Christmas Thoughts
I am leaving tomorrow for the States and I may not be posting with any regularlity, but I had this thought in the shower this morning. Christmas is the celebration of God coming into the world to change it. If that is the case, when has Christianity been a useful force in keeping the status quo? When Christianity has been the most effective in recent times has been when people have preached the Gospel for societal change; such as abolitionists, Martin Luther King Jr, the Reformation, woman's rights. When has something (movement, idea, etc) come along that Christians or the Church has stood up to successfully defeated it? Can anyone offer a single instance?
|
What integrity at the top might look like..
In Britain today, the Home Secretary (equivalent of the Sec of DHS), David Blunkett,
stepped down because he used his position to force through a visa for his lover's nanny. Now Blunkett certainly lacked integrity by having an affair with a married American woman and fathering two of her children. He certainly abused his power by rushing the visa and I'm not here to defend either of those actions. I'm only trying to show that when men in power make mistakes, they should have enough integrity to step down.
Calling Donald Rumsfeld!
|
Can we have some integrity at the top-part 2?
I do believe that men and women of integrity should be leading our country, yet I wonder what
Donald Rumsfeld is still doing with a job! He is in charge of the Department of Defense, which has suspended the Geneva convention and has treated other men as dogs. First at
Abu Ghraib and now across the globe in both
Afghanistan and
Guantanamo Bay. The Seattle Times has an
article on how Marines shocked and burned Iraqi prisoners
AFTER the Abu Ghraib scandal. Any man of integrity that has had such disregard of human life committed on his watch would step down. If he won't, his
boss should fire him, unless both believe that enemies are not worthy of being treated with any respect or dignity. Is that what Jesus
said about our enemies?
|
I am not alone
I’m not a lone voice in the
wilderness
|
Can we have some integrity at the top?
The newest Republican attack for the failures in Iraq is Kofi Annan and the UN. The charges are ridiculous and I’m not going to take them on, but I think it is interesting that Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota
called for Kofi Annan to step down because of the fraud under the Oil for Food program. I don’t have a problem with that as long as George Bush steps down for the US
mismanagement for the same fund (now called Iraqi Development Fund). Seems only fair.
Addendum: Retiring UN Ambassador John Danforth said that he was speaking for the White House and that he had complete faith in Kofi Annan. Somebody at the White House must have put this together before I could blog it. ;-)
|
Lack of posts
Sorry for the lack of posts lately, but I've been moving flats and haven't had the time to put my thoughts together. I'll try to get a few posts out this week, but it might be just a few. I'm off to the States (yippee!) for Christmas to see my in-laws and my family, so don't expect anything substantial until mid-January.
|
Christian Schools...
This
article upsets me. It says that Southern Baptists are increasingly shunning public education for private Christian schools and homeschooling. I believe there are some good reasons for private Christian schools and homeschooling, but I totally disagree with Ed Gamble, executive editor of the Southern Baptist Association of Christian Schools. He believes that
"A school education that's secular would teach us that God is an option and that we're all the product of random chance and millions of years of mutation and evolution," he says. "Those things are out of step with what God's Word teaches, and they're inappropriate for the education of children who would grow up to think and act biblically."
This attitude that the state should teach Biblical principles is completely nonsensical. America (whether founded that way or not) is a secular political state. How upset would we all be if schools taught kids Jewish or Islamic law? We'd be outraged. Science is objective and can be tested and agreed upon by people of all faiths. To run a society we must have some sort of agreement. His issue appears to be the teaching of evolution, but if parents are doing their job in a Christian home then discussion of the problems with evolution and God's love for us will overcome (what is probably) half a dozen lessons in Biology class in the 9th grade.
All I know is that I'm glad Jesus didn't look down at Earth from heaven and say, "Those things are out of step with what God's Word teaches so I'm not going there." Or Paul going to the Gentiles or even my YoungLife leader going to my high school. Come on people, engage the world, don't run from it! We have God on our side.
|
Bishop of London and Post-Modernism
On Saturday, I attended the School of Theology at HTB and this week our guest speaker was the Bishop of London (Church of England) and he spoke on some very interesting topics. During our tea break, I was able to corner him and ask him about my post-modernism question. He had the most interesting answer…
Coming from an established church and seeing his numbers decline (like most mainline churches), he advocates a post-modernist type approach to the Scriptures. He compared the mainline churches to the man who sees a butterfly flying in the field and being captivated by its beauty. Therefore this man captures the butterfly and goes back to the scientific laboratory and dissects it to discover the secret to its beauty. After scattering butterfly parts all over the laboratory table, he finds himself a little disappointed with the result. He may have intimate knowledge of how a butterfly works, but is no closer to understanding (or even seeing) the beauty that was originally so attractive.
He believes that many mainline churches, affected by the Enlightenment’s love of reason, have taken the Scriptures apart and destroyed some of the mystery and beauty of God’s Word. The Bishop articulated his belief that the Scripture is not God’s literal words, but instead the way that He reveals himself to His creation. Therefore since revelation is not rational and logical, the Church, using the Scriptures as the agreed starting point, need not be afraid to incorporate many of the appealing ideas of post-modernism into our theology so that we can love God with all our hearts, souls and minds.
Sensing that the Bishop was embracing post-modernism as a way to connect to people, I then asked if the more mainline churches would be embracing post-modernism with an emphasis on emotions over the “rules” of Scriptures when dealing with the public at large and in outreach specifically. It was then that he threw me for a loop!
The Bishop then argued that when the Church is dealing with the society at large it needs to continue to be the standard bearer of tradition and stand up for many of the institutions that post-modernism seeks to subvert or tear down (marriage, trust in gov’t, traditional families, etc). He stated that since society’s baseline is reason we should speak their language and rejects the irrational position of post-modernism as a way of organizing a society because of the potential corrosive effects.
There seem to be some internal contradictions in his belief, but I thought it was interesting. I just wonder how his beliefs would be worked out. How can the Church be saying to those outside, we believe in this, this and this traditional belief, but at the same time be looking to transform its internal workings to allow people to challenge long-held beliefs, theology and institutions? I’m not sure I agree with the Bishop, but he did make a good point that this post-modernist philosophy may not be an all or nothing debate.
|
Define Value
Mondays are always busy for me at work, so I just offer this one topic for my readers… There has been a lot of discussion of “value voters”. It is assumed that these voters have “values”, but what is exactly is a value? The Oxford dictionary says, “moral principles, standards that one considers important.” How exactly does a value differ from an opinion? Could bias and prejudice just be the opposite side of the same coin? Should the debate be about “prejudice voters” if one doesn’t agree with them? If so, why does anyone care about “prejudice voters”?
|
USA and WMDs
This was just sent to me and rather concerning. I believe that as evangelicals we are still responsible for the earth. Apparently George Bush is trying to repeal an effort to ban a lethal gas to aid strawberry production. This
article, while clearly biased, has some excellent points. America is opting out of an international treaty to make a weapon of mass destruction at the same time as it is telling Iran to keep its international committments on WMDs.
In case you think it is just a left-wing commie website,
TerraDaily and
San Francisco Chronicle back up the underlying claim, but without the analysis.
Is this something Jesus would be doing?
|
Sex, Abstinence and its place in school
On the heels of
World AIDS Day, combined with
$168 million in new federal funding for abstinence-only education and objections by
parents in Maryland to safe sex education involving a video with a woman putting a condom on a cucumber, I thought I might take on the issue of sex, abstinence and its place in the school.
As a teacher, I believe that children should be taught everything they will need to know in their lifetime.
There is no virtue in ignorance. I don't believe that schools can or should teach everything. The truth is that a teacher will spend roughly (6hr/day*180 days) 1100 hours a year with a child in the primary years. Much, much less once a child finishes elementary school. Compared with the amount of time a child has spent with parents over a year or even a lifetime, the effect a teacher has on a pupil is much less than the parent. If you ask anyone to rank their greatest influence over how they behave, parents will rank higher than teachers almost every time. If parents are teaching their kids clearly about sex, a teacher won't have a significant effect. If their is a vacuum of teaching, then the first one to educate will have a strong sway over the student.
When it comes to sex, parents should be speaking with their children. This is a Biblical commandment.
Deuteronomy 4:8-10,
Deuteronomy 11:18-20,
Psalm 78:4-6,
Ephesians 6:4 all speak of teaching or instructing your child in the way of the Lord. There is a clear and consistent message throughout the Bible that sex is to be between a married couple only. There is plenty of Biblical and "wordly" knowledge to show that sex outside of a committed long-term loving relationship is harmful to everyone involved.
If Christian parents were teaching their children and
every child came from a Christian home schools wouldn't have to teach about sex.
However, that isn't the case. Problems like
AIDS, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are not
just personal problems. They are societal problems. The solutions must come from the society in the form of community and government response. The government can and should respond to make sure that students are taught about their sexual health. It saves lives and money! This is a no-brainer. To avoid the topic of sex is to avoid one of the strongest urges/temptations humans have.
The question becomes how does one teach about sex? The current mood among sex educators is one of tip-toeing around the issue and avoiding controversial topics because the socially-conservative Chrisitan Right makes a stink.
Here is just one example. People getting up in arms because the school program calls for frank talk about sex including discussion of relationships and how to use a condom properly. Do these parents think that kids aren't thinking about sex? That what they see on television and print media doesn't arouse some sort of questioning in their developing bodies? Sure sex is private, but it is one of the most common acts in the world. The names and faces change, but the act (and surrounding issues) are the same today as they were during the Exodus.
Congress just approved $173 million for abstinence-only education. That is a real shame. Abstinence-only education works, right up until it doesn't! Then the student is left with only ignorance and conjecture. No only is this irresponsible on the part of the educators, but potentially deadly for the student. A recent
article by the Washington Post has shown that many of these abstitence-only programs (9 of 11) provide false, mis-leading or incorrect information to the students. Who does this serve? Scare kids about sex? Then how will they make the transition to enjoying sex (as they are suppose to) inside marriage? One day sex is dirty, scary and potentially deadly and the next day it is something to be cherished, enjoyed and practiced regularly?
Come on let's get real! Why not have evangelicals lead the charge in explaining the sanctity of sex? Why not start telling kids how wonderful sex is? We tell them about how wonderful voting or (maybe) having a beer is, but they must wait and many do. I think to not teach abstinence is to sell kids short. Many have self-control and have their long-term interest in their sights. They will not jeopardize that by being stupid. Those kids can be taught about sex and it won't make them want to have sex. Instead they will be better prepared when they decide to get married and have sex. However, some won't. Some kids (and adults) are reckless. When did recklessness become a capital crime?
Uganda has a wonderful system. They have lowered the AIDS rate dramatically in their country. It is a simple ABC program.
A=abstinence
B=being faithful
C=correct and consistent condom use
For this program to work, a frank and clear discussion of sex must occur. This allows a clear explanation of the value in waiting to have sex and keeping the marriage bed pure, but also gives people real knowledge about disease and pregnancy prevention. Is the church willing to adopt a program like this in their local schools? Doesn't this program meet both sides of the argument?
|
Where is the rage?!?!
The "liberal media" has
stopped the United Christian Church from airing it's newest
ad campaign on network television because of it's controversial
ad that has two burly bouncers at the front of the church keeping certain folks away. Among those kept out are two men, who appear to be a couple. Also kept out are a black male, a latino female and a man in a wheelchair. After those people are kept out, the words "Jesus didn't turn people away." followed by "Neither do we." Then a big diverse crowd is shown and with some text telling people to visit the UCC website with the quote "God is still speaking."
NBC, ABC, and CBS have all turned down the advert. ABC because "we do not generally accept paid advertising that espouses a particular religious doctrine." CBS rejected the ad because "was against our policy of accepting advocacy advertising." While NBC said, "It went against our long-standing policy of not accepting ads that deal with issues of public controversy." Those sound all benign, but UCC, a 6,000 member church organization with a history going back to the Puritans, quotes CBS as saying that the ad was rejected "because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples ... and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."
Josh Marshall over at
TalkingPointsMemo.com has some interesting discussion of the reasons and the fallacy behind the policies
here,
here and
here. Josh is very insightful and I agree with his points. He doesn't take it from a Christian perspecitve, but a political one. I link because I like him, but he might not be your cup of tea.
However, my outrage comes from the idea that the networks are censoring a church. They don't have to run every ad put to them, but this ad campaign, even if you disagree with the gay couple part, is a valuable one for America. Doesn't the Church want people to get into the church? Shouldn't we remind people that even though Jerry Falwell speaks
as a Christian, he doesn't speak
FOR all Christians. Can anyone inside the Church object to an ad campaign that tries to get people into church? Shouldn't we be united on this? Isn't this where the Body of Christ helps each part out? I think so.
I don't think the government should mandate that the networks air all ads, but us Christians can hit them where it hurts, the pocketbook. You can use
UCC's page to register your complaint or write to
ABC,
NBC, and
CBS and let them know that if they can broadcast smut and controversial ads for politicians, they can broadcast this ad for the UCC. Say that if they don't allow this ad then you will make an effort to avoid watching their shows and/or purchasing products from their sponsors. Let's show the world the power of a unified Church!
ps. Don't ever tell me that the networks are part of the "liberal spin machine" again. The key triumvirate of the liberal media not playing an ad because it shows a gay couple and because it might cross paths with the socially-conservative executive branch? Yeah, sounds pretty liberal to me.
|
A note about the blog...
I've recently signed up for Google's adshare program and added the banner on the right near the bottom. My hope is not that I'll make any money, but that articles and topics that are discussed here will appear in the ad banner so if you are interested in pursuing some more information on topics and people, you'll be able to click through. Although, if I was to make some money for my efforts that would be a bonus. :-)
|
Pray for our troops
Prior to November 2nd, we
had enough troops in Iraq. Now it appears that
we need more. We are
upping our troop strength to 150,000 from about 135,000. We aren't shipping more troops there, instead we are going to keep folks in Iraq that are due to return. If you have been slack in praying for the troops safety and mental well being, I urge you to pray right now. Don't forget to pray for the families at home, especially the children that may not understand why mom or dad can't come home for Christmas.
|
Advocate Judges
President Bush has come out several times in his disdain for “advocate judges”. There seems to be little discussion as to the meaning of what this term “advocate” means. At its simplest all judges are advocates. After listening to the different sides of an argument, each judge advocates a position that seems the most just, fits the law, and/or follows previous precedent. If a judge didn’t advocate a position, there would be no resolution to the argument presented to him/her.
However, for some reason I don’t think that is what President Bush means. He doesn’t want 1/3 of the government’s checks and balances to stop doing their job. He wants judges to stop “advocating” positions
he disagrees with. Specifically, the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, which ruled that it was against the civil rights of homosexuals for the state not to recognize their legal union. George Bush wants courts to stop “advocating” civil change. This fits nicely with culturally conservative backlash against the
Warren Court of the 1960s and 1970s that used legal rulings to help blacks and other minorities achieve legal parity with whites. Many cultural conservatives feel that society was forced to change at the whim of judges, many of whom don’t have to answer to the political process because they are appointed, not elected.
So is it appropriate for the president to ask judges to only rule the way he wants them to? I would argue, not from a Christian point of view, but from a democratic point of view, that balance of powers is one of the most crucial elements in our Constitution. If judges are afraid to contradict the executive or legislative branches, then they just become rubber stamps and no longer act as a counter-balance to the other branches.
However, lets look to the Bible for a model, if there is one, for a Christian perspective. The most obvious place to look is the Book of Judges. However, according to my NIV translation, judges can also be translated as “leaders” and it appears that all the judges are either political or military leaders. So these judges are not the judicial reviewers that President Bush is speaking of. Strike One.
Next, we should look to Jesus. Jesus speaks of judging on several occasions. The most common instance relates to God’s judgement (Matt 11:24, John 5:22, 9:39, 12:31, 16.8), which isn’t important for this discussion. One of Jesus’ most commonly known commandments is the do not judge lest you be judged (Matt 7:1), but again pretty clearly not related our discussion as Jesus is addressing personal behaviour.
Jesus does use a judge (Luke 18:3-8) to emphasize his desire to answer prayers, but all we learn about the judge is that he gives the widow justice so she will stop bothering him. Not surprisingly, Jesus doesn’t specifically command how judges should do their job. A similar search of Paul’s writings will also end up empty. Strike Two.
However, I’m not sure all is lost. Jesus didn’t specifically mention many issues, but we have Biblical principles to draw on to help guide our path. Starting with the idea that judges are in charge of deciding the most just course of action (some people disagree with me here and we’ll never see eye to eye), we can look to what the scriptures say about justice. To avoid getting sidetracked, we’ll avoid discussion of God’s justice for his people and against sinners; we can still find a few verses relating to our discussion. The most obvious is Micah 6:8, which requires that we do justly and walk humbly with God. If we look at
Deuteronomy 1:16-17, we can find God speaking to his freshly freed Israelites and instructing the judges to “hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien. Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike.” I’m a little insecure about taking two verses from the OT law books and making social policy, but the idea of justice for all regardless of social level or background appears to follow throughout all Scripture.
Throughout the Old Testament, God speaks of looking out for the fatherless and widows and making sure they get justice. He knows that the rich and powerful will automatically get justice, but the outcasts of society will always struggle. Jesus rebukes the Sanhedrin in John 7:24 for judging “by mere appearances” and to “make a right judgement”.
So where does that get us? It appears that judges have a Biblical mandate to advocate positions of justice, especially for the poor and outcasts. So judges should put forward the decision that is
the most just. That could take the form of socially liberal judgements requiring more equitable funding for schools or recognition of gay relationships. However, this could also take the form of socially conservative judgements of restrictions on content of public television or upholding a death sentence. So I’m not sure it gets us anywhere on the political front. Arguments about
strict-constructionism or
reasonable-constructionism are for the political/judicial realm.
This issue of advocate judges shouldn’t even enter the Biblical or Christian realm. It is simply an example of Bush being a social conservative. It ain’t about Jesus.
As an interesting sidenote, some of the conventional wisdom has the George Bush wants to put a justice on the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade, which seems like an “advocate” type judgement to force social change, but a recent
ABC news poll has a large majority of America against overturning Roe v. Wade, so apparently America is now comfortable with even some of the most controversial “advocate” judgements from the Warren court.
Interesting sidenote 2, the Supreme Court has
declined to hear an appeal on gay marriage and it seems to open the door to allow states to legalize gay marriage if they want.
|
