What Do You See When You Look At…

January 16, 2010 · ethics and morals, faith, history, love, politics, society · 1 comment

With the celebration of the birthday of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr,  we see where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. is used to bolster movements and causes that he did not specifically speak on. For example, in Raleigh-Durham, NC, a gay rights activist is torqued that a pastor who preaches a historical understanding of the bible’s view on homosexuality will be speaking at a tribute to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (see the article in question here).

Regardless of what either person in question believes is right or wrong, both are imposing their beliefs onto Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for very different reasons. Honestly, with what we have been told (the King family is very careful with their messaging in this regards), both views could be considered as being compatible with what Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed (again, as far as we, or at least I, know).

I see this argument every year, and while I do suspect that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would not view gay rights as compatible with scripture, that really isn’t the issue at hand. Let’s go back in time to 2008.

Sen. Barack Obama was the Democrat Party’s nominee for President of the United States. While I freely admit that I was, and am still, not a fan of his, his passion and charisma were undeniable. His speeches were also quite good. However, what was amazing (in that he did it as well as he did, but not that he did it, as all politicians do) was  how two different political views saw a completely different person. What was even more amazing, was how supporters viewed him differently. While he was pushing for health care reform of some sort, I heard different supporters come away with different meanings of his statements and words. In other words, they put on him what they wanted to see.

It is the same, but more so, with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Or, should I say Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Both Rev. and Dr. are correct, but for each person who reads this, Rev. and Dr. will probably provide different starting points, and it doesn’t matter that his doctorate was theological.

Famous people, especially dead ones, are easy to put one’s own beliefs onto. We will often look at them, and interpret everything they did or said through the lenses of our beliefs. Christians (not all, but far too many) have done the same thing. We take our beliefs (communism, capitalism, race, nationality, culture) and shape Jesus. However, if we read the scriptures and the views of other Christian people (especially from other cultures or theologies), it has a tendency to shake our lenses a bit. Sometimes more than we like.

We like our Jesus just like we like our politicians and celebrities: safe for us, but not for them. Sometimes I’ve been guilty of that, too. However, with Jesus, at least, if is safe for everyone, then we can be sure that that’s a false view of Him.

4 Feb 2010: This was cross-posted to Wrecked.org, a Christian blog. I am honored. I have been blessed and challenged by the posters and commenters that I have experienced there. You can see it here, and see the challenging posts that others have written.

Even Religious People Have Different Views?

September 16, 2009 · business, economics, education, environment, ethics and morals, faith, history, love, politics, society, war · 2 comments

Shocking! (sarcasm)

Surveys: U.S. Religious Activists Have ‘Widely Divergent’ Views

As much as I like some of the content on ChristianPost.com, today we have another article (see this post for another) which is too vague to be useful, other than to draw gross conclusions that can only be divisive, rather than edifying. I really hate it when news organizations (the mainstream/conservative/liberal/everyone press) don’t reference the actual questions. The phrasing of the questions is crucial!

For example, “Nearly half of conservatives (48 percent) believe scripture to be the literal word of God”. What was the question? Did they use “inerrant” or “literal” or some other word in the question? Did they ask the polled individual what they meant by that word?

In my denomination, The Church of the Nazarene, inerrancy is only applied to salvation1. So, if I answered, “the bible is inerrant in regards to salvation alone,” would that be a yes or no? Then it would be up to the poller to decide.

In regards to abortion, what are “most cases”? What kind of cases are people thinking about when they hear the question? I almost wrote that I was one of the 54%, because I read “some”. Imagine if “some” had heard “some” rather than “most”.

I guess I’m not a “conservative”. I think there needs be a lot of separation between state and church. I do not believe that because my faith helps me make decisions, that I should be banned from stating such. Nor do I think most people, if they truly thought about it, would want to squelch such (yes, there are a bunch of loud, obnoxious ones who would disagree with me).

I will say that this article notes the imbalance within the Christian community. Yes, helping your fellow man is a vital part of the Christian ethos and scripture. However, coercion by one’s government is not part of the deal. The Roman Catholic tradition has a great balance between what has become two sides, but Roman Catholics as a practical matter are having just the same issues.

The tradition, even in the Protestant Church (such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and the “grandparent” of my denomination), is there. It is the rhetoric, and the American desire for a “simple”, “black-and-white” answer that is creating this insanity, along with the quick response medium of the internet (to which, of course, I’m contributing).

It is also the church, as a whole, that is at fault in the responses to this poll. What is the church teaching? Is it teaching? Is it helping its people wrestle with the faith? It IS okay to wrestle with the faith! That’s what the church fathers did!

This also does bring back to mind this article at the (evil) FoxNews: Has Christian America Come to an End?

1We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments,given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith. (see Article IV in our Manual)

Do Christians Believe in Redemption (i.e., a new creation) or Not?

September 15, 2009 · ethics and morals, faith, love, politics, society · 2 comments

I saw this headline, Ky. Church Ordains Registered Sex Offender, a few days ago, and was finally able to read it. And, I finally decided to actually post something on my blog, rather than twitter.

I have to say this brief article causes me no small amount of anguish. I cannot imagine what both the man in question, the ordaining officiant, the congregation, the denomination (if any), and the surrounding community are feeling. Yes, the article provides some quips, but depth is required with such a report, not quips.

First and foremost, do all the “Christians” affiliated with the situation (including the surrounding community) truly believe:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NIV)

I am not saying this to be snarky. I have to admit, I say I believe it, and I experienced it. However, when it comes to my children, will I need something more? What would ever satisfy most parents that their child is safe? How does a church prevent a minister from being with children? It can’t, I think, and expect to be effective.

How does the church be redemptive in such a situation? Is it a no-win situation? Who will gamble their children?

I cannot question the guy and his faith. I can certainly question the wisdom of the elders of the church, the denomination, and the ordaining officiant. Were they oblivious?

Captive to Government?

November 12, 2008 · faith, politics · Comments Off

T.M. Moore of Crosfigell: The Fellowship of Ailbe wrote in his emailed devotional today, the following:

It is not permitted to the Church to accept alms from pagans.

Canons Attributed to St. Patrick, Irish, 6th century

But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!”

Acts 8.20

During the last presidential campaign, you will recall, a group of pastors decided to test the IRS’s resolve by preaching sermons in which they endorsed a particular candidate for the nation’s highest office. Such is not permitted to organizations who enjoy a tax-deductible status with the IRS, on pain of possibly having their tax-exempt status revoked. So far there have been no negative ramifications, but it may just be that the jury is still out. The situation serves to remind us how dependent churches are on government largesse. Wouldn’t it just be easier to renounce our tax-exempt status and then preach whatever we want? Well, no, pastors will tell you, because contributions will drop off significantly if people don’t get a tax deduction for their offering.

Does that mean that not only are our churches captive to government, but individual believers as well? Is it really true that church members would not give as much, or maybe not at all, if they weren’t going to get a tax deduction? This situation strikes me as a kind of receiving alms from pagans. We give so that we can save some of the money the IRS might otherwise require of us. We guard our tongues from the pulpit so that IRS won’t take away our tax-exempt status because our people will reduce their giving to us if they don’t get a deduction. Is it just me, or does this whole situation smell oddly of Peter’s rebuke of Simon Magus? It’s sad to think that Kingdom business is held captive to bottom lines held captive to government rules held captive to pagan legislators and policy-makers held captive to the father of lies. I wonder how many other ways we allow ourselves to remain captive to the world because of some perceived benefit?

Lord, set me free from everything that keeps me from seeking Your Kingdom and righteousness as my highest priority in life.

T. M. Moore

His thoughts in regards to churches and their taxation has come to mind for me previously. While the secularists say they want a separation of church and state, what would happen if the church were free to preach truly? Would they truly be more comfortable?

We Lost The Message Somewhere

November 4, 2008 · faith, life hack, love, politics, society · Comments Off

A Brief Introduction to this Post:
As I begin to write this, citizens of the United States of America go to the voting booths for an election whose results will be historic regardless of which party wins.  By the time this actually posts, we might have a new president-elect.  I’ve been trying to avoid politics on my blog recently, mostly because I don’t feel politics, as they stand now, are actually helpful for the people, and honestly, my heart is warmed by the Gospel, not by the machinations of the political parties.  So, while this post touches on politics, somewhat, that isn’t what it is about.

I was not going to write of politics in my blog, but after reading of Paul’s optimism in Philippians, I feel the need to.

Much of Obama’s appeal, besides the usual political can’t-nail-them-to-the-wall or hold-them-to-their-promises (regardless of political party), is that he has packaged the concept of hope well. Obama’s success should be a wake up to the church, not because of his politics, but because he’s repackage the quintessential Christian message―hope.

The church should not look at Obama’s campaign as a success of marketing (which it is), but the very reason why the church is not very healthy.  We lost the message.  Actually, that’s wrong.  The message is still there in scripture.  We just left it there.

As the church became party to the culture war (which it should have) and politics (which it should, in some regards, as its members are voters), it also became part of the negativity that go along with both, which it shouldn’t have.  The church became obsessed with various pet agendas (pornography and so on on the right, justice issues and so on on the left) that they lost their focus―the hope that we have because of Jesus.

Forget church growth, forget being part of the culture, remember Jesus

A Quip On A Manufactured Collapse

September 18, 2008 · economics, ethics and morals, faith, history, politics, society · Comments Off

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?

September 16, 2008 · ethics and morals, faith, politics · Comments Off

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

September 2, 2008 · ethics and morals, faith, life hack, love, politics, quickpost, society, war · Comments Off

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

August 20, 2008 · economics, education, ethics and morals, faith, history, love, politics, society · Comments Off

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?

August 20, 2008 · ethics and morals, faith, history, love, politics, society · Comments Off

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.

← Older entries