As I am trying to think about what I want to say about scripture, I am realizing this may have to be a three or four post process. There is little in the Christian bubble of our world that causes more strife and contention than the nature of scripture, and I guess I understand, it is a pretty important topic.
I guess the place I have to start is by saying what I think scripture is not. There is a word that gets thrown around a lot today that is no where in scripture and in my opinion is supported no where in scripture and that word is "inerrant." People divide over this word and some are labeled as "heretics" because they reject this word. Well I guess I should be labeled the same.
There are several different reasons that I don't buy inerrancy, but I think its important to first discuss what people mean when they claim the bible is inerrant. The opinions on inerrancy are anything but unanimous. Some would say the bible is inerrant because the original manuscripts (the first handwritten texts by the authors) were inerrant, every word, jot and scribble was exactly as God intended and perfect in fact and message. However, over time there were copying errors and pieces lost and added etc, and so since we no longer have any of the original manuscripts, we no longer have it exactly as it was. However, the message is still innerant according to most of those.
Then there are some, albeit probably many fewer and less well-read, that would say that every word and punctuation of today's bibles are exactly as God intended. Some would even go so far as to say that the King James Bible is the only Bible, but I guess no one could read the real Bible before the 1600s...
All that to say, there is some disagreement as to what exactly "innerant" means. However, I would say the majority of Christians in the United States cling tightly to that word. I have some ideas why, but I think that is a discussion for another post. I should probably just say what I think about it and why as quickly as possible and expand on that some later.
Probably my biggest issue with inerrancy is this: God has shown a pattern of working through and with weak people. God has shown a propensity to entrust his treasure to jars of clay. The only place I see God using a perfect agent to get his message to the world, was in the person of Jesus Christ (who is called the word in John 1, and I think he should be understood primarily as "the word" rather than scripture). God shows his greatness by having relationship with flawed people in a flawed world with flawed ideas.
Do I think God could have written a perfect book filled with stories about his relationships with people? Yes. He could have. But do I think he did? Not at all. If it was important to God that scripture be inerrant, if it was so important that his words to people contained no error so much so that he verbally dictated to humans what he wanted written, where he wanted punctuation etc, that he wrote an "inerrant" scripture to begin with, then he would clearly be capable of preserving it in its inerrant state. But the scripture we have in Greek and Hebrew is full of typos and discrepancies, we have a multitude of texts, some very different. I think God is more than capable of preserving a perfect, inerrant text if he wanted to, but since he obviously didn't, then I have to conclude that God thinks people can be saved without an inerrant scripture. Am I missing something?!
Further, the other mistake I believe people make is thinking that the bible is just one big book. It is anything but. There are 66 books in our bible, but those books could have been written at countless times (and I mean countless when you think that Isaiah was probably written in three parts, the Chronicles and Kings were probably compiled over generations, Genesis has four major sources, not to mention the Psalms have 150 chapters, and Psalm 119 could have several authors on its own...) so to think that these books are all homogenous in some way is pretty shortsighted to me. That doesn't even mention all the books that were left out of the canon, but were fairly close to making it in... which I guess I should write about canon at some point...
So, sure there are places in the bible that say things like "all scripture is God breathed" but to pretend that that pertains to all of our bible is borderline dishonest. One of the most basic rules of hermenuetics (bible study) is that a verse means first and foremost what it meant to its original hearers. The early Christians would not have considered Paul's epistles, the gospels and Revelation to be "scripture" yet. They would have considered "scripture" to be the Old Testament. So while we can affirm today that the New Testament is "God breathed" that wouldn't likely have been the original intent. And even then, does that mean that scripture is inerrant? I think not. Not because of any error by God, but because God chose to use fallible humans to be his medium. God worked through people and those people make errors.
Let me say it like this. Say my boss at work says to me, "Chris, we need you to run downtown and get the skid of bananas and take it to the Crossing," and then I turn around and say "Craig, we need to go to DRML and get the bananas and take it to Holly street." I got the same message across, but didn't repeat it exactly as my boss said. That doesn't mean the message is wrong, but it does mean that I didn't convey my boss said without error. He used different words. I think the bible we have today contains God's message for humans. I think it is full of mistakes and errors and some of the historical facts may not be accurate. But I don't think God is all that worried about all that (again, if he was, he would have seen to it that it was preservered without error). I think God is concerned that his basic message gets across. Go pick up the bananas and take them somewhere else. We can get that message even if Noah was only in a boat for 39 days or something like that.
I realize this is woefully incomplete, but I am going to add on to these thoughts and keep this general topic going for awhile. I may have said something in a way I didn't intend, forgive me, correct me, whatever, but I think this is an extremely important topic to consider and mull over. Again, I am probably wrong about a lot of things I think, I just don't know which I'm wrong about and which I'm not. What do you think about inerrancy?
12.24.2008
12.18.2008
God
I've been thinking a lot about the direction I want to go with this, to begin with, and I think the most important place to start is with God. I considered the bible, but I think for me, I want to start with God. A lot of what I believe about God begins in the bible, but some of it does not come from the bible. I am having a little trouble crystallizing in my head how and why I think this is most important, but here goes.
If we believe that God inspired the bible, then we must also believe that God is trustworthy. If God is not trustworthy, then it wouldn't matter if he inspired the bible or not, because he could just do something else. So, if God is trustworthy, then he is also good. If God is good, then we can know some things based merely upon his character, such as, God will not do things that go against his nature. In a manner of speaking, God has a certain code that he himself knows and he upholds. God refuses to do those things that violate that code.
In addition, God adheres to simple laws of logic. I am not sure how it works, but it must. If not then God could not be trustworthy. I am not sure if God follows those laws because he must or because he chooses to. What I do know, is if God does not follow rules of logic then God cannot be trusted. What I mean is this. (I believe this is called the law of noncontradiction) God cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. What that means, is God cannot both love and hate someone in the same time and in the same sense. God cannot make a square circle. God cannot make a black thing white at the same time and in the same sense. I realize this is a difficult concept, but it is worth grasping (not that I have really done anything to grasp it, but I did learn at the feet of Wallace Roark, who is about a billion times better at explaining this than I am).
Anyway, this may seem like common sense, and it may seem very obvious, but as I think through the rest of what I think about theology, I find this simple principle even more important and even further taken for granted by some. God is trustworthy, and God is logical. This means that our concept of God should be trustworthy and logical.
I realize the common attacks against this point of view. Why would you say that God cannot do something? I guess my response would be "Could God be evil?" or "Could God lie?" There are certain limitations within God, whether chosen by him or inherent in his nature. I believe logic is one such limitation. The other common objection is that sometimes we don't know God's point of view about things, so while it may seem like a contradiction to us, it isn't to God. While most of the time I think that is a cop-out, I guess sometimes it holds some weight. My problem with it is that it becomes a catch-all for anything that could disrupt someone's picture of God. People will say with a straight face that God has done or wants certain things done while also affirming that his character is against them. It seems at that point a person must question his view of God. But many times this is simply a way for people to affirm what they want to affirm without any logical consistency. In some rare occurences, I think its right that God works in ways and does things that we don't understand. However, I don't think it is often. God has given us incredible reasoning capabilities and has explained who he is and how he works a good deal of the time.
I realize the majority of the five of you that read this won't really like this post, but I think Grant will probably have a few things to say about it. Also, I realize this isn't riveting stuff, but I think it becomes really relevant as we move to certain other discussions.
If we believe that God inspired the bible, then we must also believe that God is trustworthy. If God is not trustworthy, then it wouldn't matter if he inspired the bible or not, because he could just do something else. So, if God is trustworthy, then he is also good. If God is good, then we can know some things based merely upon his character, such as, God will not do things that go against his nature. In a manner of speaking, God has a certain code that he himself knows and he upholds. God refuses to do those things that violate that code.
In addition, God adheres to simple laws of logic. I am not sure how it works, but it must. If not then God could not be trustworthy. I am not sure if God follows those laws because he must or because he chooses to. What I do know, is if God does not follow rules of logic then God cannot be trusted. What I mean is this. (I believe this is called the law of noncontradiction) God cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. What that means, is God cannot both love and hate someone in the same time and in the same sense. God cannot make a square circle. God cannot make a black thing white at the same time and in the same sense. I realize this is a difficult concept, but it is worth grasping (not that I have really done anything to grasp it, but I did learn at the feet of Wallace Roark, who is about a billion times better at explaining this than I am).
Anyway, this may seem like common sense, and it may seem very obvious, but as I think through the rest of what I think about theology, I find this simple principle even more important and even further taken for granted by some. God is trustworthy, and God is logical. This means that our concept of God should be trustworthy and logical.
I realize the common attacks against this point of view. Why would you say that God cannot do something? I guess my response would be "Could God be evil?" or "Could God lie?" There are certain limitations within God, whether chosen by him or inherent in his nature. I believe logic is one such limitation. The other common objection is that sometimes we don't know God's point of view about things, so while it may seem like a contradiction to us, it isn't to God. While most of the time I think that is a cop-out, I guess sometimes it holds some weight. My problem with it is that it becomes a catch-all for anything that could disrupt someone's picture of God. People will say with a straight face that God has done or wants certain things done while also affirming that his character is against them. It seems at that point a person must question his view of God. But many times this is simply a way for people to affirm what they want to affirm without any logical consistency. In some rare occurences, I think its right that God works in ways and does things that we don't understand. However, I don't think it is often. God has given us incredible reasoning capabilities and has explained who he is and how he works a good deal of the time.
I realize the majority of the five of you that read this won't really like this post, but I think Grant will probably have a few things to say about it. Also, I realize this isn't riveting stuff, but I think it becomes really relevant as we move to certain other discussions.
12.14.2008
Orthodoxy
I have been thinking for awhile that I would like to do some posts about basic theology. The main reason is because I no longer write papers for school. I think sometimes that causes my brain to get a little soft. I would like to sharpen it up a bit more. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of getting some feedback on my beliefs. I will try to write in a balanced way, but of course I will support what I believe the best I can. I also am not writing this for a grade, so it isn't going to be as polished as some would prefer. I probably won't go to the trouble of supporting everything I write with specific scripture. So, feel free to stumble through my thoughts with me, feel free to comment, I have begun to moderate comments for awhile to hopefully eliminate ridiculousness. Its ok to disagree with me, its not ok to believe that you are the final authority on what is scriptural and what is not.
So, all that to say, this first post will be sort of introductory. Again, I don't think I am teaching a class or anything like that, but really trying to get my own thoughts together.
So, I was trying to think of where to go with all of this, where to begin and whatnot, and I think the best place to start is to consider "orthodoxy." Now, typically that word means something like "right thinking" or "correct doctrine" or something along those lines. There are a lot of different ways people define orthodoxy, and there are a lot of different doctrines that become a part of it. There is no singular set of beliefs that all of Christendom has agreed on, in fact, there is a good deal of disagreement among Christians about what is orthodox and what is not. Of course, a large contingent here in the United States (and I would guess abroad too, but can't say because I don't live there) that believes that they alone are orthodox.
This can become problematic, however, because nearly everyone disagrees on certain aspects of theology. Even if a person hasn't clearly thought through all of their own theology, they might be full of inner contradictions. So what should we do? Just continually split churches and denominations until we are all alone in our "orthodox" single person churches? I think not. So what is the answer? Where do we go when we disagree on important aspects of theology?
I think scripturally, and throughout church history, we see one prevailing thing about orthodoxy, it is less important than "orthopraxy." I think, here I should explain a little more what orthopraxy is. Orthopraxy is simply right practice, or doing the right thing. There are a few disagreements on what is permissible and what is not among Christians, but for the most part, all Christians agree on the major aspects of living a right lifestyle. Things like being generous, helping the poor, love, fidelity, faithfulness, kindness are all things that are clearly good. So, I think when we look at the Christian church, orthodoxy should take a backseat to orthopraxy.
Jesus talks a lot more about what things a person ought to do, what things they ought not to do, how they should live etc, than he talks about right belief. Of course, we should strive for both, but I think our entrance into the kingdom of God is much more contingent upon our orthopraxy than our orthodoxy. God knows himself exhaustively, and since we are very finite, we can only know him in part. He does not expect us to have a perfect and correct knowledge of him, he does expect us to live in obedience. This all relates to faith really. Faith is not so much believing the right thing, but trusting in it and doing something about it.
Of course, to those who wrote the bible and those who originally read it, there could have been no distinction. They did not acknowledge something with their minds and deny it with their lives. Theology to the early Christians was first about practice and second about belief. But they were intertwined, they were inextricable. To many today, we acknowledge God with our minds and mouths, but our hands and feet deny him.
I don't know how well I put my thoughts out here, but I don't feel like rewriting it all right now. Feel free to blog, I will publish it unless it is rude or something like that.
So, all that to say, this first post will be sort of introductory. Again, I don't think I am teaching a class or anything like that, but really trying to get my own thoughts together.
So, I was trying to think of where to go with all of this, where to begin and whatnot, and I think the best place to start is to consider "orthodoxy." Now, typically that word means something like "right thinking" or "correct doctrine" or something along those lines. There are a lot of different ways people define orthodoxy, and there are a lot of different doctrines that become a part of it. There is no singular set of beliefs that all of Christendom has agreed on, in fact, there is a good deal of disagreement among Christians about what is orthodox and what is not. Of course, a large contingent here in the United States (and I would guess abroad too, but can't say because I don't live there) that believes that they alone are orthodox.
This can become problematic, however, because nearly everyone disagrees on certain aspects of theology. Even if a person hasn't clearly thought through all of their own theology, they might be full of inner contradictions. So what should we do? Just continually split churches and denominations until we are all alone in our "orthodox" single person churches? I think not. So what is the answer? Where do we go when we disagree on important aspects of theology?
I think scripturally, and throughout church history, we see one prevailing thing about orthodoxy, it is less important than "orthopraxy." I think, here I should explain a little more what orthopraxy is. Orthopraxy is simply right practice, or doing the right thing. There are a few disagreements on what is permissible and what is not among Christians, but for the most part, all Christians agree on the major aspects of living a right lifestyle. Things like being generous, helping the poor, love, fidelity, faithfulness, kindness are all things that are clearly good. So, I think when we look at the Christian church, orthodoxy should take a backseat to orthopraxy.
Jesus talks a lot more about what things a person ought to do, what things they ought not to do, how they should live etc, than he talks about right belief. Of course, we should strive for both, but I think our entrance into the kingdom of God is much more contingent upon our orthopraxy than our orthodoxy. God knows himself exhaustively, and since we are very finite, we can only know him in part. He does not expect us to have a perfect and correct knowledge of him, he does expect us to live in obedience. This all relates to faith really. Faith is not so much believing the right thing, but trusting in it and doing something about it.
Of course, to those who wrote the bible and those who originally read it, there could have been no distinction. They did not acknowledge something with their minds and deny it with their lives. Theology to the early Christians was first about practice and second about belief. But they were intertwined, they were inextricable. To many today, we acknowledge God with our minds and mouths, but our hands and feet deny him.
I don't know how well I put my thoughts out here, but I don't feel like rewriting it all right now. Feel free to blog, I will publish it unless it is rude or something like that.
11.17.2008
Politics: Marriage
I realize that some of my past topics have been a bit controversial, and I have full confidence that this one will be even more so. I expect that those on both sides of this one will be unhappy with what I say here, so might as well dive right in.
Currently, same-sex marriages are not legal in the overwhelming majority of states. The question, I think, for Christians is, how should we vote on this particular issue? I am going to put off answering that until the end, for fear that people would cease listening to everything else I say (which happens in any forum at any time anyway, but maybe we can prevent some of it here).
I think, to start off, we should talk about what constitutes an acceptable sexual relationship. Biblically, I don't see any bones about the only time sex is acceptable is in a marriage relationship. This is consistent and I think pretty clear throughout the bible. God has said that sex is good and he wants us to enjoy it, in a loving, committed relationship. I think it is also clear that God has designed sex to occur between a man and woman. God sees that as the only acceptable marriage. I think as Christians, that becomes pretty clear.
I do believe that some are born homosexual. I think the only option for those people, if they want to follow God's will, is to live in celibacy. It is difficult, and I don't say that glibly. But after my own research and reading on the topic, that is the only conclusion I can come to. (I am not saying that everyone who is homosexual was born that way, I am just saying that some are)
So, for Christians I think it is clear, marriage should be between a man and a woman. If someone is homosexual, they should live in celibacy. Just as, someone who is not married should live in celibacy. That is what should happen in Christian communities. However, the United States is not a Christian community. I think as Christians, we should vote for equal marriage rights under the law for same-sex couples. I think there are quite a few arguments that support this.
I find it strange that some would say we should not legislate morality, then turn around and say that gay partners should not be able to share health care, or have visiting rights in the hospital. Seems to me like legislating morality. In addition, just because the law says it is ok, does not mean that we are saying God wants it to happen. Back to the topic of abortion, I think legally we should allow it, but ethically and morally we should condemn it. We should not practice it as Christians, but should allow it as a nation. Back to gay-marriage. I think ethically there is nothing wrong with giving equal legal rights to a same-sex couple as my wife and I enjoy. I think they should be allowed health care, I think they should be able to make decisions for each other, I think they should get inheritance.
I am not 100% on the arguments against it, none have made much sense to me so far, I'm sure someone reading can tell me why it shouldn't be allowed. I know one common argument is that it cheapens marriage. With a divorce rate above 50% in the church, we have no ground to argue about anything cheapening marriage. If our divorce rate was 10% or so, maybe, but I still don't think so. As Christians, the sanctity of marriage comes from God. If someone does not believe in God, then they will have different rules. (This may not make sense, if so let me know and I'll try to clarify)
Another argument is that some people would take advantage of this rule by saying they were married so that they could get benefits from it. But no one would ever do that with a man and a woman would they?!! I think this argument is absurd. Its not our job to try to make sure no one can live a fradulent life style. We just can't do that.
I see this issue as pretty clear cut. I think the gay community should have the same legal marriage rights as the straight community. I don't think God sees homosexuality as a good life-style, but that is an issue to be handled in the church, not on capitol hill. I'm not sure how great of a case I made, but I'm not sure how great of one needs to be made. Just because something is legal in our country does not mean that God wants it in his church. We should be loving and welcoming to the homosexual community. We should affirm them as people, just as we should affirm those who struggle with lust or greed or gluttony. But we should help them to see that God's plan for them is sex only in a marriage between a man and a woman. Bumper stickers and protest signs do not count.
Currently, same-sex marriages are not legal in the overwhelming majority of states. The question, I think, for Christians is, how should we vote on this particular issue? I am going to put off answering that until the end, for fear that people would cease listening to everything else I say (which happens in any forum at any time anyway, but maybe we can prevent some of it here).
I think, to start off, we should talk about what constitutes an acceptable sexual relationship. Biblically, I don't see any bones about the only time sex is acceptable is in a marriage relationship. This is consistent and I think pretty clear throughout the bible. God has said that sex is good and he wants us to enjoy it, in a loving, committed relationship. I think it is also clear that God has designed sex to occur between a man and woman. God sees that as the only acceptable marriage. I think as Christians, that becomes pretty clear.
I do believe that some are born homosexual. I think the only option for those people, if they want to follow God's will, is to live in celibacy. It is difficult, and I don't say that glibly. But after my own research and reading on the topic, that is the only conclusion I can come to. (I am not saying that everyone who is homosexual was born that way, I am just saying that some are)
So, for Christians I think it is clear, marriage should be between a man and a woman. If someone is homosexual, they should live in celibacy. Just as, someone who is not married should live in celibacy. That is what should happen in Christian communities. However, the United States is not a Christian community. I think as Christians, we should vote for equal marriage rights under the law for same-sex couples. I think there are quite a few arguments that support this.
I find it strange that some would say we should not legislate morality, then turn around and say that gay partners should not be able to share health care, or have visiting rights in the hospital. Seems to me like legislating morality. In addition, just because the law says it is ok, does not mean that we are saying God wants it to happen. Back to the topic of abortion, I think legally we should allow it, but ethically and morally we should condemn it. We should not practice it as Christians, but should allow it as a nation. Back to gay-marriage. I think ethically there is nothing wrong with giving equal legal rights to a same-sex couple as my wife and I enjoy. I think they should be allowed health care, I think they should be able to make decisions for each other, I think they should get inheritance.
I am not 100% on the arguments against it, none have made much sense to me so far, I'm sure someone reading can tell me why it shouldn't be allowed. I know one common argument is that it cheapens marriage. With a divorce rate above 50% in the church, we have no ground to argue about anything cheapening marriage. If our divorce rate was 10% or so, maybe, but I still don't think so. As Christians, the sanctity of marriage comes from God. If someone does not believe in God, then they will have different rules. (This may not make sense, if so let me know and I'll try to clarify)
Another argument is that some people would take advantage of this rule by saying they were married so that they could get benefits from it. But no one would ever do that with a man and a woman would they?!! I think this argument is absurd. Its not our job to try to make sure no one can live a fradulent life style. We just can't do that.
I see this issue as pretty clear cut. I think the gay community should have the same legal marriage rights as the straight community. I don't think God sees homosexuality as a good life-style, but that is an issue to be handled in the church, not on capitol hill. I'm not sure how great of a case I made, but I'm not sure how great of one needs to be made. Just because something is legal in our country does not mean that God wants it in his church. We should be loving and welcoming to the homosexual community. We should affirm them as people, just as we should affirm those who struggle with lust or greed or gluttony. But we should help them to see that God's plan for them is sex only in a marriage between a man and a woman. Bumper stickers and protest signs do not count.
11.10.2008
Economics (continued)
I had no idea I had more than three people that read this, so I will have to try to think my posts out a little better. I think I have been lazy some in connecting dots in my head without connecting them in writing, so, sorry everyone. I will do better on that. I think my last post was a little sloppy in some ways, so I need to write more about that. Lyle, thanks for the thoughts, I will try to address those here too.
I mainly started the topic of economics because I am sick of hearing that Obama is a socialist. Now, there are several reasons this bothers me, the major one being that it is a fear tactic. Of course, he does have some "socialist tendencies." But that does not a socialist make. He has some plans and some things he would like to do which may be "socialistic." However, I think that is forcing a false dichotomy. Things are not either "socialist" or "capitalist." We do not live in a truly capitalistic society. Otherwise Walmart could do whatever they wanted and Bill Gates would not have had several huge anti-trust lawsuits. So, yes, the left is closer to socialism than the right, but that is like saying Colorado is closer to Spain than Utah. Neither is really all that close. Obama was not advocating that the American government solve everyone's problems, just as McCain was not advocating that the government let everyone do whatever they want with their money. I am obviously on the left side of things economically, but no one was madder than me when the bank-bailout happened. That happened under a Repub president. I don't see us turning into Soviet Russia because Obama was elected.
Further on that same topic, I did not grow up when the USSR was a large threat, at least when I was cognizant of it. Socialism was not an evil in my world growing up, nor was it an evil for most people under 30. We just don't remember it all. Our government did a great job of painting socialism as evil and capitalism as good during that time. Good or bad, that is the world many grew up it. So they of course continue to see socialism as an enemy and capitalism as a friend. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it becomes obvious when you look votes based on age. Another thing to consider, it is very easy to advocate for capitalism when compared with the rest of the world, you are very rich. Americans have every reason to think capitalism is great, look what its done for us. I wonder if we will be so cavalier about capitalism if it continues to hurt us as it has lately?
I understand the concern about Obama's charity, or lack thereof, but that appears to me to be a gross ad hominem argument. I have not looked at his totals of charity, nor do I need to. If a person who was clearly promiscuous told me that it is better to be in a married, monogamous relationship, would that take away the validity of their statement? Or if an abusive parent told me it is better to love and nurture your children, would that take away from their statement? I think not. I am certainly disappointed, if those numbers are accurate, but that does not change the validity of their opinions. I think we all think things are right that we do not necessarily practice. Furthermore, does that disqualify Paul or Jesus from speaking on marriage, because neither was married? I think not. Barak Obama is clearly neither, but the principle holds.
Now, I made the statement, or something close that "if we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all. let someone else do it." My point in that statement was not that socialism was good, but that was an obvious downfall of socialism. Just as the obvious downfall of capitalism is that the rich can do whatever they want. In a perfect society, everyone would work hard because that is a good thing to do. God wants us to be useful. However, Lyle I do question your reference about work in the garden. I just looked over Gen 1 and 2 and did not find a reference to work before the fall. I may be missing it, but I didn't see it.
There is in fact quite a bit in scripture that advocates socialism. Outside of the obvious New Testament church which was a de facto communist society, the Old Testament was the law of the land. It made it clear that part of the job of those with money was to help those without money. Again, the OT prophets compared not helping the poor to murder. There was no distinction between church and state at the time. When Israel was first a country, there was no king, it was simply a theocracy. God was the boss and people did what he wanted, or so the plan went. People were required to give a certain portion to both the church and to the poor. But I guess the constitution of the United States is more inspired than the OT? Na. We would never think that. Now, I do think there are certain levels of morality that must be legislated. We would not put up with it if our government said murder or stealing was OK. Further, when Christ said we would always have the poor, he was not resigned to that fact. In fact, most of the scholars I have read on it believe he is referencing the fact that the Jews were not obeying the command in Deuteronomy to help the poor.
I would also like to speak to the idea that God wants some to be poor and some to be rich. That would seem to me like favoritism, and James seems pretty clear that God does not practice favoritism. In addition, if we follow the logic that says that some are poor because they are irresponsible or do not work hard we would seem imply that God desires them to sin. Does God want anyone to sin?!! Now, the Bible certainly teaches self-responsibility, so much so that when Peter asked Jesus "What about John?" Jesus told him to worry about himself and follow him! If we are followers of Jesus, it is not our job to ask if people deserve handouts or not. It is our job to give handouts.
I feel this post getting long in the tooth, so I think I need to try to wrap it up. I do not think Socialism is inherently Christian. But I would say it is more Christian than capitalism. There is no such thing as a perfect government, and no political system is Christian per se. I just see that we are called to help the poor, and capitalism does not do that overtly. I realize that this is not incredibly well-thought out, but I am not getting graded on this. Its just a blog. So, I appreciate the dialog, and please continue it. I hope this can be a learning opportunity for me as well.
The last thing I want to respond to is this quote. "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." I think this particular quote has an inherent bias built into it. Of course religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals! The only reason any of us should have to help others is religion! If someone is secular, they have no reason to be charitable. Again, the best way to help the poor is debatable. Some say we need to help business and then business will help the poor, some say we need to give to them. Biblically, we don't see any "help businesses" type of thing. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help, but the only Biblical input we have is that it is our job to help the poor. For me, that includes voting for those that will increase government spending for the poor.
I mainly started the topic of economics because I am sick of hearing that Obama is a socialist. Now, there are several reasons this bothers me, the major one being that it is a fear tactic. Of course, he does have some "socialist tendencies." But that does not a socialist make. He has some plans and some things he would like to do which may be "socialistic." However, I think that is forcing a false dichotomy. Things are not either "socialist" or "capitalist." We do not live in a truly capitalistic society. Otherwise Walmart could do whatever they wanted and Bill Gates would not have had several huge anti-trust lawsuits. So, yes, the left is closer to socialism than the right, but that is like saying Colorado is closer to Spain than Utah. Neither is really all that close. Obama was not advocating that the American government solve everyone's problems, just as McCain was not advocating that the government let everyone do whatever they want with their money. I am obviously on the left side of things economically, but no one was madder than me when the bank-bailout happened. That happened under a Repub president. I don't see us turning into Soviet Russia because Obama was elected.
Further on that same topic, I did not grow up when the USSR was a large threat, at least when I was cognizant of it. Socialism was not an evil in my world growing up, nor was it an evil for most people under 30. We just don't remember it all. Our government did a great job of painting socialism as evil and capitalism as good during that time. Good or bad, that is the world many grew up it. So they of course continue to see socialism as an enemy and capitalism as a friend. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it becomes obvious when you look votes based on age. Another thing to consider, it is very easy to advocate for capitalism when compared with the rest of the world, you are very rich. Americans have every reason to think capitalism is great, look what its done for us. I wonder if we will be so cavalier about capitalism if it continues to hurt us as it has lately?
I understand the concern about Obama's charity, or lack thereof, but that appears to me to be a gross ad hominem argument. I have not looked at his totals of charity, nor do I need to. If a person who was clearly promiscuous told me that it is better to be in a married, monogamous relationship, would that take away the validity of their statement? Or if an abusive parent told me it is better to love and nurture your children, would that take away from their statement? I think not. I am certainly disappointed, if those numbers are accurate, but that does not change the validity of their opinions. I think we all think things are right that we do not necessarily practice. Furthermore, does that disqualify Paul or Jesus from speaking on marriage, because neither was married? I think not. Barak Obama is clearly neither, but the principle holds.
Now, I made the statement, or something close that "if we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all. let someone else do it." My point in that statement was not that socialism was good, but that was an obvious downfall of socialism. Just as the obvious downfall of capitalism is that the rich can do whatever they want. In a perfect society, everyone would work hard because that is a good thing to do. God wants us to be useful. However, Lyle I do question your reference about work in the garden. I just looked over Gen 1 and 2 and did not find a reference to work before the fall. I may be missing it, but I didn't see it.
There is in fact quite a bit in scripture that advocates socialism. Outside of the obvious New Testament church which was a de facto communist society, the Old Testament was the law of the land. It made it clear that part of the job of those with money was to help those without money. Again, the OT prophets compared not helping the poor to murder. There was no distinction between church and state at the time. When Israel was first a country, there was no king, it was simply a theocracy. God was the boss and people did what he wanted, or so the plan went. People were required to give a certain portion to both the church and to the poor. But I guess the constitution of the United States is more inspired than the OT? Na. We would never think that. Now, I do think there are certain levels of morality that must be legislated. We would not put up with it if our government said murder or stealing was OK. Further, when Christ said we would always have the poor, he was not resigned to that fact. In fact, most of the scholars I have read on it believe he is referencing the fact that the Jews were not obeying the command in Deuteronomy to help the poor.
I would also like to speak to the idea that God wants some to be poor and some to be rich. That would seem to me like favoritism, and James seems pretty clear that God does not practice favoritism. In addition, if we follow the logic that says that some are poor because they are irresponsible or do not work hard we would seem imply that God desires them to sin. Does God want anyone to sin?!! Now, the Bible certainly teaches self-responsibility, so much so that when Peter asked Jesus "What about John?" Jesus told him to worry about himself and follow him! If we are followers of Jesus, it is not our job to ask if people deserve handouts or not. It is our job to give handouts.
I feel this post getting long in the tooth, so I think I need to try to wrap it up. I do not think Socialism is inherently Christian. But I would say it is more Christian than capitalism. There is no such thing as a perfect government, and no political system is Christian per se. I just see that we are called to help the poor, and capitalism does not do that overtly. I realize that this is not incredibly well-thought out, but I am not getting graded on this. Its just a blog. So, I appreciate the dialog, and please continue it. I hope this can be a learning opportunity for me as well.
The last thing I want to respond to is this quote. "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." I think this particular quote has an inherent bias built into it. Of course religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals! The only reason any of us should have to help others is religion! If someone is secular, they have no reason to be charitable. Again, the best way to help the poor is debatable. Some say we need to help business and then business will help the poor, some say we need to give to them. Biblically, we don't see any "help businesses" type of thing. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help, but the only Biblical input we have is that it is our job to help the poor. For me, that includes voting for those that will increase government spending for the poor.
10.26.2008
Politics: Economics
I started a few posts ago talking about politics. I had a couple about abortion, and I enjoy the dialog, but I think that one could go forever. I want to continue my thoughts about politics by discussing economics here. I want to reiterate, again, that these are only my opinions, and sometimes I am just throwing things out there to mull over.
This is, by far, the most obnoxious topic about politics to me. Economics. This is also, I think, one of the fuzziest and grayest of all political topics for a Christian. I think maybe that is why this gets me really riled up. Here is the typical thing said by many Christians about economics, and about Obama specifically "I just have a hard time voting for a socialist." Or, "I just don't think we should play Robin Hood with people's money." Or, "It is the church's job to help the poor, not government's job."
So, a few things about all of this. I think I will start with the accusation that Obama is a socialist. A socialist wouldn't advocate for more small business. A socialist would advocate for the government to create businesses and then employ people. A socialist would try to have the government control everything that has to do with money in our country, and Obama clearly does not. I think the problem is that this is, again a gross oversimplification in order to create fear in the American people. It would be the same as saying that Republicans believe in a complete free market. That is just simply not true either. The fact is that socialism does not work, and a complete free market does not work, for essentially the same reasons. People are corrupt. The only thing that corrupts people more than money is power. Money truly causes people to do crazy and awful things. If we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all, let someone else do it. If we were complete free market, large businesses would abuse and oppress their workers to an extent that would make sweatshops look tame.
So, neither works if they are pure, what about other considerations? I think to think that capitalism and Christianity go hand in hand is completely foolish. If one system is inherently more "Christian" than the other, it is certainly socialism. Some people have been blessed with much, and the clear biblical message for those that are blessed is that they are to share. They are to help the poor and the widow and the orphan. Not by "trickle down" economics, but by feeding them, clothing them, and giving them something to drink. These are not optional, they are compulsory if we follow Christ.
However, one would reply that people are called to do that of their own free will, government is not supposed to make us do that. Well, yes and no. The fact is that Jesus is not telling the government what to do when he orders his followers to care for the less fortunate. But, that is primarily because his followers would have had zero impact on what the government actually did. They lived in a province of Rome. Rome was not democratic and Rome did not give a crap what Jesus said. Rome cared about Rome. Christians were called to care about widows and orphans. However, the Old Testament is pretty clear that EVERYONE was called to give of their money to the poor. The Torah (Gen-Deut) was the law of the land. It made alms compulsory. So, we can't force our government to take care of the poor, but we can sure vote for it.
The last thing that I think stands in the way is simple selfishness. People do not want to be told what to do with "their" money. Which is understandable. But I think this is a flawed thought for a Christian as well. The Bible teaches clearly that anything we have, we have been given. No one has truly earned everything they have and everything they are. Some have done pretty well, but each has been helped in some way. In addition, the Bible teaches that the earth is the Lord's and everything in it. Including our money. The Bible does not advocate rugged individualism, and rugged individualism is a foolish, stupid way to try to live anyway.
So what do I think we should do? I think we should vote for those who want to help the poor with health care and welfare. I think we as the church should help them too. It may be that they messed up and so they are in the position they are in, or it may be that they caught a bad break. I don't see why it should matter to us, we are just called to help. I think if we are being honest, capitalism, survival of the fittest, is not the way we are called to be. As a side note, in the Old Testament prophets, failing to help the poor and the widow is the same as murder. We wouldn't advocate that our government murder would we? So, while I said this issue is not black and white, I think it may be pretty clear after all. We are called to help the poor and the widow, no matter what. We are called to advocate for them in our votes, and in our lifestyles. We shouldn't buy clothes from sweatshops and we shouldn't continue to think that oppresive politics are ok, because the wealth will "trickle down." Now, the way the orphan and widow are helped the best is clearly debatable. But help we must, and we must not separate our politcal leanings from our relationship with Christ.
This is, by far, the most obnoxious topic about politics to me. Economics. This is also, I think, one of the fuzziest and grayest of all political topics for a Christian. I think maybe that is why this gets me really riled up. Here is the typical thing said by many Christians about economics, and about Obama specifically "I just have a hard time voting for a socialist." Or, "I just don't think we should play Robin Hood with people's money." Or, "It is the church's job to help the poor, not government's job."
So, a few things about all of this. I think I will start with the accusation that Obama is a socialist. A socialist wouldn't advocate for more small business. A socialist would advocate for the government to create businesses and then employ people. A socialist would try to have the government control everything that has to do with money in our country, and Obama clearly does not. I think the problem is that this is, again a gross oversimplification in order to create fear in the American people. It would be the same as saying that Republicans believe in a complete free market. That is just simply not true either. The fact is that socialism does not work, and a complete free market does not work, for essentially the same reasons. People are corrupt. The only thing that corrupts people more than money is power. Money truly causes people to do crazy and awful things. If we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all, let someone else do it. If we were complete free market, large businesses would abuse and oppress their workers to an extent that would make sweatshops look tame.
So, neither works if they are pure, what about other considerations? I think to think that capitalism and Christianity go hand in hand is completely foolish. If one system is inherently more "Christian" than the other, it is certainly socialism. Some people have been blessed with much, and the clear biblical message for those that are blessed is that they are to share. They are to help the poor and the widow and the orphan. Not by "trickle down" economics, but by feeding them, clothing them, and giving them something to drink. These are not optional, they are compulsory if we follow Christ.
However, one would reply that people are called to do that of their own free will, government is not supposed to make us do that. Well, yes and no. The fact is that Jesus is not telling the government what to do when he orders his followers to care for the less fortunate. But, that is primarily because his followers would have had zero impact on what the government actually did. They lived in a province of Rome. Rome was not democratic and Rome did not give a crap what Jesus said. Rome cared about Rome. Christians were called to care about widows and orphans. However, the Old Testament is pretty clear that EVERYONE was called to give of their money to the poor. The Torah (Gen-Deut) was the law of the land. It made alms compulsory. So, we can't force our government to take care of the poor, but we can sure vote for it.
The last thing that I think stands in the way is simple selfishness. People do not want to be told what to do with "their" money. Which is understandable. But I think this is a flawed thought for a Christian as well. The Bible teaches clearly that anything we have, we have been given. No one has truly earned everything they have and everything they are. Some have done pretty well, but each has been helped in some way. In addition, the Bible teaches that the earth is the Lord's and everything in it. Including our money. The Bible does not advocate rugged individualism, and rugged individualism is a foolish, stupid way to try to live anyway.
So what do I think we should do? I think we should vote for those who want to help the poor with health care and welfare. I think we as the church should help them too. It may be that they messed up and so they are in the position they are in, or it may be that they caught a bad break. I don't see why it should matter to us, we are just called to help. I think if we are being honest, capitalism, survival of the fittest, is not the way we are called to be. As a side note, in the Old Testament prophets, failing to help the poor and the widow is the same as murder. We wouldn't advocate that our government murder would we? So, while I said this issue is not black and white, I think it may be pretty clear after all. We are called to help the poor and the widow, no matter what. We are called to advocate for them in our votes, and in our lifestyles. We shouldn't buy clothes from sweatshops and we shouldn't continue to think that oppresive politics are ok, because the wealth will "trickle down." Now, the way the orphan and widow are helped the best is clearly debatable. But help we must, and we must not separate our politcal leanings from our relationship with Christ.
10.19.2008
Politics: Abortion (continued)
The other day I got really fed up with people always writing very one-sided views of all the politics that are going on, so I decided I wanted to write a series of blogs about my opinion. Now, I don't expect everyone (or maybe anyone) to agree with everything I write, so I hope that if you disagree you will let me know. Misty, thanks for the comment, part of what I write will be a response. I want to reiterate at the beginning of this that I am pro-life, but I think there are some pretty good arguments to allow abortions in some situations. I also think that some of what I said in my last post could have been put better, so I will try to do that some.
1. The first thing that I think I need to explain my thoughts better on is "playing God." Many times people will say that to have an abortion is to take control away from God and give it to yourself. God has ordained the pregnancy, according to this view, and if we do anything against that then we are declaring ourselves in control and removing God from control. I think this is a flawed argument for a lot of reasons.
The first is that if we take this position, then in any and every situation we must allow to happen what will happen. If we are diagnosed with cancer, then that must be God's will and unless we allow the cancer to run its course, we are then "playing God" because he gave us cancer for a reason. We should not use any birth control, because it then does not allow God to do his work. We should not, as some do, count days between periods to avoid pregnancy. These all seem like ways to "play God" if contraception is not allowed. On the flip side, are we allowed to help the babies that are growing inside the mother at this point? I have a very good friend who had a lot of issues with her baby, and the doctors had to help in a lot of ways, was she "playing God" by not allowing God to do what he wanted? I think not.
My second problem with that position is that the people who advocate it still allow for the baby to be put up for adoption. This strikes me as strange, because I think that God knows who he is causing to be pregnant, why wouldn't he just have the couple that would eventually adopt the baby get pregnant, and leave the poor single mother barren? Isn't it "playing God" to decide who can raise the child? In other words, by allowing a child to be put up for adoption, would we not be "playing God" by saying that some other parents should raise that child? If God has ordained a certain mother to get pregnant, then why would God ordain that child to be put up for adoption?
My third problem with this is that if God desired to have complete control, there is nothing you or I could do to prevent it. God created the world and is fully capable of taking control at any point in time. If we are going to say that EACH and EVERY pregnancy was ordained by God, then we must also say that God can overcome any obstacle we put in the way of that pregnancy. God could overcome contraceptives, and God could overcome an abortion. We cannot take this title away from God. Instead, I would say that God has set the conditions for life to occur and he allows the laws of the universe to determine when it does occur. I do not think God cares if we change the conditions for life to occur (i.e. it can only happen when we aren't on birth control or using other contraceptives), in fact I believe that God desires us to be responsible with this wonderful gift of life!
My last problem with this point of view is that it relegates humans to a very passive participant in the universe. If we are not allowed to make decisions that matter because that would be "playing God" then what decisions are we allowed to make? The fact is God has given us choice because he wants us to use choice. He does not want us to make poor choices, but he does want us to make a choice. He wants us to be active participants in how this all turns out. He invites us, in a way, to "play God" because that is the role he designated for us. Again, I don't think God desires us to have abortions, but I don't think it is for the reason that we would then be "playing God." We are perfectly OK with "playing God" in other situations, such as allowing a heart transplant or euthanizing a pet.
2. I said that sometimes the child may be better off if the parent aborts it. I still believe that. For every child that escapes a life of poverty, for every son or daughter of addicts that manages to avoid those bonds, there are too many to count that do not escape. I think we, especially Americans, are so fearful of death that it clouds our judgment on this issue. Was it Paul that said "to live is Christ and to die is gain"? If we believe that God will be gracious on children that had no say in their lives, wouldn't death be gain for them? The problem is that many of us do not have a proper view of what happens after we die. We are so enamored with this life that we think that if someone missed it and went straight to the "second life" that they would be missing out. The truth is, WE WOULD BE MISSING OUT!! All of us would be better off if we had simply immediately gone to be with God. That does not, again, mean that we should abort every child. I believe that God wants us to live lives that serve him and bring him disciples. But we should not pity those babies who were aborted, maybe they should pity us! CS Lewis writes that "we are like children that are happy with mud pies, because we cannot imagine what it would be like to have a holiday at sea." (rough paraphrase)
I think maybe I have called so much into question, it would be good to clarify what I actually believe about abortion. I believe that it should be legal. My reasons are those that I have said in my previous post, but to reiterate; some would attempt to have an abortion illegally, resulting in more harm to both the mother and the child; sometimes if a pregnancy is taken all the way, it will endanger both the mother and the child, if it is certain death for both, it seems better to save the mother; in cases of incest or rape, sometimes the child would be better off going to be with God (this is due to many factors, including serious health problems in the case of incest and serious psychological problems in the case of rape). I do not believe a healthy Christian couple should get an abortion in lieu of birth control. I think God has told us clearly not to take life and I believe he means that (though we do not know when life begins, I think for the Christian once pregnancy begins it should be allowed to run its course, unless it is an extreme situation).
I believe for the non-Christian there are serious ramifications for abortions. I think that those are two types of guilt: The internal guilt of the would-be mother, and the guilt of taking a life from God.
Internal guilt has all sorts of awful results. The mother could do all sorts of things as a result of feeling so guilty about ending a pregnancy. Sometimes it leads to a downward spiral of sin, sometimes it leads to a spiral of a mother trying to earn forgiveness, and I believe that it always gets in the way of the mother being able to accept that she is accepted by God.
The external guilt comes from God. God has told us not to take life. Even though we are not sure when life actually begins, as Christians we should let pregnancy run its course. God has made it clear that we are not allowed to take life, except in extreme situations.
I realize, again that these thoughts are incomplete and not perfect. I am not sure what exactly I think about all of this, but I am trying to think through what I think. This blog gives me a place to write and "think out loud." So, I welcome more input and appreciate thoughts you guys might have. I think the most dangerous thing any of us can do is think we have it all figured out. I guess what I am saying is, take this all with a grain of salt. Most of this is a reaction to other Christians who present abortion as an incredibly simple issue: Christians must vote pro-life no matter what. I think there are situations where abortions are acceptable, not a lot, but there are some.
1. The first thing that I think I need to explain my thoughts better on is "playing God." Many times people will say that to have an abortion is to take control away from God and give it to yourself. God has ordained the pregnancy, according to this view, and if we do anything against that then we are declaring ourselves in control and removing God from control. I think this is a flawed argument for a lot of reasons.
The first is that if we take this position, then in any and every situation we must allow to happen what will happen. If we are diagnosed with cancer, then that must be God's will and unless we allow the cancer to run its course, we are then "playing God" because he gave us cancer for a reason. We should not use any birth control, because it then does not allow God to do his work. We should not, as some do, count days between periods to avoid pregnancy. These all seem like ways to "play God" if contraception is not allowed. On the flip side, are we allowed to help the babies that are growing inside the mother at this point? I have a very good friend who had a lot of issues with her baby, and the doctors had to help in a lot of ways, was she "playing God" by not allowing God to do what he wanted? I think not.
My second problem with that position is that the people who advocate it still allow for the baby to be put up for adoption. This strikes me as strange, because I think that God knows who he is causing to be pregnant, why wouldn't he just have the couple that would eventually adopt the baby get pregnant, and leave the poor single mother barren? Isn't it "playing God" to decide who can raise the child? In other words, by allowing a child to be put up for adoption, would we not be "playing God" by saying that some other parents should raise that child? If God has ordained a certain mother to get pregnant, then why would God ordain that child to be put up for adoption?
My third problem with this is that if God desired to have complete control, there is nothing you or I could do to prevent it. God created the world and is fully capable of taking control at any point in time. If we are going to say that EACH and EVERY pregnancy was ordained by God, then we must also say that God can overcome any obstacle we put in the way of that pregnancy. God could overcome contraceptives, and God could overcome an abortion. We cannot take this title away from God. Instead, I would say that God has set the conditions for life to occur and he allows the laws of the universe to determine when it does occur. I do not think God cares if we change the conditions for life to occur (i.e. it can only happen when we aren't on birth control or using other contraceptives), in fact I believe that God desires us to be responsible with this wonderful gift of life!
My last problem with this point of view is that it relegates humans to a very passive participant in the universe. If we are not allowed to make decisions that matter because that would be "playing God" then what decisions are we allowed to make? The fact is God has given us choice because he wants us to use choice. He does not want us to make poor choices, but he does want us to make a choice. He wants us to be active participants in how this all turns out. He invites us, in a way, to "play God" because that is the role he designated for us. Again, I don't think God desires us to have abortions, but I don't think it is for the reason that we would then be "playing God." We are perfectly OK with "playing God" in other situations, such as allowing a heart transplant or euthanizing a pet.
2. I said that sometimes the child may be better off if the parent aborts it. I still believe that. For every child that escapes a life of poverty, for every son or daughter of addicts that manages to avoid those bonds, there are too many to count that do not escape. I think we, especially Americans, are so fearful of death that it clouds our judgment on this issue. Was it Paul that said "to live is Christ and to die is gain"? If we believe that God will be gracious on children that had no say in their lives, wouldn't death be gain for them? The problem is that many of us do not have a proper view of what happens after we die. We are so enamored with this life that we think that if someone missed it and went straight to the "second life" that they would be missing out. The truth is, WE WOULD BE MISSING OUT!! All of us would be better off if we had simply immediately gone to be with God. That does not, again, mean that we should abort every child. I believe that God wants us to live lives that serve him and bring him disciples. But we should not pity those babies who were aborted, maybe they should pity us! CS Lewis writes that "we are like children that are happy with mud pies, because we cannot imagine what it would be like to have a holiday at sea." (rough paraphrase)
I think maybe I have called so much into question, it would be good to clarify what I actually believe about abortion. I believe that it should be legal. My reasons are those that I have said in my previous post, but to reiterate; some would attempt to have an abortion illegally, resulting in more harm to both the mother and the child; sometimes if a pregnancy is taken all the way, it will endanger both the mother and the child, if it is certain death for both, it seems better to save the mother; in cases of incest or rape, sometimes the child would be better off going to be with God (this is due to many factors, including serious health problems in the case of incest and serious psychological problems in the case of rape). I do not believe a healthy Christian couple should get an abortion in lieu of birth control. I think God has told us clearly not to take life and I believe he means that (though we do not know when life begins, I think for the Christian once pregnancy begins it should be allowed to run its course, unless it is an extreme situation).
I believe for the non-Christian there are serious ramifications for abortions. I think that those are two types of guilt: The internal guilt of the would-be mother, and the guilt of taking a life from God.
Internal guilt has all sorts of awful results. The mother could do all sorts of things as a result of feeling so guilty about ending a pregnancy. Sometimes it leads to a downward spiral of sin, sometimes it leads to a spiral of a mother trying to earn forgiveness, and I believe that it always gets in the way of the mother being able to accept that she is accepted by God.
The external guilt comes from God. God has told us not to take life. Even though we are not sure when life actually begins, as Christians we should let pregnancy run its course. God has made it clear that we are not allowed to take life, except in extreme situations.
I realize, again that these thoughts are incomplete and not perfect. I am not sure what exactly I think about all of this, but I am trying to think through what I think. This blog gives me a place to write and "think out loud." So, I welcome more input and appreciate thoughts you guys might have. I think the most dangerous thing any of us can do is think we have it all figured out. I guess what I am saying is, take this all with a grain of salt. Most of this is a reaction to other Christians who present abortion as an incredibly simple issue: Christians must vote pro-life no matter what. I think there are situations where abortions are acceptable, not a lot, but there are some.
10.15.2008
Politics
Since we are right now in the midst of a heated presidential election, I think I need to explain some of my political leanings. I have read quite a bit that Christians have written and said on the matter, and I try to keep quite for the most part. But I feel like I need to make some of my thoughts clear, even if just for my own benefit. So, if you read this, feel free to make yourself at home as for the next few weeks I let you into my thoughts about politics.
I grew up in Oklahoma, and for Christians especially in Oklahoma, there is one primary issue that divides Republicans (Christians) from Democrats (pagans). That issue is abortion. So today, that is what I am going to blog about. I am going to try to think through what I think about it, and explain my reasoning for being OK with a "pro-choice" president.
1. This is a very clinical reason, but I feel like it is a necessary one. I watched a movie the other day called "The Cider House Rules." It was a great story, and part of the story was that this doctor performed illegal abortions. He did this because many times girls would get so desperate, that they would try to kill the baby themselves. There was one story where a poor girl died because she had wounded herself trying to kill the baby growing inside her. Another story in the movie focuses on the abortion of a baby conceived in incest. Both were incredibly sad stories, but thought the second could have been much more sad if the poor girl died because of her rape at the hands of her father. Does that mean that I think abortion was good in either situation? No. But I think maybe it would have been the lesser evil. The reason is that some women are going to try to have abortions no matter what, it is much better if it can be done safely.
2. I heard one person say that the only very clear thing about this election is that the Bible says not to kill, and one candidate is for killing unborn children, and the other is not. So his choice is clear. However, I think in that case we may have a messed up view of death. What do we believe happens to these children after they are aborted? Do we believe in the grace of our heavenly father to take them to a world without suffering and pain? Is death the ultimate enemy we have to fear? I submit that it is not. Imagine the life of a child of a crack addict. That child did not choose to grow up having to steal to eat. Or having to be careful to avoid his mother's pimp. Would some children be better off if they were taken directly to God? I think so. Sadly, I think so. Of course, that doesn't mean that their death is good. Or that anyone is free of guilt for their death. But as Christians we do not fear death as others. We know who holds the keys to death.
3. We cannot really prove when human life begins. I realize this is a talking point for those that are pro-choice, but I think in all fairness and objectivity we must admit it. Does it begin when the child can survive on its own? Does it begin as soon as conception occurs? There is no straight biblical answer. It would be nice if God laid it out, step by step to let us know, but he didn't. So we can talk about it, and hope we know, but can't know for certain.
4. Another argument I hear is that this takes onto us the role of God. And in some ways it does. But do we allow contraception? If so, isn't that pretty similar? If not, do you count the days? That seems to take on the role of God too. God has given us brains to reason and to think, and to improve life. Sometimes we can do that by having less children in the world.
These are not all my thoughts on this issue, but I suspect anyone who reads my blog (maybe 3 people) will have tiredhead by now. I just want to wrap this up by saying that I am pro-life. But I think that being pro-life is not nearly so simple as voting against abortion. There is a lot more to it. The issue of abortion is anything but simple, and to simplify it does a great disservice to the wonderful brains God has gifted us with. We should think and pray about this. We should hope that no one chooses and abortion, because I do think that they will answer for that, but I will have to answer for how I treat those women who have abortions. I will have to answer for the things I do too. We cannot be so glib about things that matter so much. We must acknowledge that this issue is anything but easy and simple.
I grew up in Oklahoma, and for Christians especially in Oklahoma, there is one primary issue that divides Republicans (Christians) from Democrats (pagans). That issue is abortion. So today, that is what I am going to blog about. I am going to try to think through what I think about it, and explain my reasoning for being OK with a "pro-choice" president.
1. This is a very clinical reason, but I feel like it is a necessary one. I watched a movie the other day called "The Cider House Rules." It was a great story, and part of the story was that this doctor performed illegal abortions. He did this because many times girls would get so desperate, that they would try to kill the baby themselves. There was one story where a poor girl died because she had wounded herself trying to kill the baby growing inside her. Another story in the movie focuses on the abortion of a baby conceived in incest. Both were incredibly sad stories, but thought the second could have been much more sad if the poor girl died because of her rape at the hands of her father. Does that mean that I think abortion was good in either situation? No. But I think maybe it would have been the lesser evil. The reason is that some women are going to try to have abortions no matter what, it is much better if it can be done safely.
2. I heard one person say that the only very clear thing about this election is that the Bible says not to kill, and one candidate is for killing unborn children, and the other is not. So his choice is clear. However, I think in that case we may have a messed up view of death. What do we believe happens to these children after they are aborted? Do we believe in the grace of our heavenly father to take them to a world without suffering and pain? Is death the ultimate enemy we have to fear? I submit that it is not. Imagine the life of a child of a crack addict. That child did not choose to grow up having to steal to eat. Or having to be careful to avoid his mother's pimp. Would some children be better off if they were taken directly to God? I think so. Sadly, I think so. Of course, that doesn't mean that their death is good. Or that anyone is free of guilt for their death. But as Christians we do not fear death as others. We know who holds the keys to death.
3. We cannot really prove when human life begins. I realize this is a talking point for those that are pro-choice, but I think in all fairness and objectivity we must admit it. Does it begin when the child can survive on its own? Does it begin as soon as conception occurs? There is no straight biblical answer. It would be nice if God laid it out, step by step to let us know, but he didn't. So we can talk about it, and hope we know, but can't know for certain.
4. Another argument I hear is that this takes onto us the role of God. And in some ways it does. But do we allow contraception? If so, isn't that pretty similar? If not, do you count the days? That seems to take on the role of God too. God has given us brains to reason and to think, and to improve life. Sometimes we can do that by having less children in the world.
These are not all my thoughts on this issue, but I suspect anyone who reads my blog (maybe 3 people) will have tiredhead by now. I just want to wrap this up by saying that I am pro-life. But I think that being pro-life is not nearly so simple as voting against abortion. There is a lot more to it. The issue of abortion is anything but simple, and to simplify it does a great disservice to the wonderful brains God has gifted us with. We should think and pray about this. We should hope that no one chooses and abortion, because I do think that they will answer for that, but I will have to answer for how I treat those women who have abortions. I will have to answer for the things I do too. We cannot be so glib about things that matter so much. We must acknowledge that this issue is anything but easy and simple.
10.12.2008
Doomed Sooners...
Yesterday was the biggest game of the year, and my beloved Sooners laid an egg. We had a key injury, some idiotic decisions, some bad calls, but more than anything, we got owned in the trenches. Their Dline and Oline whipped ours. As sad as I am, I also have some hope. We lost to the best team in our division, at least right now. Hopefully they go out and lay an egg next week, or later down the road, and lose a couple games. We are still ranked #4 in the AP poll, and can climb back into the Big 12 south race. Years ago, I would mope about and be really upset for at least a week because of a loss, especially to a team like Texas. But I think I have learned that you can't win them all, and we get pretty darn close most years. I love our team and our coaches, and will cheer my heart out every game this year. Football is not life. I have a pretty awesome life, and a darn good football team.
10.06.2008
Mountain man
I sit here in our wonderful new apartment in Denver. It is a beautiful 60 degrees outside, and I have Monday Night Football on. Robin is watching Dancing with the Stars. I am loving our new life so far, but there are a few things I miss. My best friends still live in Waco and other parts of Texas and Oklahoma. I am unemployed, so income is something I miss right now. I am kind of embarrassed to admit, I kind of miss being in school. Not for too long, but every now and then.
Here are the things I love about our new life though: We do not have crazy landlords that have us feed their dog, or get their mail, we have two great TVs now (that we saved up for for quite awhile), we have wireless internet in our apt, which means I can be mobile on my laptop, we have two friends that I have known for awhile, but lost contact with, and Robin just met, but they are wonderful people and have helped us so much so far, and we have everything we could desire right near us. We are minutes from the mountains, minutes from Best Buy, Barnes and Noble. We can walk to an awesome movie theater, bowling alley and shopping center. We are experiencing an autumn this year, which I haven't had in 7 years.
I also think this is a great place for a new church. I can tell people want community, and it seems like many of the churches aren't reaching out too much. There is very obviously a need. So I am excited, nervous, overwhelmed, but most of all, I feel like I am finally where I have been meant to be all along.
Here are the things I love about our new life though: We do not have crazy landlords that have us feed their dog, or get their mail, we have two great TVs now (that we saved up for for quite awhile), we have wireless internet in our apt, which means I can be mobile on my laptop, we have two friends that I have known for awhile, but lost contact with, and Robin just met, but they are wonderful people and have helped us so much so far, and we have everything we could desire right near us. We are minutes from the mountains, minutes from Best Buy, Barnes and Noble. We can walk to an awesome movie theater, bowling alley and shopping center. We are experiencing an autumn this year, which I haven't had in 7 years.
I also think this is a great place for a new church. I can tell people want community, and it seems like many of the churches aren't reaching out too much. There is very obviously a need. So I am excited, nervous, overwhelmed, but most of all, I feel like I am finally where I have been meant to be all along.
10.01.2008
Denver!
For more than a year I have looked forward to living in Denver, and now here I am. It was a ridiculously long drive, partly because I barely stopped and partly because I listened to the same audio book the whole time, which got a bit monotonous. However, after the struggle, here I am! A few things that are less than ideal right now though, my sweet wife is not here yet. I miss her a lot, but she will be here Friday. We thought it would be a good idea if I came a couple days early to get all of our little stuff settled and then she would be able to just move on in. I think its still a good idea, but a little lonely.
The other less than ideal thing is that I am still unemployed. I didn't expect to get a job this week, but have been applying for a lot on the internet and no luck so far. I know that applying on the web isn't the best thing to do, but I am pretty worn out still and don't want to get out a ton.
Anyway, I love our apartment, I love our new furniture and I love this town. I think that this is where we are supposed to be, and I am excited for the future. I am also a little overwhelmed with the prospect of trying to make a difference in such a big place. I also know that sometimes being overwhelmed is the best thing for me. I pray that God will change me as I try to make a difference here. I also pray that I can be light wherever I land. Maybe I will apply for a job at Best Buy right now...
The other less than ideal thing is that I am still unemployed. I didn't expect to get a job this week, but have been applying for a lot on the internet and no luck so far. I know that applying on the web isn't the best thing to do, but I am pretty worn out still and don't want to get out a ton.
Anyway, I love our apartment, I love our new furniture and I love this town. I think that this is where we are supposed to be, and I am excited for the future. I am also a little overwhelmed with the prospect of trying to make a difference in such a big place. I also know that sometimes being overwhelmed is the best thing for me. I pray that God will change me as I try to make a difference here. I also pray that I can be light wherever I land. Maybe I will apply for a job at Best Buy right now...
9.23.2008
Roller Coasters
One of my favorite things in life is a good roller coaster. The Titan at Six Flags in Arlington is my favorite. I love pretty much everything about roller coasters. The part where you double check your lapband thing to make sure you are not going to die, or at least not from falling out of the cart. I love the part where I black out because of the G-forces. I love the part where I feel like I left my stomach at the top of the hill. I really love the rush and the adrenaline. No matter how many times I do it, I always get that rush. And at some point during the ride, I really question whether it was a good idea. "Am I sure there have been no fatalities on the Titan?" "I think my contacts may fall out because my eyes are watering too much" "This makes everything else in life boring" and that type of thing.
I also love any kind of falling rush. For instance there is this thing where they strap you in. And then you walk up about 100 ft in the air. Then they put you in this cage thing. Then they turn it over to where you are just hanging 100 ft over this giant net. The they let you go. For most of that drop, I was waiting to turn into ketchup. But somehow I survived. I love those things because they really remind me of how alive I am, and they remind me that I can't live my whole life in that state, or I would have a nervous breakdown.
I think no matter how many times you do roller coasters or free falls, at some point during the ride there is always a little bit of doubt. I feel the same way when it comes to where we will get our money. There have been a lot of times in my life when I have been a lot more broke than I am right now. There have been times when my family didn't have employment for weeks. We didn't have money for Christmas presents or to put gas in the car. But I am alive today. No worse for the wear.
So sometimes I worry about getting jobs in Denver, and sometimes I worry that we may end up destitute and starving. But then I have to look back at all the times God has provided for me. He has provided 100% of the time and failed 0%. I realize that sounds cliche, and people could say, "yeah well, thats true of most things..." and it is true of most things. God has a way of providing for the birds of the air and the grass of the fields, and I know he cares much more for me. I may not get to drink Dr. Pepper every day, or I may not get to play my XBox as much as I like, but I have to believe that he has carried me this far and won't just abandon me now.
Even as I write this, I am reminded of ways that God has been providing for this move. A couple friends gave us some money to help us out, we didn't ask, and they aren't rich, but I see that and I see God using his body to help others. A couple others bought something from us and paid more than we asked. Again, I see the hand of providence. Our credit card was mysteriously paid, and no money came from our checking account, I can see God doing something like that. (It may just be a mistake, in which case I would not be upset, but it would be pretty awesome if it sticks...) I am a bit nervous, I am really only qualified to be a pastor, but David was really only qualified to be a shepherd, and he was a decent king. Surely I can be a decent bank teller or something... Not that I am anything like David, except that I am also a man.... so...
I also love any kind of falling rush. For instance there is this thing where they strap you in. And then you walk up about 100 ft in the air. Then they put you in this cage thing. Then they turn it over to where you are just hanging 100 ft over this giant net. The they let you go. For most of that drop, I was waiting to turn into ketchup. But somehow I survived. I love those things because they really remind me of how alive I am, and they remind me that I can't live my whole life in that state, or I would have a nervous breakdown.
I think no matter how many times you do roller coasters or free falls, at some point during the ride there is always a little bit of doubt. I feel the same way when it comes to where we will get our money. There have been a lot of times in my life when I have been a lot more broke than I am right now. There have been times when my family didn't have employment for weeks. We didn't have money for Christmas presents or to put gas in the car. But I am alive today. No worse for the wear.
So sometimes I worry about getting jobs in Denver, and sometimes I worry that we may end up destitute and starving. But then I have to look back at all the times God has provided for me. He has provided 100% of the time and failed 0%. I realize that sounds cliche, and people could say, "yeah well, thats true of most things..." and it is true of most things. God has a way of providing for the birds of the air and the grass of the fields, and I know he cares much more for me. I may not get to drink Dr. Pepper every day, or I may not get to play my XBox as much as I like, but I have to believe that he has carried me this far and won't just abandon me now.
Even as I write this, I am reminded of ways that God has been providing for this move. A couple friends gave us some money to help us out, we didn't ask, and they aren't rich, but I see that and I see God using his body to help others. A couple others bought something from us and paid more than we asked. Again, I see the hand of providence. Our credit card was mysteriously paid, and no money came from our checking account, I can see God doing something like that. (It may just be a mistake, in which case I would not be upset, but it would be pretty awesome if it sticks...) I am a bit nervous, I am really only qualified to be a pastor, but David was really only qualified to be a shepherd, and he was a decent king. Surely I can be a decent bank teller or something... Not that I am anything like David, except that I am also a man.... so...
8.14.2008
Obligatory Dark Knight post
My favorite movie was "Fight Club." It was, until July 18 that is. I think, that after that my new favorite movie became "The Dark Knight." I am still mulling it over, but it was definitely the best movie I have seen this year.
The best thing about it, is that it avoids the cliche hero stuff. It doesn't just act like it is easy to be good. It faces the difficult question of how far a hero can go to stop the villain. Can a hero really be willing to kill those who threaten others? Can a hero do things that might be villainous in the hands of others? I am not sure.
I have been debating this internally for awhile. Usually I think that I want elected officials to do things that I myself would not be willing to do. If it is necessary that someone get tortured in order to find out about a terrorist attack, am I ok with that?
What about pedophiles? Am I ok with officials invading the privacy of some in order to find those that prey on children? How far should we go when we punish them? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few?
Do I want to elect someone who is willing to act in very unethical ways in order to protect my way of life? I just don't know. I know my answer should be that I don't want someone that does not share my morals and ethics in a political position of power over me, but I also know that if our country were to behave as a country according to Jesus commands, then we would be taken over. We would not enjoy some of the freedoms we do. Tough call.
The best thing about it, is that it avoids the cliche hero stuff. It doesn't just act like it is easy to be good. It faces the difficult question of how far a hero can go to stop the villain. Can a hero really be willing to kill those who threaten others? Can a hero do things that might be villainous in the hands of others? I am not sure.
I have been debating this internally for awhile. Usually I think that I want elected officials to do things that I myself would not be willing to do. If it is necessary that someone get tortured in order to find out about a terrorist attack, am I ok with that?
What about pedophiles? Am I ok with officials invading the privacy of some in order to find those that prey on children? How far should we go when we punish them? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few?
Do I want to elect someone who is willing to act in very unethical ways in order to protect my way of life? I just don't know. I know my answer should be that I don't want someone that does not share my morals and ethics in a political position of power over me, but I also know that if our country were to behave as a country according to Jesus commands, then we would be taken over. We would not enjoy some of the freedoms we do. Tough call.
8.12.2008
Late Summer Cleaning...
Since we decided a couple weeks ago to kick all our stuff to the curb and leave it behind, I have had to do quite a bit of clean-up. The first thing I decided to clean up was one of my favorite things, my book collection. I went to my shelf and grabbed all the books that I either never read and never intended to, or all the books that I simply question why I had them in the first place. Those books were all placed in a pile near my desk.
I looked at the book-shelf and realized that I still had way to many. I can imagine a bit how Gideon felt (God I really need all those books...). So I started to separate the pile between books that I absolutely did not want to give up and those that I might be ok giving up. This divided it about in half again. I now have a much more manageable stack of books to keep, including Greek and Hebrew books, theology and some old favorites, namely CS Lewis. So now I am trying to get rid of all these old books somehow. I have listed about half of my disposable books on amazon, and am currently selling a few a day. This is nice because I am making money back on them. Some of the books simply are not worth selling, I wouldn't make any profit after shipping etc. So those I am giving away.
Yesterday, I got into a really crazy mood for some reason. I started just going through my closet and doing something similar. Then I found an old box of things I really like, and did something similar. Now I am looking for other things in my life that I can do that with. It is really freeing, to be honest. I still have some things that I really love and don't want to part with, but I think I have said to myself that I will not be owned by stuff. There are quite a few things that will be difficult to part with, but I think one of the major reasons we decided to do this is that we wanted to not be consumers. Ironically, it led to us having to buy new furniture when we moved, but I think this is more in a utility way, as in, people need furniture to live. So anyway, this is just the latest twist in our moving saga, hopefully it will continue to be fun and unexpected.
I looked at the book-shelf and realized that I still had way to many. I can imagine a bit how Gideon felt (God I really need all those books...). So I started to separate the pile between books that I absolutely did not want to give up and those that I might be ok giving up. This divided it about in half again. I now have a much more manageable stack of books to keep, including Greek and Hebrew books, theology and some old favorites, namely CS Lewis. So now I am trying to get rid of all these old books somehow. I have listed about half of my disposable books on amazon, and am currently selling a few a day. This is nice because I am making money back on them. Some of the books simply are not worth selling, I wouldn't make any profit after shipping etc. So those I am giving away.
Yesterday, I got into a really crazy mood for some reason. I started just going through my closet and doing something similar. Then I found an old box of things I really like, and did something similar. Now I am looking for other things in my life that I can do that with. It is really freeing, to be honest. I still have some things that I really love and don't want to part with, but I think I have said to myself that I will not be owned by stuff. There are quite a few things that will be difficult to part with, but I think one of the major reasons we decided to do this is that we wanted to not be consumers. Ironically, it led to us having to buy new furniture when we moved, but I think this is more in a utility way, as in, people need furniture to live. So anyway, this is just the latest twist in our moving saga, hopefully it will continue to be fun and unexpected.
8.11.2008
The Rules: Answer each question, then tag one other. Chris's adaptation: This is the only time I have done this, and will ever do this. I am only doing it because my wife wants me to. I will tag no one else, because only Robin reads this.
1. Where is your cell phone? hell
2. Your significant other? mad-but-wonderful
3. Your hair? long
4. Your mother? lost
5. Your father? absent
6. Your favorite thing? Football
7. Your dream last night? empty
8. Your favorite drink? DP
9. Your dream/goal? Help
10. The room you're in? temporary
11. Your hobby? basketball
12. Your fear? worthlessness
13. What do you want to be in 6 years? Author-pastor
14. What you're not? rich
15. Muffins? english
16. One of your wish list items? TV
17. Where you grew up? poor
18. The last thing you did? banana
19. What are you wearing? strange...
20. Favorite gadget? XBox
21. Your pets? future
22. Your computer? Frankenstein
23. Your mood? sad
24. Missing someone? Na
25. Your car? new
26. Something your not wearing? shoes
27. Favorite store? Best
28. Like someone? how?
29. Your favorite color? black
30. When was the last time you laughed? January
31. Last time you cried? dunno
I tag, me.
1. Where is your cell phone? hell
2. Your significant other? mad-but-wonderful
3. Your hair? long
4. Your mother? lost
5. Your father? absent
6. Your favorite thing? Football
7. Your dream last night? empty
8. Your favorite drink? DP
9. Your dream/goal? Help
10. The room you're in? temporary
11. Your hobby? basketball
12. Your fear? worthlessness
13. What do you want to be in 6 years? Author-pastor
14. What you're not? rich
15. Muffins? english
16. One of your wish list items? TV
17. Where you grew up? poor
18. The last thing you did? banana
19. What are you wearing? strange...
20. Favorite gadget? XBox
21. Your pets? future
22. Your computer? Frankenstein
23. Your mood? sad
24. Missing someone? Na
25. Your car? new
26. Something your not wearing? shoes
27. Favorite store? Best
28. Like someone? how?
29. Your favorite color? black
30. When was the last time you laughed? January
31. Last time you cried? dunno
I tag, me.
8.08.2008
List of loves...
I know my wife is going to freak out because I have posted twice in as many days, but I thought about this earlier as I washed my cheese slicer. I was thinking about the different things in life I have loved.
My first love came at a very young age when I was first introduced to cheese. I began by eating slices off of a block of mild cheddar. I knew then that a lasting relationship was formed. I began to seek out every kind of cheese I could. I loved Muenster, Cheddar, Monterey Jack, Colby, pretty much everything but American (it always tasted rubbery and self-involved). I remember at our nasty house on 22nd street we didn't have a fridge, but we kept all of our stuff in an ice-chest on the porch. Pretty gross. The only thing I would eat from that would be cheese. I learned to be picky and careful because of that, but to this day my favorite snack is a bit of white cheddar cheese on top of a chicken flavored cracker, don't knock it till you try it.
Soon, I discovered my second and third loves. The both occurred around the same time. My friend Adam had a Nintendo and I used to go over to his house a lot. He also had a computer with games like Doom and Wolfenstein on it. We used to try to find ways to put more blood on the game, something that isn't really tough to do anymore. This was my second love, video games. We were too poor growing up for me to have anything really, but eventually, and I think this came after much saving and borrowing, my mom got me a Super Nintendo. To say I wore that thing out is an understatement. I pretty much came home from school every day in middle school and played that game. I had games like Madden and Super Mario Brothers memorized.
My second love went hand in hand with my third, and maybe my most passionate. I discovered Dr. Pepper some time in middle school. It went from something that I loved getting (I would take some of our foodstamps down to 7-11 and buy the 59 cent glass twenty ounce every day) to something I felt like I couldn't live without sometimes. I have pretty much enjoyed a Dr. Pepper a day since. I have taken times off, but I always return to this love of mine.
Around my junior year in highschool, I discovered a love that I hadn't really appreciated, but I think was always there. I began to love football. Unfortunately, our school didn't have a team, but that worked out OK, because the college my family had gone to had just gotten a pretty decent coach. He came in and turned what had been a loser for the past decade or so into a success. This was all cemented in my mind during my senior year. We would all gather at my friend Jason's house. He was an only child in a rich family and he had an entire upstairs to himself. He had a huge screen TV and we would gather every Saturday to watch OU. Jason had some weird weapons around his room, like swords and big knives, and every time OU was down in a game, we would all grab a "rally weapon" and cheer harder. They came back every time that year. OU finished undefeated and I have not missed a game since, unless it was on Pay per view or something.
I have all of these loves, and they have all changed me, but my favorite and most important is my newest. I met her in 2003 and it has been an adventure since then. It took me some time to realize I loved her, but she is a lot more complicated than cheese or video games or Dr. Pepper. Those things don't feel the same way I do. But Robin passes them all. She is new and different and she changes and she makes me a better person. She won't make my cholesterol worse or keep me awake (well she does do that sometimes, but not because of caffeine). I used to think she was out of my league when we first met, then I got cocky and then I thought she was gone, then we were together and stayed that way. I am lucky to have her and I look forward to the rest of our life. And I'm glad she doesn't love Dr. Pepper and cheese and video games the way I do, more for me.
My first love came at a very young age when I was first introduced to cheese. I began by eating slices off of a block of mild cheddar. I knew then that a lasting relationship was formed. I began to seek out every kind of cheese I could. I loved Muenster, Cheddar, Monterey Jack, Colby, pretty much everything but American (it always tasted rubbery and self-involved). I remember at our nasty house on 22nd street we didn't have a fridge, but we kept all of our stuff in an ice-chest on the porch. Pretty gross. The only thing I would eat from that would be cheese. I learned to be picky and careful because of that, but to this day my favorite snack is a bit of white cheddar cheese on top of a chicken flavored cracker, don't knock it till you try it.
Soon, I discovered my second and third loves. The both occurred around the same time. My friend Adam had a Nintendo and I used to go over to his house a lot. He also had a computer with games like Doom and Wolfenstein on it. We used to try to find ways to put more blood on the game, something that isn't really tough to do anymore. This was my second love, video games. We were too poor growing up for me to have anything really, but eventually, and I think this came after much saving and borrowing, my mom got me a Super Nintendo. To say I wore that thing out is an understatement. I pretty much came home from school every day in middle school and played that game. I had games like Madden and Super Mario Brothers memorized.
My second love went hand in hand with my third, and maybe my most passionate. I discovered Dr. Pepper some time in middle school. It went from something that I loved getting (I would take some of our foodstamps down to 7-11 and buy the 59 cent glass twenty ounce every day) to something I felt like I couldn't live without sometimes. I have pretty much enjoyed a Dr. Pepper a day since. I have taken times off, but I always return to this love of mine.
Around my junior year in highschool, I discovered a love that I hadn't really appreciated, but I think was always there. I began to love football. Unfortunately, our school didn't have a team, but that worked out OK, because the college my family had gone to had just gotten a pretty decent coach. He came in and turned what had been a loser for the past decade or so into a success. This was all cemented in my mind during my senior year. We would all gather at my friend Jason's house. He was an only child in a rich family and he had an entire upstairs to himself. He had a huge screen TV and we would gather every Saturday to watch OU. Jason had some weird weapons around his room, like swords and big knives, and every time OU was down in a game, we would all grab a "rally weapon" and cheer harder. They came back every time that year. OU finished undefeated and I have not missed a game since, unless it was on Pay per view or something.
I have all of these loves, and they have all changed me, but my favorite and most important is my newest. I met her in 2003 and it has been an adventure since then. It took me some time to realize I loved her, but she is a lot more complicated than cheese or video games or Dr. Pepper. Those things don't feel the same way I do. But Robin passes them all. She is new and different and she changes and she makes me a better person. She won't make my cholesterol worse or keep me awake (well she does do that sometimes, but not because of caffeine). I used to think she was out of my league when we first met, then I got cocky and then I thought she was gone, then we were together and stayed that way. I am lucky to have her and I look forward to the rest of our life. And I'm glad she doesn't love Dr. Pepper and cheese and video games the way I do, more for me.
8.07.2008
Stuff that owns you...
One of my professors used to say "pack light for the journey." That in and of itself does not seem all that profound to me, but for some reason it has really stuck with Robin and I. So since we are in the middle of the journey, we thought we should lighten our load a bit. It also reminds me of Fight Club when Brad Pitt says to Edward Norton "You think you own your stuff, but your stuff ends up owning you." (my paraphrase)
Our goal is now to sell everything that won't fit in our two cars. Of course, we have to buy more furniture, but I think it has been a good exercise so far in us saying that we won't love anything so much that we won't give it up. My personal weakness is books. But here I am, selling or giving away more than half of the wonderful books I have accumulated. I love books of every type, but I am now only keeping those books that I love the most. I think all of us would be better off to have less stuff, and hopefully we won't be too quick to clutter up our lives again.
We have less than two months left here, which is weird because I feel like we just got here. I am pretty comfortable in Waco now, but we have to start looking for places to live and jobs in Denver now. While that is incredibly exciting to me, I am also realistic enough to know there is a chance all this could collapse and fail. But, one of my mentors and favorite professors used to tell me that we can only be obedient, we can't succeed or fail. So we will do our best, and trust God with the results.
Our goal is now to sell everything that won't fit in our two cars. Of course, we have to buy more furniture, but I think it has been a good exercise so far in us saying that we won't love anything so much that we won't give it up. My personal weakness is books. But here I am, selling or giving away more than half of the wonderful books I have accumulated. I love books of every type, but I am now only keeping those books that I love the most. I think all of us would be better off to have less stuff, and hopefully we won't be too quick to clutter up our lives again.
We have less than two months left here, which is weird because I feel like we just got here. I am pretty comfortable in Waco now, but we have to start looking for places to live and jobs in Denver now. While that is incredibly exciting to me, I am also realistic enough to know there is a chance all this could collapse and fail. But, one of my mentors and favorite professors used to tell me that we can only be obedient, we can't succeed or fail. So we will do our best, and trust God with the results.
7.30.2008
Seminary.
I love the fact that I can put that period after seminary now. That time in my life is over. Its strange because for my entire married life, I have been a seminary student. I have spent every spare moment fantasizing about eventually being free. And now I am. Finally. All in all, I haven't spent more time than anyone would expect, but with the way last year went, it has felt like the longest three years of my life. I hope that after we move, I will finally stop looking forward all the time. I want to live for now, and to give everything I have to what is going on in the moment. I haven't been great at that, but I also feel like a different person than when I started seminary.
If I could go back and tell myself the things that would happen during seminary, and how long and hard it would be, I wonder if I would have done it over again. I think so, but I am pretty freaking glad I don't have to. I feel like my entire theology, my way of looking at the world, has been completely deconstructed to nothing and then put back together from scratch. I like that feeling. I like knowing that I have been challenged, and that on some important things I have changed my mind. It gives me hope that I am not hopelessly stubborn.
If I could go back and tell myself the things that would happen during seminary, and how long and hard it would be, I wonder if I would have done it over again. I think so, but I am pretty freaking glad I don't have to. I feel like my entire theology, my way of looking at the world, has been completely deconstructed to nothing and then put back together from scratch. I like that feeling. I like knowing that I have been challenged, and that on some important things I have changed my mind. It gives me hope that I am not hopelessly stubborn.
6.18.2008
The Bitter End
As I get oh so close to finally finishing off my MDiv, I am reminded of how hard it is to finish things off. When I go running, the last quarter mile is the worst. When I take a long road trip, I always have to pee really bad and the last hour or so seems to take thirty. When you have worked a long day, the last hour takes the longest. I hope and pray that the last four and a half weeks of my seminary education are not the longest or the hardest, because that would put them as pretty dang hard.
I combine the feeling of hoping that the bitter end goes quickly with the rush of excitement and possibility that someday soon Robin and I and some friends will be embarking on a whole new adventure. We will finally have a chance to settle, and settle for the foreseeable future, when we get to Denver. It has been a drive for at least a year and a half. We look forward to having kids, trying to buy a house, having dogs. But more than anything I look forward to being able to finally get settled down and live for the present for a while. I know, as soon as I try to do that, we will get pregnant and will be looking nine months into the future. But at least that will only be one change at a time.
I feel like I am meant to have a church in Denver, to make a difference in a community that really needs the touch and the light of Christ. It is hard to think about leaving behind a lot of what we love here, I love being a student, kind of, I love being a youth minister, I love our youth, I love our pastor and his wife, I love that Robin has a job she loves, I love the price of rent. But I know that these things are not the things that we are supposed to do in the long term. I hope our church is good, I hope that we can help people come to know Jesus, and I hope I can lead in a good way. Mostly, I look forward to enjoying the present...
I combine the feeling of hoping that the bitter end goes quickly with the rush of excitement and possibility that someday soon Robin and I and some friends will be embarking on a whole new adventure. We will finally have a chance to settle, and settle for the foreseeable future, when we get to Denver. It has been a drive for at least a year and a half. We look forward to having kids, trying to buy a house, having dogs. But more than anything I look forward to being able to finally get settled down and live for the present for a while. I know, as soon as I try to do that, we will get pregnant and will be looking nine months into the future. But at least that will only be one change at a time.
I feel like I am meant to have a church in Denver, to make a difference in a community that really needs the touch and the light of Christ. It is hard to think about leaving behind a lot of what we love here, I love being a student, kind of, I love being a youth minister, I love our youth, I love our pastor and his wife, I love that Robin has a job she loves, I love the price of rent. But I know that these things are not the things that we are supposed to do in the long term. I hope our church is good, I hope that we can help people come to know Jesus, and I hope I can lead in a good way. Mostly, I look forward to enjoying the present...
6.03.2008
The Weez...
My favorite band, since I got their first album on a burned CD my junior year of highschool, has been Weezer. I feel in love with Jimmy Eat World and Ben Folds in college, but my first love in the music world has always been Weezer. The great thing about Weezer, is every time I graduate from something, they have been kind enough to release an album to congratulate me.
In 2001 I graduated highschool, and they gave me the Green Album (which is highly criticized for being too poppy, but I like it quite a bit anyway.)
In 2005 as I was graduating college, Weezer again gave me the gift of releasing an album, this time "Make Believe." This is considered by some to be their worst album, but I love it still.
And now in 2008 as I graduate seminary, they have released the Red Album. Every review I have read online hates it, but I just can't help but like all things Weezer, so of course I like it.
Every album they release is compared unfavorably to one of two albums. If you are a hardcore Weezer fan, you compare their new album unfavorably to "Pinkerton." If you are only a casual Weezer fan, you compare their new album unfavorably to Blue. This has happened to every album since Green. "Well, its good, but not quite as good as the Blue album." "Oh, you must be a casual Weezer fan." That is pretty much the dialogue.
I am always curious about these types of reactions. George Lucas has gotten a lot of crap for his newest Star Wars movies and his newest Indiana Jones movies. I don't entirely know why this is. If something is too similar to an old great, it is too similar for fanboys. If it is very different, its too different and they "sold out." I just think people don't appreciate how hard it is to continually put out greatness, and I think that they cannot just come to new offerings with an open mind. They want what they loved about the old work, without being the same. WELL WHICH IS IT?!!!
I realize that I am fiercely loyal to things I love, like the Weez and George Lucas (and episode I truly was crap) but I also think we should let these people put out their art, and if we like it, great, if not, don't buy it. I have written a lot without saying anything, but I will say, right now I like the Red Album. Not a whole lot, but I really grew to like "Make Believe" so I expect that will happen here too. I will sure as crap memorize every song, and learn them by heart. And I will buy a new Weez t-shirt soon too...
In 2001 I graduated highschool, and they gave me the Green Album (which is highly criticized for being too poppy, but I like it quite a bit anyway.)
In 2005 as I was graduating college, Weezer again gave me the gift of releasing an album, this time "Make Believe." This is considered by some to be their worst album, but I love it still.
And now in 2008 as I graduate seminary, they have released the Red Album. Every review I have read online hates it, but I just can't help but like all things Weezer, so of course I like it.
Every album they release is compared unfavorably to one of two albums. If you are a hardcore Weezer fan, you compare their new album unfavorably to "Pinkerton." If you are only a casual Weezer fan, you compare their new album unfavorably to Blue. This has happened to every album since Green. "Well, its good, but not quite as good as the Blue album." "Oh, you must be a casual Weezer fan." That is pretty much the dialogue.
I am always curious about these types of reactions. George Lucas has gotten a lot of crap for his newest Star Wars movies and his newest Indiana Jones movies. I don't entirely know why this is. If something is too similar to an old great, it is too similar for fanboys. If it is very different, its too different and they "sold out." I just think people don't appreciate how hard it is to continually put out greatness, and I think that they cannot just come to new offerings with an open mind. They want what they loved about the old work, without being the same. WELL WHICH IS IT?!!!
I realize that I am fiercely loyal to things I love, like the Weez and George Lucas (and episode I truly was crap) but I also think we should let these people put out their art, and if we like it, great, if not, don't buy it. I have written a lot without saying anything, but I will say, right now I like the Red Album. Not a whole lot, but I really grew to like "Make Believe" so I expect that will happen here too. I will sure as crap memorize every song, and learn them by heart. And I will buy a new Weez t-shirt soon too...
4.10.2008
Faith.
"What do you think of yourself? What do you think of the world? ... These are questions with which all must deal as it seems good to them. They are riddles of the Sphinx, and in some way or other we must deal with them. ... In all important transactions of life we have to take a leap in the dark. ... If we decide to leave the riddles unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer, that, too, is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril. If a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future, no one can prevent him; no one can show beyond reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise and acts as he thinks, I do not see that any one can prove that he is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong, so much the worse for him. We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist, through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? 'Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. ... If death ends all, we cannot meet death better." That quote is by Fitz-James Stephen.
I really like this quote. I heard it tonight in my class. It reminds me of another quote "Death smiles at us all, all we can do is smile back." I think thats how it goes, it was in Gladiator I think. For the Christian, we can be pretty sure that what we believe is true, that it is right, but we can never be 100% sure. We can never KNOW that we know. We can get close, and then at some point just have to grin and accept that we are fallible humans and have done our best. I hope I have done my best.
I really like this quote. I heard it tonight in my class. It reminds me of another quote "Death smiles at us all, all we can do is smile back." I think thats how it goes, it was in Gladiator I think. For the Christian, we can be pretty sure that what we believe is true, that it is right, but we can never be 100% sure. We can never KNOW that we know. We can get close, and then at some point just have to grin and accept that we are fallible humans and have done our best. I hope I have done my best.
3.27.2008
The Fall
When I read the Bible, it is hard for me to imagine how people can think that the God who inspired this book, the God who created this world and these typing hands, could possibly have wanted everything to turn out exactly as it is. I read in Genesis 3 of people breaking God's heart, but God still making clothing for them. The first sacrifice may have happened only hours after the first sin. God himself was the first to make the sacrifice. One of his beloved deer or lambs had to give its life just to cover up the shame of the humans.
Then I see the God who is so hurt by the Israelites, the God who delivered them, then days later they are worshiping a golden calf. God was so hurt in that time that he wanted to wipe them all out, but Moses prevailed upon him. Maybe God just needed someone with a cooler head to prevail upon him, or maybe God wanted Moses to argue, but God changed his mind, at least, thats what the Bible says.
Then in Hosea God describes himself like the faithful husband of a prostitute. And indeed he is. I can't help but see myself in Gomer, in Israel, in the disciples. When God most wants closeness to me, I am nowhere to be found. I pray that I am getting better, but I just don't know.
Then I see the God who is so hurt by the Israelites, the God who delivered them, then days later they are worshiping a golden calf. God was so hurt in that time that he wanted to wipe them all out, but Moses prevailed upon him. Maybe God just needed someone with a cooler head to prevail upon him, or maybe God wanted Moses to argue, but God changed his mind, at least, thats what the Bible says.
Then in Hosea God describes himself like the faithful husband of a prostitute. And indeed he is. I can't help but see myself in Gomer, in Israel, in the disciples. When God most wants closeness to me, I am nowhere to be found. I pray that I am getting better, but I just don't know.
3.22.2008
Morans...
I love this picture. I'm not entirely sure why, maybe because of the irony, maybe because of the nature of self-defeating idiocy, maybe just because of the mullet. I just simply don't get tired of looking at this picture.
3.20.2008
Oh, sweet Dr. Pepper.
My Dr. Pepper fast has lasted 9 weeks. This is the longest I have gone without a cola. We have three fourths of a 2 liter of Pepsi in our fridge right now from Super Bowl Sunday, and I hear it calling my name. I want to keep it in there, so that I can master the temptation. By my count, I have about 25 weeks until I can drink another, and I plan on my first sip being that Pepsi.
My other goal is by that time to have read every book I own which I have never read. It seems kind of wasteful to me to have all these books sitting on my shelves which I have never read. I just finished one called "The Crucified God" by Jurgen Moltmann. I was very good, but also a hard read. I want to reread it again later. I still want to write my book, so hopefully I can do that sometime before fall too. Whether anyone would publish it, that is another question. But I do want to do that at some point in my life. I would also like to run a marathon, or punch myself in the face. I have heard that running a marathon is one of the hardest things you can do, but also one of the most rewarding. I am really just rambling, but it feels good to blog again, so hopefully I can continue doing this more regularly, as I say everytime.
My other goal is by that time to have read every book I own which I have never read. It seems kind of wasteful to me to have all these books sitting on my shelves which I have never read. I just finished one called "The Crucified God" by Jurgen Moltmann. I was very good, but also a hard read. I want to reread it again later. I still want to write my book, so hopefully I can do that sometime before fall too. Whether anyone would publish it, that is another question. But I do want to do that at some point in my life. I would also like to run a marathon, or punch myself in the face. I have heard that running a marathon is one of the hardest things you can do, but also one of the most rewarding. I am really just rambling, but it feels good to blog again, so hopefully I can continue doing this more regularly, as I say everytime.
2.29.2008
LEAP DAY!
Not only is today a day that will not happen for another 4 years, 2012 is a long way away, but it also marks half way through the semester for me. I have gone 6 weeks without a Dr. Pepper, and boy is it calling my name. On the plus side, I have been exercising much more and am really feeling pretty good. I am also working my brain harder. Robin and I gave up TV for lent, I also gave up XBox, since I don't really watch much TV. So I have been reading a lot. My goal is to read all 27 books that I own that I have not read by the end of August. That means roughly a book a week, and so far I have done two in one week. Keep that up and I will be done sometime in May.
I am content with my life right now, its really pretty good. My goal now is to write a book. I would like to chronicle my life through seminary. The ups and downs, the times I lost my soul and the times it was overflowing. I know at least one person will buy it, unfortunately we share a bank account so I won't see a dime. Rambling is ok, but not for now and not for my blog, so here I will stop for the last leap day until 2012, at which point I may very well have kids, dogs and a church to pastor.
I am content with my life right now, its really pretty good. My goal now is to write a book. I would like to chronicle my life through seminary. The ups and downs, the times I lost my soul and the times it was overflowing. I know at least one person will buy it, unfortunately we share a bank account so I won't see a dime. Rambling is ok, but not for now and not for my blog, so here I will stop for the last leap day until 2012, at which point I may very well have kids, dogs and a church to pastor.
2.18.2008
The struggle
It is really a struggle for me to post lately. I think mostly it is just that I don't have it as a habit. I can change that.
Partly too, I think I have gotten into a rut of just posting when I have something really cool to say, although really cool to me may be very different than really cool to anyone else. I am playing basketball again, but it seems like this time my body is older, or maybe just fatter. I have never been so sore as I was after we played last week, but I am determined to play more. It is simply the best way to get a lot of cardio in and enjoy it.
I need to be better about running hard when I am at the gym, but its pretty tough when you are not chasing some guy or some ball.
I am on day 29 of my Dr. Pepper fast, and man, I really would like a medicine. My goal is to make it until the next OU game, which I think I can do. Well, I guess thats it for now, I am going to try to post more often, if nothing else than for my own personal documentation.
Partly too, I think I have gotten into a rut of just posting when I have something really cool to say, although really cool to me may be very different than really cool to anyone else. I am playing basketball again, but it seems like this time my body is older, or maybe just fatter. I have never been so sore as I was after we played last week, but I am determined to play more. It is simply the best way to get a lot of cardio in and enjoy it.
I need to be better about running hard when I am at the gym, but its pretty tough when you are not chasing some guy or some ball.
I am on day 29 of my Dr. Pepper fast, and man, I really would like a medicine. My goal is to make it until the next OU game, which I think I can do. Well, I guess thats it for now, I am going to try to post more often, if nothing else than for my own personal documentation.
2.11.2008
Doctor Blues
Every time I go to the doctor, I am reminded of how much I hate going to the doctor. Today I needed to go get my knee looked at, as well as just a general physical, but it just takes so freaking long. I had an appointment for 3, but did not get in until 315. I showed up at 245. What kinda crap is that? All it ever does is confirm to the average person that you are not as important as the doc. You must wait outside while he does whatever he does. You may make an appointment, but they have no obligation to be timely about getting you in. It makes me crazy!
Imagine if every other profession was as inconsiderate and ridiculous as healthcare? What if at church we were like, ok, well set up an appointment to see the pastor, whether you need to or not. Even if you know you will eventually need to see the music minister, you must see the pastor first to get a referral. This way the pastor will get his money too.
What if it worked that way in television? Well, we know we said LOST started at 8, but LOST has other crap to do, and your time isn't really important anyway, so here, pay per view for a half hour of The Nanny before you are allowed to pay per view for LOST. Seriously, whoever wins the election needs to clean those SOBs out and make the accountable.
Imagine if every other profession was as inconsiderate and ridiculous as healthcare? What if at church we were like, ok, well set up an appointment to see the pastor, whether you need to or not. Even if you know you will eventually need to see the music minister, you must see the pastor first to get a referral. This way the pastor will get his money too.
What if it worked that way in television? Well, we know we said LOST started at 8, but LOST has other crap to do, and your time isn't really important anyway, so here, pay per view for a half hour of The Nanny before you are allowed to pay per view for LOST. Seriously, whoever wins the election needs to clean those SOBs out and make the accountable.
1.26.2008
Silence and Darkness
I read a few days ago about a torture called "sensory deprivation" torture. Basically, they lock people into a room, oftentimes in a silo of some sort, where the subject cannot see or hear anything for days. I am under the impression that they have food, water and facilities, and that other than the lack of new sensory information, they are completely fine. But the results are insane. Almost all subjects will immediately go to sleep, but then they wake up some time later and have no idea what time it is or how long they have been there. Many subjects then begin to pace, some think in an effort to exercise, but most think it is simply an effort to do something.
Soon, the subjects begin to hallucinate, seeing or hearing things that are simply not there. One man proclaimed that he had a conversation with his mom and sister. Another thought he had a tea party with some people. The mind will do funny things when left alone.
Sometimes I think God is doing some large experiment on me. Sometimes I go through life and feel like I hear his voice and see his lead very clearly. Other times, I wonder if he is even there at all. The skies are silent and I wonder if God even cares. But I have to believe that this effects him more than me. I think most of the time he would like nothing more than to show himself, to speak clearly and audibly to me, but wouldn't that take away the value or need for faith? Wouldn't that cause anyone and everyone to be so overwhelmed that they immediately worship him fully and completely. The hope we have is that some day, hopefully some day soon, we will see him close up, and hear the breath from his mouth, and know that we are home.
Soon, the subjects begin to hallucinate, seeing or hearing things that are simply not there. One man proclaimed that he had a conversation with his mom and sister. Another thought he had a tea party with some people. The mind will do funny things when left alone.
Sometimes I think God is doing some large experiment on me. Sometimes I go through life and feel like I hear his voice and see his lead very clearly. Other times, I wonder if he is even there at all. The skies are silent and I wonder if God even cares. But I have to believe that this effects him more than me. I think most of the time he would like nothing more than to show himself, to speak clearly and audibly to me, but wouldn't that take away the value or need for faith? Wouldn't that cause anyone and everyone to be so overwhelmed that they immediately worship him fully and completely. The hope we have is that some day, hopefully some day soon, we will see him close up, and hear the breath from his mouth, and know that we are home.
1.08.2008
The BK lounge!
This week I am stuck in a tortuous 7 hour a day class. In fact, yes, I am writing this while the professor is lecturing. So take that. Anyway, we have an hour break everyday, and I needed to call my sister, so I went to Burger King really quick. As I was there, the lady at the counter just looked at me. Did not smile, did not greet me, did nothing to try to make my visit enjoyable. I placed my order and grabbed my DP and took my seat.
As I did so, I noticed there was a young child in a carseat on top of a table. I thought it strange, but walked past to my seat. Then I noticed the woman who took my order came out from behind the counter and tended to the child for a few minutes before going back to work. I was annoyed when she took my order, and somewhat broken when I picked it up ten minutes later. This poor woman, was working at a very much less than desirable job, and she had to take her child with her. Whether it was because of a father that had left her, a father that could not take the baby to work, family that was unable to help, what this told me was that this poor woman was all alone with this child. It makes me very sad that conditions like this exist in our world. But I know that we as a church can help, we can eventually make a difference and try to bring God's kingdom. To help ensure that this woman would know her child was well taken care of, and not have to take it to Burger King with her.
As I did so, I noticed there was a young child in a carseat on top of a table. I thought it strange, but walked past to my seat. Then I noticed the woman who took my order came out from behind the counter and tended to the child for a few minutes before going back to work. I was annoyed when she took my order, and somewhat broken when I picked it up ten minutes later. This poor woman, was working at a very much less than desirable job, and she had to take her child with her. Whether it was because of a father that had left her, a father that could not take the baby to work, family that was unable to help, what this told me was that this poor woman was all alone with this child. It makes me very sad that conditions like this exist in our world. But I know that we as a church can help, we can eventually make a difference and try to bring God's kingdom. To help ensure that this woman would know her child was well taken care of, and not have to take it to Burger King with her.
1.01.2008
Happy New Year!
I love New Years. I only have one chance in 365 to post on that day, so even though I have nothing to say, I am here. I hope 2008 is better than 2007 and I believe already it will be, since I will get done with this demon I call seminary. I am praying for some change, mostly in me, in this year, and I am hopeful that some things necessary to our future community will happen.
I love New Years because you choose who you hang out with and who you see that day, other holidays are chosen for you mostly. I love my life, and I am looking forward to growing closer to my lord...
I love New Years because you choose who you hang out with and who you see that day, other holidays are chosen for you mostly. I love my life, and I am looking forward to growing closer to my lord...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
