There are a few last words I want to leave you with:
Women are equal to men in all ways - in value, in position, in the ability to fulfill all leadership roles. In a time in which women were objectified and undervalued, Jesus spent time with women and recruited some into a band of close female disciples, including Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene.
Hormones, Body type and the capacity to bear children distinguish men and women, and these can influence the ability to do certain jobs and the relationship of individual parents to their young, during gestation and afterwards. However couples bond, in whatever gender configuration, there is no greater responsibility than raising a child, which should be valued by men and women.
Whatever transpires in the future, the key New Book description of the relationship between men and women declares that in Jesus there is neither male nor female. This trumps culturally influenced passages which ascribe an inferior/subordinate position to women, passages which have created a "behind the veil" mentality among certain Christian groups. Women should attend seminary if they choose and should be afforded every opportunity to be a senior pastor in a Church, where they will have the occasion to teach men.
Islam is alarming, if only because it doesn't seem to have a peaceful core. I am no expert on that faith, and I have no reason to speak against the prophet, but I don't see moderation among those who lead the faithful and interpret the Qu'ran. The values of Christianity - the ones represented by the Sermon on the Mount - are about loving, resisting non-violently, being persecuted for your faith, praying for your enemies, being meek, sharing your faith in love. The New Book is seldom bellicose. Islam, as I have seen it manifested in my day, is normally bellicose, punctuated with violence, committed to Sharia law and Theocracy, alarmingly militant in its evangelism and totally intolerant of other faiths. Moreover, it has great appeal in the confused West, where the faithful embrace the freedom found in rigid values, and women find peace within the veil.
I would feel much better if I knew there were those who viewed the expansion of the faith and the resulting changes which follow did so in the framework of a pluralistic society. I have friends who are dead afraid of the expansion of Islam, and I believe that there will be many more Christian martyrs in areas where militant Islam is expanding. There have recently been trials in Islamic Nations of people whose only crime was their faith, and Christians have been murdered in Afghanistan because "they were Christians." Whatever the supposed justification of such actions, the religious community needs to unite against it, as it must unite against persecution in all forms in all nations. The values of Jesus may not be the values of the nations Christians live in, but they are our values, which we should express, whatever the fall-out.
Evangelical? After months of traveling around ideas, theology and faith, I am ready to say that I no longer see myself as an Evangelical. That statement is only significant for two reasons. First, I know what the term means and so do my Christian friends. Evangelicals have strong views on how a person becomes a Christian and on many other theological issues, but most importantly, their faith is wrapped up in a narrow view of what the Christian life is, i.e., a continuous opportunity to share the gospel with everyone you encounter.
I would like to share the reality of my life with everyone, and am most interested in sharing Jesus with those I encounter who hurt, are lost, sick and seeking something. There are many commissions from Jesus, and I'd like to be sensitive to all of them.
Second, what does an old Evangelical become? I don't think anything in this blog makes me any less of a Christian than I was when I started it, but what label does a non-Evangelical Christian put on them self? Catholic? I wasn't raised a Catholic, so it's easy for me to say I like the Catholic Church, but I do like parts of it. I like God's Grace coming through the sacraments; I like the formality and the rituals, the robes and incense; I like liturgy and rote prayers. I like History. I want to take that into my life, but I don't need to be a Catholic to cherish part of what they are.
I must say: I'm not high on praying to Mary, celibate priests or an infallible Pope.
What about Liberal Protestantism? I do admire much of the work that liberal groups that meet in Protestant Churches do, but there's just not enough Jesus and way to much money and building.
I like the name Orthodox, but people think of the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church when you say that.
As much as the name has been soiled by a violent history and political present, I guess being a Christian will have to do. Not one who holds hard doctrine, a closed mind, a repressive spirit or judgmental thoughts, but Just a Christian.
Not such a bad thing after all.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Kindness
I can't shut this down without recognizing the kindness resident in most of the people I know. I know it would be an insult to tell some dear people - including neighbors, family and friends who have read this blog - that the good they do is from God. That seems to be the message today which masquerades as orthodox Christianity. The companion line - that it is through man's sin that the world is evil - gives Christians the easiest of worlds - one that strips man of the right to take credit for good, while assessing him as the culpable party in the performance of us evil.
I don't think you can have it both ways, and certainly God wants man to walk according to what is actually in his heart, whether good or evil. There is no indication that anyone can be good enough to earn a ticket to the promised land, but good does have redeeming features, including its instructional value: good is better than evil; the after taste of doing good is sweeter than that when you do evil; good can't be eradicated by evil; good seems fragile, but it isn't; it seems absent, but it isn't; it exists in all societies throughout history, and it doesn't need a vocabulary word to identify it; it is a choice, an ongoing series of choices. But there is nothing supernatural about good. It is a completely natural response to the circumstances you're in. The easier life is, the easier it is to do good.
Think you are better than machete-wielding Rwandans, SS Storm Troopers in German Concentration Camps, , apartheid enforcing security forces in South Africa, Islamist extremists on 9/11, Christian Crusaders in the Dark Ages? These were probably mostly good people making evil chooses, in an atmosphere that encouraged such choices. They are responsible for what they did.
The kind of good I want is the good of turning the other cheek, of giving someone my jacket when they ask for it, of denying myself, taking up my greatest obstacle and following someone I can't hear or see. It's the good of meekness, of hope, faith and love, of being a peacemaker and bringing the kingdom of God in this world.
As good as good is, the higher call to something akin to holiness is better. I like being good, being kind, being enthusiastic, but I am challenged, and sometimes even pursue, something more impossible to achieve than anything I can do on my own. It's only fair that those who don't believe God and Jesus are real judge me not on my development as a natural man, but my development as a spiritual one.
They were first called Christians because people could see they had been with Him.
I don't want to strip you of your kindness.
Look at me carefully and see if there's a visible sign that I have been with Jesus Christ. I will settle for no lower standard of judgment.
I don't think you can have it both ways, and certainly God wants man to walk according to what is actually in his heart, whether good or evil. There is no indication that anyone can be good enough to earn a ticket to the promised land, but good does have redeeming features, including its instructional value: good is better than evil; the after taste of doing good is sweeter than that when you do evil; good can't be eradicated by evil; good seems fragile, but it isn't; it seems absent, but it isn't; it exists in all societies throughout history, and it doesn't need a vocabulary word to identify it; it is a choice, an ongoing series of choices. But there is nothing supernatural about good. It is a completely natural response to the circumstances you're in. The easier life is, the easier it is to do good.
Think you are better than machete-wielding Rwandans, SS Storm Troopers in German Concentration Camps, , apartheid enforcing security forces in South Africa, Islamist extremists on 9/11, Christian Crusaders in the Dark Ages? These were probably mostly good people making evil chooses, in an atmosphere that encouraged such choices. They are responsible for what they did.
The kind of good I want is the good of turning the other cheek, of giving someone my jacket when they ask for it, of denying myself, taking up my greatest obstacle and following someone I can't hear or see. It's the good of meekness, of hope, faith and love, of being a peacemaker and bringing the kingdom of God in this world.
As good as good is, the higher call to something akin to holiness is better. I like being good, being kind, being enthusiastic, but I am challenged, and sometimes even pursue, something more impossible to achieve than anything I can do on my own. It's only fair that those who don't believe God and Jesus are real judge me not on my development as a natural man, but my development as a spiritual one.
They were first called Christians because people could see they had been with Him.
I don't want to strip you of your kindness.
Look at me carefully and see if there's a visible sign that I have been with Jesus Christ. I will settle for no lower standard of judgment.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Heading Up Lancaster Way
I'm heading up Lancaster Way
That's in Pennsylvania not LA
Going to see the Amish, man
Raise a barn?
Yes, I can.
Tired of Stock Market, Emergent church
Tired of Economy's constant lurch.
Took the plunge and sold GE
Heard about them, have to see
Going to see the Amish, man
Forget my TV, designer shoes
Honda Wagon, got to lose
Forget Obama, voting too
Speaking German, God and you
See the denim, hats and tan
Going to be an Amish man
Who decided, I want to know
To disconnect so long ago
I come humble, but I can see
We need to disconnect after automated farming machinery.
Can we compromise? How about low horsepower motors?
Going to be an Amish Man
A post modern Amish man.
That's in Pennsylvania not LA
Going to see the Amish, man
Raise a barn?
Yes, I can.
Tired of Stock Market, Emergent church
Tired of Economy's constant lurch.
Took the plunge and sold GE
Heard about them, have to see
Going to see the Amish, man
Forget my TV, designer shoes
Honda Wagon, got to lose
Forget Obama, voting too
Speaking German, God and you
See the denim, hats and tan
Going to be an Amish man
Who decided, I want to know
To disconnect so long ago
I come humble, but I can see
We need to disconnect after automated farming machinery.
Can we compromise? How about low horsepower motors?
Going to be an Amish Man
A post modern Amish man.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Geetch, Bread, Moola, Cash, Dough, Money
You know Jesus never even contemplated that Caesar might give money to His church. The transaction was the mouth of the fish, the hand of the disciple, the palm of the tax collector, the coffers of Rome. Nothing was coming back the other way, nor was that expected.
The first amendment of the US Constitution established freedom of religion in the United States and is ultimately the basis of both the church's tax exempt status and the extension of tax deductions on gifts to the church. 501c3 Non Profit Status is relatively new, and is an attempt to regulate organizations looking to escape taxes by claiming to be churches. It establishes some standard regarding exactly what non-profit means and attempts to separate non-profits from partisan politics. There are a number of people who feel that 501c3 interferes with freedom of religion by establishing boundaries, and that it sets a precedent for future restriction on how the church can operate.
Sounds like something for the courts. I only know what any idiot in America knows: the church is rich and doesn't do much good with its money. There are hundreds and hundreds of churches in Portland, Oregon, occupying thousands of buildings on close to 5,000 acres of land. None of that is taxes. If it was taxed, millions of dollars would go into state revenue, at a time when millions of dollars are desperately needed. Taking away the Federal tax exemption on charitable contributions, another good idea, would increase National Revenue nationally by billions of dollars.
Government has not extended tax benefits to the Church out of generosity. The Church has helped tame the Frontier, pacify Native Americans, give hope to slaves, provide sober workers for burgeoning industry, fill an army with eager patriots and give moral superiority to a country that was often absolutely amoral.
The United States doesn't need the Church now. It doesn't need rapid population growth, or people who object to viable ways to keep birth rates down. It doesn't need rigid belief systems, but free thinking and minds open to bizarre solutions for problems not yet encountered. We need people without ties, who can be given to multi-national corporations and can move anywhere anytime on their way to the top. We don't need the family or community or old concepts of humanity. There is a new world order. Buck up and get over it.
It takes decades for radical change to occur, so the Church has some time to get its act in gear.
There is no reason that churches shouldn't be taxed on the value of their property, less the value associated with legitimate academic education or the cost of facilities used to perform a designated function for those at or below the poverty line. I'm no lawyer, but I know it's time to let go of buildings and grounds congregations couldn't afford to operate or own if they had to pat taxes on them.
There are few nations that address philanthropy the way the US does, and fewer who provide tax relief for those supporting its churches. It is important that some giving be encouraged - ministries from missions to disaster relief and beyond, but money given for the cost of operating a church should not be tax deductible.
It's time for Christians to feel the pinch that comes from sacrificial giving. It's time for facilities to be occupied by multiple congregations and for new congregations to meet in available public facilities. Church in a tavern on Sunday morning; in a rec center; in a public school; in the park.
It's time to preserve resources by sharing with members of the body. It's time for less square feet; for multi-generational living situations, for common meals, shared rides and community gardens.
The Church can lead, follow, or get out of the way. Isn't it time to lead? Can't the Church show that we're not about money, status, appearance? The reality of a Century that disavows the need for God is upon us. It's time to take every deliberate action we can to weed ourselves off the largess of America, and not return to the trough to gorge ourselves again. If the State doesn't demand a change in taxes/deductions, let congregations and denominations do it intentionally and voluntarily, and let the money that should have been paid in taxes be given instead to a fund to provide for the desperate needs of our world: hunger, disease, natural calamity, and bankrupt spirits.
American Christian need to understand that the party's over. It's our time to stand up and get moving, and never look back to Caesar for anything, no matter how hard he calls. We're no one's errand boy any longer, no matter what the pay.
The first amendment of the US Constitution established freedom of religion in the United States and is ultimately the basis of both the church's tax exempt status and the extension of tax deductions on gifts to the church. 501c3 Non Profit Status is relatively new, and is an attempt to regulate organizations looking to escape taxes by claiming to be churches. It establishes some standard regarding exactly what non-profit means and attempts to separate non-profits from partisan politics. There are a number of people who feel that 501c3 interferes with freedom of religion by establishing boundaries, and that it sets a precedent for future restriction on how the church can operate.
Sounds like something for the courts. I only know what any idiot in America knows: the church is rich and doesn't do much good with its money. There are hundreds and hundreds of churches in Portland, Oregon, occupying thousands of buildings on close to 5,000 acres of land. None of that is taxes. If it was taxed, millions of dollars would go into state revenue, at a time when millions of dollars are desperately needed. Taking away the Federal tax exemption on charitable contributions, another good idea, would increase National Revenue nationally by billions of dollars.
Government has not extended tax benefits to the Church out of generosity. The Church has helped tame the Frontier, pacify Native Americans, give hope to slaves, provide sober workers for burgeoning industry, fill an army with eager patriots and give moral superiority to a country that was often absolutely amoral.
The United States doesn't need the Church now. It doesn't need rapid population growth, or people who object to viable ways to keep birth rates down. It doesn't need rigid belief systems, but free thinking and minds open to bizarre solutions for problems not yet encountered. We need people without ties, who can be given to multi-national corporations and can move anywhere anytime on their way to the top. We don't need the family or community or old concepts of humanity. There is a new world order. Buck up and get over it.
It takes decades for radical change to occur, so the Church has some time to get its act in gear.
There is no reason that churches shouldn't be taxed on the value of their property, less the value associated with legitimate academic education or the cost of facilities used to perform a designated function for those at or below the poverty line. I'm no lawyer, but I know it's time to let go of buildings and grounds congregations couldn't afford to operate or own if they had to pat taxes on them.
There are few nations that address philanthropy the way the US does, and fewer who provide tax relief for those supporting its churches. It is important that some giving be encouraged - ministries from missions to disaster relief and beyond, but money given for the cost of operating a church should not be tax deductible.
It's time for Christians to feel the pinch that comes from sacrificial giving. It's time for facilities to be occupied by multiple congregations and for new congregations to meet in available public facilities. Church in a tavern on Sunday morning; in a rec center; in a public school; in the park.
It's time to preserve resources by sharing with members of the body. It's time for less square feet; for multi-generational living situations, for common meals, shared rides and community gardens.
The Church can lead, follow, or get out of the way. Isn't it time to lead? Can't the Church show that we're not about money, status, appearance? The reality of a Century that disavows the need for God is upon us. It's time to take every deliberate action we can to weed ourselves off the largess of America, and not return to the trough to gorge ourselves again. If the State doesn't demand a change in taxes/deductions, let congregations and denominations do it intentionally and voluntarily, and let the money that should have been paid in taxes be given instead to a fund to provide for the desperate needs of our world: hunger, disease, natural calamity, and bankrupt spirits.
American Christian need to understand that the party's over. It's our time to stand up and get moving, and never look back to Caesar for anything, no matter how hard he calls. We're no one's errand boy any longer, no matter what the pay.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Early Morning Christian Radio
I intentionally listened to social conservative leader and influential religious radio broadcaster James Dobson this morning, wanting to get his take on this week's election of Barack Obama to the US Presidency. I was surprised how shocked both he and his panel of commentators were at the outcome of the voting, especially since strong indicators showing how likely an Obama landslide would be were available days before the polls opened. They were worried about how Obama's total endorsement of reproductive rights would derail attempts to get Roe v. Wade reversed and result in the unrestrained push for abortion on demand at every level of government. Hunkering down together, the six vowed to keep fighting for the life of the unborn, in every courtroom and voting booth in the country.
Because the Presidential news was so dismal, conversation shifted quickly to the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which defined Constitutional marriage in the state as being between a man and woman only. No legal same sex marriages in California any more. Proponents of the bill spent $39 million to gain its passage. They gathered 7200 pastors to support the measure, and had massive prayer gatherings to petition God for the bill's passage. This included a 33,000 person, all day rally at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego days before the election.
So God lost one and won one in 2008, just about His success ratio in the passage of Civil Laws identifying themselves as His Will over the History of Western Civilization, and profoundly higher than His success ratio on legislation proposed and passed in the United States since 1900.
God is easily defeated, it seems. He is unable to muster enough juice to get McCain the 7 states and 5% he needed to become a President who supported right to life. I am a linear person; I have a hard time understanding how things fit together in space, but I do believe that they fit together differently than is being determined by Dobson and friends.I again question the efficacy of trying to maintain civil laws that support moral values that have probably never been supported by the majority of Americans, while using that imaginary support as the validation of the effort.I question time, money, organization, and religious furor being invested in legislation to keep people from getting married, at a time when marriage is in a steep decline.
I fully support life, and would like to see synergy in moving towards a non-legislative commitment to life, which would be built on the almost universal dislike of abortion. Is opposition to Obama and his abortion stand an effort to reduce abortion through partnership, prayer, education and investment, or an ongoing, fruitless attempt at an impossible to enforce legal eradication that sets up an endless series of legislative battles, that take time and energy from what can be done now to keep 15 year olds from the brink of a life altering event?
If Obama is President for 8 years, he will see a medical revolution regarding abortion. There are pills being developed that will bring safe, effective, non intrusive pregnancy termination to a woman's bathroom. Cheap, with little side effects, these will eliminate the need to visit abortion clinics, and will be much safer and convenient than the "morning after" pill. This technology, which the church will battle relentlessly, may desensitize pregnant women to the trauma of abortion, but it will also make later term abortions the one visible sign that procedures continue to be done. Such procedures will become even more questionable, and it may be that ongoing opposition by Christians will lead to some regulation of late term abortions.
But this is just more legislative stuff. Facing the future of reproductive rights issues, the Christian Church needs to do what it should always do: fragment into the world surrounding it, sharing the value of life and the time it begins; caring for those who have decided to follow the difficult choice to give birth; comforting those who are mourning a decision to terminate; teaching birth control to anyone who will listen and getting birth control devices into the hands of young people who are sexually active or about to be.
The task is simple and direct if the issue doesn't financially drive an organization. You wonder if people running family ministries really want the church to change its world, and positively influence abortion decisions from the bottom up. Success could cost them their prominence, and the political power that has brought them.
Because the Presidential news was so dismal, conversation shifted quickly to the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which defined Constitutional marriage in the state as being between a man and woman only. No legal same sex marriages in California any more. Proponents of the bill spent $39 million to gain its passage. They gathered 7200 pastors to support the measure, and had massive prayer gatherings to petition God for the bill's passage. This included a 33,000 person, all day rally at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego days before the election.
So God lost one and won one in 2008, just about His success ratio in the passage of Civil Laws identifying themselves as His Will over the History of Western Civilization, and profoundly higher than His success ratio on legislation proposed and passed in the United States since 1900.
God is easily defeated, it seems. He is unable to muster enough juice to get McCain the 7 states and 5% he needed to become a President who supported right to life. I am a linear person; I have a hard time understanding how things fit together in space, but I do believe that they fit together differently than is being determined by Dobson and friends.I again question the efficacy of trying to maintain civil laws that support moral values that have probably never been supported by the majority of Americans, while using that imaginary support as the validation of the effort.I question time, money, organization, and religious furor being invested in legislation to keep people from getting married, at a time when marriage is in a steep decline.
I fully support life, and would like to see synergy in moving towards a non-legislative commitment to life, which would be built on the almost universal dislike of abortion. Is opposition to Obama and his abortion stand an effort to reduce abortion through partnership, prayer, education and investment, or an ongoing, fruitless attempt at an impossible to enforce legal eradication that sets up an endless series of legislative battles, that take time and energy from what can be done now to keep 15 year olds from the brink of a life altering event?
If Obama is President for 8 years, he will see a medical revolution regarding abortion. There are pills being developed that will bring safe, effective, non intrusive pregnancy termination to a woman's bathroom. Cheap, with little side effects, these will eliminate the need to visit abortion clinics, and will be much safer and convenient than the "morning after" pill. This technology, which the church will battle relentlessly, may desensitize pregnant women to the trauma of abortion, but it will also make later term abortions the one visible sign that procedures continue to be done. Such procedures will become even more questionable, and it may be that ongoing opposition by Christians will lead to some regulation of late term abortions.
But this is just more legislative stuff. Facing the future of reproductive rights issues, the Christian Church needs to do what it should always do: fragment into the world surrounding it, sharing the value of life and the time it begins; caring for those who have decided to follow the difficult choice to give birth; comforting those who are mourning a decision to terminate; teaching birth control to anyone who will listen and getting birth control devices into the hands of young people who are sexually active or about to be.
The task is simple and direct if the issue doesn't financially drive an organization. You wonder if people running family ministries really want the church to change its world, and positively influence abortion decisions from the bottom up. Success could cost them their prominence, and the political power that has brought them.
A Hope For Bridges, Not Walls
I commend the tens of thousands who came out, with passion and commitment, to support Prop 8, California's anti-gay marriage measure on the State's Nov. 2008 state ballot, for a one day rally in San Diego, the Sunday before the election. I question whether a mass gathering of like minded people on a bright day in a receptive city compares favorably (as some have claimed) to the sacrifices of anti-apartheid demonstrators in South Africa, of abolitionist leaders in the United States during slavery or of the civil rights fighters in the Southern US in the 1950s and 60s. Prop 8 is the kind of approach that typifies rendering to Caesar. It is a calculated effort to change a law to accomplish a goal. Jesus never called anyone to change one of Caesar's laws, or the laws of the Jewish leadership in Israel, for that matter. He was truly a revolutionary, and His way confronted while explaining that something more than the point of confrontation needed to be changed. If the evil in this world comes from principalities and powers, shouldn't the effort to deal with these evils be conducted in the realm of God's spirit, where such warfare is waged?
For those at the rally in San Diego, was it only the challenge to bring legislative change that created the zeal to demonstrate, resist, and revoke existing human edict? For, in the end, God's law does not need to be validated by man's law. The eagerness to make human law of God's law is an over assessment of the importance of Caesar's law. That law needs the light of God much more than God needs secular approval. Scampering along, yapping at the master to let us jump on the bed or couch is not a model I like much. The only model of secular change that appears to hold some semblance of how God works is found in long term, non-violent, persecuted protests like those of the American Civil Rights Movement and Gandhi's resistance in India. Both were centered in religious faith; both called for fundamental change regarding human rights. Both were vigorously attacked by opponents to change. An untold number of protesters were killed. The movements called for personal change of everyone involved in the struggles as much as legislative adjustments.
There is nothing noble or generous regarding Prop 8. It reverses law that allowed loving couples to marry. Defining marriage as a union between a man and a women is certainly a society's right, but if it is built on an unrealistic concept of what family is, it is just plain foolish. Family is mostly not Mum and Dad, brother and sister, dog and cat. It is more likely divorced, hyphenated parents, blended siblings, pet iguana. You can vote for how you want things to be or how they are. "Want things to be" regarding homosexuality brings together the haters and the doctrinaires, and anything that pushes you together with the haters should make you reconsider your doctrine. But those of you who have read this blog know that I support homosexuality and marriage. My greatest hope is that loving homosexual partners will have the opportunity to be married, and that they will take it. Not allowing them the right to be married is a nasty repudiation of something the society supports on all other levels. Perhaps Civil Union agreements and Church weddings can mute the pain while efforts are made to dismiss this law.
The pro-life movement is not Prop 8. It has the staying power of abolition, and a great amount of moral support throughout the world. The movement, however, lost some of its moral"higher ground" when abortion sites were turned into confrontation zones, where outraged defenders of the unborn turned nasty against the poor women whose lives had reached the point of making an unbelievingly difficult decision. If you don't win the hearts of those you are trying to convince, you have to win politically.
Christians hardened those contemplating abortion with hurled vials of blood and beakers of aborted fetuses. Each person who entered a clinic and had an abortion realized when they came out, that those haranguing people going in were not people they wished to share their pain with coming out. Whoever the victim is in the abortion debate, it is certainly not the demonstrators outside the clinic.
I believe God's model regarding abortion is two fold: silent, non violent, all night prayer vigils in police/community designated areas near abortion clinics, and the most comprehensive health/sex education push the world has ever known. Condoms, and other forms of birth control, should be given away like Halloween candy. There should be graphic illustrations on condom wrappers of how to properly use the device. The entire population should be told, in slick, Hollywood ads on MTV, VH1, pay channels and Network TV that smart, sophisticated, successful people don't get pregnant unless they choose to. If people don't like abortion, the best way to minimize it is to make it an unattractive option. The "Choice" part of pro-choice needs to be moved back to the point of intercourse, because abortion is the worst result of an irresponsible decision. Let's do away with the "I didn't know" defense and bring responsibility back into the equation.
And let the Church re-define its position and pray for right choices and to become a support group for people looking for emotional fulfillment in an idealized baby. Let the love of God so envelope those who are forced to that most awful choice that they, and their circle of friends, see that God's love promotes right choices and forgives wrong ones. There has been little grace in the Abortion debate. Pro Life folks are outraged that innocent blood is being shed; pro-choice people are adamant that their right to rule their own bodies be revered.
Once dialog goes, the lawyers move in. Law rules the day, and if the Church wins, it has lost because it won by making Caesar the final arbitrator. Not what the fish expected when it gave up its coin to pay Imperial taxes. Not what any person desiring unity in love outside of secular law can be joyful about.
For those at the rally in San Diego, was it only the challenge to bring legislative change that created the zeal to demonstrate, resist, and revoke existing human edict? For, in the end, God's law does not need to be validated by man's law. The eagerness to make human law of God's law is an over assessment of the importance of Caesar's law. That law needs the light of God much more than God needs secular approval. Scampering along, yapping at the master to let us jump on the bed or couch is not a model I like much. The only model of secular change that appears to hold some semblance of how God works is found in long term, non-violent, persecuted protests like those of the American Civil Rights Movement and Gandhi's resistance in India. Both were centered in religious faith; both called for fundamental change regarding human rights. Both were vigorously attacked by opponents to change. An untold number of protesters were killed. The movements called for personal change of everyone involved in the struggles as much as legislative adjustments.
There is nothing noble or generous regarding Prop 8. It reverses law that allowed loving couples to marry. Defining marriage as a union between a man and a women is certainly a society's right, but if it is built on an unrealistic concept of what family is, it is just plain foolish. Family is mostly not Mum and Dad, brother and sister, dog and cat. It is more likely divorced, hyphenated parents, blended siblings, pet iguana. You can vote for how you want things to be or how they are. "Want things to be" regarding homosexuality brings together the haters and the doctrinaires, and anything that pushes you together with the haters should make you reconsider your doctrine. But those of you who have read this blog know that I support homosexuality and marriage. My greatest hope is that loving homosexual partners will have the opportunity to be married, and that they will take it. Not allowing them the right to be married is a nasty repudiation of something the society supports on all other levels. Perhaps Civil Union agreements and Church weddings can mute the pain while efforts are made to dismiss this law.
The pro-life movement is not Prop 8. It has the staying power of abolition, and a great amount of moral support throughout the world. The movement, however, lost some of its moral"higher ground" when abortion sites were turned into confrontation zones, where outraged defenders of the unborn turned nasty against the poor women whose lives had reached the point of making an unbelievingly difficult decision. If you don't win the hearts of those you are trying to convince, you have to win politically.
Christians hardened those contemplating abortion with hurled vials of blood and beakers of aborted fetuses. Each person who entered a clinic and had an abortion realized when they came out, that those haranguing people going in were not people they wished to share their pain with coming out. Whoever the victim is in the abortion debate, it is certainly not the demonstrators outside the clinic.
I believe God's model regarding abortion is two fold: silent, non violent, all night prayer vigils in police/community designated areas near abortion clinics, and the most comprehensive health/sex education push the world has ever known. Condoms, and other forms of birth control, should be given away like Halloween candy. There should be graphic illustrations on condom wrappers of how to properly use the device. The entire population should be told, in slick, Hollywood ads on MTV, VH1, pay channels and Network TV that smart, sophisticated, successful people don't get pregnant unless they choose to. If people don't like abortion, the best way to minimize it is to make it an unattractive option. The "Choice" part of pro-choice needs to be moved back to the point of intercourse, because abortion is the worst result of an irresponsible decision. Let's do away with the "I didn't know" defense and bring responsibility back into the equation.
And let the Church re-define its position and pray for right choices and to become a support group for people looking for emotional fulfillment in an idealized baby. Let the love of God so envelope those who are forced to that most awful choice that they, and their circle of friends, see that God's love promotes right choices and forgives wrong ones. There has been little grace in the Abortion debate. Pro Life folks are outraged that innocent blood is being shed; pro-choice people are adamant that their right to rule their own bodies be revered.
Once dialog goes, the lawyers move in. Law rules the day, and if the Church wins, it has lost because it won by making Caesar the final arbitrator. Not what the fish expected when it gave up its coin to pay Imperial taxes. Not what any person desiring unity in love outside of secular law can be joyful about.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Barack Obama: Anti-Christ
There are desperate religious leaders working tirelessly tonight, putting together books which interpret the New and Old Books in a way that prove that Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ.
If any of you hear about or read such books, please:
*never again listen to the station presenting such views;
*immediately suspend support to any ministry presenting this idea is true;
*destroy any and all books presenting this view.
If you have a conversation with anyone who has such a view, reprove the person expressing those ideas in the most extreme way.
The Anti-Christ was identified by the early Church as a couple of people, most usually Nero. If the Anti-Christ is yet to come, he will be an exceedingly evil man, who will pervert and prostitute the Christian Church.
Christian leaders, Theologians and Popular writers have been playing guessing games about who the Anti-Christ was/is since the rise of pre-tribulation, pre-millennialism in the mid-19Th Century. Juan Carlos of Spain was the leading candidate for decades (1960s-70s).
The self serving manipulation of various verses can prove almost anything in the vague world of prophetic understanding. Remember, there are many members of the Religious Right, Religious Extremists and Racists and Opportunists (who write the books), who want Obama to be someone truly evil. It will relieve them from the guilt caused by the anger and hatred they feel for the man..
I don't know if Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ, and if he is an evil man, I will resist evil as I'm told to do. Non-violently. As the President of this Country, he will be under the microscope all the time. I don't think anything is going to catch us by surprise in the next couple years.
Obama is already a marked man. The vitriolic rhetoric about the man has created an environment which could certainly result in some act of violence toward him. If that act came out of the ministry of some deceived Christian leader, I believed draconian regulations could very easily change Christian broadcasting permanently.
A new President is a new birth: Obama wants to work with the Church; embrace it; in fold it. I take his desire at face value. Let's put away the malice, open our hearts and welcome a new leader. And lets ignore and reject incendiary hack jobs, which have risen up from the cesspool of haters, vile talkers, evil thinkers and greed drunk profiteers.
They ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow. They don't deserve anything civil from those of us soiled by their rantings.
If any of you hear about or read such books, please:
*never again listen to the station presenting such views;
*immediately suspend support to any ministry presenting this idea is true;
*destroy any and all books presenting this view.
If you have a conversation with anyone who has such a view, reprove the person expressing those ideas in the most extreme way.
The Anti-Christ was identified by the early Church as a couple of people, most usually Nero. If the Anti-Christ is yet to come, he will be an exceedingly evil man, who will pervert and prostitute the Christian Church.
Christian leaders, Theologians and Popular writers have been playing guessing games about who the Anti-Christ was/is since the rise of pre-tribulation, pre-millennialism in the mid-19Th Century. Juan Carlos of Spain was the leading candidate for decades (1960s-70s).
The self serving manipulation of various verses can prove almost anything in the vague world of prophetic understanding. Remember, there are many members of the Religious Right, Religious Extremists and Racists and Opportunists (who write the books), who want Obama to be someone truly evil. It will relieve them from the guilt caused by the anger and hatred they feel for the man..
I don't know if Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ, and if he is an evil man, I will resist evil as I'm told to do. Non-violently. As the President of this Country, he will be under the microscope all the time. I don't think anything is going to catch us by surprise in the next couple years.
Obama is already a marked man. The vitriolic rhetoric about the man has created an environment which could certainly result in some act of violence toward him. If that act came out of the ministry of some deceived Christian leader, I believed draconian regulations could very easily change Christian broadcasting permanently.
A new President is a new birth: Obama wants to work with the Church; embrace it; in fold it. I take his desire at face value. Let's put away the malice, open our hearts and welcome a new leader. And lets ignore and reject incendiary hack jobs, which have risen up from the cesspool of haters, vile talkers, evil thinkers and greed drunk profiteers.
They ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow. They don't deserve anything civil from those of us soiled by their rantings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
