Skip navigation

Category Archives: ethics and morals

A Quip On A Manufactured Collapse

Michael Novak’s theory regarding Western democratic capitalism can be summerized as a three-legged stool with the legs being, political freedom, economic freedom, and moral restraint.

We are witnessing the after effects of the complete removal of moral restraint.  Political and economic freedoms have been curtailed for the last 20 years or so, but they are still, in basic form, there.  The politicians (on both sides) are calling for new regulations, however, as crass as this sounds, there is a similarity between the current panic seeking to create new regulations…and abortion—morality cannot be legislated.

Here are a couple of good articles.

This Too Will Pass (i.e., DON’T PANIC)

AIG: A Study in the Difference Between Campaigning and Governing (i.e., ignore both political campaigns in regards to their rhetoric on the issue)

Camille Paglia and Sarah Palin: Need I Say More?

Camille Paglia, on Salon.com, wrote an interesting opinion column regarding Sarah Palin. I’ve been doing my best to avoid the silly season of an election year, but this column had too much good stuff to ignore just because it included Sarah Palin (which was actually a detraction, because I really don’t want to talk politics).

Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

This goes for environmentalism, “poverty”, and health care programs as well. There seems to be a significant agreement that there is something seriously wrong in this country in regards to these issues, just no agreement of methodology to fix them. In other words, just because I don’t agree with a person’s proposed solution to an issue, does not mean that I don’t think that there is one.

Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today’s pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else.

Yeah, well, a lot of men (including myself, probably) would fit into that description as well. Ouch.

Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones — nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days.

Ouch!

A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.

I give Ms. Paglia kudos. At least in regards to feminism, she is consistent.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

I’m torn by her reaction. Her opinion is, “it’s all about me,” whether it’s choosing not to be “inconvenienced” by a baby, or “inconvenienced” by a murderer. On the other hand, it has a form of consistency, forthrightness, and forethought, which makes it easier to discuss.

If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society’s acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life.

Here, of course, I do have a problem. At what point does it cross the line? especially when she says:

…Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion.

If that is the case (which I believe it is for many on the left, but also “Republican” ideology on the right), than they, according to her logic, should be stopped as well. Then, you are left with politicians sticking their wet fingers in the wind. Leadership of any sort cannot exist in such an environment.

Thinking/Posing/Contemplating, Not Just Reacting

In this election cycle, talk about an emerging evangelical political center abounds. Much of the discussion is about how conservative and liberal Christians can work together to realize Christ-commanded essentials and their corollaries: care for the poor, for example, and its extensions regarding access, justice, and health care.

THEOOZE – Articles: Viewing Article

My, How They Love One Another

Are we Kicking Grandma to the Curb?

For a number of reasons, I have a real problem with what this post (and the quoted article/news story) say.  Not because it isn’t true, but because it is.  I don’t think that nursing homes are an ideal situation, that’s for sure, but am I capable of taking care of my parents (all four of them) as they get older?  I doubt it.

There is something to be said about the “good ol’ days,” where aged relatives would live in the same home as at least one of their children.  I certainly think it would be healthier for society if we weren’t so segregated in our lives according to age bracket (one of the things many churches are also dealing with).  However, in cases such as in my family, where one person has Alzheimer’s, it can be a full time job.

I also think that the changing perception of life changes in regards to age have a significant impact on the situation.  Take, for example, the fact that 100 years ago, most education ended with the 8th grade, and, frankly, there are questions on those final exams that I couldn’t answer.  That person was to become a productive member of society.  Now, the expectation is that they will become productive 4 years later, assuming they don’t go to college.

Much of the same can be attached to “retirement”.  In that same era, there was no retirement.  The modern “golden age of retirement” really means, you’ve saved the money you wasted your life earning, now go spend it, or least that is what far too many retirement salespeople and financial “guides” are trying to sell.  Well, if a person is burning their life away to go play at the end of the working era, why would they want to take care of ageing parents.  In many ways, it sounds like some kids, “my parents just cramp my style.”

Back to the really hard part, the church not doing what it is called to do.  The church has fallen prey to the same mentality as the populace, the government will take care of it!  Then there is the whole lawyer thing, and the lawsuits that seem to come with them.  What church is willing to take on that kind of litigative burden?  What church can afford it?  It reminds me of a post I read today, “A law degree only allows you to add friction to the economy…”

Litigation, cramping the style, whatever the reason…this is just not good.

What Is Speaking The Truth In Love?

Keith Giles, over at subversive1, seems to have had an interesting experience regarding a person shutting down the conversation (or the comments) that challenged this individual’s theology/teaching. Keith states that he rarely, if ever, does this kind of public revealing (and I believe him. I just wanted to put that out there), however, he felt compelled to in his post Speaking The Truth In Love.

I can’t say as I disagree with either Keith’s motivation, his acted upon reticence (versus just saying it) to call people out, or his post.  However, it brings out something that is an ongoing issue, not just in the church, but in general human discourse.  It is no longer about disagreeing, but it is much more.  It is more emotional.

For whatever reason, I just thought of the story in U.S. history, when some offended member of the U.S. Legislature decided to go beat some other legislator with a cane in the time leading up to the War Between The States (or the Civil War).

Frankly, a lot of discourse today isn’t discourse, but proverbial caning.  The real issue is that there are a lot of people that, when challenged, say that the person challenging them is prejudiced in someway, and by calling them prejudiced, seek to (and, sadly, far too often succeed) shut the other person up by what is effectively name-calling.

I could say that Keith was lucky that the posts were only deleted, rather than an ensuing name-calling in an attempt to shut him up.  However, it is way too easy (and I am prey to this as well) to succumb to the pressure to just “let it go,” and accept them, despite their teaching being contrary to yours.

What Happens When The Emerging Church Holds Up A Mirror To The Established Church

Brian Mclaren recently addressed the 2008 Lambeth Conference (see Wikipedia), and while he does not (despite media opinion to the contrary) represent the entirety (one could question even a significant minority) of the MEECM, it is often worthwhile to hear what he has to say.

In the article above, there are a couple of quotes attributed to him that I would like to address.

“You might say that evangelism is almost non-existent because the Christian faith is, to be very frank, almost non-existent.”

This quote is interesting as, from what I understand of him, he does not view the established church as a faithful community. There are many that are not, but most of them are, it is just that they are established so that many (if not most) of their people are not faithful, but cultural Christians. However, this is where I might at least annoy a few people, as anytime I hear “America is a Christian nation,” I squirm. Now, I squirm not because some of the founders were Deists (even that, especially in regards to Thomas Jefferson who later in life called himself a Christian, has recently come into question), but because most Americans were, at best, cultural Christians, “even” back then.

This constant delusion (harsh, I know) that the United States is a Christian nation is much of the problem in regards to many Christians asking, “how did our culture/country get to where it is today?” If you assume (an old politically-incorrect phrase comes to mind) that everyone is a Christian because they were born in a “Christian” nation, and thereby share your understanding of Scripture and relationship with God, you will be sorely disappointed. A Christian should look at the story of the Jewish people who were Jewish and therefore “God’s People.” Look where that mentality got them.

So Mclaren is correct, but this is not a new thing.

…they needed to ditch “internal institutional maintenance” and focus instead on the “outward mission” of making disciples among all people. That, he said, was “our only hope of saving the church from division, diversion, implosion, irrelevance and triviality”.

This argument against the “institution” of the church is a contact refrain in the MEECM. I can’t, and won’t, say that is does not have some validity, especially in regards to the historical fact that the institutional church has been used for power and control too many times, and also the fact that too often preserving the institution has come at the expense of the message (that will be the next and last section in this post).

There is NO question about the outward mission. In fact, the Church of the Nazarene stepped up to the plate, acknowledging its failures in that are, and changing its focus to the outward mission.

One of the other refrains in the MEECM is that there are too many denominations, while I will agree with that to some degree, how many people are there in the world. Also, much of that argument is based on IRS records. If I start my own church (like many of those in the MEECM), but do not declare that I am part of a larger organization (whether I am or not), I am another denomination according to the IRS. Makes for a lot of denominations of one church.

The real question is do we define ourselves by our denomination, or by our belief in the essentials of the Christian faith: Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, who came to atone for our sins (okay, that is a very short version).

There is also Mclaren’s inferred assumption that all these denominations are invalid, for the very reason that there are so many (the same view the Roman Catholic Church has of those not in communion with it). I have heard it expressed that we are finite, and each Christian tries to live a life imbued by an infinite God. As we cannot fully express the entirety of God, what makes anyone think that one church will do the same?

“Will it be the gospel of evacuation (to heaven after death) or will it be Jesus’ Gospel, the Gospel of the kingdom of God, the message that brings reconciliation, hope, transformation and engagement?”

This, in many ways, is one of Mclaren’s more dangerous—faithwise—statements (I’m going to leave the sexuality one alone, as I have discussed it enough…for now), as it creates a choice where there is none. Both are the message. However, I suspect that “reconciliation, hope, transformation and engagement” is being viewed from a humanist (that is human-to-human) perspective, rather than the biblical view (God-to-human, and then human-to-human by extension). I am not saying that these are not good objectives of the church, in fact, they are, in many ways, the fruit of the church. However, without the underlying faith in the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ, these become good works, and works without faith are dead.

The Form of the Future

When I’m operating under restrictions, I definitely feel constrained by them, but without those restraints, it doesn’t seem as if I my actions are actually accomplishing anything.

…the Net truly is vast and infinite. Who knows, maybe a new society we’ve never even dreamed of is already being born

I greatly enjoy Japanese anime. There is a lot about it, like many of their movies, that shows that the Japanese culture is trying to work through the entirety of its history through art (which kind of reminds me of Timothy Zahn’s Grand Admiral Thrawn). I just watched Ghost in the Shell: Solid State Society on NetFlix.

In this movie, a group of solitary elderly people are recruited to run a network to save this future world of Japan. The funny thing is that I watched it as an idea had been coalescing in my head about the future of Earth governments and societies and cultures, and the elderly were the key. I’m thinking about writing a few short stories about it, but who knows if they will ever see paper or web.

The first quote brought a question to mind: if we break down all the barriers (whether they be social, political, religious, scientific, genetic, etc.), what will we (the human race) do? What will be our purpose?

The second quote is something that people try to define as Web 2.0 or Web 3.0 (or whatever name you want to give it. I could care less what its name is.)―the future. I think the church―humanity as a whole―is still trying to absorb what has been wrought in the realm of mass communication (even communications as unimportant and ineffectual as my blog).

Just like everyone else, I have a fear of the unknown. What will the future hold?

Writing Love on Their Arms

Writing Love on Their Arms is a somewhat disturbing read. Yet, at the same, one of great hope and joy. We in the church are often, rightly (especially when history is taken into account, but a little less now), accused of staying away from sinners1, instead of joining with them and loving them.

Here is a case of Christian teens loving the unloved, and while she may not yet be “saved” in the Christian sense, she has been saved from crashing and burning out.

1This is a theological minefield. We are all sinners. The false separation that was especially prevalent in the 20th century is wrong. The church is still recovering from it, and may never do so.«

Dry Facts Do Not Explain Everything

In ‘Living Together’ Before Marriage a Statistical Risk, it is rightfully argued that doing so is significantly more likely to not lead to a strong and lasting marriage.

While that is statistically correct (and I am opening my heart and life to the web here, not the most comfortable thing), it isn’t 100% correct. My wife and I cohabited before marriage. While I would agree that part of it may have well been selfishness, I would also argue that we had a different view of what we were doing. In the article (and I suspect also in the book), it states:

Women see it as a step toward marriage. They think they can audition for this job. Men do it because they like to have the ready availability of sex and having someone share their living expenses. Women should heed their mother’s advice — if you give away the milk, he won’t buy the cow.

While there may be many women and men who be classified as those above, my wife and I weren’t it. I think, that if we had thought it through a little better, we would have just gotten married, but without the marriage ceremony (and the chaos that ended up around that almost happened is crazy enough). When my wife and I moved in together, there were no separate lives. We had a joint checking account the moment she moved in. Everything was joined…as if we were married. I don’t know if my wife and I are different (okay, yes, we are), but marriage conservative Christians need to understand that statistics don’t tell the whole tale.

My wife and I did get marriage counseling prior to marriage, and I still have to admit that it was very beneficial, even though we were already living together. I know that I will have to confront my decisions when my children grow older, and be honest about them. However, it is understanding what a true marriage is, its benefits, the consequences of not having it, and (most importantly) being able to explain it, not just as statistical facts, but as a heart issue with Jesus.

Sometime, I will have to explain why/when we got married, but suffice to say (for now) that God moves in mysterious ways.

What About Pain?

In Calling on the Saints, Heather Gemmen Wilson talks about faith, family (both personal and church), love and forgiveness, and all in the context of the aftermath of being raped.

I hope every church, including my own (including me, for that matter), can respond in such love to another’s hurt. I would also hope that those that are hurting understanding something else she wrote:

Most people don’t blame the church directly for the trials in their lives, but many do accuse the church of not responding appropriately when calamity strikes. Church leaders and laypeople alike certainly make mistakes as they care for us in times of need. However, if we allow that their mistakes come from their own wounds and that their love is genuine, if imperfect, we nearly always find ourselves more healed than hurt.

Definitely an article worth reading.