Limited Government vs. the Bible

Here is a problem that I have: People who believe the Bible and want to severely limit government. To a certain extent I understand this. After all, governments, at least in the USA, seem to limit the reach of the church, or other faith-oriented organizations. Free exercise of religion may be tolerated, but often its advancement is impeded. This happens as the state tries to restrict the ability of public school teachers to express their faith, or even their opinions on issues of ethical or moral significance. In another instance, municipalities are prevented from displaying any form of faith expression, even as it represents the culture of the community, around holidays.

In these cases, and others like them, I agree fully that government, federal or local, should be prevented from limited any expressions of faith. We should always remember that a fundamental principle of American independence is freedom of religion, not necessarily freedom from religion. However, we must take care to not place restrictions or limits on government that will cause us to compromise our Christian, biblical principles.

Here is what I am driving at. People are bad. Christian theology is based on the biblical ideal that humans are fundamentally flawed. We all inherit sin from our ancestors, beginning with Adam. We call this original sin. The New Testament puts a specific spin on this concept. Romans 3.10 say that there is no one who is righteous. Romans 3.23 affirms that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

And that is exactly the problem with limiting government. The Bible teaches that if we are left to our own devices we will sin. Eventually, our sin will cause harm to others. That means that your sin will eventually cause the loss of my property, health or life. We need government, therefore, for protection. Government is necessary because we are basically evil.

If our government limits itself too much, we will all suffer because of it. Anarchy will be the natural result of this. We must be wise in our calls for limited government.

Christianity vs.

There is a war in America today. I have commented on it from time to time, but I generally try to keep my comments, sermons and blog posts relatively non-political. However, from time to time the world of faith collides with the world of politics. Pay close attention to what is going on in the political realm these days.

Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and the Tea Baggers have done their best to claim Christianity and Christian values as their very own. Consequently, their message says that true American share their Christian beliefs and practices. Politically speaking there are all sorts of litmus tests. Christians, these true believers claim, have particular views on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and the like. This is all well and good, except that they are trying to convince church people that to be good Americans they must buy the whole package. Christians, we are told, are pro-gun, pro-life, pro-death penalty and anti-health care. It is an interesting mix and it takes a certain amount of creativity.

There is are a couple of interesting twists in this part of the problem. First of all, Glen Beck is not a Christian in the tradition, orthodox understanding of the word "Christian." Beck is a devout Mormon. This is a minor distinction in the political realm to be sure, but it is significant for many who are following Beck because of his, or their, faith. Secondly, there are many in the mainstream Christian church/media who have jumped on this bandwagon. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were a couple of the pioneers in this regard, but in recent years James Dobson and Steve Strang have worked to add the Christian element to the conservative/Republican cause. It is hard for me to see the relationship between my faith and higher taxes, however.

The other side- politically- is really no better. Jim Wallis and his Sojourners movement create an option for Christians on the left, but they are as myopic as the conservatives are. You are expected to fall in line for the left or your faith and/or faithfulness is called into question.

What we have is a conflict between biblical and cultural Christianity. I propose that what exists in our world today, at least as it is represented in politics is not biblical at all. We must do our best to get beyond these cultural biases at all costs and reclaim our biblical- and non-political- heritage.

Whose News?

Cable television news has changed the way that government and politics works in the US. There is always someone on live television broadcasting the latest "news." No longer are events planned for the daytime hours, Monday through Friday, so that they can be covered on the evening news broadcast. Now every time is news time because all events can be reported on live and in person via satellite.

This has wreaked havoc with the way that the traditional broadcast networks have covered news. There is nothing new to be reported. It was all covered by CNN, Fox, MSNBC or someone else. It has also provided a constant state of transition among those same cable news outlets. They are all trying to create their own niche. They pretend to be filled with integrity and idealism, but in reality they are simply angling for better ratings.

On my satellite television system I get about 10-12 all-news channels (this includes local and business channels). They all have their own specific target.

• CNN- Tries to be objective in its coverage, but is vilified by right and left as being too partisan in favor of the other guys.
• MSNBC- Unabashedly liberal in orientation and perspective. Courts the left wing with its programming, reporting and analyses.
• Fox News- Proclaims itself to be centrist- or at least populist- but is clearly a right leaning outfit.

Each of those networks has a business or financial channel and other outlets. They are all a part of much larger media empires. Apparently, 24 hour news is a great, and profitable, business. The problem is that there is not that much news to cover. In fact, in the last few years more and more non-news stories have become major issues because of this. Every network wants to be first. They want to report the next big story. They are looking for the great ratings. So, we have learned about Casey Anthony, Jaycee Dugard and Octo-mom.

But that is not all. We have lost sight of what is news and what is not. It is now true that many people listen to Talk Radio, or an analysis program on television and assume that they are getting news reporting. In fact, what these programs provide is some one's opinion about what is news, or what we should think about the news.

This came home to me recently when I realized what had happened to the Headline News Network. Headline News is a part of CNN. The idea behind Headline News was that any time of day or night you could get caught up on all the news in 30 minutes. But those days are long past. Now you are more likely to catch an hour of personal financial advice, opinions about the latest tabloid-type scandal or Hollywood gossip.

That is when I realized that the world has changed. Headline News has changed its name. It is now HLN. That does not seem to be a big change, except that HLN markets itself as HLN, News and Views.

Here is my conclusion...

A big part of the divisive, partisan nature of politics in the USA today is because people hear some one's opinion, or analysis of current events, and take it for news. The left sends out its analysts. The right puts its analysts on the air. And before long, no one is listening to news. Everyone is paying attention to analysis. And when we form our opinions based on someone else's opinion, we are standing on a very wobbly foundation. Let's move beyond this partisan period into a time of listening to one another, paying attention to actual news and forming our own opinions.

More on Social Justice

Recently I wrote about the church abdicating responsibility for caring for the poor and oppressed. A natural response to that is that the government has picked up the slack. I received one email written from the position that the government has taken the responsibility from the church. My perspective is quite the opposite. For the most part, I think it is the chicken and the egg. I believe that the church failed, forcing the government to care for people. Others believe that the government usurped the church's responsibility and therefore its ability to help people.

Ultimately, I think we agree. The church should be doing what the government is doing.

Let me cite one example of the church doing its job regardless of the activity of the government: The Amish. The Amish are taxed in the same way as everyone else. I am sure they are beneficiaries of many government programs as well (examples could include unemployment compensation, but I am not certain of this). I do know, however, that the Amish do not participate in government sponsored insurance programs. The church itself cares for members who are ill, have lost a home or are in some other need. The church can and should care for people regardless of what the government is doing. (An interesting side note: The average Christian gives about 3% of his income to the church. If Christians would tithe, we could care for those who need and cut our taxes.)

One more thing: I had a disagreement with my mother-in-law recently. She was upset about the proposed health care reform bill (this was before it passed). She said, "Everyone I know has insurance. I don't see what the big deal is." When I began to tell her the names of the people I know who are uninsured (about a dozen, many that she also knows) she was amazed. I think it is easy to think about those in poverty as having an entitlement mentality, but when you spend time with them you can see the world through different eyes.

Fair and Balanced?

When I was in college my major course of study was Biblical Literature. In one of the first classes I took we learned that we were supposed to approach the Bible objectively. It is unfair, inappropriate and unsafe to bring my own ideas to the Scriptures. In addition, we must never use the Bible to bolster or support what we already believe. The idea behind studying the Bible is to find out what it says, not getting it to say what I want.

Then I got to seminary. One of my professors in seminary taught us that it is impossible to be completely impartial in reading the Bible. I can never pretend that I am not who I am. I will always have my thoughts, beliefs and ideas. Rather than pretend that I do not, I should be honest about the impact that those things have on my reading of the Bible.

That reminds me of the media wars that we are seeing today. Most of the media is pretending to be objective, even though they are not. They all have certain agendas, perspectives and biases. Even those commentators who complain about media bias are biased media commentators.

Today there are a lot of 24 hour news channels on cable television. My satellite system has at least eight stations that are devoted to non-stop news, business and opinion. Everyone of them is a little bit different from the others. Some of them cater to women, some to men. One has a particularly liberal perspective, another is conservative.

The problem I have is that some of these networks have a particular political agenda, but act as though they do not. One promotes itself as "fair and balanced." Fair and balanced implies that all sides of an issue or event are explored impartially and without bias. This is certainly not the case for this network.

They are certainly allowed to present issues in whatever context they desire. I have no problem with their rights to broadcast in this manner. However, if you pretend like you are objective, you should be objective- at least as objective as you can be.

One more thing: This same network makes the boast, "We report, you decide." How untrue. They report, that much is accurate. But, they report only what they want to report. They provide perspectives and analyses only from experts that they choose. The world view of this network is focused just so that I will decide what they want me to. The reporting of this channel is designed to make me decide in a particular political way.

You can believe what you want. You can even spread the propaganda that you want. Just be sure that you do not try to convince the American people that everyone else is biased and you are not. Tell the truth.

Social Justice

Recently, some media personalities have called on Americans to reject the idea of social justice in their local churches. To begin with, I have some problems with these media personalities. I do not want to take them to task for their peculiar political perspective- at least not now. I want to begin this article by calling them out on their complaints about the "media." Their assertions include claims of a "liberal" media bias and unfair reporting. But please keep in mind that the most popular and wealthy media personalities, and the highest rated cable news network are all right-wing conservation outfits. So much for the liberals who control the media.

As far as social justice is concerned, I want to address one issue in particular. The claim has been that churches who are concerned with social justice should be abandoned by all clear-thinking American patriots. I want to look at this as a Christian, a churchman, and a clear-thinking American patriot.

To begin with, the church is all about social justice. The call of Jesus is exactly to care for widows, orphans, the poor, sick, imprisoned. We are to look after the misused and the disadvantaged. (Matthew 25.40) The only reason, I believe, that the USA has become the entitlement society that it has is that the church has failed in its obligations. Someone has to care for the needs of the oppressed. Since the church has not, the government must. (Luke 4.18-19)

Additionally, Christians are to "work out" their salvation. (Philippians 2.12) I believe that this means we are to not keep our faith to ourselves. We are to express it in how we treat and relate to others. Not only that, but we are to show our faith by how we share it with others. (James 2)

Where does this leave us? Clearly, Christians are to be concerned about the needs of the oppressed in our society and around the world. Consequently, our churches must be speaking out and acting on behalf of the needy in our communities and in our nation. It is the responsibility of all Christians, all clear-thinking American patriots, t0 look after the concerns of social justice. And do it no matter what those guys on the radio say.

The Need for Greed

The capitalistic system that rules in the USA has blessed millions with financial resources that most of the world cannot imagine. I have not traveled a lot, but when I am in countries of the third world I try to always visit a grocery store. What a wake up call. My local Wal-Mart has more merchandise in the cookies and bread area than the entire supermarket in Black River, Jamaica. My friends in Uganda work for a week for what I can spend on a moderate lunch at my local Applebee's Restaurant. We are truly in a good position financially.

The main problem with capitalism is its greatest strength. When it is working properly. It works great. Wealth is almost limitless for those who work hard and make good decisions. In fact, that is exactly why the US is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.

But, as we think about the recession that seems to be just ending in America, we can see that there are some real problems- weaknesses- in capitalism. It is these problems that created the economic crisis that nearly ruined the whole world.

First of all, capitalism leads to greed. Getting paid, getting ahead, even getting rich are not inherently bad. However, having money can very easily cause a person to want more money. Having more money and wanting more money can become the most important things in life for people. Adding these issues together equals greed. Greed is always bad. Those who are greedy consider only their own needs, wishes and desires. The concerns of others become absolutely unimportant.

Secondly, greed leads to complacency. As long as what I want is taken care of, I don't care what happens to others. I can sit by and watch as things happen to those around me. Since it doesn't happen to me, it doesn't affect me. I can be completely apathetic to needs around me. Additionally, I lose sight of the importance of ethics and integrity in my own life. I will get what I want at all costs.

Complacent apathy can only lead to laziness. We become so unconcerned about things happening around us that we don't notice anything. When we don't notice we don't care. When we don't care we forget how to care. When we don't care we might as well not get out of bed in the morning. We lose sight of all motivation. Because I don't care, I become disinterested and unmotivated toward everything except my own specific needs and activities.

Finally, laziness- the consequence of greed- cannot help but beget the decline and ultimate fall of a society. As our leaders- financial, political and otherwise- get lax in their oversight of systems, and as we get lax in our oversight of our leaders, everything begins to fall apart. Our culture cannot- and will not- continue to exist as long as we are greedy, lazy and complacent.

Rev Wright and Bill O'Reilly

My favorite uncle, Jim Kneller, died a few years ago. I loved almost everything about Uncle Jim. He lived in Arizona so visits were always exciting, mysterious and special. They did not happen nearly enough. I could fill pages (books, maybe) with memories of Uncle Jim. He was great. But he had one problem. He loved the Fox News Network and especially Bill O'Reilly. I never understood this loyalty that Uncle Jim had. After all, there is nothing fair and balanced about the "fair and balanced" reporting of Fox News. In fact, although they proclaim that, "We report, you decide." Their reporting is such that we decide what they report we should.

But I decided that there must be something good about Fox since Uncle Jim loved it so much. That is when I noticed that there is a weekly column by Bill O'Reilly (Uncle Jim's favorite) in my local newspaper every Saturday. I decided that I would read this column every week in honor of Uncle Jim. Most weeks I end up scratching my head. Sometimes I am surprised at how much I am not upset or offended about what he has to say. At other times I get a little angry. Last week I finished the column and thought, "What the heck was that?"

I can only assume that it is because he has nothing else to write about that O'Reilly is being critical of Rev Jeremiah Wright, former pastor to then Senator Barack Obama. You might remember that in the summer of 2008, almost two years ago, Wright proved to be an embarrassment to the Obama presidential campaign when videos of apparently racist sermons came to light.

At that time I was not very concerned about the issue. I am sure that a part of my attitude toward Wright and his words had to do with my support of Obama. I was (and am) a supporter and someone who is unrelated to his campaign was not going to sway my opinion.

A second reason for my cavalier attitude, however, was that I am a pastor. I have an idea that although people in my churches generally agree with comments I make in my sermons, 1) I am not fool enough to believe that everyone agrees with everything I have to say all the time. 2) Even if they agree with me, there is very little change in people because of what I say. And 3) If everyone who has ever disagreed with me left my church (as the Obamas ultimately did), my church would be empty this week.

I thought then, and I still believe, that the pastor of a candidate should be a non-issue in a campaign. Even though we try to be, we are just not that important to most people.

So now, when I had all but forgotten about Rev Wright and his shenanigans, O'Reilly offers the Chicago clergyman some free publicity. Throughout the article he belittles Wright and his beliefs, but ultimately, he has played right into the wishes of Rev Wright and his ilk. I had no idea about the "Living Legends Tribute" that Wright has planned. I am sure that I would have never known about it. It would have completely escaped me that Wright was honoring himself, Louis Farrakhan and Father Michael Pfleger. And although I have no desire to attend the event and I would never support it, it is completely possible that someone will attend this fund-raiser thanks to the free publicity that Bill O'Reilly gave it.

Good job, Bill. What were you thinking?

I Don't Wanna be Right

The other day I met a person that I almost instantly disliked. He was arrogant, self-confident and self-assured. But the worst thing about him was that he was right. O, he was not right in the conventional sense. It was not a matter of having the right ideas, beliefs or opinions. His rightness was not even based on the conservative nature of his political opinions. He was right because he "knew" he was right.

This is a great problem in America today. There are way too many people who have traded truth and justice for being right. In fact, there are millions of people who are so right that they do not even need to consider the opinions or thoughts of others. They can not possibly improve their position by listening to anyone else. (I hope that you can hear the sarcasm in my writing.)

These people who are right- you know some of them (maybe you)- are characterized by a few common traits.

• Because they are right, they cannot imagine an alternative. They can easily become offended or agitated at the suggestion that there might be other options. There is no need for discussion, negotiation or compromise. I am right, after all. And anyone who does not agree with me is necessarily wrong and has nothing of value to add to the conversation.
• Because they are right, they can feel superior to others. And why not? If I am right I am superior. Why should I even pay attention to anyone else?
• Because they are right, they become offended and/ or angry with anyone who disagrees. Just like a child on the playground who had the ball first, if I am right you should not even try to convince me, or anyone else, otherwise.

Let me tell you a secret: I am not right very often. I mess up all the time. I spout off and have to eat my words. I pray regularly that God would show me his ways and lead me away from my own interests. It is amazing how often my thoughts and God's are in opposition to one another.

Celebrate the truth when you are right. But be careful because tomorrow you might wake up to find that you are an obnoxious, opinionated, self-righteous dope. Don't let this ugly thing happen to you.

My Take on the Recession

I am not an expert on economics. In fact, I can barely balance my own check book. More frequently than I would like, I find myself counting the days until my next paycheck. No matter how much money I have or make, I feel like I need just a little bit more.

And therein lies the cause of the recession.

Yes, I am the cause of the recession. But so are you.

Our economy has been built on several factors. Some of them are not so attractive.

• Madison Avenue. Our world, our value and our sense of self-worth has been developed by marketing campaigns from corporate advertising people. These people are able to convince you and I that we need the latest product, the fastest car, the sexiest jeans. We become certain that if we do not buy our clothes at the designer boutique that there is something wrong with us. Consequently, we begin to judge others by whether or not they are shopping at the latest place, or wearing the latest look.
• Needing the unnecessary. A corollary implication to the marketing of the world is that we become convinced that we need things that are completely unnecessary. For example, I have a computer at my office and at my home. I am able to access high speed internet at both locations. Why then do I feel the need for a laptop computer as well. And if I get a new laptop (which I am sure that I do not need) will I then discover that I need a smart phone as well?
• Credit Mindset. Our world is built on the "reality" that you no longer need to save and wait for a purchase. You can get what you want right now. I can use a charge card to get things. And too many people fall into the trap over and over again. We get too much debt, too quickly.
• Avarice and Greed. Finally, we accept and applaud the very things that have put us where we are. We encourage people to get as much as they can. We believe- at least with our actions- that greed is good. We reward those who have the most, save the most, earn the most and keep the most. Our whole world encourages greed and consumption. It is no wonder that our landfills are full.

We must always remember, however, that the message of Jesus was to give and to care for the poor.

A New Day

So I read a bulletin on MySpace questioning whether or not Barack Obama was the best man to be President. It was a thoughtful entry written by a high school student who wondered if perhaps Obama would not have won if he was not an African-American. Here is a part of my response to that young patriot.

I believe that Obama would have won this election anyway for at least three reasons.

1. We are suffering from Bush overload. There have just been too many mistakes, misjudgments and missteps in the last eight years. You may be too young to remember (although I am sure you know this), Bush never had a strong mandate from the electorate. He lost the popular vote in 2000 and barely won in 2004. Because USA was never fully behind Bush, his policies were scrutinized more closely. Between the two wars, the economy and the erosion of civil rights, coupled with the increase in executive authority, almost any decent democrat would have won this election.
   
2. Barack Obama is won of the most inspiring and eloquent speakers we have seen in a long time. He causes people to believe that we can be a better place, a better people, a better country. No politician has done this since Robert Kennedy in 1968. (I don't remember that, but I have read about him.) If Obama was a white man with the same gifts and beliefs, I think he would have won the election.
   
3. He did get a lot of votes simply because he was black. Our problem, as middle-class white people, is that we have no clue how significant that is for African-Americans. We have always had candidates who looked, acted and talked just like us. Obama's victory was as large as it was largely because he became a symbol for African-Americans and minorities all across America.
   

I think that most people who voted for Obama truly believe that he is the best man for the job. These other factors support that idea.

A New Moral Code?

I have written often here about how Christians have their morals all messed up. We are not afraid to point to the sins of homosexuals, pedophiles and polygamists, but shrink back from the more common and problematic sexual sins of infidelity, divorce and sex trafficking. I do not want to be misunderstood, I believe that all sexual sins are bad. As a Christian I affirm that God ordained people to have sexual relationships only in the context of a committed, exclusive marriage.

But the bigger problem is that Christians have focused only on sexual sins when considering morals. This cannot be. This was brought to my attention this week in an article by Brian McLaren. http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=4248

In an analysis of what he terms "economic fundamentalism," McLaren references "the kind of religious fundamentalism that equates morality with sexuality." It is sad that Christians have forgotten, or at least ignored all the other elements of a Christian morality except for the sexual parts.

• Peace. Christians should be advocating for peace on earth (all year long).
• Prosperity. I hesitate to use the word prosperity, but in this context I am meaning that it is ridiculous for people anywhere in the world, and certainly in America, to be in poverty.
• Health. Can we be a moral people if we ignore the health care needs of large parts of our population?
• Education. One of the fundamentals of success in life is ensuring that everyone is educated.

There are many more aspects to morality, but that should get you started. Do not be suckered into this idea that moral issues = sexual issues. It is way more than that.

Atmosfear

What is wrong with our world? I know that things are not exactly great right now. We are involved in two wars that we cannot win. Our economy is in the toilet and no one seems to know how to fix it, or even if it can be fixed. There is turmoil all over the world. Our families are going to pot. There is a consistent (constant?) threat of terrorism everywhere we go. All of this leads to what I call an atmosphere of fear, or an atmosfear.

In America we elected a new president, from a different party than the current administration, and we all celebrate and look forward to one of the greatest signs of American freedom and democracy: the peaceful transition of power. The whole world is celebrating a new day of policy in America. And yet, in the USA we have an atmosfear.

Consider these signs:

• In the weeks immediately following the election gun sales skyrocketed in anticipation of more restrictive laws in the new administration.
• Talk of assassinations and terrorist attacks have increased everywhere.
• White people have become paranoid about how the new government will try to "get back at them" or "even the scales."
• Many people that I know are "afraid" about what the future holds.

I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, I am afraid that much of the fear that many are experiencing is a ruse. It is code language for a subtle racism. People are afraid because they are white, and whether they realize it or not, they are exhibiting a bit of prejudice. There is nothing to fear from a democratically elected administration in the USA.

Secondly, atmosfear is the calling card of certain political elements that have had a lot of control of events over the last seven- eight years. As long as people are afraid, they can be manipulated. As long as we think things will get worse, we can be controlled.

I, for one, am tired of being afraid. Perhaps there are cases when fear is a wise state to be in, but fear is one step better than paranoid. Paranoid is just a short trip away from exhausted. I am already too tired to get paranoid. And although it may not always be the wisest choice, to the best of my ability I am not going to be afraid. I am going to try my best to live my life with joy.

Gay Marriage??

Although the issue of same sex marriage has not been very prominent in the current campaign season, there is still an undercurrent of discontent among those- usually evangelical Christians- who are opposed to it. There are movements for constitutional amendments, judicial prohibitions and legislative action to end this "abomination" that is certain to "destroy the fabric of the American family."

However, there are a lot of things that are already in place in our culture that really do threaten our families. There are practices that we tolerate and embrace that erode the foundation of 'traditional' families all around us. And yet, as a general rule, we do not perform the same kind of protest against any of these.

• Divorce
• Adultery
• Drinking
• Gambling
• Fornication
• Lying
• Driving over the speed limit
• Cheating on your income tax
• Looking the other way
• Pirating music
• Pirating movies
• Sharing copyrighted computer files
• Buying term papers
• Gossiping
• Slandering
• Being hateful

Every one of these- and many more- are clearly sin when viewed in light of the Bible. Everyone of these is against the will of God. Some of these are even illegal. Every one will lead to other sins and/ or be injurious to your own virtue. Consequently, every one of these sins will unravel the fabric of your family.

So the question is this: Why is gay marriage so much more important than any other? 

If you are going to be serious about standing up for God's will and word, then you must begin by having a consistent life that seeks to obey at every point.

The Most Important Issues

I am almost finished with my political entries for this blog, at least for now. But I do want to address a significant issue: The Misappropriation of Concern. Many Christians have made the decision that some political topics and stands are more important, Christian, moral or spiritual than others. I agree. Not every policy has the same theological or spiritual significance. For example, distinctions in tax policy (who deserves a tax cut) are less morally important than how we address the needs of Americans without health care coverage.

The most profound effect of this problem is in the number of people who have decided that abortion will be the litmus test for all candidates and all policies. Again, let me assure you that I am completely pro-life. If there is any question about that, please read my earlier posts on this issue. However, I cannot support a candidate who is "pro-life," but is opposed to my beliefs on every other issue.

Can I support a candidate who favors abortion, but opposes war, for example? Is there a way that I can take a position of concern on several issues and yet violate those principles based only on one problem?

There are many Christians who have decided that there are two issues that are the most important in this election. They are opposed to abortion and to same sex marriage. These well-meaning and faithful Christians have now decided that the most important issues are the only important issues. They are willing to support unfair tax policy, oppression of the poor, unilateral imperialistic military policy, disregard for the oppressed peoples of the world and a lack of health care for all people- all things that Jesus would speak out against- in order to maintain faithfulness to those two issues.

I have a friend who is a Mennonite. The Mennonites are close theological relatives to the Amish. They are a "peace" people. As such they oppose all acts of war, aggression, violence or oppression. This, among other things, is what makes them distinctive. I asked my friend about this coming election. He shook his head and was a little embarrassed to say that he was supporting the candidate that favors the war. He said the other issues were just too important. Did you read that? 

There are many Christians, not just Mennonites, who have traded their beliefs (and their souls) for a promised political end. Be careful when you vote. Be cautious when you make decisions.

Justifying Our Sin?

I've been thinking a lot about being pro-life. If you read this blog regularly you know where I stand on the issue of abortion. (I am against it.) In fact, I try to be completely and consistently pro-life. This has implications for several areas of life and the political world. Pro-life views relate to guns, war, health care, capital punishment. All of these are significant issues that, taken together, can provide a "pro-life worldview."

But this week I have been think especially about abortion. We are less than one week from a presidential election in the USA. There are many people- mostly evangelical Christians and Catholics- who are voting primarily on the issue of abortion. This seems to be a wasted vote, as far as I am concerned. For six of the last eight years there has been a "pro-life" majority in both houses of Congress and the White House, and no substantial movement in this area has been made. Now the biggest concession that I have seen is a movement to allow exceptions to anti-abortion laws.

As outrageous and evil as abortion is, the current mood of the anti-abortion movement is to allow for exceptions. There should be certain cases, the argument goes, when abortions would be allowed. The most common reasons for allowing an abortion include the health and safety of the mother and the instances of rape and incest. That is, that women whose health may be threatened by carrying and delivering a full-term child would be allowed to terminate their pregnancy. Other women, who have conceived through the violent actions of others, would likewise be allowed to abort.

My first problem with these exceptions is that I believe that all humans have sacred value. No matter how small, or how old, every human being is given worth by God. What makes a mother more important than an unborn child? Why is her health more important than the health of a child? Why do we consider her security and mental state more important than that of her child?

But more importantly, and this is where I had a 'eureka' moment this week, if abortion is a sin, it is a sin. There should be no cases where it is not a sin to have an abortion. Is it less sinful if a gossip about a person who hurt my feelings than one who did not? We may justify one as an understandable payback, but both cases are gossip nonetheless.

The fact that a mother is uncomfortable, stressed or in danger does not mean that killing a child is not a sin. The fact that a child may be born with disabilities does not justify killing the child. A sin is a sin. Abortion is a sin.

How We Got in the Mess We're In

If you have read much of this blog you know about my spiritual, religious and theological convictions. Although I try very hard to be culturally relevant and current in political and world affairs, I am primarily a Christian Man. My main focus in life is to follow Jesus and to do his work. This is a problem because the work of Jesus typically is done in the framework and context of the Christian church.

The Bible gives a very clear perspective of what the church should be. In the New Testament book of Acts, the church is pictured as being concerned with the complete (holistic) state of humanity. There is a definite emphasis on spiritual issues, but the physical, emotional and relationship concerns of individuals are not concerned.

Jesus, and his first followers were very interested in the needs and concerns of the whole person. So we see Jesus feeding hungry people. The earliest church shared their resources so that all could be taken care of. No one was without because everyone voluntarily pitched in. The church has been, and still should be, concerned with the physical needs of all people, whether they claim to be followers of God or not.

The church has failed, however.

Sometime along the line, I am not sure when this happened, the church quit fulfilling its obligation to the whole person. In fact, many within the church now neglect- and even reject- any responsibility for caring for anything more than the basic spiritual needs of the community. We do not want to be bothered with the sick, poor, imprisoned, homeless... (well, you get the picture).

There have been periods in our history, and now may be one of them, when there were serious social, economic and emotional needs in communities. When there are needs to be met, someone must meet them. Unfortunately, when the church has not stepped in to do its job, the government has been forced to do it. We have a huge government because the church has failed in caring for the needs of the community.

I do not have a solution for this situation. It would be great if the church if the church could resume its rightful place in society and care for these needs. At this point, however, I cannot see this as feasible. The church is unprepared and unable to serve at the same rate as the government is currently. But something needs to happen. If the church did what it was supposed to we would have...

• larger churches
• a greater percentage of people committed to Christ
• lower taxes
• smaller government
• a more positive perception of the church.

Isn't it time that the church did something good, for a change?

Consistently Pro-Life, part 2

In an earlier post I declared my commitment to the pro-life movement. I am unashamedly and unreservedly anti-abortion. I can think of no reason why abortion is ever a good idea. However, I have a lot of reservations about the so-called pro-life movement. Some of those I outlined earlier. Other reservations I will not go into except to say that too often those who are pro-life are naive and too easily manipulated by political operatives.

For now, let me raise the issue of consistency. Many individuals who consider themselves to be pro-life have not taken the time to consider all the implications of their beliefs. For if we are to be "pro-life," we must be pro-life in all aspect of life and on all political issues.

• Gun Control. If we are going to be in favor of life, we should support measures that protect all life. Therefore, it should not be too much to ask that we regulate the ownership and use of certain guns. I can think of no reason for a private citizen to own an automatic weapon or an assault rifle. Many lives could be saved each year with careful regulation and oversight of gun ownership. It is frequently the same people who are pro-life and pro-gun. 
• Health Care. All people should have access to the latest advancements in medical technology. Unfortunately, often those who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to greater access to health care.
• Euthanasia. The end of life is just as valuable, and sacred, as the beginning. We cannot neglect the elderly in institutions and in private homes who are forgotten and taken for granted.
• Capital Punishment. Here is the big one. We cannot continue to condemn people to hell by putting them to death. I choose to be pro-life by opposing abortion and the death penalty. Just because someone is a criminal it does not mean that his life is not precious to God. Again, it is the same people who favor expanding capital punishment and restricting abortion.
• Assisted Suicide. Do not tell me that a person should be allowed to take his life. Do not talk about merciful doctors who provide drugs and counsel to end a life. Being pro-life means opposing those who practice this and holding them accountable.
• War. I know that there is a long history of "just war" from at least the time of Augustine. I am also well aware of the Old Testament commands of God to annihilate enemies. But, I also know and love committed Christian pacifists who love and obey God. I am not ready to become a pacifist, but I am trying to struggle with how I can be pro-life and support military action.

There you have it. We pro-lifers need to get our ducks in a row. I can no longer live with these inconsistencies in my life. I challenge you to evaluate and change where you need to as well.

Consistently Pro-Life

It is election season and that means that there are some people (some Christians) who are making decisions about who they will vote for based on one issue: abortion. They call themselves pro-life because it sounds a lot better than being anti-abortion.

I have nothing against being pro-life. In fact, I do not know anyone who is more "anti-abortion" than I am. I can think of no reason to ever have an abortion. If a life in the womb is sacred- and I believe it is- there are no circumstances that should prevent the birth of the child. If the mother's health is in danger I ask, "Is the mother's health more important than the child's?" If the child were conceived due to rape or incest- two of the most heinous exceptions- I ask, "What is it about that conception which makes this child less valuable?"

I am definitely pro-life and I will go toe-to-toe with anyone on that issue. However, I refuse to make abortion the only issue that decides my vote. There are several reasons for this.

• The pro-life politicians have done nothing to change the laws in this country to eliminate or decrease the number of abortions. In the last 40 years there have been pro-life presidents for 32. In six of the last eight years we have had a pro-life congress and a pro-life president. And yet, there has been no significant (or insignificant) change in abortion law.
• Although abortion is a terrible thing in this country, there are other issues that should be taken into account. Should we focus on abortion only when our nation is losing an unnecessary war? Should we put a priority on abortion when our economy is crumbling? Should abortion be our only issue when our poor are uneducated, untrained and uncared for?
• Our focus on abortion distracts us from the real work of renewing the world and ushering in the Kingdom of God. If we were more effective in evangelism there would be fewer abortions.

I know that this is a difficult situation, but we need to consider all the options before we buy into a political agenda that may be only propaganda. I say that we should be pro-life. But let's begin a movement that is completely and authentically pro-life.

My Candidate

Here is something I have decided. It is still one month until the election in the US. In my town we are electing a President/Vice-President, Governor, US Representative, State Senator and State Representative. In addition there are several county posts up for grabs this year. I have been following the races pretty closely and I have come up with one thing for sure.

I have already decided who I will vote for in every race.

That is probably not that unusual. I think a lot of people have probably decided who they will be voting for. But I have noticed something peculiar about my election attitude this year.

My candidate can do no wrong. The other candidate seems like a buffoon. I am sure that this is only my perception, but it seems that every day the latest campaign news only serves to confirm my decision. When my candidate makes a statement or a policy decision it seems insightful, articulate and profound. When the opposing candidate makes a comment I tend to roll my eyes with a "that's what I thought he would do/say" attitude.

Every move by the opponent seems to be a huge mistake. Everything my guy does only serves to reinforce all the good things that I know about him.

I am sure that I am exaggerating this situation, but I am giving myself a caution. My attitude smacks of close-mindedness and intolerance. And although those are often prized as virtues in the world of politics, they are not in the real world. I must be careful to avoid judgmentalism and prejudice at every turn.