to provide what people want. And if a person’s immediate and crucial need is met, whether that need is social, personal, financial, or physical, the “provider” of that relief soon becomes the “taskmaster” after having initially – and temporarily - served as “savior”. The relationship never was one of trust or even respect, and there was certainly no element of freedom or voluntary action. Like the bad habits we acquire over a period of time, we are soon “captured” without ever having been consciously aware.
I cannot say I care for Paul’s choice of words in referring to himself as a “prisoner”, though he does say “in” the Lord rather than “of” the Lord. And we do know that Paul’s “captivity” was strictly voluntary on his part; he is still possessed of his own, independent mind. Before his encounter on the road to Damascus, he was possessed of the minds of others by seeking to persecute, and ultimately destroy, this “new” movement of Christians by what we now know as “legalistic” religion that demands mindless obedience; aka, “following the crowd”, rather than a free will response.
And this is the proclamation we should acknowledge for ourselves when we freely choose to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Just as we offer our gifts, we offer ourselves completely and entirely when we freely choose to come forward and “commune” with Christ. When we hand ourselves over to Him through this Sacrament, and when we do it with our minds wide open, we are making a bold proclamation of liberty, having been set free from our sinful past. We proclaim the New Life that is offered to us, and we freely pledge our allegiance to the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Be warned, however. If you or I choose to participate in this Sacrament only because we think we are expected to, we are still prisoners of our past – and this divine Gift becomes nothing more than a mindless habit to which we are involuntarily held captive. Even worse still, it becomes poison rather than nourishment (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).
Jesus never asked for “mindless slaves”. He called His disciples His “friends” with whom He shared all He had received from the Father so that they, too, would be “in the know” (John 15:14). And we are further reminded in Luke 14:25-33 that we are to enter into a relationship with the Lord through Christ after having taken everything into consideration, to “count the cost”. If it is blind obedience He gets from us, there is no relationship, “love” is reduced to nothing more than a word, and our hearts – which He wants above all else – are not in the relationship. We are simply “mindless slaves” who have been “captured” rather than “redeemed”.
Come forward today in this Sacrament, and every day in your daily living, not because you feel obligated … but because you are loved. And because you are loved, you are thus set free.
John 6:2-35
“Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?” Romans 6:16
Many of us are slaves to certain habits and behaviors, but not all habits and behaviors are inherently destructive. While it is true that some of us are slaves to alcohol, gambling, tobacco, work, and even food; others among us are slaves to physical fitness (ok, some of YOU might be), financial discipline, and healthy eating. In fact, it may be that we are all slaves, in one sense or another, to something in our lives and not really be consciously aware of it. They are not always such bad things to have in our lives, but all behaviors speak to a certain human trait I believe to be inherent in all of us: we are creatures of habit. And because we have within us a certain “survival instinct”, we are also possessed of certain self-serving, though not necessarily selfish, behaviors. If something works for us in the beginning, we will pretty much stick with it and even protect it almost at all cost.
So as we identify those habits we could probably live without, we sometimes create new habits with which to offset the old. And sometimes we don’t. Old habits are hard to break, and it really doesn’t matter how we come by these habits or even why, although knowing why we do things might help us to stop if we truly want to stop. I remember my aunt trying – IN VAIN – to get me to stop biting my fingernails by putting that awful-tasting stuff on my nails. My initial fear was that this “stuff” might look like gloss, but it dries well. My second fear was the inevitable “change” that would come as a result if I were to stop biting my nails. Then it occurred to me: stop putting the nasty stuff on my fingernails! That problem was solved pretty quickly … but I still bite my nails.
Captivity has a nature all its very own, but we rarely associate “being held captive” with “being creatures of habit”. We typically understand habits as learned behavior, of course, but we also more often enter into these habits of our own free will, if subconsciously. That is to say, we are not often forced into habitual behavior by external forces even as we are certainly influenced. Regardless of how or why we learn certain behaviors, by the time we figure out that a substantial portion of our lives is devoted to these habits, whether good or bad, it’s very nearly too late. We are hooked and, thus, enslaved.
It might be easy to confuse “habit” with “hobby”, especially if we have hobbies we devote a great deal of time to. Some hobbies are downright addictive! And if we devote such time to these hobbies that the things we must deal with are ignored, there is a problem. It is “patterned” behavior that compels us to act very nearly mindlessly, and this is not how we were created.
Witness the people of Israel in the wilderness, suddenly free. Because the nation had been captive for 400 years, the concept of freedom is completely alien to Moses’ generation. They are unable to conceive of it or act within it - and because they are so limited even in their ability to think independently, they remember with FONDNESS the “pots of meat and … bread to the full” they once had (Exodus 16:3). It does not seem to occur to them that they were being “tended” like so much livestock because they simply did not know any better! If we re-read the first chapter of Exodus, we will be reminded that the people of Israel were not “captured” in battle. Rather, they were slowly and “shrewdly” enslaved over a period of time. It all happened because the Egyptians realized that the vast Hebrew population could spell trouble for them “in the event of war” with Egypt’s enemies (Exodus 1:10). Israel failed to realize it was being enslaved until it was too late, likely because their essential needs were being met for them even as they were being mistreated.
Jesus expresses a similar sentiment to the crowd that sought Him out on the other side of the sea: “You are looking for Me not because you saw signs but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (John 6:26). Whether these of the crowd were poor who were finally able to “eat their fill” on the other side of the sea is not nearly as relevant as the fact that they were willing to mindlessly follow a free meal, having completely missed the “big picture”. And these were likely of the same crowd from the other side willing to take Jesus “by force” to make Him their king (John 6:15). Jesus met their basic and most essential physical need and because of this, they were willing to hand over their very lives to Him without fully realizing or even appreciating Him for who He really was (is!).
Right off the cuff, one may be tempted to ask how being drawn to Jesus could be a bad thing, even if blindly and involuntarily drawn. The short answer, of course, is that there is nothing “bad” about being drawn to Jesus. The long answer goes deeper, though, in that if folks could be drawn to Jesus with just bread and fish, they could be drawn to anyone with just bread and fish. Modern-day “false prophets” know exactly what people want, and they know how to provide what people want. And if a person’s immediate and crucial need is met, whether that need is social, personal, financial, or physical, the “provider” of that relief soon becomes the “taskmaster” after having initially – and temporarily - served as “savior”. The relationship never was one of trust or even respect, and there was certainly no element of freedom or voluntary action. Like the bad habits we acquire over a period of time, we are soon “captured” without ever having been consciously aware.
I cannot say I care for Paul’s choice of words in referring to himself as a “prisoner”, though he does say “in” the Lord rather than “of” the Lord. And we do know that Paul’s “captivity” was strictly voluntary on his part; he is still possessed of his own, independent mind. Before his encounter on the road to Damascus, he was possessed of the minds of others by seeking to persecute, and ultimately destroy, this “new” movement of Christians by what we now know as “legalistic” religion that demands mindless obedience; aka, “following the crowd”, rather than a free will response.
And this is the proclamation we should acknowledge for ourselves when we freely choose to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Just as we offer our gifts, we offer ourselves completely and entirely when we freely choose to come forward and “commune” with Christ. When we hand ourselves over to Him through this Sacrament, and when we do it with our minds wide open, we are making a bold proclamation of liberty, having been set free from our sinful past. We proclaim the New Life that is offered to us, and we freely pledge our allegiance to the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Be warned, however. If you or I choose to participate in this Sacrament only because we think we are expected to, we are still prisoners of our past – and this divine Gift becomes nothing more than a mindless habit to which we are involuntarily held captive. Even worse still, it becomes poison rather than nourishment (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).
Jesus never asked for “mindless slaves”. He called His disciples His “friends” with whom He shared all He had received from the Father so that they, too, would be “in the know” (John 15:14). And we are further reminded in Luke 14:25-33 that we are to enter into a relationship with the Lord through Christ after having taken everything into consideration, to “count the cost”. If it is blind obedience He gets from us, there is no relationship, “love” is reduced to nothing more than a word, and our hearts – which He wants above all else – are not in the relationship. We are simply “mindless slaves” who have been “captured” rather than “redeemed”.
Come forward today in this Sacrament, and every day in your daily living, not because you feel obligated … but because you are loved. And because you are loved, you are thus set free.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
When Rhetoric No Longer Works
It is very simple, politically at least, in the case of President Obama and his tumbling numbers in light of the people’s genuine and legitimate concerns about health care “reform”. Mr. Obama has offered little more than rhetoric in defense of undefined and unqualified “reform”, and voters are beginning to see through it – and him. After all, how much can a man know and define what he wants if he leaves sticky details to another; in this case, the Congress? In defense of “reform” and lacking any hard information, Mr. Obama has offered little more than rhetoric (45 million Americans are without health insurance, for instance. A big number, but lacking definition and qualification). And when the polls and job approval ratings numbers begin to fall as they have, Mr. Obama turns to rhetoric in self-defense.
Intangibles are easy to defend because there is nothing tangible to point to, no hard numbers or sound data. Intangibles are most often emotional and, thus, difficult to refute even as they are so broadly defined. For instance, former VP and former US senator and former tobacco farmer Al Gore seemed fond of sharing with the nation his feelings about tobacco use following his sister’s death from lung cancer even though he continued to benefit financially from tobacco for years after her death. Well, who is going to argue with a man who still grieves the loss of a sibling? Indeed, who can? The one tangible argument in that sea of intangibles, however, is simply this: there is no cure for cancer because its cause is indeterminate. Not everyone is going to battle cancer, and not all smokers will die from lung cancer or even emphysema. Not that tobacco consumption can be a healthy endeavor, but it is hard to ignore 70- and 80-year-olds who have been using tobacco in one form or another since their teenage years.
Because President Obama has nothing tangible to hold onto during this challenging time in his administration, he has returned to the campaign trail in the sense that he is reminding voters that things would not be where and what they are had it not been for the Bush administration. It is as if he is still trying to convince us that President Bush is still running for office, while asking Americans to disregard his own lack of leadership in the health care “reform” debates, his own lack of substantial input. In his rhetoric, Obama is still attempting to demonize rich people in general and Mr. Bush specifically and offering nothing of substance to the debate. Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon said the strategy of blaming the previous team has been effective. "I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it?" she said. "Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months." (Washington Times, July 29, 2009, Joseph Curl)
“Way worse” is relative. Look at a cumulative deficit of $500 billion over the course of 8 years verses 6 months. It is apparently President Bush’s fault that President Obama took a $500 billion deficit and doubled it in the first 6 months of his administration by rhetorically demanding, and getting, a $787 billion “stimulus” package passed by congressional Democrats with a substantial majority that was nothing but rhetoric and has produced nothing but intangibles. It is a very “feel good about progress” measure that has produced virtually nothing since its inception.
It is apparently Mr. Bush’s fault that the US economy continues to shed jobs at a rate of roughly half a million per month, but the Congress – at the insistence of the president – is spending money as if plenty of taxpayers are still on the rolls. Of course we’re still in the throes of residual effects of a harsh recession, but reaching back for rhetoric (intangibles) instead of moving forward toward hard and fast solutions (tangibles) is all this US president apparently has at his disposal. That it is politically effective and used purely for political gain speaks volumes about this president’s call for “change” when it is nothing more than simply more of the same: whatever it takes to get through the next election cycle.
Intangibles are easy to defend because there is nothing tangible to point to, no hard numbers or sound data. Intangibles are most often emotional and, thus, difficult to refute even as they are so broadly defined. For instance, former VP and former US senator and former tobacco farmer Al Gore seemed fond of sharing with the nation his feelings about tobacco use following his sister’s death from lung cancer even though he continued to benefit financially from tobacco for years after her death. Well, who is going to argue with a man who still grieves the loss of a sibling? Indeed, who can? The one tangible argument in that sea of intangibles, however, is simply this: there is no cure for cancer because its cause is indeterminate. Not everyone is going to battle cancer, and not all smokers will die from lung cancer or even emphysema. Not that tobacco consumption can be a healthy endeavor, but it is hard to ignore 70- and 80-year-olds who have been using tobacco in one form or another since their teenage years.
Because President Obama has nothing tangible to hold onto during this challenging time in his administration, he has returned to the campaign trail in the sense that he is reminding voters that things would not be where and what they are had it not been for the Bush administration. It is as if he is still trying to convince us that President Bush is still running for office, while asking Americans to disregard his own lack of leadership in the health care “reform” debates, his own lack of substantial input. In his rhetoric, Obama is still attempting to demonize rich people in general and Mr. Bush specifically and offering nothing of substance to the debate. Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon said the strategy of blaming the previous team has been effective. "I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it?" she said. "Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months." (Washington Times, July 29, 2009, Joseph Curl)
“Way worse” is relative. Look at a cumulative deficit of $500 billion over the course of 8 years verses 6 months. It is apparently President Bush’s fault that President Obama took a $500 billion deficit and doubled it in the first 6 months of his administration by rhetorically demanding, and getting, a $787 billion “stimulus” package passed by congressional Democrats with a substantial majority that was nothing but rhetoric and has produced nothing but intangibles. It is a very “feel good about progress” measure that has produced virtually nothing since its inception.
It is apparently Mr. Bush’s fault that the US economy continues to shed jobs at a rate of roughly half a million per month, but the Congress – at the insistence of the president – is spending money as if plenty of taxpayers are still on the rolls. Of course we’re still in the throes of residual effects of a harsh recession, but reaching back for rhetoric (intangibles) instead of moving forward toward hard and fast solutions (tangibles) is all this US president apparently has at his disposal. That it is politically effective and used purely for political gain speaks volumes about this president’s call for “change” when it is nothing more than simply more of the same: whatever it takes to get through the next election cycle.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Getting It Right
By most accounts, Democrats do not have the votes necessary to ramrod this much-debated health legislation through the US House. Strangely enough, it is the Democratic “Blue Dogs” who are putting up most of the resistance (I wonder where these “fiscally conservative” Dogs were when the $787 billion stimulus package was rushed through the Congress with few questions or challenges?) who, along with Republicans, are concerned about the long-range financial and economic impact this legislation might have. Rep. Mike Ross, D-AR, maintains that it is more important that the Congress get this “right” rather than “quick”. Better late than never, I suppose, Mr. Ross.
Most would agree the need exists to provide a buffer to those who cannot afford adequate health care, but I cannot agree that permanent government health insurance is the way to go. In fact, the nation pretty much put a stop to such thinking in the early days of the Clinton administration when the Congress and the people saw little more than a brand-new government agency that could (and probably would) quickly grow out of control. And given that Medicare and Medicaid are both facing tremendous challenges just to stay afloat and the VA with a less-than-impressive score card (depending, of course, on who is doing the scoring), these three government entities do not exactly instill voter confidence in the government’s ability to provide such an overreaching service, let alone administer it efficiently or effectively.
Still, the debate has lost its focus. Ultimately, we are talking about access to adequate health care and not affordable health insurance, even if health insurance is the primary vehicle by which many have access to adequate health care. We must not confuse the two, however, because they are two separate issues. That 45 million Americans lack health insurance (a dubious, if unqualified, number) does not mean that our health care system cannot provide reasonable, adequate, and needed care. It may mean that we should approach this issue from another angle, especially in light of the $1 trillion deficit this nation already faces (which means the government cannot pay its bills). And this deficit will only get worse because government spending is increasing at an alarming rate, and jobs in this country are still being eliminated at a rate of roughly 500,000 per month (June was 554,000). These are formerly tax-paying citizens who are losing their jobs; this is revenue the government can never hope to recover. And to add to the current debate and existing problem, a substantial percentage of these 554,000 citizens likely just lost whatever health insurance they may have had through their former employers. COBRA is little help since the former employee is only guaranteed coverage IF he or she can afford to pay the entire premium. The problem continues to multiply as long as the US economy continues to eliminate jobs on such a grand scale.
There is a reordering of priorities that has become necessary if confidence is to be restored in the Congress and the entire legislative process. Right now the Democrats are acutely aware that mid-terms elections are just around the corner. The waning popularity of the Democratic president could spell trouble for the Democratic majority in the Congress in general, and for Democratic members of Congress from traditionally conservative states and districts. What this means is that moving too quickly on health-related legislation is dangerous for the nation as a whole because politicians from both sides will be too busy worrying about election campaigns than to be bothered with such trivial nonsense as doing what is right for the nation as a whole.
Rather than attempt to revamp the entire health-care industry at this critical moment, perhaps it might be best to begin incrementally with such stop-gap measures as expanded Medicaid coverage for those who have lost jobs. Yes, it will mean spending more money, but it will be a far sight less than the projected $1.6 trillion the proposed legislation is projected to cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and will not require another “czar” or level of bureaucracy. And by its very nature, this expansion can be made temporary, with a defined benefit period as with unemployment insurance, rather than to become a permanent fixture of the US government. Such a stop-gap, emergency measure could then help the Congress to focus on THE most important matter at hand: creating an environment with policies that will encourage business expansion and ultimately provide new jobs. More incentives could actually encourage employers to continue offering health insurance coverage, and the government would get back the money it “lost” in corporate income taxes by way of personal income taxes paid by folks making their own way.
There are countless ways the Congress can actually help besides simply thinking up new campaign slogans or overwhelming us with legislation few can even comprehend. Now is not the time for the government to expand its reach lest we wake up one morning and discover who actually answers to whom.
Most would agree the need exists to provide a buffer to those who cannot afford adequate health care, but I cannot agree that permanent government health insurance is the way to go. In fact, the nation pretty much put a stop to such thinking in the early days of the Clinton administration when the Congress and the people saw little more than a brand-new government agency that could (and probably would) quickly grow out of control. And given that Medicare and Medicaid are both facing tremendous challenges just to stay afloat and the VA with a less-than-impressive score card (depending, of course, on who is doing the scoring), these three government entities do not exactly instill voter confidence in the government’s ability to provide such an overreaching service, let alone administer it efficiently or effectively.
Still, the debate has lost its focus. Ultimately, we are talking about access to adequate health care and not affordable health insurance, even if health insurance is the primary vehicle by which many have access to adequate health care. We must not confuse the two, however, because they are two separate issues. That 45 million Americans lack health insurance (a dubious, if unqualified, number) does not mean that our health care system cannot provide reasonable, adequate, and needed care. It may mean that we should approach this issue from another angle, especially in light of the $1 trillion deficit this nation already faces (which means the government cannot pay its bills). And this deficit will only get worse because government spending is increasing at an alarming rate, and jobs in this country are still being eliminated at a rate of roughly 500,000 per month (June was 554,000). These are formerly tax-paying citizens who are losing their jobs; this is revenue the government can never hope to recover. And to add to the current debate and existing problem, a substantial percentage of these 554,000 citizens likely just lost whatever health insurance they may have had through their former employers. COBRA is little help since the former employee is only guaranteed coverage IF he or she can afford to pay the entire premium. The problem continues to multiply as long as the US economy continues to eliminate jobs on such a grand scale.
There is a reordering of priorities that has become necessary if confidence is to be restored in the Congress and the entire legislative process. Right now the Democrats are acutely aware that mid-terms elections are just around the corner. The waning popularity of the Democratic president could spell trouble for the Democratic majority in the Congress in general, and for Democratic members of Congress from traditionally conservative states and districts. What this means is that moving too quickly on health-related legislation is dangerous for the nation as a whole because politicians from both sides will be too busy worrying about election campaigns than to be bothered with such trivial nonsense as doing what is right for the nation as a whole.
Rather than attempt to revamp the entire health-care industry at this critical moment, perhaps it might be best to begin incrementally with such stop-gap measures as expanded Medicaid coverage for those who have lost jobs. Yes, it will mean spending more money, but it will be a far sight less than the projected $1.6 trillion the proposed legislation is projected to cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and will not require another “czar” or level of bureaucracy. And by its very nature, this expansion can be made temporary, with a defined benefit period as with unemployment insurance, rather than to become a permanent fixture of the US government. Such a stop-gap, emergency measure could then help the Congress to focus on THE most important matter at hand: creating an environment with policies that will encourage business expansion and ultimately provide new jobs. More incentives could actually encourage employers to continue offering health insurance coverage, and the government would get back the money it “lost” in corporate income taxes by way of personal income taxes paid by folks making their own way.
There are countless ways the Congress can actually help besides simply thinking up new campaign slogans or overwhelming us with legislation few can even comprehend. Now is not the time for the government to expand its reach lest we wake up one morning and discover who actually answers to whom.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
In the matter and manner of Intrusion
"We are reminded that this decision [Roe v Wade] not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose." President Barack Obama, January 23, 2009
Intrusion, I think, is a matter of perspective especially under such circumstances as those pertaining to abortion. President Obama says the government should not intrude in those “most private family matters” as abortion (flawed logic, that), but this statement was also made the day he reversed the so-called “Mexico City Policy” which had previously banned US taxpayer funds from being used to promote or provide abortion abroad. In his aversion to intrusion, President Obama has pretty much given the US government an overwhelmingly intrusive, rather than a more appropriate neutral, role. The Congress seems willing, if eager, to help.
The US House just passed HR 2410, the “Foreign Affairs Reauthorization Act”, which now goes to the US Senate for its consideration. Within this Act is the creation of a new office within the US State Department called the “Office for Global Women’s Issues”. My own congressman, US Rep. Mike Ross, D-AR, in response to my concerns about what I believe to be the understated issues and back door advances involved in the creation of such an office, said that HR 2410 had nothing to do with abortion or the Mexico City policy. If this much is true, then HR2410 is little more than an appropriations bill for the US State Department. If Mr. Ross was wrong in his assessment – and this remains to be seen in full – then he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly naïve. In a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is quoted as having said, “We are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care” and that “reproductive health includes access to abortion.” In the case of Mike Ross and his assessment (he voted in favor of HR2410), my vote is for his naiveté (after all, he is a “good ol’ boy, I reckon).
US Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, offered an amendment that would have prevented funding for such an office of “empowerment”, but his amendment was defeated. Such a move leads me to believe that abortion and the Mexico City Policy have everything to do with the creation of such an office as designed to "coordinate efforts of the United States Government regarding gender integration and women’s empowerment in United States foreign policy." To this end, it sounds to me as though government “intrusion” is exactly what the creation of this office is all about, but the intrusion will reach far beyond the borders of the United States. This new office of “empowerment” also sounds a lot like a conduit through which these previously banned US funds (Mexico City policy) can be channeled. The “good will” of the United States is no longer about the principles of democracy. It is, instead, about the intentional destruction of unwanted children like so many litters of puppies and kittens.
What I find even more disconcerting than a government in debt spending even more on such an abhorrent act is the rather aggressive position this administration is taking on the issue of abortion, as if suggesting that there is not nearly enough death in this crazy world, that the US government needs to export and finance even more – and apparently to countries where there is not enough. It is one thing to remain neutral and acknowledge that each of us has, I suppose, an inherent “right” to destroy our own lives if we so choose; it is quite another thing to actively and aggressively promote as “foreign aid” that “right” by which we destroy the lives of others, presuming that such destruction of life will somehow enhance our own. The world and this administration may consider the willful destruction of innocent life to be “empowerment”, but there will soon be a terrible price to be paid for our cavalier attitude regarding our own children’s very right to exist. Are there really so many cold-blooded members of this Congress and this administration that they actually consider such death and destruction a “right” to be celebrated and protected and even funded, no matter the cost or concern?
This administration, indeed this entire government, has long crossed a line that should never have been crossed, but this administration and this Congress seem to believe we’ve not gone far enough. “Intrusion” will soon be the least of our worries. What this nation cannot see through such despicable policies is that the US government is involved in population control within sovereign territories outside of US control under the pretense of empowering women, which will likely take place within national borders of those nations and cultures in which women are still considered second-class citizens or outright possessions. How will destroying future generations change this attitude or enhance life and the future of these nations?
It is a sad day indeed when our nation, and far too many of this nation’s Christians, have allowed us all to digress to such a point when we consider the destruction of innocent human life to be “progress”. That is the perspective of this administration and this Congress, and we are allowing it to take place. The blood of these millions of children will demand an accounting soon enough and it will be as the 19th century American philosopher, Elbert Hubbard, once said: “We will be punished by our sins, not for them.” Shame on them for bringing this to us; shame on us for allowing it.
Intrusion, I think, is a matter of perspective especially under such circumstances as those pertaining to abortion. President Obama says the government should not intrude in those “most private family matters” as abortion (flawed logic, that), but this statement was also made the day he reversed the so-called “Mexico City Policy” which had previously banned US taxpayer funds from being used to promote or provide abortion abroad. In his aversion to intrusion, President Obama has pretty much given the US government an overwhelmingly intrusive, rather than a more appropriate neutral, role. The Congress seems willing, if eager, to help.
The US House just passed HR 2410, the “Foreign Affairs Reauthorization Act”, which now goes to the US Senate for its consideration. Within this Act is the creation of a new office within the US State Department called the “Office for Global Women’s Issues”. My own congressman, US Rep. Mike Ross, D-AR, in response to my concerns about what I believe to be the understated issues and back door advances involved in the creation of such an office, said that HR 2410 had nothing to do with abortion or the Mexico City policy. If this much is true, then HR2410 is little more than an appropriations bill for the US State Department. If Mr. Ross was wrong in his assessment – and this remains to be seen in full – then he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly naïve. In a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is quoted as having said, “We are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care” and that “reproductive health includes access to abortion.” In the case of Mike Ross and his assessment (he voted in favor of HR2410), my vote is for his naiveté (after all, he is a “good ol’ boy, I reckon).
US Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, offered an amendment that would have prevented funding for such an office of “empowerment”, but his amendment was defeated. Such a move leads me to believe that abortion and the Mexico City Policy have everything to do with the creation of such an office as designed to "coordinate efforts of the United States Government regarding gender integration and women’s empowerment in United States foreign policy." To this end, it sounds to me as though government “intrusion” is exactly what the creation of this office is all about, but the intrusion will reach far beyond the borders of the United States. This new office of “empowerment” also sounds a lot like a conduit through which these previously banned US funds (Mexico City policy) can be channeled. The “good will” of the United States is no longer about the principles of democracy. It is, instead, about the intentional destruction of unwanted children like so many litters of puppies and kittens.
What I find even more disconcerting than a government in debt spending even more on such an abhorrent act is the rather aggressive position this administration is taking on the issue of abortion, as if suggesting that there is not nearly enough death in this crazy world, that the US government needs to export and finance even more – and apparently to countries where there is not enough. It is one thing to remain neutral and acknowledge that each of us has, I suppose, an inherent “right” to destroy our own lives if we so choose; it is quite another thing to actively and aggressively promote as “foreign aid” that “right” by which we destroy the lives of others, presuming that such destruction of life will somehow enhance our own. The world and this administration may consider the willful destruction of innocent life to be “empowerment”, but there will soon be a terrible price to be paid for our cavalier attitude regarding our own children’s very right to exist. Are there really so many cold-blooded members of this Congress and this administration that they actually consider such death and destruction a “right” to be celebrated and protected and even funded, no matter the cost or concern?
This administration, indeed this entire government, has long crossed a line that should never have been crossed, but this administration and this Congress seem to believe we’ve not gone far enough. “Intrusion” will soon be the least of our worries. What this nation cannot see through such despicable policies is that the US government is involved in population control within sovereign territories outside of US control under the pretense of empowering women, which will likely take place within national borders of those nations and cultures in which women are still considered second-class citizens or outright possessions. How will destroying future generations change this attitude or enhance life and the future of these nations?
It is a sad day indeed when our nation, and far too many of this nation’s Christians, have allowed us all to digress to such a point when we consider the destruction of innocent human life to be “progress”. That is the perspective of this administration and this Congress, and we are allowing it to take place. The blood of these millions of children will demand an accounting soon enough and it will be as the 19th century American philosopher, Elbert Hubbard, once said: “We will be punished by our sins, not for them.” Shame on them for bringing this to us; shame on us for allowing it.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Defining a Christian Nation
Since President Obama’s speech in Cairo a few weeks ago, there has been a renewed interest in debate over whether the United States can accurately or even aesthetically be described as a “Christian” nation and whether such a designation can be attributed to a matter of ideology or is a manner of semantics. While some polls indicate roughly 80% of Americans claiming a Christian affiliation, this surely cannot be the sole means by which we make a determination about whether America is a “Christian” nation. For the faithful, the reason why this nation should be a nation under God is biblically clear as well as by the numerous examples and quotes from the days of our founding and beyond, all as expressions of individual, rather than collective, faith. And while the “Creator” (as well as “Nature’s God”, and “Divine Providence”) is acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence, it must be remembered in this particular context that we – presumably as Christians seeking our Christian independence – were demanding independence from another Christian nation, one in which the king himself was officially not only the head of state but also head of the Church, the monarch often referred to as “defender of the faith”.
Arguments have been made that many (“many” being relative, of course) chose to flee England precisely because of the lack of religious freedom, but is it not fair to say that England was “officially” a Christian nation? If this is true, and I think it must be, then what sort of religious freedom were we seeking that we would flee a religious, if Christian, nation in search of another? If the argument is then made that we just didn’t like that religion, that it was too Catholic or too Anglican or too near to the king, then what sort of religious expression might we choose to enforce as a means and a standard by which we can be clearly distinguished as a Christian nation, especially since we were defined as such in Europe but chose to run away from it? Religionists may not have cared for a king or a pope, but were they not all commonly defined by the New Covenant?
What of the flag-waving Christian patriots who clearly love America but just as clearly hate Americans, especially those Americans with whom they disagree? White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants had a corner on “official” Christianity in the early days of this republic that was just as repressive, if not more so, than that which was experienced in Europe. How is American Christianity somehow better than European Christianity, and how has American Christianity brought a nation closer to Divine Providence? How is hating on one’s neighbor indicative of a New Covenant Christian who demands adherence to and enforcement of his or her own Christian ideals while pure, raw, unadulterated hatred burns in the pit of his or her soul? Can anyone spell A-Y-A-T-O-L-L-A-H?
Are we a Christian nation, or are we a nation predominately populated by Christians? To infer that we are a Christian nation is to suggest that official government policies and practices exist, or once existed and have since been undermined, for the sole purpose of supporting and maintaining exclusively Christianity. The existence of abortion alone (a most unholy act of human destruction!), as supported by this government and its courts but clearly and officially renounced by the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant Christians, challenges the notion that this nation is distinctly Christian down to the very core. Even before this, however, is the absolute and constitutional reality that this nation is decidedly and officially not Christian nor Jewish nor Muslim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
This much, at least, seems clear. The United States government is prohibited from engaging in religious practice lest the government somehow be accused of engaging in religious establishment. It matters not whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other number of religions existing around the world. What should matter, and what seems equally clear from history, is that disaster has usually resulted from any government engaging in the act of supporting, imposing, or enforcing any religion upon its people. By this very same token, the government is equally clearly prohibited from engaging in the act of “prohibiting the free exercise …” of any religion. In the matter of religion, the government is constitutionally compelled to remain neutral in matters of religious faith but because the government cannot prohibit the “free exercise” of religion, it seems inferred that the government is duty-bound to defend one’s right to “free exercise”.
This nation’s history cannot be ignored, however, and it is that many did choose to come to these shores to flee religious persecution, but it is the very context of this persecution that should be a cause of alarm among flag-waving Christians who would insist upon a “Christian” nation. Christianity, as practiced, is as diverse and as varied as its population. There is a reason why there are, among Christians, those Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Pentecostalists, etc. that cannot (or will not) agree on particular theological or doctrinal standards. There are core differences in liturgical practices and in understanding the difference between what constitutes a “holy ordinance” and a “holy sacrament” such as matrimony, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. Shall it be the majority that gets to make the call? In this context, it must be remembered that the “majority” would never have allowed slaves to be freed, let alone be granted their inherent humanity.
None of this is to say that we Christians cannot live and worship as we see fit, but all of it is to insist that we at least respect, and be respected by, those who do not agree with us. This much is constitutionally protected. However, this freedom we have has not been granted to us by Divine Providence or by man’s law as a means by which to demand anything of anyone other than ourselves. If there is anything to be proved, the burden of this proof lays squarely on the shoulders of we who insist that our beliefs and practices do indeed offer a better way of life. As it is so often said, “the proof is in the pudding”.
The United States is a nation of Christians, many of whom took upon themselves the responsibility of defending a nation’s principles and ideals. The United States is also a nation of non-Christians, religious and not, who have also borne upon themselves the duties and responsibilities of defending not exclusively Christianity (or any other religion) but, rather, a nation; a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men (humanity) are created equal”, absent any religious qualifiers. This is the fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded and built, and it is upon this principle that this nation must stand. It is a very Christian notion of freedom and liberty that offers rather than demands, that is edifying rather than destructive, that is selfless rather than selfish.
There is a substantial difference between the principles of our nation and the fundamentals of our faith; Christians especially should be grateful, rather than hateful, for these differences.
Arguments have been made that many (“many” being relative, of course) chose to flee England precisely because of the lack of religious freedom, but is it not fair to say that England was “officially” a Christian nation? If this is true, and I think it must be, then what sort of religious freedom were we seeking that we would flee a religious, if Christian, nation in search of another? If the argument is then made that we just didn’t like that religion, that it was too Catholic or too Anglican or too near to the king, then what sort of religious expression might we choose to enforce as a means and a standard by which we can be clearly distinguished as a Christian nation, especially since we were defined as such in Europe but chose to run away from it? Religionists may not have cared for a king or a pope, but were they not all commonly defined by the New Covenant?
What of the flag-waving Christian patriots who clearly love America but just as clearly hate Americans, especially those Americans with whom they disagree? White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants had a corner on “official” Christianity in the early days of this republic that was just as repressive, if not more so, than that which was experienced in Europe. How is American Christianity somehow better than European Christianity, and how has American Christianity brought a nation closer to Divine Providence? How is hating on one’s neighbor indicative of a New Covenant Christian who demands adherence to and enforcement of his or her own Christian ideals while pure, raw, unadulterated hatred burns in the pit of his or her soul? Can anyone spell A-Y-A-T-O-L-L-A-H?
Are we a Christian nation, or are we a nation predominately populated by Christians? To infer that we are a Christian nation is to suggest that official government policies and practices exist, or once existed and have since been undermined, for the sole purpose of supporting and maintaining exclusively Christianity. The existence of abortion alone (a most unholy act of human destruction!), as supported by this government and its courts but clearly and officially renounced by the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant Christians, challenges the notion that this nation is distinctly Christian down to the very core. Even before this, however, is the absolute and constitutional reality that this nation is decidedly and officially not Christian nor Jewish nor Muslim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
This much, at least, seems clear. The United States government is prohibited from engaging in religious practice lest the government somehow be accused of engaging in religious establishment. It matters not whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other number of religions existing around the world. What should matter, and what seems equally clear from history, is that disaster has usually resulted from any government engaging in the act of supporting, imposing, or enforcing any religion upon its people. By this very same token, the government is equally clearly prohibited from engaging in the act of “prohibiting the free exercise …” of any religion. In the matter of religion, the government is constitutionally compelled to remain neutral in matters of religious faith but because the government cannot prohibit the “free exercise” of religion, it seems inferred that the government is duty-bound to defend one’s right to “free exercise”.
This nation’s history cannot be ignored, however, and it is that many did choose to come to these shores to flee religious persecution, but it is the very context of this persecution that should be a cause of alarm among flag-waving Christians who would insist upon a “Christian” nation. Christianity, as practiced, is as diverse and as varied as its population. There is a reason why there are, among Christians, those Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Pentecostalists, etc. that cannot (or will not) agree on particular theological or doctrinal standards. There are core differences in liturgical practices and in understanding the difference between what constitutes a “holy ordinance” and a “holy sacrament” such as matrimony, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. Shall it be the majority that gets to make the call? In this context, it must be remembered that the “majority” would never have allowed slaves to be freed, let alone be granted their inherent humanity.
None of this is to say that we Christians cannot live and worship as we see fit, but all of it is to insist that we at least respect, and be respected by, those who do not agree with us. This much is constitutionally protected. However, this freedom we have has not been granted to us by Divine Providence or by man’s law as a means by which to demand anything of anyone other than ourselves. If there is anything to be proved, the burden of this proof lays squarely on the shoulders of we who insist that our beliefs and practices do indeed offer a better way of life. As it is so often said, “the proof is in the pudding”.
The United States is a nation of Christians, many of whom took upon themselves the responsibility of defending a nation’s principles and ideals. The United States is also a nation of non-Christians, religious and not, who have also borne upon themselves the duties and responsibilities of defending not exclusively Christianity (or any other religion) but, rather, a nation; a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men (humanity) are created equal”, absent any religious qualifiers. This is the fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded and built, and it is upon this principle that this nation must stand. It is a very Christian notion of freedom and liberty that offers rather than demands, that is edifying rather than destructive, that is selfless rather than selfish.
There is a substantial difference between the principles of our nation and the fundamentals of our faith; Christians especially should be grateful, rather than hateful, for these differences.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Not For Everyone
“As a public church, we are called to address significant social issues that affect the common good. We seek to bring God’s justice not only in the world but also in the church. The social statements of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are social policy documents, adopted by the churchwide assembly in accordance with our policies and procedures.” Evangelical Lutheran preamble to Social Statements
ABORTION:
We in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are united with all human beings and the whole creation because God has created us and all that exists ...
Induced abortion, the act of intentionally terminating a developing life in the womb, is one of the issues about which members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have serious differences. These differences are also found within society ...
A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb expresses a common commitment to life. This requires that we move beyond the usual "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" language in discussing abortion ...
Women, faced with unintended pregnancies, are called to be good stewards of life by making responsible decisions in light of these relationships ...
All of life is a mysterious, awesome gift of God ...
Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity ...
Sin is evident in the many ways human lives are not given equal respect or treated with high value, but are subject to abuse, violence, and neglect by individuals, groups, and entire societies. We are caught up in a web of sin in which we both sin and are sinned against ...
Our faith is to be active in love and our freedom used for the benefit of one another ...
… our love for neighbor embraces especially those who are most vulnerable, including both the pregnant woman and the life in her womb ...
Because we believe that God is the creator of life, the number of induced abortions is a source of deep concern to this church. We mourn the loss of life that God has created …
****************
George Tiller, the late-term abortion provider who was shot and killed in church recently, was in attendance at an Evangelical Lutheran Church. Because of Tiller’s chosen profession and apparent sense of religion (I have no idea the state of his faith), an examination of what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA) has to say about abortion seemed in order.
This is no attempt to vilify or implicate specifically the ECLA (not to be confused with the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, which is distinctly pro-life) in the doctor’s personal and professional choices and endeavors. Indeed, as a United Methodist pastor, I have issues with my own denomination’s stance on abortion (absolutely no, under certain circumstances; kinda sorta maybe under others). In a culture such as ours, however, and in light of the reality that more and more persons are moving away from church attendance and active participation in church life, it is interesting to read official church statements, especially those statements that attempt to take a stand but seem to work harder at including “something for everyone” without actually taking a stand, and then wonder why there seems to be so much confusion and falling away among the faithful.
It is noteworthy, in a society such as ours in which it seems decreed by far too many churches that the value of human life is measured only by our willingness to support and defend that life, that children are gunning down children in the streets all across America with reckless abandon and with absolutely no respect for human life nor sensing any value of such life. These children kill as it suits their own selfish purposes just as we kill unborn children and feebly attempt to justify our decisions while condemning theirs. The message is just not consistent, and there is no firm belief to embrace. It’s a “kinda sorta” proposition that refuses to name an evil and call it what it is for fear of upsetting or offending, perhaps in an effort to prevent an exodus of members, only to discover that such efforts to appease everyone was ultimately in vain.
The ELCA [non]stand on abortion is not unique to the ELCA but is, instead, indicative of far too many “connectional” churches as well as many independent and non-denominational churches that celebrate “diversity” by diversifying essentials of the faith so as to be considered “inclusive” but actually being rendered “impotent”. Life itself as a “gift of God” is as essential and as basic as “essentials of faith” can be; Evangelical Lutherans and United Methodists (among many others) do their level best to avoid nasty confrontations by refusing to come down on one side or the other and do a great disservice to those who look for a faith and a God that will not shift according to cultural or political winds. To do so is to not only earn but also embrace the true meaning of “hypocrisy”.
The Roman Catholic Church may take a lot of flak from a lot of folks, but the RCC can be counted on to stand firm in what it professes to be true. There is no “popular” vote with regard to Church doctrine, and some things are not open to secular discussion or debate. There is no vain attempt to be culturally relevant, and there is no feeble celebration of “cultural diversity” when it comes to sound doctrine. Those who insist that the Church needs to “get with the times” fail to understand that the Church’s refusal to negotiate is actually what was once known as “doctrinal integrity”.
Refusing to be swayed by the prevailing secular humanist or relativist culture grants to the Church the necessary moral authority to speak to such matters. All other churches that seek to be “culturally relevant” to worldly standards and practices and vainly attempt to appease those who cannot or will not embrace such absolutes as the divine nature of life itself fail to understand or embrace the standards of the Kingdom of Heaven and our call to be relevant toward that Kingdom rather than to the worldly culture we live in.
In the end, although the Christian faith is for anyone who is willing to enter into the New Covenant and walk the walk of Christ, the harsh truth is that it is not for everyone. There will always be those unwilling or even unable to enter into this life-changing and life-SUSTAINING Covenant. Sad, but true. And this includes entire churches that surrender their moral authority to the prevailing cultural authority.
ABORTION:
We in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are united with all human beings and the whole creation because God has created us and all that exists ...
Induced abortion, the act of intentionally terminating a developing life in the womb, is one of the issues about which members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have serious differences. These differences are also found within society ...
A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb expresses a common commitment to life. This requires that we move beyond the usual "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" language in discussing abortion ...
Women, faced with unintended pregnancies, are called to be good stewards of life by making responsible decisions in light of these relationships ...
All of life is a mysterious, awesome gift of God ...
Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity ...
Sin is evident in the many ways human lives are not given equal respect or treated with high value, but are subject to abuse, violence, and neglect by individuals, groups, and entire societies. We are caught up in a web of sin in which we both sin and are sinned against ...
Our faith is to be active in love and our freedom used for the benefit of one another ...
… our love for neighbor embraces especially those who are most vulnerable, including both the pregnant woman and the life in her womb ...
Because we believe that God is the creator of life, the number of induced abortions is a source of deep concern to this church. We mourn the loss of life that God has created …
****************
George Tiller, the late-term abortion provider who was shot and killed in church recently, was in attendance at an Evangelical Lutheran Church. Because of Tiller’s chosen profession and apparent sense of religion (I have no idea the state of his faith), an examination of what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA) has to say about abortion seemed in order.
This is no attempt to vilify or implicate specifically the ECLA (not to be confused with the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, which is distinctly pro-life) in the doctor’s personal and professional choices and endeavors. Indeed, as a United Methodist pastor, I have issues with my own denomination’s stance on abortion (absolutely no, under certain circumstances; kinda sorta maybe under others). In a culture such as ours, however, and in light of the reality that more and more persons are moving away from church attendance and active participation in church life, it is interesting to read official church statements, especially those statements that attempt to take a stand but seem to work harder at including “something for everyone” without actually taking a stand, and then wonder why there seems to be so much confusion and falling away among the faithful.
It is noteworthy, in a society such as ours in which it seems decreed by far too many churches that the value of human life is measured only by our willingness to support and defend that life, that children are gunning down children in the streets all across America with reckless abandon and with absolutely no respect for human life nor sensing any value of such life. These children kill as it suits their own selfish purposes just as we kill unborn children and feebly attempt to justify our decisions while condemning theirs. The message is just not consistent, and there is no firm belief to embrace. It’s a “kinda sorta” proposition that refuses to name an evil and call it what it is for fear of upsetting or offending, perhaps in an effort to prevent an exodus of members, only to discover that such efforts to appease everyone was ultimately in vain.
The ELCA [non]stand on abortion is not unique to the ELCA but is, instead, indicative of far too many “connectional” churches as well as many independent and non-denominational churches that celebrate “diversity” by diversifying essentials of the faith so as to be considered “inclusive” but actually being rendered “impotent”. Life itself as a “gift of God” is as essential and as basic as “essentials of faith” can be; Evangelical Lutherans and United Methodists (among many others) do their level best to avoid nasty confrontations by refusing to come down on one side or the other and do a great disservice to those who look for a faith and a God that will not shift according to cultural or political winds. To do so is to not only earn but also embrace the true meaning of “hypocrisy”.
The Roman Catholic Church may take a lot of flak from a lot of folks, but the RCC can be counted on to stand firm in what it professes to be true. There is no “popular” vote with regard to Church doctrine, and some things are not open to secular discussion or debate. There is no vain attempt to be culturally relevant, and there is no feeble celebration of “cultural diversity” when it comes to sound doctrine. Those who insist that the Church needs to “get with the times” fail to understand that the Church’s refusal to negotiate is actually what was once known as “doctrinal integrity”.
Refusing to be swayed by the prevailing secular humanist or relativist culture grants to the Church the necessary moral authority to speak to such matters. All other churches that seek to be “culturally relevant” to worldly standards and practices and vainly attempt to appease those who cannot or will not embrace such absolutes as the divine nature of life itself fail to understand or embrace the standards of the Kingdom of Heaven and our call to be relevant toward that Kingdom rather than to the worldly culture we live in.
In the end, although the Christian faith is for anyone who is willing to enter into the New Covenant and walk the walk of Christ, the harsh truth is that it is not for everyone. There will always be those unwilling or even unable to enter into this life-changing and life-SUSTAINING Covenant. Sad, but true. And this includes entire churches that surrender their moral authority to the prevailing cultural authority.
Without Exception
Whether one would see a glass as half-empty or half-full would depend entirely on one’s outlook on life. Whether one is a pessimist or an optimist depends, in large measure, on whether one has the faith to get through from one day to the next. It is a given, of course, that even Christians get a little “down in the mouth” from time to time; the world has a way of closing in around us whenever money is tight or the kids have too much going on or there are sick friends and family members or … or …
It also occurred to me not long ago that we Christians are sometimes a little too free with negative thoughts, for instance, when we refer to those who are terminally ill as “dying”. Such a mindset helps to lend credence to such laws – clearly laws “of the flesh” - as those created in Washington State and Oregon known as “death with dignity”, laws that appear noble on the surface but come up severely short in biblical and practical wisdom especially when we consider and then dismiss the sacred nature and value of human life, regardless of the state of that life. Terminally ill patients are indeed dying, as is so often said, but no more or less so than any one of us at any given time. We are all on borrowed time.
Death is imminent; without exception, we are all going to pass from this world sooner or later but until life passes from us, we are all, also without exception, very much alive. Our existence, our very being has intrinsic value that goes far beyond the human capacity to adequately or accurately measure. So it must necessarily be not a choice between “living and dying” but, rather, “alive or dead”. There can be no in-between without creating the so-called “gray areas” in which the definition of a “life worth living” becomes a debatable topic subject only to the secular value our society chooses to assign according to the usefulness of that life.
In such “slippery slope” areas as abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and euthanasia, divine value is not even taken into consideration not only because such value is immeasurable and incomprehensible by human standards but also because, by these same human standards, the value of life becomes relative. Relative to what would remain to be seen and is ambiguous at best, but that relativity is defined only in moment-to-moment social situations and political circumstances. Not only does such thinking violate the premise that Life is in the realm of our Holy Father and no other, but “slippery slopes” lead to such deranged thinking as human life being only slightly more advanced than that of a monkey or a rat or any other “lab” animal subject to human experimentation. Think of the Nazi era.
The divine value of human life is poetically expressed in Isaiah when the prophet is called forth in chapter 6. The prophet acknowledges his unworthiness as with “unclean lips” from among a people of “unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5) especially while in the Divine Presence. In spite of his perceived unworthiness and in spite of his perceived unworthiness of the people whom Isaiah will be preaching to, the Lord sees fit to continue to reach out, refusing to disavow His own people, His own creation. They are all, without exception, still very much alive and worth the effort; even those who will ultimately reject Him. They are all, without exception, of intrinsic value not only to one another but to the Lord and His purposes. It is, by decree of the Lord alone, that all life has value and cannot – in fact, must not – be subjected to measure by man’s arbitrary, conditional, fickle and, ultimately, finite standards.
In the book, "Seven Theories of Human Nature", Leslie Stevens writes, “The Christian doctrine of man sees him primarily in relation to God, who has created him to occupy a special position in the universe. Man is made in the image of God, to have dominion over the rest of creation; he is unique in that he has in him something of the self-consciousness and ability to love freely which is characteristic of God Himself. God created man for fellowship with Himself, so man fulfills the purpose of his life only when he loves and serves his Creator ... It is a common and recurrent misinterpretation of Christian doctrine that it asserts a dualism between the material body and an immaterial soul …” (pg 45)
Think of it in Paul’s terms of our being “debtors … to the Spirit” (Romans 8:12-13), that whole sum and source of our existence by which our true and genuine value is not only given but is also divinely measured. Living “according to the flesh” places a finite and limited value on our existence; we’re only good and useful until we die. And if we choose to live “according to the flesh … [we] will die”, Paul writes, as opposed to our ability to “freely choose” to reflect the characteristics of our divine nature with and in our physical, mortal selves, having been called into being by our Divine Creator. Our existence is measured by our own choices but is ultimately assigned its value by the Lord from the very beginning.
Even though we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14), we cannot deny that we are born of flesh and Jesus does make such a distinction between the two and even suggests a certain “dualism” in John 3:6; “What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of Spirit is Spirit”. Jesus implies a distinction between our physical, fleshly selves and the Divine Nature which comes when we are in communion with the Spirit. It is only then when there can be a fellowship between God and man. Nevertheless, we are still occupying our mortal bodies and using our mortal minds. And it strikes Jesus as strange that Nicodemus, “a teacher of Israel” (vs 10), lacks a clear understanding of this spiritual – and Scriptural – reality.
In Isaiah 44:3 it is written, “I will pour water on him who is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour My Spirit on your descendants and My blessing on your offspring.” It is also written in Ezekiel 36:26, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you”.
Spiritual restoration, then, is not an exclusively New Testament doctrine. It was the Lord’s intent to restore Israel after the Exile even after they betrayed Him and profaned His Name by their actions, and these were mortal, physical bodies that were to be restored. It is the intent of the Holy Father to restore us all to that Divine Image in which we were first created. And it is by His Hand and His decree alone that humanity is restored to that Divine Fellowship for which we were “fearfully and wonderfully made”. And Jesus wraps it all up nice and neat with this statement: “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17).
If we, then, know and appreciate and even embrace this Truth, then we must surely know and appreciate that the Lord is no respecter of persons. That is, He does not play favorites. He loves totally and completely ALL of His creation. That which is in store for you and for me is also what is in store for others. Having been born again through baptism, that Sacrament of the Church by which we are brought into the New Covenant and given the gift of Life by the Holy Spirit, it then becomes incumbent upon us to serve as witnesses of this Truth: Life is God, and God is Life. There is nothing ambiguous about it. And the Scripture is clear: the value of our lives is not measured according to our fleshly usefulness though it is our flesh that “freely chooses” that Great Gift.
The passing of our mortal bodies is a given and will come to us all sooner or later but for those who “freely choose” to walk and live in the Spirit, Life is far from over and we are NOT “dying”. We are LIVING … and will forevermore.
It also occurred to me not long ago that we Christians are sometimes a little too free with negative thoughts, for instance, when we refer to those who are terminally ill as “dying”. Such a mindset helps to lend credence to such laws – clearly laws “of the flesh” - as those created in Washington State and Oregon known as “death with dignity”, laws that appear noble on the surface but come up severely short in biblical and practical wisdom especially when we consider and then dismiss the sacred nature and value of human life, regardless of the state of that life. Terminally ill patients are indeed dying, as is so often said, but no more or less so than any one of us at any given time. We are all on borrowed time.
Death is imminent; without exception, we are all going to pass from this world sooner or later but until life passes from us, we are all, also without exception, very much alive. Our existence, our very being has intrinsic value that goes far beyond the human capacity to adequately or accurately measure. So it must necessarily be not a choice between “living and dying” but, rather, “alive or dead”. There can be no in-between without creating the so-called “gray areas” in which the definition of a “life worth living” becomes a debatable topic subject only to the secular value our society chooses to assign according to the usefulness of that life.
In such “slippery slope” areas as abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and euthanasia, divine value is not even taken into consideration not only because such value is immeasurable and incomprehensible by human standards but also because, by these same human standards, the value of life becomes relative. Relative to what would remain to be seen and is ambiguous at best, but that relativity is defined only in moment-to-moment social situations and political circumstances. Not only does such thinking violate the premise that Life is in the realm of our Holy Father and no other, but “slippery slopes” lead to such deranged thinking as human life being only slightly more advanced than that of a monkey or a rat or any other “lab” animal subject to human experimentation. Think of the Nazi era.
The divine value of human life is poetically expressed in Isaiah when the prophet is called forth in chapter 6. The prophet acknowledges his unworthiness as with “unclean lips” from among a people of “unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5) especially while in the Divine Presence. In spite of his perceived unworthiness and in spite of his perceived unworthiness of the people whom Isaiah will be preaching to, the Lord sees fit to continue to reach out, refusing to disavow His own people, His own creation. They are all, without exception, still very much alive and worth the effort; even those who will ultimately reject Him. They are all, without exception, of intrinsic value not only to one another but to the Lord and His purposes. It is, by decree of the Lord alone, that all life has value and cannot – in fact, must not – be subjected to measure by man’s arbitrary, conditional, fickle and, ultimately, finite standards.
In the book, "Seven Theories of Human Nature", Leslie Stevens writes, “The Christian doctrine of man sees him primarily in relation to God, who has created him to occupy a special position in the universe. Man is made in the image of God, to have dominion over the rest of creation; he is unique in that he has in him something of the self-consciousness and ability to love freely which is characteristic of God Himself. God created man for fellowship with Himself, so man fulfills the purpose of his life only when he loves and serves his Creator ... It is a common and recurrent misinterpretation of Christian doctrine that it asserts a dualism between the material body and an immaterial soul …” (pg 45)
Think of it in Paul’s terms of our being “debtors … to the Spirit” (Romans 8:12-13), that whole sum and source of our existence by which our true and genuine value is not only given but is also divinely measured. Living “according to the flesh” places a finite and limited value on our existence; we’re only good and useful until we die. And if we choose to live “according to the flesh … [we] will die”, Paul writes, as opposed to our ability to “freely choose” to reflect the characteristics of our divine nature with and in our physical, mortal selves, having been called into being by our Divine Creator. Our existence is measured by our own choices but is ultimately assigned its value by the Lord from the very beginning.
Even though we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14), we cannot deny that we are born of flesh and Jesus does make such a distinction between the two and even suggests a certain “dualism” in John 3:6; “What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of Spirit is Spirit”. Jesus implies a distinction between our physical, fleshly selves and the Divine Nature which comes when we are in communion with the Spirit. It is only then when there can be a fellowship between God and man. Nevertheless, we are still occupying our mortal bodies and using our mortal minds. And it strikes Jesus as strange that Nicodemus, “a teacher of Israel” (vs 10), lacks a clear understanding of this spiritual – and Scriptural – reality.
In Isaiah 44:3 it is written, “I will pour water on him who is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour My Spirit on your descendants and My blessing on your offspring.” It is also written in Ezekiel 36:26, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you”.
Spiritual restoration, then, is not an exclusively New Testament doctrine. It was the Lord’s intent to restore Israel after the Exile even after they betrayed Him and profaned His Name by their actions, and these were mortal, physical bodies that were to be restored. It is the intent of the Holy Father to restore us all to that Divine Image in which we were first created. And it is by His Hand and His decree alone that humanity is restored to that Divine Fellowship for which we were “fearfully and wonderfully made”. And Jesus wraps it all up nice and neat with this statement: “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17).
If we, then, know and appreciate and even embrace this Truth, then we must surely know and appreciate that the Lord is no respecter of persons. That is, He does not play favorites. He loves totally and completely ALL of His creation. That which is in store for you and for me is also what is in store for others. Having been born again through baptism, that Sacrament of the Church by which we are brought into the New Covenant and given the gift of Life by the Holy Spirit, it then becomes incumbent upon us to serve as witnesses of this Truth: Life is God, and God is Life. There is nothing ambiguous about it. And the Scripture is clear: the value of our lives is not measured according to our fleshly usefulness though it is our flesh that “freely chooses” that Great Gift.
The passing of our mortal bodies is a given and will come to us all sooner or later but for those who “freely choose” to walk and live in the Spirit, Life is far from over and we are NOT “dying”. We are LIVING … and will forevermore.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Testimony of Life
Yesterday was a big day but by no means extraordinary. Strangely enough, what made the day so big was the conviction placed upon me and my soul that someone out in that cold, cruel world needs me, and I am somehow withholding myself. Strange, huh? I am, after all, the pastor of a church. I’m all about doing the Lord’s work, right? It’s what one might think, and yet I can easily see that there will never be a day in which the measure of my work can be compared to the misery that exists in this world. How can we ever do enough, especially when we can readily see the seemingly insurmountable tasks before us? Starvation abounds, and it is not restricted only to the physical shortage or lack of food.
Abortion is a big issue. I maintain there can be no “middle ground”, no compromise between abortion foes and abortion supporters in spite of the president’s naiveté (or downright arrogance) because the conflict is inherent to the nature of each: one cannot advocate for life while supporting the destruction of life, and one cannot advocate the death of one as a means of life for another. Life either is or it ain’t, but it cannot be anything less than what it is. We support the substance of life, or we do not. It really is that simple.
So it must necessarily be for the murder of “Tiller the Killer”, George Tiller, the late-term abortion provider operating out of Kansas. It is said throughout the media that Tiller is “one of the few” late term abortion providers in the nation, and he was shot and killed in church this Sunday past. I feel absolutely nothing toward this man though I have a particular disdain for his chosen profession, and I absolutely resent and reject the broad statement issued by his family that “the nation lost a woman’s health care provider”. The nation lost an abortionist, not a health care provider, but his family lost a dear loved one. This should matter to me, but it does not beyond that part of me that cannot imagine the horror of a loved one actually witnessing the murder of their beloved. Though Mrs. Tiller was not with her husband when he was shot, she was in church seated with the choir. Close enough.
That shooting was entirely too random to be so random since no one else was hit (a couple of fellow church-goers were allegedly threatened by the gunman for trying to intervene). It was reasonable to suspect that Tiller was the intended target (he was), and it is reasonable (though not fair) to assume the shooter was targeting Tiller because of his work as an abortionist (he was). Other abortionists have been shot at, threatened, hit, and killed by a fringe element consisting of substantially overzealous, if maladjusted, pro-lifers, some of whom have actually claimed to have been “instructed” to shot and/or kill these abortionists. The murder of this man was no more justified than the many murders by this very man’s hands.
It is strangely ironic that Tiller was in his Lutheran church when he was gunned down, but I am not sure how the Lutherans as a denomination feel about abortion. Not that it matters much because I do know of so-called “pro-choice” Catholics who number themselves among the “enlightened” who have decided that, yes, man does have this legitimate “choice” in determining who lives and who dies, regardless of the reason or lack of one. And killing unborn children is the easiest way because, as it is said, one cannot hear screaming from the womb. Regardless of noble intent, the inescapable fact is that a human life is being cruelly and painfully terminated. Any “religious” person who cannot see this unalterable fact is spiritually starved either through willful ignorance, arrogance, or neglect. And any church that attempts to water down the Word of the Lord as anything less than a celebration of the great gift of life surrenders its moral authority. This also includes the senseless murder of an abortionist.
Abortion is a big issue. I maintain there can be no “middle ground”, no compromise between abortion foes and abortion supporters in spite of the president’s naiveté (or downright arrogance) because the conflict is inherent to the nature of each: one cannot advocate for life while supporting the destruction of life, and one cannot advocate the death of one as a means of life for another. Life either is or it ain’t, but it cannot be anything less than what it is. We support the substance of life, or we do not. It really is that simple.
So it must necessarily be for the murder of “Tiller the Killer”, George Tiller, the late-term abortion provider operating out of Kansas. It is said throughout the media that Tiller is “one of the few” late term abortion providers in the nation, and he was shot and killed in church this Sunday past. I feel absolutely nothing toward this man though I have a particular disdain for his chosen profession, and I absolutely resent and reject the broad statement issued by his family that “the nation lost a woman’s health care provider”. The nation lost an abortionist, not a health care provider, but his family lost a dear loved one. This should matter to me, but it does not beyond that part of me that cannot imagine the horror of a loved one actually witnessing the murder of their beloved. Though Mrs. Tiller was not with her husband when he was shot, she was in church seated with the choir. Close enough.
That shooting was entirely too random to be so random since no one else was hit (a couple of fellow church-goers were allegedly threatened by the gunman for trying to intervene). It was reasonable to suspect that Tiller was the intended target (he was), and it is reasonable (though not fair) to assume the shooter was targeting Tiller because of his work as an abortionist (he was). Other abortionists have been shot at, threatened, hit, and killed by a fringe element consisting of substantially overzealous, if maladjusted, pro-lifers, some of whom have actually claimed to have been “instructed” to shot and/or kill these abortionists. The murder of this man was no more justified than the many murders by this very man’s hands.
It is strangely ironic that Tiller was in his Lutheran church when he was gunned down, but I am not sure how the Lutherans as a denomination feel about abortion. Not that it matters much because I do know of so-called “pro-choice” Catholics who number themselves among the “enlightened” who have decided that, yes, man does have this legitimate “choice” in determining who lives and who dies, regardless of the reason or lack of one. And killing unborn children is the easiest way because, as it is said, one cannot hear screaming from the womb. Regardless of noble intent, the inescapable fact is that a human life is being cruelly and painfully terminated. Any “religious” person who cannot see this unalterable fact is spiritually starved either through willful ignorance, arrogance, or neglect. And any church that attempts to water down the Word of the Lord as anything less than a celebration of the great gift of life surrenders its moral authority. This also includes the senseless murder of an abortionist.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Promise Fulfilled; Promise to Come, Part II
Acts 2:1-21 John 15:26-27; 16:4b-15
Two questions: a) how much have we been given, and b) how much are we willing to give in return?
These were the two questions I posed to you last Sunday in anticipation of Pentecost Sunday, today being, for all intents and purposes, the “birth day” of the Christian Church. A movement is still underway, begun long ago, to proclaim a message of redemption and hope. It is reasonable to assume that all who would come forward, Jew or Gentile, should be baptized and welcomed in. It is the Spirit of the Living and Eternal God that sweeps across the apostles and gives to each of them the strength, the push, and the heart to move forward. They had been “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49) as Jesus had promised, and it was time to move.
Those many “devout Jews” gathered in Jerusalem who were witnesses to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles had no clue what they were seeing. Based on the very strange behavior of the apostles, several among these witnesses could only conclude that the “Jesus crew” was hammered! There was no other reasonable or logical explanation … except for one tiny detail. These apostles were Galileans of a common language, yet the many witnesses who were NOT Galilean were hearing not only unintelligible languages and speech but were also able to discern from that noise their own native languages being spoken by these Galileans. Those who did not outright reject the situation as drunken behavior were filled enough with wonder to bother asking, “What does this mean?”
Pentecost actually has its beginnings in Judaism though it is better known as the Festival of Weeks or Festival of the First Fruits. In Hebrew it is called Shavu’ot and is counted down from Passover to the day before Shavu’ot, 49 days or 7 full weeks of harvest and anticipation. It is also historically significant to both Jews and Christians as commemorating the giving of Torah at Mt Sinai. Even still, it is maintained primarily by Jews that there is no similarity between the Jewish Pentecost and the Christian one. While there are significant historic differences between the two, the theological similarities are striking enough to bear scrutiny by the faithful so that the full flavor of all it means is not lost in religious disputes because what it seems to boil down to is the Lord making His presence known to humanity. Thus it is that the Festival of the Giving of the Torah emphasizes the GIVING of Torah rather than receiving it. It is the Lord’s initiative, not man’s. And we are still talking about ONE Lord, ONE God, ONE Word.
Throughout one’s spiritual journey, it is important to always bear in mind that it is the Lord who must always comes first not only because it is called the “greatest commandment” by Jesus but also because it is always the Lord who acts first; Methodists call it “prevenient grace”. It is by the Lord’s initiative that the Torah was given to Moses even if Moses’ own curiosity initially led him to the mountain. And it is by the Lord’s initiative that the Holy Spirit is sent down upon those who spent the last few years of their lives following and learning from Jesus. It is especially important to understand that the gift of the Holy Spirit is not something we can call down upon ourselves. It is a gift that is divinely bestowed by His Favor alone; “it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:9). His Word and His Grace are from His own benevolence, and He ushered in the Law (His Word) and His Spirit (His Word) in spite of man’s unworthiness. He acted first.
But what are we to make of this gift? It is reasonable and encouraged that we should ask for and seek this divine gift, but what are we prepared to do with such a wondrous gift should the Lord decree that we are able to handle it? And what of the many gifts that come from the Holy Spirit? How can we know what is appropriate for us as having come from Him so that we use these gifts not only responsibly but also with extreme reverence? We are, after all, still talking about the very real presence of the Lord – manifest in His gifts.
“The fruit of the Spirit”, Paul writes to the Galatians, “is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal 5:22-23). These things come as a result of spiritual gifts divinely bestowed and used not for the edification of self but, rather, for the edification of the Church, the Body of Christ. And the gifts are many, as Paul writes to the Corinthians, but there can be only One Body, One Church, One Christ, One Covenant. And because there can be only One Body, there can be only one purpose: to worship and glorify the Lord God. So when these gifts are given in such abundance, and received gratefully and used well and reverently, others will see the glory of the Lord God, as the many witnessed in Jerusalem, and they will also bother to ask: “What does this mean?”
In his journal entry on August 15, 1750, John Wesley wrote: “the grand reason the miraculous gifts were so soon withdrawn was not only that faith and holiness were well nigh lost, but that dry, formal, orthodox men began even then to ridicule whatever gifts they had not themselves, and to decry them all as either madness or imposture.”
Wesley was speaking to a belief that the Holy Spirit had been, for some reason, withdrawn from man sometime during the 2nd or 3rd century because there seemed to be a lack of evidence of His divine presence. Things got ugly, as history points out, and the Church lost its flavor and its luster as a place of Holy Sanctuary and became not much more than a gathering place for human power and control to the exclusion of those unwilling to bend and flex for these “dry, formal, orthodox men”. In other words, it seems the Church lost its footing and, ultimately, its moral authority to speak on behalf of the Lord, and soon His favor was withdrawn, according to some.
Both Jeremiah (23) and Ezekiel (34) speak of times when the Lord becomes so disgusted with those “dry, formal, orthodox men”, presumably meaning priests and prophets who have proclaimed themselves “spiritual leaders” but have failed to tell the Truth, that He will seek out and rescue His people himself; the ultimate judgment will fall upon those who perhaps possessed these certain gifts but enabled evil but attempted to disable righteousness. Both prophets, however, are clear: the Lord is still very much present in the lives of His people, and His Mighty Hand is still stretched out to those who cry out for Him.
It seems clear enough that the presence of the Lord by way of His gifts has always been with humanity, but it seems equally clear that His gifts were misused in such a way that the Eternal Word – which has stood for centuries – has been misused and abused, sometimes for selfish gain, other times for popularity. The people were lied to and still are being lied to today. Our culture and our society call it “tolerance” and “understanding”, and far too many churches are buying into such mindsets in vain attempts to be “relevant”; and therein lay the danger and the deception.
The “relevance” of the Body of Christ is in accordance with our gifts and how we use them. In other words, the relevance by which we are measured is in accordance with our compatibility to the Kingdom of Heaven, not according to the world’s standards and demands whose “ruler … has been condemned” (John 16:11). Trying to be “world friendly” is a losing game, the outcome of which has already been determined. The gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed on those who understand the true meaning of “stewardship” and embrace the certain reality that we are given so that we may give, blessed so that we may bless, loved so that we may also love. And all in the Name of the One who gave and blessed and loved FIRST.
It is by devotion, prayer, fasting, worship, and attending to the sacraments of the Church that we are able to count the many blessings we have received, and it is also by these same means by which we will be led to give back as much as we have given.
Two questions: a) how much have we been given, and b) how much are we willing to give in return?
These were the two questions I posed to you last Sunday in anticipation of Pentecost Sunday, today being, for all intents and purposes, the “birth day” of the Christian Church. A movement is still underway, begun long ago, to proclaim a message of redemption and hope. It is reasonable to assume that all who would come forward, Jew or Gentile, should be baptized and welcomed in. It is the Spirit of the Living and Eternal God that sweeps across the apostles and gives to each of them the strength, the push, and the heart to move forward. They had been “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49) as Jesus had promised, and it was time to move.
Those many “devout Jews” gathered in Jerusalem who were witnesses to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles had no clue what they were seeing. Based on the very strange behavior of the apostles, several among these witnesses could only conclude that the “Jesus crew” was hammered! There was no other reasonable or logical explanation … except for one tiny detail. These apostles were Galileans of a common language, yet the many witnesses who were NOT Galilean were hearing not only unintelligible languages and speech but were also able to discern from that noise their own native languages being spoken by these Galileans. Those who did not outright reject the situation as drunken behavior were filled enough with wonder to bother asking, “What does this mean?”
Pentecost actually has its beginnings in Judaism though it is better known as the Festival of Weeks or Festival of the First Fruits. In Hebrew it is called Shavu’ot and is counted down from Passover to the day before Shavu’ot, 49 days or 7 full weeks of harvest and anticipation. It is also historically significant to both Jews and Christians as commemorating the giving of Torah at Mt Sinai. Even still, it is maintained primarily by Jews that there is no similarity between the Jewish Pentecost and the Christian one. While there are significant historic differences between the two, the theological similarities are striking enough to bear scrutiny by the faithful so that the full flavor of all it means is not lost in religious disputes because what it seems to boil down to is the Lord making His presence known to humanity. Thus it is that the Festival of the Giving of the Torah emphasizes the GIVING of Torah rather than receiving it. It is the Lord’s initiative, not man’s. And we are still talking about ONE Lord, ONE God, ONE Word.
Throughout one’s spiritual journey, it is important to always bear in mind that it is the Lord who must always comes first not only because it is called the “greatest commandment” by Jesus but also because it is always the Lord who acts first; Methodists call it “prevenient grace”. It is by the Lord’s initiative that the Torah was given to Moses even if Moses’ own curiosity initially led him to the mountain. And it is by the Lord’s initiative that the Holy Spirit is sent down upon those who spent the last few years of their lives following and learning from Jesus. It is especially important to understand that the gift of the Holy Spirit is not something we can call down upon ourselves. It is a gift that is divinely bestowed by His Favor alone; “it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:9). His Word and His Grace are from His own benevolence, and He ushered in the Law (His Word) and His Spirit (His Word) in spite of man’s unworthiness. He acted first.
But what are we to make of this gift? It is reasonable and encouraged that we should ask for and seek this divine gift, but what are we prepared to do with such a wondrous gift should the Lord decree that we are able to handle it? And what of the many gifts that come from the Holy Spirit? How can we know what is appropriate for us as having come from Him so that we use these gifts not only responsibly but also with extreme reverence? We are, after all, still talking about the very real presence of the Lord – manifest in His gifts.
“The fruit of the Spirit”, Paul writes to the Galatians, “is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal 5:22-23). These things come as a result of spiritual gifts divinely bestowed and used not for the edification of self but, rather, for the edification of the Church, the Body of Christ. And the gifts are many, as Paul writes to the Corinthians, but there can be only One Body, One Church, One Christ, One Covenant. And because there can be only One Body, there can be only one purpose: to worship and glorify the Lord God. So when these gifts are given in such abundance, and received gratefully and used well and reverently, others will see the glory of the Lord God, as the many witnessed in Jerusalem, and they will also bother to ask: “What does this mean?”
In his journal entry on August 15, 1750, John Wesley wrote: “the grand reason the miraculous gifts were so soon withdrawn was not only that faith and holiness were well nigh lost, but that dry, formal, orthodox men began even then to ridicule whatever gifts they had not themselves, and to decry them all as either madness or imposture.”
Wesley was speaking to a belief that the Holy Spirit had been, for some reason, withdrawn from man sometime during the 2nd or 3rd century because there seemed to be a lack of evidence of His divine presence. Things got ugly, as history points out, and the Church lost its flavor and its luster as a place of Holy Sanctuary and became not much more than a gathering place for human power and control to the exclusion of those unwilling to bend and flex for these “dry, formal, orthodox men”. In other words, it seems the Church lost its footing and, ultimately, its moral authority to speak on behalf of the Lord, and soon His favor was withdrawn, according to some.
Both Jeremiah (23) and Ezekiel (34) speak of times when the Lord becomes so disgusted with those “dry, formal, orthodox men”, presumably meaning priests and prophets who have proclaimed themselves “spiritual leaders” but have failed to tell the Truth, that He will seek out and rescue His people himself; the ultimate judgment will fall upon those who perhaps possessed these certain gifts but enabled evil but attempted to disable righteousness. Both prophets, however, are clear: the Lord is still very much present in the lives of His people, and His Mighty Hand is still stretched out to those who cry out for Him.
It seems clear enough that the presence of the Lord by way of His gifts has always been with humanity, but it seems equally clear that His gifts were misused in such a way that the Eternal Word – which has stood for centuries – has been misused and abused, sometimes for selfish gain, other times for popularity. The people were lied to and still are being lied to today. Our culture and our society call it “tolerance” and “understanding”, and far too many churches are buying into such mindsets in vain attempts to be “relevant”; and therein lay the danger and the deception.
The “relevance” of the Body of Christ is in accordance with our gifts and how we use them. In other words, the relevance by which we are measured is in accordance with our compatibility to the Kingdom of Heaven, not according to the world’s standards and demands whose “ruler … has been condemned” (John 16:11). Trying to be “world friendly” is a losing game, the outcome of which has already been determined. The gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed on those who understand the true meaning of “stewardship” and embrace the certain reality that we are given so that we may give, blessed so that we may bless, loved so that we may also love. And all in the Name of the One who gave and blessed and loved FIRST.
It is by devotion, prayer, fasting, worship, and attending to the sacraments of the Church that we are able to count the many blessings we have received, and it is also by these same means by which we will be led to give back as much as we have given.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Promise Fulfilled; Promise to Come
Luke 24:44-53
It is impossible to imagine the emotions the apostles must have been experiencing at Bethany as Jesus was preparing to depart from this earth. It had not been that long before when all hope seemed lost, as the life was quite literally being beaten from Jesus’ body before He was finally hung on the Cross and left to hang until dead. This was Messiah, the Promised One, who talked a good show, made a lot of promises, told some great stories, and performed a lot of pretty neat tricks, but one day this “Son of God” gets man-handled all the way to His doom – or what appeared to be His doom. It was so bad, the doom and gloom so thick, the hopelessness so apparent, that many fled. There was nothing left to hang around for – it was over. Done. Finished.
Those who fled lived in fear in the ensuing days prior to that first Easter, fear that all which had befallen Jesus would soon come upon them because of their devotion to Him. The group behind the arrest and Crucifixion of Jesus was not a very forgiving bunch, so it was not unreasonable to assume that what happened to Jesus would soon happen to all who had professed allegiance to Him. Imagine living in such a state of fear as to be virtually paralyzed only to discover that you were wrong about the demise of Messiah, that something remarkable, if miraculous, has taken place, beyond description, certainly beyond “neat trick”!
A Promise had been fulfilled right before their very eyes, the New Covenant made manifest in the Resurrection of the Christ that would leave no doubt that “though one may die, so may he live” (John 11:25). The reality of this Promise has arrived, has been fulfilled, and has been made manifest in the presence of the Risen Christ. But now He is leaving yet again, only the circumstances are not quite the same as before. He is leaving us with a few words and is issuing yet another Promise that “help is on the way” very soon; we need only the patience, faith, and courage to hold on and wait. We have just witnessed the Reality of Eternal Life, and we have been redeemed from the bondage of our sins. What other “help” can we possibly need?
Very clearly, the story is still unfolding. While it might seem that the Ascension would be pretty close to the end of the Story, as it needs to be told, the truth is the Story is not quite finished. There is much more to see, much more to learn, much more to do, much more even to endure. And life on this earth, for the faithful, is going to get much harder – and also easier – because of the words that Jesus not only left them with at Bethany (“wait until you are clothed with power from on high”) but also because of the words Jesus imparted to them according to Matthew’s Gospel (in addition to the others): “They will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake” (24:9).
It occurred to me that if we are not standing firm in the faith, we will endure no real challenges, no real hassles. There will be no “hatred”, no name-calling, no tribulation by the hands of non-believers. However, if the Church stands firm in thousands of years of human history and tradition and refuses to bend and flex according to the world’s standards and the world’s demands, there will be much “wailing and knashing of teeth” among the non-believers. Consider the recent slander of Miss California who dared to stand firm in her faith and express what she believed to be true. She did not thrust this belief on the world; the world demanded to know. And she was all but burned at the stake for what she believes.
Another case in point: the French First Lady has taken to blaming Pope Benedict for her loss of faith. She claims that the Church’s teachings have left her feeling “profoundly secular”, and she continues the criticism that was leveled against John Paul II regarding artificial birth control and AIDS in Africa. She claims that this particular means of birth control is the “only existing protection”, and these many continue to suggest that AIDS would simply go away if the Church will simply shut up.
Now I quite frankly do not care what many believe or think about birth control, but I do care that we all acknowledge there is something much more sinister at work here than whether or not Africans use birth control. Those who criticize the Church fail to see the “big picture”, but the Church – and specifically the pope – are taking a lot of flak over its teachings. Would it be easier to simply succumb to the world’s demands? Of course it would be easier and many Protestant churches have done exactly that, but Jesus did not call us to a life of ease or leisure. And it appears to me that there wouldn’t be much of a difference anyway. Several methods of birth control already exist, and so do unplanned pregnancies, AIDS, and other STD’s. Other biblical prohibitions against certain behaviors also exist, but that does not seem to stop the many from violating these prohibitions. So why the fight over merely condoms? It seems to me that we cannot see the forest for the trees.
It also seems ironic that an unbelieving world has accused Christianity of “creating [a] god in man’s own image” while desperately seeking to create for themselves a “god” more pleasing to their own ideals and standards; a “god” that will allow them to live as they see fit, do “it” (whatever “it” may happen to be on a particular day) as long as it “feels good”, a “god” that will expect little from them but will ultimately demand so much more from them than they will ever be willing to give.
But I digress. What the Church is called to do goes far beyond one doctrinal belief about one particular thing and while birth control is not mentioned in the Bible, those acts which cause unintended pregnancies and AIDS are specifically mentioned in the Bible, but the world seems intent on demanding that the Church remain silent about even these things. Even still, where are our duties defined? And do we even need to be talking about such things? What matters most? What is the point of the apostles being “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49b) if we are called to make peace with the world, tell the world what it wants to hear rather than what it needs to hear, assimilate ourselves into the worldly culture, and simply remain silent on those points at which we disagree? I don’t think we need ‘power from on high’ to sit on our hands. And it seems clear that Promises coming from Christ for the days to come do not involve our silence, our inactivity, or our complacency.
In Luke 12:35-48 Jesus tells the parable of the Faithful Servant and the Evil Servant. Long story short, Jesus ends the parable with this: “for everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more” (48).
This leaves the faithful with these two questions: how much has been given to us, and how much are we willing to give in return?
It is impossible to imagine the emotions the apostles must have been experiencing at Bethany as Jesus was preparing to depart from this earth. It had not been that long before when all hope seemed lost, as the life was quite literally being beaten from Jesus’ body before He was finally hung on the Cross and left to hang until dead. This was Messiah, the Promised One, who talked a good show, made a lot of promises, told some great stories, and performed a lot of pretty neat tricks, but one day this “Son of God” gets man-handled all the way to His doom – or what appeared to be His doom. It was so bad, the doom and gloom so thick, the hopelessness so apparent, that many fled. There was nothing left to hang around for – it was over. Done. Finished.
Those who fled lived in fear in the ensuing days prior to that first Easter, fear that all which had befallen Jesus would soon come upon them because of their devotion to Him. The group behind the arrest and Crucifixion of Jesus was not a very forgiving bunch, so it was not unreasonable to assume that what happened to Jesus would soon happen to all who had professed allegiance to Him. Imagine living in such a state of fear as to be virtually paralyzed only to discover that you were wrong about the demise of Messiah, that something remarkable, if miraculous, has taken place, beyond description, certainly beyond “neat trick”!
A Promise had been fulfilled right before their very eyes, the New Covenant made manifest in the Resurrection of the Christ that would leave no doubt that “though one may die, so may he live” (John 11:25). The reality of this Promise has arrived, has been fulfilled, and has been made manifest in the presence of the Risen Christ. But now He is leaving yet again, only the circumstances are not quite the same as before. He is leaving us with a few words and is issuing yet another Promise that “help is on the way” very soon; we need only the patience, faith, and courage to hold on and wait. We have just witnessed the Reality of Eternal Life, and we have been redeemed from the bondage of our sins. What other “help” can we possibly need?
Very clearly, the story is still unfolding. While it might seem that the Ascension would be pretty close to the end of the Story, as it needs to be told, the truth is the Story is not quite finished. There is much more to see, much more to learn, much more to do, much more even to endure. And life on this earth, for the faithful, is going to get much harder – and also easier – because of the words that Jesus not only left them with at Bethany (“wait until you are clothed with power from on high”) but also because of the words Jesus imparted to them according to Matthew’s Gospel (in addition to the others): “They will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake” (24:9).
It occurred to me that if we are not standing firm in the faith, we will endure no real challenges, no real hassles. There will be no “hatred”, no name-calling, no tribulation by the hands of non-believers. However, if the Church stands firm in thousands of years of human history and tradition and refuses to bend and flex according to the world’s standards and the world’s demands, there will be much “wailing and knashing of teeth” among the non-believers. Consider the recent slander of Miss California who dared to stand firm in her faith and express what she believed to be true. She did not thrust this belief on the world; the world demanded to know. And she was all but burned at the stake for what she believes.
Another case in point: the French First Lady has taken to blaming Pope Benedict for her loss of faith. She claims that the Church’s teachings have left her feeling “profoundly secular”, and she continues the criticism that was leveled against John Paul II regarding artificial birth control and AIDS in Africa. She claims that this particular means of birth control is the “only existing protection”, and these many continue to suggest that AIDS would simply go away if the Church will simply shut up.
Now I quite frankly do not care what many believe or think about birth control, but I do care that we all acknowledge there is something much more sinister at work here than whether or not Africans use birth control. Those who criticize the Church fail to see the “big picture”, but the Church – and specifically the pope – are taking a lot of flak over its teachings. Would it be easier to simply succumb to the world’s demands? Of course it would be easier and many Protestant churches have done exactly that, but Jesus did not call us to a life of ease or leisure. And it appears to me that there wouldn’t be much of a difference anyway. Several methods of birth control already exist, and so do unplanned pregnancies, AIDS, and other STD’s. Other biblical prohibitions against certain behaviors also exist, but that does not seem to stop the many from violating these prohibitions. So why the fight over merely condoms? It seems to me that we cannot see the forest for the trees.
It also seems ironic that an unbelieving world has accused Christianity of “creating [a] god in man’s own image” while desperately seeking to create for themselves a “god” more pleasing to their own ideals and standards; a “god” that will allow them to live as they see fit, do “it” (whatever “it” may happen to be on a particular day) as long as it “feels good”, a “god” that will expect little from them but will ultimately demand so much more from them than they will ever be willing to give.
But I digress. What the Church is called to do goes far beyond one doctrinal belief about one particular thing and while birth control is not mentioned in the Bible, those acts which cause unintended pregnancies and AIDS are specifically mentioned in the Bible, but the world seems intent on demanding that the Church remain silent about even these things. Even still, where are our duties defined? And do we even need to be talking about such things? What matters most? What is the point of the apostles being “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49b) if we are called to make peace with the world, tell the world what it wants to hear rather than what it needs to hear, assimilate ourselves into the worldly culture, and simply remain silent on those points at which we disagree? I don’t think we need ‘power from on high’ to sit on our hands. And it seems clear that Promises coming from Christ for the days to come do not involve our silence, our inactivity, or our complacency.
In Luke 12:35-48 Jesus tells the parable of the Faithful Servant and the Evil Servant. Long story short, Jesus ends the parable with this: “for everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more” (48).
This leaves the faithful with these two questions: how much has been given to us, and how much are we willing to give in return?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)