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.
11.10.2008
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
