JRogerW's Xanga

More to Guinness than a Beverage

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:02:42 GMT

I did not grow up among beer drinkers, yet I was not surrounded by people who preached against beer either. I had a grandfather who like his beer, and I tasted it when I was pretty small...didn't really like it! My other grandparents were pretty strong Christians, and that grandmother belonged to the WCTU, the Women's Christian Temperance Union. Somehow, in the midst of those extremes, I probably was not far from thinking a lot like my forebears in Ireland.

By college, I was going to a Baptist church that opposed all alcoholic beverages, which was no big deal since I didn't drink anyway. When I visited Europe on a tour with a singing group, I tried Swiss beer in the Alps which I thought was wonderful. Obviously, my more than half German blood recognized its heritage; besides the dark beer we drank was low alcohol, dark, and very different from what I'd ever tasted back in the U. S.

Nevertheless, in time, I became a Baptist pastor although I never shared their strong anti-alcohol bias. I taught what the Bible says, emphasizing the prohibition of drunkenness. With all that as a backdrop, I guess it's no surprise I'd pick up a book like The Search for God and Guinness: A Biography of the Beer That Changed the World, especially with such a provocative title.

For someone living in the United States where excessive beer drinking has become a think of frat parties and dissolute living, it is hard to imagine beer as a force for anything positive. Author Stephen Mansfield appropriately devotes his first chapter, “Before There was Guinness.” As he admits, and I agree, the history of beer is a remarkably positive one but one unfamiliar to most of us. Because water was often unfit to drink, beer's low alcohol content killed germs in the water, making it a healthful alternative. What a surprise it was to learn that the Pilgrims and Puritans loved and needed their beer!

The story of the Guinness family is more than the story of how Guinness beer became world famous, making the Guinness family wealthy. It is also the story of a generous family who success, in part, arose from their caring attitudes for their workers, long before unions or the sense that the lower classes were also human beings. It came, too, from a love for their city and country where they invested in helping those in need beyond their own family or employees. Then, for some Guinnesses, their wealth enabled them to become pastors and evangelists for Christ.

The Search for God and Guinness is the story of an Irish Christian family whose faith avoided the clashes between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, thus bringing glory rather than shame to the name of Christ. In a day when some scorn both wealth and success in business or regard the accumulation of wealth as a matter of “luck,” this story shows both the ups and downs that the Guinness family faced through its history—the ravages of illness, the destruction of war, and family misfortune—and how the faith and determination of the Guinnesses overcame it all.

Can We Agree to Disagree?

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:52:37 GMT

Is unity possible within the Body of Christ? Can there be unity without uniformity of belief? Are we able to enjoy fellowship in love even if we disagree about various doctrinal or practical matters? That was an honest question at a recent gathering of Christians, but it isn't a new one. Certainly, we see little of civil disagreement in the world, not even when they deny absolutes and affirm relativistic ideas. However, can even Christians do this?

It is a fair question for the Church, given Christendom's history of conflict and division. The antagonism within the family of God is a scandal, one that has rendered us powerless and robbed the Church of the influence it once had. In the first two thousand years, the Church turned the world upside down and created what we know as Western Civilization. Yet, during the same 2000 years, those bearing the name of Christ often fought with each other. Once they no longer faced persecution by the Roman Empire and achieved influential status, Christians, both nominal and genuine, began to seek earthly power. As the ideas of the Reformation began to challenge some of the worst distortions, charges of heresy, threats of excommunication, and even torture and execution became tools to force agreement, Catholic and Reformer alike. After experiencing the dangers of combined spiritual and civil authority together , the idea of separating the two became prevalent. Yet even with the lure of earthly power largely gone, Christians continued to seek control of the Church or at least some portion of it. Even the leadership of a small group of followers seems to be sufficient enticement to encourage division and strife.

Ego, what we often call pride today, tends to demand agreement. People find reassurance in the agreement of others. Being able to look down on those with other opinions strokes the egos, as well, giving opinionated people even greater cause to focus on the disagreements. In the worst cases, some count those who disagree as pagans, heretics, or unbelievers; in the better situations, they regard dissenters as second class Christians. Ironically, some of the strongest, most vitriolic arguments focus on ideas with relatively little conclusive support, let alone definitive proof that one position is superior to the other.

Let us also acknowledge that money contributes powerfully to division. Perhaps not as clearly as in politics, a party spirit becomes a tool for raising funds. “We must defeat the other side” is a terrible reflection on the mercies of our heavenly Father and the gracious forgiveness of our Savior. How dare any one, in Jesus' name, intentionally divide what he created to be one? It is more than mere ignorance to ignore the plain words that say, “May they be one as I and the Father are one,” and “Love one another as I have loved you.” We all struggle with the urgings of our fallen pride, but to reject his clear and often repeated commands for financial gain is grossly repugnant. Furthermore, nothing is more likely to repel an unbeliever that religious profiteering.

Power, ego, and money are a potent trio driving believers apart. While it might be considered as mere ego, human nature tends to prefer agreement, what we often call compatibility. As both sacred and secular communities become more divided and hostile, even our most important relationships struggle to overcome disagreement. A person may be attracted to another who thinks and acts in different ways, but the passage of time often demonstrates that agreement is often preferred. God designed male and female to be complementary, so that together a couple would be more complete than either individual alone. Many other factors—personality, family history, education, experience—add to the diversity, which God intends to enrich individual lives through marriage, as well as friendship and Christian fellowship.

The Church, more than any other relationship or organization, should benefit from diversity of calling and giftedness. No believer should fear fresh ideas or find the various perspectives of others uncomfortable. God provides these numerous perspectives and personalities for the good of the ministry that serves him. No single person possesses all the gifts, is capable of seeing all insights without help, or knows all truth. God's word is complex, even in its original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Translation adds further complexity and confusion because the very nature of language—definitions of words, the use of verb tenses, the presence of idioms, etc.—varies from one to another. Every translation has some degree of interpretation.

On the one hand, have many people seeking to understand the Bible helps all of us to get more of the truth from it. I rarely fail to appreciate the insights of another pastor, who has worked to comprehend the meaning of a text, even though I may disagree. Thus, on the other hand, the end result of a complex Scripture and numerous interpreters will unavoidably be disagreement. Dare we tolerate such a thing? Not only can we, but we must accept and love our brothers and sisters when we do not agree, especially with regard to something as important as God's Word. Further, I believe it will be our choosing to do so, to remain as one family and, when necessary, to reconcile those relationships, that will enable us eventually and in many cases to find agreement that satisfies most of us. This, I believe, is God's intent.

Not only is our natural variedness something we can accept and from which we may gain, but I believe God has alternatives to overcome that deadly trio of causes of division. To start, God doesn't need money, and often we don't need the money we think we must have to do his work. More importantly, we will fail at doing his work if money becomes the overriding consideration. How many very public ministries have taken in huge amounts of money, ostensibly for the purpose of evangelism, only to become a scandal to the ultimate harm of the Church's outreach? This reminds me of Bob Briner's Deadly Detours, things that well-meaning Christians seek to do, but end up doing in a manner that violates love, grace, or integrity. I believe, however, that we are equally at fault if we allow or even support a money-grubbing phoney, especially one who pretends to be right while accusing others of being wrong.

Christian leaders often have strong personalities—I know that I do! Perhaps it takes such strength to take up the challenges in a call from God. However, those with big egos need to see the temptations they face and resist them, temptations like demanding agreement from followers. God has no interest in cults of personality among his people. Ordinary Christians need to have the wisdom to avoid allegiance to men, whom we should follow ONLY as they follow Christ. I believe leaders should all have mentors to whom they are accountable, and I also think it good if there are believers under their teaching who have the grace and courage to “pull the rug” from under those whose egos get too big. It never hurts to remember that God uses “the foolish in order to confound the wise,” and sometimes even the weak to do what we imagine only human strength can accomplish. In other words, God doesn't need egos any more than he needs money, and he surely is displeased when ego-driven men or women divide his people.

What about power? Frankly, power offers false security in earthly reckoning. So many of us fall into the trap of believing that power is the key to safety, thereby trading earthly, human power for God's limitless power. Bad men use people to gain power, and I doubt it is ever truly for good. God says, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit.” The only legitimate power God offers, the only power that is true power, comes through and by his Spirit. When a person disobeys, using strife and division to gain power, in any measure, he grieves the Spirit and loses true power. I might fear the power of a Hitler or Bin Ladin, but I prefer the power of a godly man. In the end, those who use power to oppress--an almost impossible temptation to resist--will find themselves standing in judgment before the very power of God. That's a place I would hope to avoid, except in the loving embrace of the Savior and shielded by his forgiving grace.

So, obedient followers of Christ will avoid recruiting followers to gain power, satisfy their egos, or get money. They will strive to be a force for unity, even when the personalities and ideas of some threaten to drive them crazy. I have been working to do this for a while, and it works. We can get along and work with people with different opinions, especially the issues are relatively minor. I am not a charismatic, but I relate to and work with many who are. I have fairly strong Calvinistic beliefs but accept those who don't. I have many reservations about how the end times will play out, but it rarely ever is an issue in my associations. I have music preferences, I try to find worship that fits my tastes, but I worship when other kinds of music are used. Indeed, the unity already exists; we only work to preserve what God has already done!

How should Christians relate to Christians who disagree about major theological matters? Jesus taught that we should love one another, love our neighbors as ourselves, and love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. Is there any category of people we are not to love? If not, then the task is to deal with disagreements constructively, beginning by loving those who disagree--kindly, patiently, and respectfully. If a believer concludes that another confessed believer is seriously in error, then the task is to reason and persuade lovingly. If unsuccessful, then pray that God will reveal error wherever it may be (Of course, prayer is not the last resort; believers should pray for the lost, those in error, brothers and sisters caught in sin, and for other believers). Nowhere is there justification for anger, rejection, or strife.

Is there ever a time when believer should “separate” from other believers? After all, Paul says, “Come out and be separate from them.” The primary intent of this principle is for believers, especially new converts, to separate themselves from the immoral activities of unbelievers or, to be clear, make a clear break from their sinful behavior and those who shared in it, not to be yoked to things contrary to faith, especially idolatry. Once adopted into God's family, our primary fellowship and our deepest connections will be with our brothers and sisters. However, if anything, we love our former companions even more, seeking their salvation. If a fellow Christian falls into sin, he or she should be lovingly confronted in order to urge them to stop, repent, and be reconciled. At a certain point, the Church may agree to take the step of treating the unrepentant sinner as an unbeliever, denying them of the normal fellowship of believers; we then pray for them, seek their salvation, and continue to love them.

Believers naturally gravitate toward those who share their opinions and tastes. I'm not convinced that this is wrong, unless it is accompanied by antagonism and harsh criticism of others. The reality of our current situation suggests Christians can no longer afford to be divided into hostile camps, which are, in fact, not Biblically justifiable at any time. Many congregations have removed the denominational labels from their public names, seeing that they discourage interest. That only helps if the corresponding hostility is also removed.

In the end, we serve one God. We are members of one family. God has called us to be one, to stand together in unity, and to love one another. The answer to the question, “Can we agree to disagree?” must be a concerted effort to love each other regardless of our differences and to present a harmonious Church to the unchurched world. In the end, differences and a variety of opinions help us more than harm us, leading us to broader understanding and better, more productive relationships.

Many Voices...One Song

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:58:40 GMT

I have sung in choirs and ensembles for more than 40 years. I have also directed them. For me, the coming together of different voices or instruments, each with its individual sound, is a beautiful metaphor of the church, as each comes together to contribute its uniqueness to create one glorious, harmonious sound. I guess it's fitting, then, that a true story of shaping such a sound would demonstrate God's hand.

In my mind, country music has always glorified hard living, heavy drinking, and cheating on your woman; from this you might assume I'm not a country music fan. I'm not especially fond of biographies either--no reason, just my preference. So how did I end having good things to say about Beautiful Mess: The Story of Diamond Rio?

When I picked up the book, I literally knew nothing about Diamond Rio except the name. Besides knowing they were a country group, I assumed some connection to the auto company, which had a plant a few blocks from where I lived for 20 years, but that was Diamond Reo.

“Beautiful Mess,” as you may already know, is one of Diamond Rio's hits, a true love song without drinking or cheating, just as the book is kind of a love song for a remarkable group of 6 guys with a truly excellent sound. It tells the story of how those six men, guided by the hand of providence, not only came to be much loved artists, but also survived the typical pitfalls that usually tear such groups apart. Author Tom Roland traces their beginnings with Opyland, recounts the individual stores of each member, shares the impact of a musicians worst nightmare, and finally shows how that divine hand took Diamond Rio into a place where He wanted them.

Those who are already fans of Diamond Rio will enjoy getting better acquanted with them as separately and corporately. Those who are, like me, not familiar will find their story inspiring and, if they choose to check it out, their music worth hearing. Regardless, readers will see gifted and yet ordinary men, who deal with all the usual struggles of life, especially celebrity life, support each other, rise above the challenges, and hold their group together. Perhaps, most touching were the acknowledgments, usually placed at the beginning, which were the final pages of the book.

Beautiful Mess reminds me of Romans 9:21, where Paul describes us as a blob of clay to be shaped by God's hands. Like each of us, none of these guys are perfect. Yet, despite and, to some extent, because of their unique imperfections, God blended them together to become a much loved and highly regarded country band.

Noir Bizarre Book--Cool!!

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:52:23 GMT

I've spent most of my adult life in ministry where I often dealt with the most difficult aspects of life—sickness, tragedy, conflict, and death. When I took time to read, I often chose what I generally refer to as “escapist fiction.” I work in the real world, and I prefer to relax in worlds far away. Science fiction, fantasy, mystery, adventure, thrillers, and an occasional horror novel. I read good Christian authors when I can find them, but that's never been a requirement.

T. L. Hines writes “noir bizarre stories,” not a category I'd ever heard of before and not one I'd have picked up, on my own. However, I find that I like this unique kind of fiction. Faces in the Fire ties the lives of four people together with a number and the image of a catfish, telling the story in reverse order, and showing how each character discoveries the key to their personal deliverance and healing. Do these folk experience some kind of benevolent magic or the hand of God? That is for the reader to determine, although I'm not sure it matters. Indeed, it is equally uncertain whether redemption comes from an external source or from the riving of the good inside each one.

I often re-read good books, in time, but I could see myself reading Faces in the Fire again soon. I will also be looking for other “noir bizarre” books by T. L. Hines.

* * * * * *

One of Hines' characters refers to herself as a "bottom feeder." We often call them "down and out." When I was younger, I spoke regularly at the city rescue mission in Cleveland, Ohio, and I remember seeing many such people. Drunk and addicts who have often lost everything and everyone to live just for the next fix. Such people live at the lowest levels of society, incapable of regular work, scrounging for the money the need to pay for drugs or alcohol and virtually neglecting everything.

How do people end up in such circumstances? It's easy for those living comfortable lives far removed from where "bottom feeders" live to make assumptions, often invalid assumptions. Many once lived in those comfortable lives, at least appeared to do so. Nice clothes and pleasant neighborhoods readily conceal dark secrets and private pain. Nobody starts out as a bottom feeder; mistakes--their own or those of others--drive them to the bottom. Hurt, broken, and hopeless--these are the people Christ came to save. In the end, bottom feeders are nothing more or less than sinners in need of the Savior.

Sadly, some, far too many, are already his. Salvation alone may not keep a person from hitting rock bottom. An often used term is "back-slider," but the direction isn't just backward but downward. Sometimes an early decision for Christ brings joy and enthusiasm, followed by seemingly unbearable pain, sorrow, and grief. Neither labels nor theological disagreements must prevent a person from hearing that Jesus still delivers, heals, and gives hope, if we will receive it.

Sacrifice Misapplied and Misunderstood

Tue, 26 May 2009 00:56:15 GMT

"No person was ever honored for what he received.

Honor has been the reward for what he gave."—Calvin Coolidge

“Nor was he honored for what he took or forced other to give”—Roger Wilson

We’ve heard a great deal, recently, about the virtue of sacrifice, but it’s not the first time. I recall working with a ministry that did the same thing. This is not the virtue of voluntary, Christ-like sacrifice, something that each believer is challenged to do. No, this sacrifice is engineered by someone else, thus crossing the line from virtue to evil.

One person led the ministry I mentioned, a person who excelled in accomplishing big things with minimal resources. That was a gift, and it enabled them to accomplish much through their sacrifice. I have sacrificed much in order to continue to tutor refugees, but it is my choice, one I make because I care about my students. I won’t say I never regret the outcome when it “pinches”, but I never regret the choice or the reason I’ve made it. Like I said, it was my choice; no one imposed it on me, as was theirs. However, their attempt to force those who work for them to accept sacrifice unnecessarily moves from thrift to cheapness.

If a ministry pays substandard, non-competitive wages out of necessity, then those who choose to work for that ministry accept sacrifice with the job. However, if the ministry is simply cheap, paying low wages without reason, then they demonstrate something less than spiritual. It’s even worse when a government demands sacrifice with its power to force compliance. Recently, we have seen officials force sacrifice onto citizens in the name of some greater good; however, it is clear that the ultimate goal is simply power. In fact, the sledgehammer being used is a trillion dollar fund, created by means of the largest debt in human history.

This is not about parties or personalities but a perspective that has been evident for some time. In fact, the first glimmers in this country were mere echoes of the same attitude in what became the Soviet Union. An author named Ayn Rand wrote about its result, over there, in a book called “We the Living,” a sad but compelling story of the deprivations and abuses in her homeland. In another, “Atlas Shrugged,” she created an imaginary story on the imposition of sacrifice, in which the “consumers” expected the “producers” to sacrifice their ingenuity, creativity, hard work and resulting profit for the benefit of everyone else, many who did nothing to provide for themselves.

Rand was an atheist. I suspect part of the reason were the misguided Christians who favored Marxism (They're still around!) and imposed sacrifice; perhaps she also misunderstood the genuine virtue of sacrifice that God not only taught but modeled in the sacrificial death of Christ. Voluntary sacrifice is good, an expression of love and compassion, motivated by the One who loves us and gave His life for us. Compelled sacrifice isn’t true sacrifice; often it is merely theft, where the thief tries to manipulate the victim into accepting their deeds. Can governments steal? Of course, they can, but their robbery is typically massive. It is also insulting to have the robbers justify their acts as compassion. As anyone, who has worked with agents of the government, can tell you, government bureaucracy is rarely characterized by compassion.

When I invest my time and resources to help my refugee students, they see the sacrifice over the course of time and recognize the caring in my doing so. They sometimes react very clearly to the kindness they see in person. When the government takes from one person and gives it to another, however needy, with layers of government bureaucracy between, administered by someone who is often well-paid for their clerical duties but who often cares little for the client, neither the “giver” nor the recipient benefit from the any kindness or compassion in the act, for there is none!

What I do may inspire my students to their own acts of generosity; what they see and experience, they may copy. They also receive generously from the government since they have no family to support them. Foster families provide a home and, sometimes, a visible irony. The refugee teenager may get more in medical and dental benefits than the foster parents themselves do.

When government or anyone else, regardless of the motive, interferes with the simple principle of working to provide for oneself and family, it deprives us of independence and self-sufficiency. In a sense, it enslaves us, forcing us to work for someone other than self. When Paul writes, “Whatever you do, do it heartily as unto the Lord,” he seeks to raise the virtue of hard work to a higher level; slavery makes working nothing more than the avoidance of punishment, whether by the whip or by fines and imprisonment.

The big lie is the government’s promise to “take care of everything.” Imagine those who captured men to enslave them saying, “Don’t worry; your new master will take care of everything.” Did some slaves have a good life? A few often did, but they were still slaves. Did some slaves miss the security of their former place after emancipation? I wouldn’t be surprised that some did. Most people prefer freedom, even at the cost of working hard to provide their own security with the possibility of achieving far more.

Forced sacrifice is slavery. Voluntary sacrifice in service to Christ honors him. Christians who demand employees work for substandard wages do not honor Christ; they create resentment, deprive their employees of an honest wage, and often receive less than maximum effectiveness from them. Churches that underpay their pastor or staff, such as the church janitor, likewise dishonor Christ.

By comparison, parents who sacrifice for to put their children in Christian school serve the best interests of their children and honor the Savior. Spouses who put their wife or husband first, giving up other interests do the same. An employer who sacrifices in order to assure their workers receive adequate pay and benefits represents the spirit of Christ; the political leaders who does so is rare but all the more worthy of respect, since government agencies including schools are absurdly bloated and top-heavy.

As Coolidge said, there’s no honor in receiving, nor in taking or forcing others to give; there is no honor in manipulating what belongs to other people for any reason. The honor comes in giving, sharing, and using your own property, whether great or small, for the good of another. Our country’s leaders could stand to learn this. Many of the Church’s ministry leaders could, too. As Paul tells us Jesus said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Abandoned but Never Alone

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:35:31 GMT

Last time I wrote about community. Why is community important? Well, for one really big reason, we need each other because we were designed by God for connection, relationship, and love. Sadly, sin often messes things up. I recently chatted with a young woman who was really discouraged over a relationship that hadn't worked out. I wish I could say that is a rarity, but it is not. We suffer the loss of relationships in so many ways, and they always hurt (If they stop hurting, then something even worse has happened inside). However, despite the pain, there is hope and love, and it all centers on Jesus.

I recently watched The Passion of the Christ for a second time. For a believer, it is impossible not to be moved by what Jesus endured to purchase our salvation. The most obvious suffering is the physical abuse and torture, capped by the horrific agony of the crucifixion itself. Less apparent but of even greater torment was the abandonment Jesus experienced, first by his followers and friends, and finally by the Father when Jesus uttered in anguish, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Nothing we humans go through will ever match what he went through, although our ordeals may last longer, even though his words echo the words of the Psalmist describing both human experience and this ultimate sacrifice.

The people to whom I have been closest have been friends. I love my blood kin—mom, brothers, nieces and nephews, especially, and extended family, but I've never really been close to most of them, personally or spiritually. I somewhat envy those whose best friend is a brother or sister or perhaps a mom or dad—a conjunction of compatibility and godly parenting, I presume (since I don't believe in luck). Since I never married, I've never had that sort of closeness with a spouse, although I have had several lady friends over the years (once a fiancé). I never really had a close friend growing up, and that made friendship an even greater interest for me, as I became an adult.

I always thought it would be great to have an “alter ego,” “another I,” who was like me or with whom I was so perfectly compatible that we would become and remain fast friends for a lifetime (I note that some see this phrase in not so positive a light). As time and circumstances changed, those few friends that I thought might be growing that way, moved on. A few were really tough experiences, instances of abandonment that, I suppose, everyone experiences, at one time or another. To lose a friend is painful, and it has led me to consider all the ways in which people abandon, forsake, betray, or simply lose other people—some deserved, some undeserved, and some merely circumstantial. As I did, I also considered Jesus' experience and God's long-standing promise never to abandon or forsake us. That also suggests that we, as believers, need to embrace each other to bring love and faithfulness into the lives of those who've been hurt by loss; this is critical if we are to create the blessings of true community.

Relationships are undeniably important to us. God created us for relationship with himself and with other humans. God noted that being alone was not good for Adam, despite the relationship he already had with God. Tragically, his relationship with Eve, made to be his perfect companion, was damaged, almost immediately, by the choices each made. When God confronted them, they each tried to blame someone else—Adam blamed Eve, and Eve the serpent. Can you imagine the conversations between them after getting evicted from the Garden? Even then, in those perfect circumstances, self-doubt and personal failure led to broken relationships, between the first humans and between them and their Creator. Their choices made matters more difficult for those who followed.

Children normally enjoy good relationships with their parents and siblings; at adolescence, they begin to seek significant relationships with peers, both same gender friendships and dating relationships. In the secular culture, teens are encouraged to prefer these over their regard for parents and teachers, even though, historically, respect for one's elders was the norm (a value still honored in many other cultures). Nevertheless, through all of this, one thing is abundantly clear: relationships are important. Watch almost any teenager, and it will be obvious!

Sadly, fallen humans have retained the ability to abandon, forsake, and betray even their spouse and closest friends. In a twisted attempt to serve their own interests, prideful, self-focused men and women often betray their own needs and wishes. Parents neglect and abuse their children. Spouses betray and abuse the one they once loved dearly. Friends forsake and abandon friends, and sometimes become their worst enemies.

The disappointment of broken friendships begins in grade school. I recall kids in my classes talking about this person or that, wondering what they thought, telling stories of what someone had said, sad or happy with from what they learned. I children still have such conversations, and they continue through their school years and into adulthood. In Christian families, schools, and congregations, some learn to deal more openly and directly with each other, but being a believer is no guarantee against fears, doubts, or lost relationships nor protection from the convoluted ways people deal painfully with others.

Children also lose friends because our society is so mobile. I had many friends in my first school, but they stayed behind when our family moved into a new school system as I began third grade. I left a rural school to attend a small town school where many of the kids were friends from the community. I never made friends as well, or as easily, at the new school. Many have had far worse experiences in schools where rigidly defined cliques do not welcome strangers. Some become isolated, lonely, and even angry, some lashing out at those who refuse to welcome, accept, or befriend them. Nor were those childhood friends I was to lose circumstantially; good friends from college and later seminary are scattered across the country, many completely out of touch.

Some children learn early the sadness of loss through death. The loss of a parent, grandparent, or even a pet can devastate a child; and, of course, grief only deepens, the longer and dearer the relationship has been. It is not unusual for a child to regard the death as abandonment, even though few choose to die (except for suicides). A surviving spouse, after decades of love and intimacy, sometimes follows their loved one in death after only a short time; such is the depth of their grief. Most of us who have lost a grandparent, parent, spouse, or child know that, to some extent, that the emptiness is never filled, even though life does go on and the pain lessens with time.

Divorce may be the worst kind of loss. To have married and become one with a person, believing that first blush of love would last for a lifetime, and then to experience the disillusionment of love lost or the betrayal of adultery, create the ultimate kind of heartache and bitterness. To have love turn to hatred or apathy is, in a sense, worse than losing a loved one to death. I recall a classmate at a reunion asking if I had ever married; when I said I had not, he replied, “Just as well.” That was his feeling, having lost a wife through divorce; ironically I learned he was the one who destroyed his marriage. No matter the fault, divorce produces grief, anger, sadness, disappointed hope, bitterness, and resentment. The dead are gone, but the estranged linger to haunt our lives worse than any ghost.

Nearly as devastating is to have a friend become an enemy. I took part in an attempt to deal with a broken business partnership between two men who had been close friends. They began their business, as any good friends might, believing that they would find nothing but success and accomplishment. In a remarkably short time, a relatively minor disagreement, as it appeared to me, became a horrible split that eventually had a ripple effect into their families, church, and community. The financial impact was the least of their loss; they lost the companionship and trust that only close friends could appreciate.

The sad reality is that I have more stories, true accounts of unbelievably awful things that have taken place in the lives of believers, incidents of betrayal, vindictiveness, abandonment, and abuse. I did a funeral for a man whose daughter hated him so much that the family feared an incident at the service. A pastor told me of having his son stricken by illness or injury, I’ve forgotten which, and receiving a note from a former member who said it served him right. One young man asked me what I thought of a mother who just left her children and never tried to contact them or explain why. A woman, married with a family of her own, made every effort to accept the mother who abandoned her back into her life as an adult, but she didn’t know how to handle that same mother when she tried to interfere with how she was rearing her own children; but then who would? As painful as my own personal experiences of loss have been and still are, they pale next to many others of which I am personally aware.

Indeed, human history is one of untold numbers of broken and lost relationships, some even leading to war or generations-long feuds.. Does God understand our pain? When we see that Jesus was “a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief,” we know that he does. Every kind of broken relationship—grief, betrayal, abandonment, and vindictiveness—he not only understands; he experienced them all, culminating in the worst experience in all of human history. On a cross, abandoned by his friends, betrayed by one and denied by another, accused and convicted by those he loved and came to help, and finally forsaken by the father at the moment of his greatest suffering, Jesus knows and understands what it means to be betrayed, forsaken, and alone.

His experience on the cross, in turn, makes his subsequent promise all the more compelling: “I will be with you always.” I have often marveled at our use of the phrase, “God-forsaken” to refer to some remote desert or a place like Siberia. Psalm 139 says plainly that we cannot be “God-forsaken," even if we try to escape him: "If I say, 'Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,' even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you" (verses 11-12).

Where is the greatest comfort? Is it in knowing Jesus understands when we endure the suffering of loss, abandonment, or betrayal? Is it in the assurance that, however alone or abandoned we feel, we are never alone because he is there with us? Could it be in those moments, when we feel as if there is no one who cares, that he remains our loving friend and savior? When he carries us, as one old poem suggests?

I realize that, for each of us, those terrible times of broken relationships, lost friends, dreadful loss, and questions without answers, the hurt and emotional suffering linger. We can’t sleep, find it difficult to work, struggle to concentrate, and find our thoughts dwelling on those we have loved, who we had thought loved us, and whom we miss desparately. It is likely we pray for restoration, reconciliation, and even resurrection. Sometimes we are angry, and at other times we would repent a thousand times to win back a lost sister or brother. We blame them, we blame ourselves, and we blame God; we fear we have failed in our human duty and in our obligations as God’s children. Through all those moments, Jesus is close at hand, knowing full well how we feel, sympathizing as one who has been there, and offering his love, even though we may find it hard to accept.

We would prefer more than acceptance, but this fallen world, much of which rejects Christ, produces all these sorts of relational brokenness and suffering. Perhaps one blessing comes in turning things around in our rapport with Jesus. Not only does he understand our pain, but we may begin truly to understand his; and in understanding, we may gain an even greater awareness of the price he paid for our salvation and healing. In these days of Lent, as we reflect on the Cross, that’s not a bad thing to gain.

Most of us would never choose such pain--not our and surely not his. Given the chance, many of us would choose to avoid the pain, perhaps at the loss of more important things--self-respect, dignity, sexual purity--and many do. Yet, he chose to suffer that he might understand, redeem, and love us as no friend ever has or ever will, this side of eternity. When we struggle to accept our losses, then is the time when most we need to recognize and accept the love he offers a love given at a terrible price and rendered the more precious for that very price. Abandoned we may be, but we are never forgotten, never friendless, and never, never alone!

What Would a Biblical Community Look Like in the 21st Century?

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:23:42 GMT

While the word community occurs only once in the New Testament NIV (83 times in the Old Testament) and not at all in the King James, the idea of community as a critical aspect of the New Testament Church seems rather obvious. The unity and cooperation that the Lord Jesus Christ desired would seem be expressed or practiced in a community. Perhaps the closest New Testament word is κοινωνία (koinonia or fellowship); the word implies people who choose to share because they have something in common, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Is community important? I believe it is absolutely necessary to gain the full benefit of being part of the Church of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I believe it is a matter of obedience; when we fail to live in community, we are ignoring Jesus' commands and, by extension, failing to love him (i.e. “If you love me, keep my commands”). Without community, we will not be one, having neither the unity nor the degree of cooperation we are supposed to have; looking at Church history, it seems obvious that the Church as failed in this area enormously. Lacking community, we will not enjoy real fellowship; the current habit of Sunday attendance in largely passive activity falls far short of the degree of fellowship God intends. Analogies like the “Body of Christ,” the “temple of God” (This refers to the Church, not individuals as has often been taught), and “vine and branches” all demand connection with and among believers or more than a theoretical kind, while others, such as “family of God,” “chosen people,” “holy nation,” or even “flock,” involve a degree of cohesion and active involvement, in other words, community.

The problem is modern life, especially in the United States. We live lives of virtual anonymity and separateness, divided from each other in countless ways, and living less as organic and more as mechanical creatures. Modern technology is aggravating these tendencies, none less than the computer and Internet that allow more and more of human activity to be carried out by individuals alone in a room. Already, decades ago, young people rallied against the impersonal nature of life in which the individual was little more than a number; subsequent generations seem to have accepted this state with little complaint. Life goes on with cells phones and texting, Facebook and MySpace friends, and disconnected people living lives of “quiet desperation.” How ironic yet apropos is Thoreau's quote over 150 years ago, “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.” How appropriate it is to the divided believers of this millennium who truly sing so little and so rarely in full chorus.

Modern life divides in so many ways. Relationships fail at astounding rates, and dysfunctional families disintegrate leaving individuals to doubt the possibility of love other than sex. Attitudes press to polarize us with hate over issues ranging from riches to religion. In a nation characterized by rugged individualism, we've lost the treasures of family and friendship that accompanied those stalwart souls. Life is characteristically lacking in trust, loyalty, or even an attempt at commitment. Life has become superficial, based on image rather than substance, transient in the extreme and offering little of true permanence. In the Church, this has come to mean that membership and formality have replaced genuine, substantive fellowship with the attendant loss of authentic personality, genuine character, and godly integrity. Attempts to restore the latter often fail because, in my opinion, they are difficult, verging on impossible outside a community of committed believers working together to achieve our spiritual goals.

Obviously, we no longer live in ancient times. Even the relatively closer 20^th century is gone, and the Ozzie and Harriet/Ward and June Cleaver family and community have disappeared, to the extent they ever existed. We cannot create community based on old models that worked in a world that has vanished, never to return. At the same time, some aspects of life need to be restored; the absolutes of Biblical living apply to any age and work in any culture, most likely changing that culture, even as Christianity changed the world into which it was born. To do so, believers must make an honest assessment of their spiritual growth. It is human nature to hang on to the familiar, prefer to keep the ordinary things of the surrounding culture, and resist change. This manifests itself in congregations as a refusal to permit the replacement of traditions, even after those traditions no longer have conscious meaning for most people. At the same time, younger folk demand change often without a clear sense of direction, of where they want the changes to take them; they seek change for change's sake. True community offers the possibility of meaningful, productive, obedient change by the “iron sharpening iron” process of interpersonal interaction, undivided by either denomination or generation.

In our culture of increasingly separated, fragmented lives, community more than ever must involve connection, spending time together, and probably living in proximity to each other. Too many congregations build large buildings and draw people from across large urban areas, so that members actually live miles apart, prohibiting relationship-building except at weekly gatherings, gatherings that by their very nature often discourage interpersonal involvement. In such circumstances, believers miss much of the little benefit in being part of the Body.

I expect many to say that living near each other is impossible. It would be a good time to ask how people choose where to live. The trend in modern American cities has been to move up and out, thinking that the suburbs represent the advantages of prosperity while fleeing the “blight” of urban neighborhoods. The deterioration of urban neighborhoods has been a direct result of this flight of higher income families to the outlying areas, leaving often lower income folk to deal with the other urban problems. Is buying a bigger house in a supposedly better neighborhood God’s plan for his people? Does he want believers to get larger salaries and greater incomes in order that they may spend more money on themselves? Is the idea of safety and prosperity the only measure that people should use in deciding where to live?

Furthermore, many who move into suburban neighborhoods are looking for communities where there is less sense of neighborhood and where people often do not know or even speak to their neighbors. Even in places like upscale apartment complexes, where people live closer to their neighbors, the intent is not to know or relate to them. Is this a Christian value? Are those who have been commanded to share the gospel wherever they go best able to do so where they remain strangers among strangers?

It is unclear how the mortgage crisis and economic uncertainty will effect community in our culture, but it seems clear that, among believers, some sort of proximate community is the best opportunity for mutual support as well as effective outreach, with the hope of Christ the very remedy that people struggling with unemployment, housing change, and financial insecurity need. Thus, the arguments for working to create communities, i.e. neighborhoods, of believers are stronger than ever even in this modern age.

At the same time, this highly technological, communication-oriented era offers new ways to create and maintain “community.” Social-networking sites like Facebook, in particular, offer positive potential even as some warn of their dangers. While it is true that Internet “friendships” that substitute shallow, impersonal, and superficial interaction may discourage real flesh and blood relationships, using the same tools to support real relationships offer some corrective to our distant living arrangements. As computer and Internet capabilities increase, they present the opportunity to communicate in a virtual environment in ways as open and intimate as in the real world. Such should serve not as a substitute but as a supplement to more direct, flesh and blood interaction. In fact, such resources might easily replace many of the “programs” for which people currently meet, allowing for those times to be more devoted to fellowship, small groups, and social activities. It is necessary for a thousand people to sit in one large room to hear a speaker, when an unlimited number might listen to the same speaker via the Internet?

Both discipling and counseling have the potential to use modern communication resources effectively, as long as privacy and security considerations are provided. In these cases, actual live audio-visual conversation using mikes and webcams is clearly preferable, again as a supplement not a substitute for face to face involvement.

We live in a time of an aging generation of baby-boomers moving into their senior years, which suggests another aspect of community to consider. While the Church should be working to restore the health of the nuclear family, especially among believers, it should also consider ways in which we might better serve and minister to the elderly. Nursing homes, not even Christian nursing homes, are the best approach. I doubt anyone really wants to end his or her life in a sterile, hospital-like environment. At the end of life, as much as any stage of life, most people would prefer to be surrounded by a loving community of people, and not just a bunch of other sick, old folks. Most of us would prefer to live in a home and family environment of peers, children, grandchildren, and even pets. A true community of believers offers so much more to the aging segment of the Church than the present situation of both spouses working, a few relatives trying to provide some degree of encouragement and support, and then the inevitable nursing home for all but the few, fortunate enough either to die young or have an ideal family situation.

I find it ironic that congregations have so easily given up the idea of the neighborhood church. It suggests a reluctance among Christians to be too close to each other, beyond their desire to live “the good life” here on earth. We are too prone to gossip, and therefore we dare not trust each other. None of this represents the Lord's vision for his people, and all of it discredits his name. Unbelievers often respected the early Church, even as they persecuted it, but unbelievers today find little to respect. Our failure to be a community is not a trivial matter; it ultimately is a failure to be God's people. The very word “Christian,” whether“little Christ” or "Christ's slave," implies that people should find more than the very little of Christ in many of us today.

I am no utopian. I know that every person is a sinner, that people will often disappoint us, and that the ideas I advocate are not simple or easy. Yet, Jesus challenges us to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” In other words, the difficulty of the goal does not give us an excuse not to pursue the goal he has given us. That goal is community, fellowship, unity, and harmony.

I can imagine such exciting things developing out of genuine community. Idealist people in the past sought to create utopian communities, but most of them did so denying the reality of sin. With a full acknowledgement of human sinfulness but with equivalent faith in the grace of God and the presence of his spirit, I believe Christians may create communities able to achieve great things. In such communities, people may discover the blessings of love and fellowship, mutual encouragement and the benefits of supportive relationships. Community can provide believers a place to identified and express individual gifts and to learn and grow without the necessity of schools that seek to destroy faith and advance humanist ideas. Given the challenges of the current economy as well as the threats from an antagonistic culture, a community might provide a refuge from external threats. Communities of believers might find alternative ways of providing medical care, develop their own sources of food, keep their cars running, or buy and renovate houses to grow the community.

In other words, genuine community is so much more than “going to church.” The 21^st century may offer unique challenges to creating community, but I prefer to regard those challenges as a unique opportunity. Rather than see the present culture as a threat, I would rather see it as a God-given chance to discover God’s grace in new ways. In the process, we may overcome so many of the empty traditions that rob us and our children of dynamic faith and replace them with new traditions rich in meaning and purpose. I hope those who have read this article to the end will consider the possibility that community is worth the sacrifices it may take to achieve these aims. I know that the status quo is comfortable, and that inertia easily holds us in that comfortable place. Sadly, that seemingly comfortable place is a place of stagnation and decay; many accept the rot by engaging in mindless pastimes and sensual activities, but the smell of corruption lingers.

If you are a believer, you should know what Jesus has commanded. Is there any excuse not to strive to do what he asks? We can point the finger of blame to those we think have failed, but each of us has our own responsibility to face. Modern life offers so many alternatives and distractions; they are the siren voices of Satan wooing us away from the one who “loved us and gave his life for us.” We may serve him or serve ourselves, but we cannot serve him by serving ourselves. If you think I’m wrong about community, I would be happy to hear your thinking. Ultimately, I want only to do what our Lord desires, and it seems to me, without a doubt, that community is where the Church of Jesus Christ ought to be.

Effective Engagement: Winning Souls to Christ

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:52:49 GMT

“Wherever you go, make disciples, baptizing…

and teaching them everything I’ve taught you.”

--Matthew 28:19-21a

True disciples make disciples. Sheep who follow the Great Shepherd are to reproduce; leaders feed them. In an age of specialists, the Church, too, has turned this critical task over to professionals, as if they can do the better job. However, the body of Christ is remarkably similar to the human body; living cells must come from other living cells. Healthy growth comes from healthy cells in every tissue and organ making new cells; unhealthy growth, such as cancer, comes from the rapid reproduction of cells, prompted by rogue cancer cells. Where churches grow rapidly from the work of a few specialists, it is often unhealthy growth with new cells weak and short-lived. In healthier situations, those specialists lead and train all members to reproduce and rear new disciples. One path produces a sick, ineffective body; the other, a healthy, fruitful one.

Today, passive, self-absorbed people fill the pews. They may be nice people, although many seem to think and act remarkably like their non-believing neighbors. Jesus said, “You are the light of the world;” light provides direction for others to follow, leadership in other words. “You are salt of the world, but if you lose your saltiness, you are worth little more than garbage.” Salt subtly seasons but its absence not only makes things bland and tasteless but also leads to corruption. Believers should possess character and attitudes that lead, flavor, and preserve what is righteous and just. Concealed, indistinct, and unredemptive, such Christians may believe but aren’t very useful.

Unfortunately, the problem is not a superficial one. As I think back, I see several basic problems in the attitudes of people that make effective engagement difficult. At one time, I thought the key was the rejection of authority and tradition that was typical of counter-culture rebels of my generation. While I tend not to value institutional loyalty as often in conflict with faithfulness to Christ, these forerunners to the postmodernists rejected all authority and saw themselves as free from all restraints. Closely related, I noted the pervasive abandonment of absolutes of any kind; today truth is seen as subjective, and dishonesty is common.

Somewhere along the way, I began to appreciate another problem, summarized in “trust your feelings.” In religious terms, this manifested in an appeal to subjective experience. Churches seemed to thrive that emphasized personal experience; as a result, there appeared to be a drift away from objective, substantive Bible teaching. As a further consequence, Christians have become progressively less knowledgeable of Scripture, theology, and rational discourse.

Recently, I read Ideas Have Consequences, and author Richard Weaver asserts that a movement away from reason and goals to a feelings-based, purposeless outlook was noticeable back when he wrote (He published in 1948). John Taylor Gatto, in his Underground History of American Education, describes an intentional discouraging of the ability to question and reason that goes back much further. It is disheartening to see the depth of argument in older books compared to recent publications; even those educated decades ago may find reading older works a difficult challenge. I once thought that the common scorn for education among many church folk was a spiritual problem, not realizing that schools were, indeed, encouraging it.

So if these trends are true, even just some of them, then how do we reach people today? I think of some of the things I have taught and done in the past, and I realize that many approaches will fail if we ignore the way many people think today. Several things I have learned remain true.

First, our access to a person must be love. In earlier times, we might have been able to make a simple, direct approach to a stranger; the concern represented by sharing the gospel may have been sufficient. Today we live in an age of direct sales, junk mail, and spam in which people regard anyone trying to “sell” anything with varying degrees of skepticism. Before we can get an honest hearing, we must prove ourselves credible and trustworthy. Love is the key, a love characterized by listening. Once we have shown that our concern is genuine, then people may be willing to listen. In fact, if we have “loved our neighbor as ourselves,” they may ask us for an explanation.

“Always be ready to offer an explanation” implies that we have done something to make people ask about “the hope we have.” In a loving relationship, the kind that marks true friends and good neighbors, people will be near enough to see our hope in action, not just an assertion without proof. This “apologia” or reasoned defense is the sort that answers questions and assuages doubts. How sophisticated will it be? In today’s culture, that’s hard to say. Many people lack the mental disciplines and reasoning skills for some kinds of argumentation. Like the child who asks where babies come from, we need to be careful not to provide way more information that the question requires. If we say too much or give a response too intellectual, the intended listener will tune out, sometimes simply because they are incapable of following a complex answer in unfamiliar terminology. A loving relationship will also help by providing an awareness of how to answer questions appropriately.

I have come to believe that asking questions is also a valid method for challenging the attitudes and ideas that people have. “How’s that working for you?” is a simple way to ask if a person’s current worldview, goals, or beliefs are producing what a person truly desires. Good questions show interest while also revealing a person’s hopes, dreams, and aspirations. If the gospel is true, as I believe it is, then God’s way will work better than Man’s way, in every situation, but it may require learning to explain in a way that a particular individual understands. Questions can help with that as well.

Lately, I have begun to see another tool in creating effective engagement. If cultural trends and education have deteriorated, as I have noted, then most people are trapped in a worldview of low expectations. They have been sold an idea that love, distorted in this worldview, possessions, and money will make them happy. Their goal is to be happy, but most people are anything but; their worldview doesn’t work because it is incorrect. Living on feelings, focused on an eternal present is an empty existence. God created humans to work and to find satisfaction in using their gifts to create and to serve a purpose. The world attempts to fit everyone into a one-size-fits-all view of life and happiness; God designed each of us to be individuals, free to find our own individual path to contentment and joy, but by a path of working toward achieving meaningful goals.

As a pastor, I was always surprised at how much adults seemed to enjoy children’s sermons when I gave them. I have never tried to intellectualize my messages, but I realize now how easy it is to talk over people’s heads, when the people have been encouraged not to use them. Today, we not only must teach but we must educate people in the importance of learning and of being able to reason logically; we have to teach them that thinking is good and then show them how to think rationally. This isn’t an easy assignment, as we go against a mindset created by the enemy, using an educational establishment that many still trust, entertainment sources that many feed on constantly, and media that often propagate the same vacuous ideas.

Is there a simple answer? In one sense, the key to effective engagement is extremely simple. Rather than becoming skilled at explaining, we must become skilled at understanding people well enough to explain to them. This is the difference between sales and marketing. Sellers know their product, but marketers know the people who are the market. Sellers try to get people to buy their product by telling them how good it is; marketers learn what people want and then give it to them. Disciple-makers must learn what people believe they want and then help them discover that Christ has what they truly desire.

Of course, in another sense, the answer is not simple, at all. To be able to understand people requires learning skills that don’t come naturally to many Westerners. We have learned to value things and skills in order to perform well at a profession or craft. We tend not to put the same effort into valuing people and cultivating an appropriate manner of dealing with them. It seems ironic that, as the number of people increases and we find ourselves in ever closer proximity to more and more people, we Americans work harder to avoid spending time with them, learning to appreciate them, and becoming more effective in relationships with them.

Furthermore, understanding people is just half the answer. The other half is having the breadth of knowledge and rational skills to present the gospel in the form a particular person needs to hear. Anyone should be able to explain the reason for the hope he or she has in Christ; that is the most basic step in giving an answer. As we come to know others, we will discover that everyone has different needs to satisfy, at least as they see it. We need to be able to tell them how Christ is the answer to their perceived need. This is certainly why Paul encouraged Timothy to study, to be a workman, and to be able to properly handle the “Word of Truth.”

Recently, young Christians have challenged me, simply by asking questions. Sometimes they are looking for answers; sometimes they disagree with what someone has taught them or even with me (Imagine that!). Recently, I have wondered how I might reach out to particular individuals whose lives are an awful mess. How can I challenge them to consider a wholly different way of life when they seem so deeply rooted in their current situation? I am grateful for both, because it has made me rethink and explore better ways to communicate. God has helped by leading me to authors that are dealing exactly with matters relevant to my deliberations. In other words, God will provide the tools we need to develop our abilities and to make us more effective, especially in engaging men and women to consider the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

* * * * *

Who would have thought that I would become a fan of symphonic or operatic metal music? I was at a cappuccino place where I often work and suddenly realized that I was hearing choir, orchestra, and a heavy beat. I left in a hurry to take a student to an appointment, forgetting to ask what I had been playing. I called...I like it that much! The barista told me it had probably been Epica. I Googled Epica, and I have been listening regularly since then.

This style of music is Scandinavian, for the most part, but much of it is performed in English. Epica deals with false religion and religious oppression, some coming from the ugliness of radical Islam. I cringe, occasionally, thinking I'm listening to critics of what I believe. Then I look carefully and observe that they are really criticizing hypocrisy and thoughtless religiosity. About those issues, I agree.

And I like the sound, even the raspy voiced moments that intersperse the music, a style typical of metal music, but even that, for some strange, irrational something, I like. That isn't music, but it makes me smile. It's an odd appeal I grant, but I seem to be hooked!

More Random Thoughts

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:59:08 GMT

Various comments and reactions to the election have kept my mind running overtime. I'll hear a word or phrase, and my thoughts fire off a response or run off along a tangent. I may have an organized and coherent message, at some point, but for now I'm just jotting down the various random thoughts.

I learned, years ago, that a 2-party system was a good thing because multiple parties often prevent clear majorities in elections. Lately, I have heard talk show hosts and personal friends decry the current state of the Democratic and Republican Parties, in that they are essentially the same. As a child of the 60's and 70's, I have find organizational loyalty, generally, to be a bad thing. That applies to denominations as much as political parties, to corporate management as well as union leadership, and to celebrities as much as trendy religious figures. Institutional loyalties take the place of those few loyalties I believe we ought to have, the first and highest being to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
All through this election season, endlessly unendurable as it was, I often questioned the seeming identity between the Republican Party and conservatives and the Democratic Party and secular progressives. In my understanding, party members serve the party, but ideologues serve ideas. I'm not really any of those things, however people might judge my opinions. I attempt to serve Christ and hold to the ideas that arise from his teaching, i.e. from the Bible. In that light, since people like me were so influential at its founding, I support a traditional, historic view of our nation and its government, based on a plain reading of the U. S. Constitution and other key documents like the Declaration of Independence. The state of faith and freedom, as directed by the party faithful on both sides, isn't remotely what it once was in this country, and neither party deserves our loyalty as a result.
Not so long ago, I came across this posting, and it describes me pretty well, in its conclusions anyway. The difficulty is finding someone to represent me when, in fact, no one can represent me well,...except me! Voting for a representative is always a matter of the least objectionable choice. In the election, just past, the nearest choice was no one. I didn't see any candidate on the ballot at any level that came very close to what I believe politically (I don't expect them to be Christians) or wanted to look out for my interests. Had my name been on a ballot, I doubt very many would have voted for me.
I just finished Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver, and I have discovered that I am an elitist, but in an old sense of the word (I have almost nothing in common with the current crop of elitists who dominate most of our culture, media, education, and government). I believe we should prohibit voting by anyone who cannot pass a basic civics test, the sort of test a person seeking to become a citizen should pass. I want to discriminate, but not against the poor or a particular race or community; I want to discriminate against people who don't understand our form of government well enough to know what a President's job is and what it is not. I want to discriminate against people who blame the President and his party for what the Congress run by the other party have done. I want to discriminate against anybody who doesn't know the most basic ideas found in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, ideas that have good consequences if we follow them. Other ideas, much espoused by candidates and media, will have bad consequences, and most voters don't know enough to see a difference.
I had been looking for this quote, and a friend included it in an email, yesterday: “Professor Alexander Tyler, writing just prior to America’s birth, tells us: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the treasure. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy.” Here is where poorly educated voters are the greatest threat because they may vote in what they perceive as their own best interests without knowing that they're “killing the goose.” Free enterprise is the goose that lays golden eggs of prosperity. The government taxes the eggs to pay for necessary things like a military, police and fire protection, and a reasonable amount of government overhead. In time, the government grows and uses increased taxation to get money to buy votes, in the name of helping people. Thus begins the slide toward socialism and the end of both liberty and democracy itself; we've already been sliding for awhile, and with the incumbent and president-elect, the slide just got steeper!
Having said all that, how do we change, not further in the same direction, as Obama wants? How do we turn this run-away train around? Voting for a third party candidate is Pyrrhic. It may preserve the integrity of the voter, but it doesn't advance the cause unless the candidate truly has a chance to win. We haven't always had the same two parties, but to shift the balance, a candidate must actually strive to win with a reasonable chance to do so. Ralph Nader is a joke; Ross Perot helped put Clinton into the White House because he had a axe to grind with George Bush. I believe a grassroots movement of committed “believers” (who believe in the candidate and his platform) can change the landscape, but that was not the case with any of the third party candidates, this go round. I'm not convinced that Ron Paul really had “a fire in his belly” either.
A serious alternate party effort must shed quirky fringe ideas, or it won't be taken seriously. It may challenge assumptions, but it cannot cling to an idea that a clear majority rejects. Politics, of necessity, requires compromise. A person need not nor should not compromise his or her own integrity, but they must be willing to compromise and choose which issues will enable a win. Social conservatives are an available constituency; they passed the marriage protection amendment in California, of all places, despite Obama's victory overall. I usually claim to be 90% libertarian or classic liberal, but libertarians insist on drug legalization, an almost sure loser with social conservatives. The threat of Islamic radicals and terrorism cannot be ignored in the name of an isolationist ideology if victory is the goal. It is for such reasons that I chose not to “waste my vote” on a third party candidate, although I respect those who voted otherwise.
If any effort to change the party landscape is to succeed, involving people such as me/us, then we need to recognize the genuine fear, that some have, of Christians imposing theocracy on the country. The efforts of the so-called Christian Right raised that specter in the minds of those who cherish their immoral lifestyles and humanist values. I know that few of us, then or now, actually wanted to run the country, but we must go out of our way to emphasize freedom. We want to be free to worship and to live our traditional lifestyles without government intrusion, without government schools trying to reeducate our children, and without the bogus “separation of church and state” interpretation of the First Amendment, particularly used to separate us from our legitimate participation in all rights of citizens. I don't want gay marriage so forced upon us that we may no longer teach what the Bible says, but we may have to permit “civil unions” as an alternative. I want to end the bogus notion that pro-abortion is pro-choice, but I am willing to allow the laws to stand, so long as we are truly free to persuade women not to use them (at least until a consensus of our citizens finally understand). I want to be free to bring men and women to Jesus Christ, without some multicultural, relativistic nonsense making it illegal.
For any of this to work, we need to recognize that the final answer is not political. Christians have dropped the ball, when it comes to outreach. Most simply don't do it. For any of this to matter, politically or spiritually, we need to do the work of persuading people of the value of faith and of the value of freedom. This is not a media job. This can't be done with books or television or talk shows, not alone anyway. Only “we the people” can do it.
Which brings me to my last “random thought,” and one of my constant concerns. We must be civil, simple, but solid. We cannot afford to be harsh, angry, or adversarial; that approach may make us feel good but it doesn't work. You can't badger people to understand. We need to be simple and direct. The ideas we advocate are simple, but we need to express them simply, too. People get lost in complexity, and they won't remember what we tell them. That's why parties use “talking points,” in order to get their point across. Finally, we need to know our stuff so we can teach accurately. People are ignorant, including many of “us,” because a left-leaning media and educational establishment have kept them ignorant. I'm learning just how deep this problem runs, ironically right back into a segment on the right, industrial interests, who have long sought a pliable workforce. This is the key to much of the immigration issue, as well. We have knowledge on our side, but only if we educate ourselves and learn how to share it. I am convinced we will find a willing and receptive audience if we do this right. I believe truth is on our side, whether we're talking politics, liberty, or faith.

Somewhat Random Thoughts

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:16:46 GMT

The following began as a response to something I read and grew into a set of observations related to a citizen's understanding of government and elections, especially for one who is a Christian, but intended to challenge those who are not. I think when candidate begin to sound like preachers or messianic figures, it's time to evaluate just what does and doesn't fall within the scope of government and elected officials's power and duty.

1) Voting is a method for choosing representatives. A President cannot possibly represent 300,000,000 people, which is why the constitution gives him limited powers, powers which most citizens totally misunderstand. He doesn't make laws, determine how money will be spent, or control the economy. Those powers rest in the Congress which does, to some better degree, represent us...or at least they are supposed to represent us.

2) The idea of progress is based on an evolutionary idea that things should get better with the passing of time. For many, progress is getting more stuff, having to work less, saving the planet, and the like; for others of us, progress is working toward a goal. You cannot achieve an unknown goal. If there is no clear and stated goal, then the idea of progress is meaningless.

3) The genius of the Founders' was to create a place where the diversity of people with a multitude of ideas would be largely free to pursue them without interference by the government. The idea that 300,000,000 people can elect anyone to create a government to do that for them assures that the majority of those 300,000,000 people will not be free to pursue their own personal goals; instead the government will restrict, regulate, appropriate, and hinder for an undetermined "common good" that is rarely good for any but the few who run the show (Given how poorly the government has succeeded in meeting such expectations in the past, it amazes me that people still put their hopes in anybody promising such things, especially those who've made them in the past and didn't deliver).

4) The majority of those who hope the government will fulfill their dreams for them will be disappointed. Very few people, if any, will work hard for other people. The value system that most authentic Christians follow is to love one's neighbor AS oneself, and that generally means working hard to provide for oneself and ones' family, first. Then, as Christians still do, as well as if not better than, anyone else, they generously work to care for their neighbors. Historically, that meant creating hospitals, orphanages, charities, and schools, colleges, and universities. No government has ever demonstrated itself to be able to come even remotely close to that degree of help for others.

5) Governments, via politicians, give lip service to helping people. They rarely mean it; they really want votes and power. Gullible people give it to them and then experience disappointment. Governments create expensive and cumbersome bureaucracies that become self-existent ends in themselves, filled with waste and corruption. In this regard, despite even good intentions, big is never better. Centralizing and consolidating never improves anything but the ability of those in charge to control. Some try to control the waste and corruption, but as bureaucracies grow not even good men can control them. It boggles my mind that anyone put much trust in either Presidential candidate after they supported "bailing out" Wall Street with the biggest price tag in history!

6) In a truly free country, which ours is no longer, people pursue their varied objectives, and the diversity in freedom becomes a laboratory of creativity. This is what built America, historically, and we have been living off that success. A standard is what many choose to follow, and have so chosen in the past, and they proved that hard work, moral values, and love for God was a viable and successful formula. Out of such successes, people vote to preserve their liberty and overall security, led by honest men and women who earn their trust. As we have given up absolutes, we have forsaken the central ideas of honesty, integrity, and openness. In that environment, candidates make outrageous promises, hide their true intentions, and hope no one discovers the truth before they demonstrate their untrustworthiness.

7) Another standard many still accept is universal sin...philosophers call it "Man's inhumanity to Man." It is the source of abuse, cruelty, oppression, and war, and evolution offers no believable explanation. Some try to blame "society," but anyone who has tended a baby knows that selfishness comes early, long before it can be learned. Likewise, it isn't hard to find children doing mean things to animals and other children, again unlearned. Then there is the "black sheep of the family" who is bad when all siblings are not. One necessary task of government is to provide protection from such evil. It is the reason for a "rule of law." When government spends too much time trying to create progress and dispense good things to as many people as possible, the rule of law and the opposition of evil tend to be neglected. In fact, the evil creeps into the government itself. Whatever one thinks of American government, there is plenty of evidence since corrupt governments are far more the norm that good ones.

8) Equality is a much abused idea. People are not equal; we are different in nearly limitless ways. Our skills, abilities, talents, and intelligences are not equal. Our goals, desires, wishes, and needs, except for a few basics, are not equal. Again, the genius of the Founders was to recognize a common humanity that issued, not from governments, but from nature, which they perceived as created by God. Today, equality is used to mean equality of outcome. To achieve that, we all must become the same, but we're not the same. Such an effort by government stifles individuality, curbs inventiveness, and destroys liberty. I know what that kind of liberty will look like and it isn't pretty!

9) Most people prefer NOT to change, but change is a necessity of life. Rhetorical change is meaningless without clear definition. I find it hard to believe people of so many different perspectives and backgrounds bought into the promise of change. In my rather substantial experience, people object to change far more than enjoying it. What people were voting for, I suspect, is "something better." Personally, I would like a bit more control over that "something" than to trust someone I do not know or have any reason to trust. If someone came to my door with such a line, I'd laugh in his face...most people would. Yet, enough people "hoping against hope" buy lottery tickets and keep Nigerian scam artists spamming our email. In that sense, I understand why people in difficult situations what a change for the better. The question is how to get it, and I have the least confidence in government as the solution.

10) Hope, on the other hand, is a Christian idea or, in my opinion, the Bible's concept of hope is the best. It is the fulfillment of divine promises, despite not seeing them being fulfilled at the moment, proven by the experience of many who have gone before, proven by the remarkable accuracy of the Bible itself, and proven in the lives changed from hopelessness to fruitfulness. It is a hope that is supported by the lives of people I know and have known, people who love and sacrifice and work to care for each other. It is a hope that I see in my friend Matt, and that is the reason Matt and I are friends despite many differences (I could say the same about many friends past and present and undoubtedly in the future, but Matt is the most recent). It is the same love that I have discovered in meeting strangers I learned were Christians, and many others I have known throughout my lifetime and that I'm still meeting. That hope will carry me through whatever the future proves to be.

Last night, I began to write before I knew the outcome of the election. I didn't want to watch the second-guessing and state by state analysis. I waited to find out when the counting was finished. I wanted to think about how we do elections and what we think and feel when our candidate (s) win or lose. I may post some of those thoughts later, but one overriding thought concerned division. Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, we are becoming an ever more divided people, contrary to "E pluribus unum" (one out of many). The tone, encouraged by ideologues of several kinds, the media, and the candidates themselves, is far to ugly, angry, and hateful. Some accuse people like me of hatred for holding certain opinions, but those who know me know that there isn't an ounce of hate. I tutor refugees; I work with people from countries all over the world.

The kind of divisiveness and ugly tone of politics scares me, a little. The idea that a group of disappointed voters might respond violently if their candidate lost appalls me, especially since it already happens sometimes when an sports team loses! A good future for our country will never come from such anger and disrespect. Anyone who truly cares about the future must make a commitment not only to work away from such negativity but also work to lead others away from it as well. A "Balkanized" country of hyphenated Americans will eventually succumb to the same doom as the Balkans, endless hatred and violence. I don't want to see that here, do you?