I live in Ohio for many reasons... seasons, snow, green grass, awesome people, small towns, rich history... and (so I thought) few natural disasters. Sure, there are periodic floodings, and a rare blizzard. But nothing like California's fires and earthquakes, or Oklahoma's "Tornado Alley," or the South's hurricanes. Usually.
Sunday evening, Hurricane Ike roared across Ohio, trekking rapidly to Canada. That was Sunday, about 6 p.m. when I lost power (in the middle of doing laundry). Well, as of this morning, I was one of the 1.4 million Ohioans still without power. Reportedly, it won't be until Friday or Saturday until I get power.
What a crazy experience. Here's my routine now. Stay out in the "powered" world until 8 or 9pm. Go home, and put on my LED head-band flash light, find clothes for the next day, pack my gym bag, brush my teeth utilizing a bottle of water (since I have a well, no power means no water), and going to bed, using my phone as an alarm clock. Then, I get up in the dark, get some old clothes on, and go to the YMCA where I shower, then head to work. I have to charge my phone in the car. There is so much not getting done!
I have always had sympathy for Iraqis who only had 2 hours of power a day in the heat of the summer. Now, I have empathy. I can't wash my dishes or clothes, much less my body and teeth! And while being male allows me to water the flowers off the deck when I need to, I have been in more public bathrooms than I can to consider.
Thankfully, the weather has been great! Highs in the upper 60s and low 70s, sunny, dry, and evenings in the upper 40s and low 50s. Nice sleeping weather with all the windows open!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Nothing New Under The Sun...
I continue to be amazed at the insight and wisdom of the author of Ecclisiastes when he observed that there is nothing new under the sun. This time, the surprise was not a pleasant one.
One of the thrusts of the postmodern world is a growing awareness and desire for community, as well as questioning of the individualistic capitalism that drives the globalization of the world’s economies. Surprisingly, this is not new. Defenders of slavery in the antebellum South did, according to Mark Noll’s book “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis,” in fact, “raise serious questions from Scripture about the moral order of an individualistic and profit-mad economy which they saw as the North’s aggressive alternative to a slave order. In Eugene Genovese’s words, the threat was of ‘a materialistic, marketplace society that promoted competitive individualism and worshiped Mammon’… In that postbellum climate, Southern Christian defenses of patriarchal communalism were fatally compromised by their association with slavery…” (pp 52-53).
Interesting twist on my desires for communalism and less materialism. A tainted desire? I don’t think so. But as Noll points out, war fatigue cut short the theological debates about economic systems which should have been natural at the time of the Civil War. “The result was theological weakness in the face of pressing economic circumstances: while there was a heightened capacity to produce wealth, there was also a heightened capacity to produce alienation and vast economic inequality. These issues were eventually addressed practically by pietists like the Salvation Army and theoretically by leaders of the Social Gospel, yet theological incoherence in the face of modern economic realities has remained a major problem for Christian thinking ever since the Civil War” (pp 53-54).
That sounds like a resounding call to the emerging theologians to continue tackling a growing interest of mine, the theology of economics. May thoughtful Christians everywhere rise up to this challenge.
One of the thrusts of the postmodern world is a growing awareness and desire for community, as well as questioning of the individualistic capitalism that drives the globalization of the world’s economies. Surprisingly, this is not new. Defenders of slavery in the antebellum South did, according to Mark Noll’s book “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis,” in fact, “raise serious questions from Scripture about the moral order of an individualistic and profit-mad economy which they saw as the North’s aggressive alternative to a slave order. In Eugene Genovese’s words, the threat was of ‘a materialistic, marketplace society that promoted competitive individualism and worshiped Mammon’… In that postbellum climate, Southern Christian defenses of patriarchal communalism were fatally compromised by their association with slavery…” (pp 52-53).
Interesting twist on my desires for communalism and less materialism. A tainted desire? I don’t think so. But as Noll points out, war fatigue cut short the theological debates about economic systems which should have been natural at the time of the Civil War. “The result was theological weakness in the face of pressing economic circumstances: while there was a heightened capacity to produce wealth, there was also a heightened capacity to produce alienation and vast economic inequality. These issues were eventually addressed practically by pietists like the Salvation Army and theoretically by leaders of the Social Gospel, yet theological incoherence in the face of modern economic realities has remained a major problem for Christian thinking ever since the Civil War” (pp 53-54).
That sounds like a resounding call to the emerging theologians to continue tackling a growing interest of mine, the theology of economics. May thoughtful Christians everywhere rise up to this challenge.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
My Change of Jobs
In the summer of 2007, I was approached by individuals from the hospital where I had done my residency. The main faculty that supervised and ran the Family Practice Residency were having some changes in their situation, and were going to be unable to maintain that relationship. My former program director knew that I had an interest in medical education, and so convinced the hospital to recruit me to maintain the program.
I was not unhappy at my job at the Arrowhead Clinic. In fact, I loved it, and to this day think it is one of the best places to work as a Family Physician. But opportunities to enter medical education, especially after only two years of practice, and even more as an assistant program director, come by very rarely, and it was an opportunity that I couldn’t pass up.
The negotiations resulted in significant sacrifices on both sides, but at the time, the financial sacrifices seemed worth it to me to get my foot in the door of medical education. Unfortunately, the specifics of the contract, the promises and visions of the original discussions, and the realities of the hospital and practice situation on the ground never quite aligned.
The hospital is going through another consolidation, and although I firmly feel that the hospital is now firmly on the path of stability and growth, the uncertainty, combined with a general decreased interest in Family Practice and questions over faculty staffing, resulted in there being no new residents.
In September of 2007, I became the sole attending physician of the residency clinic, thus providing temporary stability to allow the current residents to complete the year. At the end of June, the senior resident graduated, and the second year resident decided to complete her last year under the supervision of the original faculty that she had signed on with in their private practice. Thus, right now I am the only physician seeing patients at the residency clinic. Occasionally there are students or first year surgical residents, but no family practice residents. Not exactly what I left a great practice in Newcomerstown for.
The intensity of a clinic population, that is very heavy laden with complex internal medicine patients, non-compliance, and economic barriers to the care I have been trained to offer, is taking its toll on me. Ideally, I would like to have my own private practice part time, and rotate with other teaching faculty into the teaching clinic. I think the stability of the hospital combined with a diverse and committed teaching faculty would allow the hospital to successfully recruit new residents.
The practice has a new Practice Manager, and the consolidation will be completed early this month. The administration is working on making the necessary investments, recruitment, and changes necessary to successfully rebuild the residency program. I remain hopeful that my move to my current job will bring forth great fruit.
I was not unhappy at my job at the Arrowhead Clinic. In fact, I loved it, and to this day think it is one of the best places to work as a Family Physician. But opportunities to enter medical education, especially after only two years of practice, and even more as an assistant program director, come by very rarely, and it was an opportunity that I couldn’t pass up.
The negotiations resulted in significant sacrifices on both sides, but at the time, the financial sacrifices seemed worth it to me to get my foot in the door of medical education. Unfortunately, the specifics of the contract, the promises and visions of the original discussions, and the realities of the hospital and practice situation on the ground never quite aligned.
The hospital is going through another consolidation, and although I firmly feel that the hospital is now firmly on the path of stability and growth, the uncertainty, combined with a general decreased interest in Family Practice and questions over faculty staffing, resulted in there being no new residents.
In September of 2007, I became the sole attending physician of the residency clinic, thus providing temporary stability to allow the current residents to complete the year. At the end of June, the senior resident graduated, and the second year resident decided to complete her last year under the supervision of the original faculty that she had signed on with in their private practice. Thus, right now I am the only physician seeing patients at the residency clinic. Occasionally there are students or first year surgical residents, but no family practice residents. Not exactly what I left a great practice in Newcomerstown for.
The intensity of a clinic population, that is very heavy laden with complex internal medicine patients, non-compliance, and economic barriers to the care I have been trained to offer, is taking its toll on me. Ideally, I would like to have my own private practice part time, and rotate with other teaching faculty into the teaching clinic. I think the stability of the hospital combined with a diverse and committed teaching faculty would allow the hospital to successfully recruit new residents.
The practice has a new Practice Manager, and the consolidation will be completed early this month. The administration is working on making the necessary investments, recruitment, and changes necessary to successfully rebuild the residency program. I remain hopeful that my move to my current job will bring forth great fruit.
Double Take (an apologetically lengthy blog entry with lots of quotes)
I have been reading a fascinating book recently. It has really challenged my way of thinking about a lot of things, especially about how I form my views of things, especially homosexuality (not necessarily the conclusions, but how I form my views). For example, read the following passages:
These passages fairly clearly lay out two distinct views of homosexuality. One is based on the Protestant and American principles of the primacy and accuracy of the Scripture and of reading Scripture individually and determining the meaning, while the other view is based more on the scope, or arc, of the Bible and the primary principles of mercy and justice. Which side are you on? Which side resonates with you, and which raises your hackles as a shiver runs down your spine? To be honest, I get a shiver of hesitation when I think about arguing not from specific passages but from the “big picture” when so many specific passages address the issue. In other words, I tend to resonate with the structural arguments against homosexuality presented here.
One problem, though. The above arguments were not made regarding homosexuality. They are only slightly modified quotes from Mark Noll’s book “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.” The arguments against homosexuality are constructed the same way that the arguments for slavery were constructed, while the proponents of the acceptance of homosexuality appeal in the same general way as the anti-slavery leaders of the 1800s, such as William Wilberforce.
Read the passages again, only this time unaltered:
What!? Double take. You mean the same way I look to the simplicity of the Bible on the issue of homosexuality is the same way many defended slavery? And the way people advocate for acceptance of homosexuality is the same way people advocated for emancipation and human equality?
Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the issue. I encourage people to read Noll’s book not only for the insight in brings on the Civil War, but the intriguing light he shines on American theological development.
I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea of glossing over specific passages on homosexuality to fit some grand understanding of love and mercy and justice. And I’m certainly not comfortable with espousing a view that legitimates slavery in an effort to “plainly read” specific passages from the bible.
And before anyone says it, I know that the two issues are different (one is a sanction and one is a prohibition), and the issues are more thoroughly debatable on both sides. My goal is not to defend slavery or promote acceptance of homosexuality. Since it is not my purpose, I’m not even going to take a side. My motivation in sharing these quotes is to challenge us to realize how we form our beliefs and how we organize our arguments are just as important as what we believe and what we argue. We must be willing to look at not just our individual beliefs, but also our underlying cultural influences (as Noll points out repeatedly regarding the influence of American republican and democratic ideals on theological interpretations) that led us to those beliefs.
Americans who believed in the Scriptures as unquestioned divine revelation should have been troubled by the growing number of their fellow citizens who seemed willing to live without that belief. The most prominent among those coming to doubt the all-sufficiency of Scripture were savants…, elite literati…, and practitioners of realpolitik… who were turning aside from all a priori authorities, including the Bible. Instead, they were looking to scientific, legal, literary, business, or governmental substitutes to provide the necessary ballast required by what they hailed as an increasingly secular, consumer-oriented, and religiously pluralistic society.
With increasing frequency as the national debate heated up, biblical defenders against homosexuality were ever more likely to perceive doubt about the biblical defense against homosexuality as doubt about the authority of the Bible itself. In the words of Henry Van Dyke… from his pulpit in Brooklyn, “Open and Affirming leads, in a multitude of cases, and by a logical process, to utter infidelity… One of its avowed principles is, that it does not try homosexuality by the Bible; but… it tries the Bible by the principles of love…”
The power of the anti-homosexual scriptural position – especially in a Protestant world of widespread intuitive belief in the plenary inspiration of the whole Bible- lay in its simplicity… Thompson’s message was straightforward: if God through divine revelation so clearly condemned homosexuality… how could genuine Christians attack modern stances against homosexuality as an evil?
It was no coincidence that the biblical stance against homosexuality remained strongest in the United States, a place where democratic, antitraditional, and individualistic religion was also strongest… it was an axiom of American public thought that free people should read, think, and reason for themselves. When such a populace, committed to republican and democratic principles, was also a Bible-reading populace, the anti-homosexual biblical case never lacked persuasive resources… Protestants well schooled in reading the Scriptures for themselves also knew of many other relevant texts…
In Britain, with Bible-believing evangelicals in the lead, scruples supporting a scriptural defense against homosexuality were largely overcome… More generally, Western attachment to ideas of basic human rights, which ironically had been greatly stimulated by… the United States of America, made it increasingly difficult to imagine how prejudice against homosexuals could exist in a modern civilized polity… Christian humanitarianism was trumping biblical traditionalism.
The primary reason that the biblical defense against homosexuality remained so strong was that many biblical defenses for homosexuality were so weak. To oversimplify a complicated picture, the most direct biblical defense of homosexuality were ones that relied on common sense, the broadly accepted moral intuitions of American national ideology, and the weight of “self-evident truth…” More complicated, nuanced, and involved biblical defenses of homosexuality offered more formidable opposition. But because those arguments did not feature intuition, republican instinct, and common sense readings of individual texts, they were much less effective in a public arena that had been so strongly shaped by intuitive, republican, and commonsensical intellectual principles.
Although this debate is worth studying for many reasons, it is pertinent here for how Blanchard advanced the most popular form of the biblical homosexuality argument… Blanchard returned repeatedly to “the broad principle of common equity and common sense” that he found in Scripture, to “the general principles of the Bible” and “the whole scope of the Bible,” where to him it was obvious that “ the principles of the Bible are justice and righteousness.”
These passages fairly clearly lay out two distinct views of homosexuality. One is based on the Protestant and American principles of the primacy and accuracy of the Scripture and of reading Scripture individually and determining the meaning, while the other view is based more on the scope, or arc, of the Bible and the primary principles of mercy and justice. Which side are you on? Which side resonates with you, and which raises your hackles as a shiver runs down your spine? To be honest, I get a shiver of hesitation when I think about arguing not from specific passages but from the “big picture” when so many specific passages address the issue. In other words, I tend to resonate with the structural arguments against homosexuality presented here.
One problem, though. The above arguments were not made regarding homosexuality. They are only slightly modified quotes from Mark Noll’s book “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.” The arguments against homosexuality are constructed the same way that the arguments for slavery were constructed, while the proponents of the acceptance of homosexuality appeal in the same general way as the anti-slavery leaders of the 1800s, such as William Wilberforce.
Read the passages again, only this time unaltered:
By 1860 Americans who believed in the Scriptures as unquestioned divine revelation should have been troubled by the growing number of their fellow citizens who seemed willing to live without that belief. The most prominent among those coming to doubt the all-sufficiency of Scripture were savants like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., elite literati like William Dean Howells, and practitioners of realpolitik like William Henry Trescot, who were turning aside from all a priori authorities, including the Bible. Instead, they were looking to scientific, legal, literary, business, or governmental substitutes to provide the necessary ballast required by what they hailed as an increasingly secular, consumer-oriented, and religiously pluralistic society. (p 31)
With increasing frequency as the sectional conflict heated up, biblical defenders of slavery were ever more likely to perceive doubt about the biblical defense of slavery as doubt about the authority of the Bible itself. In the words of Henry Van Dyke… from his pulpit in Brooklyn, “Abolitionism leads, in a multitude of cases, and by a logical process, to utter infidelity… One of its avowed principles is, that it does not try slavery by the Bible; but… it tries the Bible by the principles of freedom…” (p 32)
The power of the proslavery scriptural position – especially in a Protestant world of widespread intuitive belief in the plenary inspiration of the whole Bible- lay in its simplicity… Thompson’s message was straightforward: if God through divine revelation so clearly sanctioned slavery, and even the trade in “strangers,” how could genuine Christians attack modern slavery, or even the slave trade, as an evil? (p 33)
It was no coincidence that the biblical defense of slavery remained strongest in the United States, a place where democratic, antitraditional, and individualistic religion was also strongest. By the nineteenth century, it was an axiom of American public thought that free people should read, think, and reason for themselves. When such a populace, committed to republican and democratic principles, was also a Bible-reading populace, the proslavery biblical case never lacked persuasive resources… Protestants well schooled in reading the Scriptures for themselves also knew of many other relevant texts… (p 34)
Between… the early 1770s and the intensification of American debate over slavery six decades later, circumstances in the North Atlantic world shifted significantly. In Britain, with Bible-believing evangelicals in the lead, scruples supporting a scriptural defense of slavery were largely overcome as the Parliament first outlawed the slave trade… then banned slavery in all British territories… More generally, Western attachment to ideas of basic human rights, which ironically had been greatly stimulated by the founding of the United States of America, made it increasingly difficult to imagine how slavery could exist in a modern civilized polity… Christian humanitarianism was trumping biblical traditionalism. (p 35)
The primary reason that the biblical defense of slavery remained so strong was that many biblical attacks on slavery were so weak. To oversimplify a complicated picture, the most direct biblical attacks on slavery were ones that relied on common sense, the broadly accepted moral intuitions of American national ideology, and the weight of “self-evident truth…” More complicated, nuanced, and involved biblical attacks against slavery offered more formidable opposition. But because those arguments did not feature intuition, republican instinct, and common sense readings of individual texts, the wer much less effective in a public arena that had been so strongly shaped by intuitive, republican, and commonsensical intellectual principles. (p 40)
Although this debate is worth studying for many reasons, it is pertinent here for how Blanchard advanced the most popular form of the biblical antislavery argument… Blanchard returned repeatedly to “the broad principle of common equity and common sense” that he found in Scripture, to “the general principles of the Bible” and “the whole scope of the Bible,” where to him it was obvious that “ the principles of the Bible are justice and righteousness.” (p 41).
What!? Double take. You mean the same way I look to the simplicity of the Bible on the issue of homosexuality is the same way many defended slavery? And the way people advocate for acceptance of homosexuality is the same way people advocated for emancipation and human equality?
Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the issue. I encourage people to read Noll’s book not only for the insight in brings on the Civil War, but the intriguing light he shines on American theological development.
I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea of glossing over specific passages on homosexuality to fit some grand understanding of love and mercy and justice. And I’m certainly not comfortable with espousing a view that legitimates slavery in an effort to “plainly read” specific passages from the bible.
And before anyone says it, I know that the two issues are different (one is a sanction and one is a prohibition), and the issues are more thoroughly debatable on both sides. My goal is not to defend slavery or promote acceptance of homosexuality. Since it is not my purpose, I’m not even going to take a side. My motivation in sharing these quotes is to challenge us to realize how we form our beliefs and how we organize our arguments are just as important as what we believe and what we argue. We must be willing to look at not just our individual beliefs, but also our underlying cultural influences (as Noll points out repeatedly regarding the influence of American republican and democratic ideals on theological interpretations) that led us to those beliefs.
I love my family!
Though it seems to many like I am very detached from my family, the truth is I feel really at home and connected to my extended family. I really have a fun family, and nothing lifts my spirits more than family gatherings with game night.
On Labor Day, the whole family celebrated my nephew Brandon’s fourth birthday. The whole family from both sides came over to spoil the only grandchild on my mom’s side, and only the first of two on my dad’s side of the family. And it is great to be adored and imitated by a nephew who wants to be like Uncle Tony, going so far as using birthday money to buy a Doctors Playset, complete with white coat!
Anyway, the whole family came over… all of them. My dad’s two sisters and his mom and step-dad all came over. My mom’s mom and her brother and sister and their spouses came over. We had a young cousin, and another cousin and her boyfriend. And of course, my sister and brother-in-law were there. Add to that three family friends, and we had a house full.
After afternoon gatherings like these, whether it be birthday parties, Thanksgiving, or Christmas, many in the family stay late, grazing on left-over food, and playing games. Some classics that are often played include Outburst, Scategories, and Taboo.
Long after Brandon crashed from his adrenaline high opening presents, half the family stayed and played Scategories. Wow! It was hilarious! We are a fairly generous group in this game, to say the least… where “nuts” and “nuts, beer” –always shared as ‘nuts comma beer’- are both accepted, as well as “loopy” as a “state.” It is rather amusing, with lots of cracking on each other… especially when my cousin’s new boyfriend comes up with “Princess” for the category “Costume beginning with with the letter ‘P’,” my sister comes up with “whip” for the category of weapon, my 60 year old uncle comes up with “New Kids on the Block” for musical group, and I come up with “lusty” as a personality trait beginning with ‘L’! You can imagine the conversation and laughter that is generated from such things.
What makes it so great is the shared experiences through the years, growing up together and spending so much time together. There are no major grudges or strained relationships that would ever require special planning and arranged seating to keep certain people away from each other. Though my dad’s side of the family is VERY different from my mom’s side, they all get along and expect to see each other regularly. And there is a lack of pretentiousness and defensiveness that is wonderful and comforting. Even my sister and I can rag on each other in a playful way during these times.
Although there are lots of deeper reasons why I love my family – from the caring and sharing to the genuine love and support to the generally positive attitudes- I think the times of laughter are the best example, because the laugher is deeper and longer because of the other things. I do have a hard time coming home, because it is hard for me to leave the proximity of the fun. True, these fun gatherings aren’t frequent. But, certainly, they are more frequent than I can attend being out in Ohio. I do miss my family, and savor every opportunity like this night to spend with them in peace, sharing, and most of all, laughter. I hope that if I have children, they will be surrounded by such a set of deeply loving and committed family (biological and spiritual) as I have been blessed with.
On Labor Day, the whole family celebrated my nephew Brandon’s fourth birthday. The whole family from both sides came over to spoil the only grandchild on my mom’s side, and only the first of two on my dad’s side of the family. And it is great to be adored and imitated by a nephew who wants to be like Uncle Tony, going so far as using birthday money to buy a Doctors Playset, complete with white coat!
Anyway, the whole family came over… all of them. My dad’s two sisters and his mom and step-dad all came over. My mom’s mom and her brother and sister and their spouses came over. We had a young cousin, and another cousin and her boyfriend. And of course, my sister and brother-in-law were there. Add to that three family friends, and we had a house full.
After afternoon gatherings like these, whether it be birthday parties, Thanksgiving, or Christmas, many in the family stay late, grazing on left-over food, and playing games. Some classics that are often played include Outburst, Scategories, and Taboo.
Long after Brandon crashed from his adrenaline high opening presents, half the family stayed and played Scategories. Wow! It was hilarious! We are a fairly generous group in this game, to say the least… where “nuts” and “nuts, beer” –always shared as ‘nuts comma beer’- are both accepted, as well as “loopy” as a “state.” It is rather amusing, with lots of cracking on each other… especially when my cousin’s new boyfriend comes up with “Princess” for the category “Costume beginning with with the letter ‘P’,” my sister comes up with “whip” for the category of weapon, my 60 year old uncle comes up with “New Kids on the Block” for musical group, and I come up with “lusty” as a personality trait beginning with ‘L’! You can imagine the conversation and laughter that is generated from such things.
What makes it so great is the shared experiences through the years, growing up together and spending so much time together. There are no major grudges or strained relationships that would ever require special planning and arranged seating to keep certain people away from each other. Though my dad’s side of the family is VERY different from my mom’s side, they all get along and expect to see each other regularly. And there is a lack of pretentiousness and defensiveness that is wonderful and comforting. Even my sister and I can rag on each other in a playful way during these times.
Although there are lots of deeper reasons why I love my family – from the caring and sharing to the genuine love and support to the generally positive attitudes- I think the times of laughter are the best example, because the laugher is deeper and longer because of the other things. I do have a hard time coming home, because it is hard for me to leave the proximity of the fun. True, these fun gatherings aren’t frequent. But, certainly, they are more frequent than I can attend being out in Ohio. I do miss my family, and savor every opportunity like this night to spend with them in peace, sharing, and most of all, laughter. I hope that if I have children, they will be surrounded by such a set of deeply loving and committed family (biological and spiritual) as I have been blessed with.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
What are you against?
What are you against? It is a rather unusual question. The more common query is “What (or who) are you for?” Whether it be a sports team (Go Bucks!), a flavor of Mountain Dew in their Dewmocracy contest, a religion, or a politician, most people ask the question in the positive form.
Yet, I have become more sensitive to the numerous ways in which people express their feelings, and questions, in the negative form. People are less and less ‘for’ something, and more and more ‘against’ something.
In fact, I was at a church service recently, and was thoroughly surprised (as were many) at the blatantly political message from the pulpit.
I should mention at the start, however, that this congregation is unlike many in the broader Christian world. Generally, this congregation, and its fellowship in general, tends to be very Republican and conservative, but is also careful to keep politics and in most cases even patriotism “separate and apart” from the message of the Good News. I have never seen a flag of any kind on the grounds of any of the churches of this fellowship, much less in the building (Praise God!). Also, this congregation attempts to train and involve as many Christian men as are willing. So, at least one time a month, the elders allow and encourage men of the congregation to sign up to give the sermon. On this night, a young man that I respect greatly was giving the lesson.
He started his sermon most excellently about talking about priorities. Whose priorities are we seeking, our priorities or God’s? He gave several good biblical illustrations of people who sought their own priorities, much to their detriment. He then shifted gears a bit to remind us that this process of seeking God’s priorities extends to politics and the election process. He started by stating, “I’m not going to tell you who to vote for. It’s none of my business.” So far, so good. “But as a Christian, I can tell you who you should not vote for… Nobody who calls themselves a Christian can vote for Obama.” What!? His main reason was Obama’s support for abortion rights. While it is terribly predictable that abortion would be the most important issue for him (and the church in general), I was struck at how he was so blatantly against something, and not for something.
I am for life. In fact, I’m so pro-life that I have serious reservations (not blanket prohibitions) about the death penalty and use of violence to accomplish military and nationalistic goals. I am morally sickened at the rampant use of abortion.
But I am for other things too. In fact, my whole life perspective, my whole theology, is succinctly summarized by Micah 6:8 – “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” I am for justice and mercy and walking humbly with God. I am about loving people.
In this election, as it always is now a days, I have to wisely seek God’s priorities, because no one individual appears to be “for” the same things my limited understanding leads me to believe are God’s priorities. If I vote for “X”, he will likely align with my views on this one issue. And if I vote for “Y”, he will likely align with my views on these two issues. How do I value these in the process of deciding to vote?
If churches, and really all faith communities, want to address moral issues in the political realm, they should really be addressing how to be wise in making evaluations about what really matters. Which is a higher priority for God? Stopping abortion, or addressing the economic oppression and moral decay that leads to abortion? How should we view personal responsibility in terms of the Christian perspective? What does it mean to oppress the poor, and how does that happen today? These are the types of questions that I wish faith communities would wrestle with.
I wish people would be more worried about what they are for, than what they are against.
Yet, I have become more sensitive to the numerous ways in which people express their feelings, and questions, in the negative form. People are less and less ‘for’ something, and more and more ‘against’ something.
In fact, I was at a church service recently, and was thoroughly surprised (as were many) at the blatantly political message from the pulpit.
I should mention at the start, however, that this congregation is unlike many in the broader Christian world. Generally, this congregation, and its fellowship in general, tends to be very Republican and conservative, but is also careful to keep politics and in most cases even patriotism “separate and apart” from the message of the Good News. I have never seen a flag of any kind on the grounds of any of the churches of this fellowship, much less in the building (Praise God!). Also, this congregation attempts to train and involve as many Christian men as are willing. So, at least one time a month, the elders allow and encourage men of the congregation to sign up to give the sermon. On this night, a young man that I respect greatly was giving the lesson.
He started his sermon most excellently about talking about priorities. Whose priorities are we seeking, our priorities or God’s? He gave several good biblical illustrations of people who sought their own priorities, much to their detriment. He then shifted gears a bit to remind us that this process of seeking God’s priorities extends to politics and the election process. He started by stating, “I’m not going to tell you who to vote for. It’s none of my business.” So far, so good. “But as a Christian, I can tell you who you should not vote for… Nobody who calls themselves a Christian can vote for Obama.” What!? His main reason was Obama’s support for abortion rights. While it is terribly predictable that abortion would be the most important issue for him (and the church in general), I was struck at how he was so blatantly against something, and not for something.
I am for life. In fact, I’m so pro-life that I have serious reservations (not blanket prohibitions) about the death penalty and use of violence to accomplish military and nationalistic goals. I am morally sickened at the rampant use of abortion.
But I am for other things too. In fact, my whole life perspective, my whole theology, is succinctly summarized by Micah 6:8 – “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” I am for justice and mercy and walking humbly with God. I am about loving people.
In this election, as it always is now a days, I have to wisely seek God’s priorities, because no one individual appears to be “for” the same things my limited understanding leads me to believe are God’s priorities. If I vote for “X”, he will likely align with my views on this one issue. And if I vote for “Y”, he will likely align with my views on these two issues. How do I value these in the process of deciding to vote?
If churches, and really all faith communities, want to address moral issues in the political realm, they should really be addressing how to be wise in making evaluations about what really matters. Which is a higher priority for God? Stopping abortion, or addressing the economic oppression and moral decay that leads to abortion? How should we view personal responsibility in terms of the Christian perspective? What does it mean to oppress the poor, and how does that happen today? These are the types of questions that I wish faith communities would wrestle with.
I wish people would be more worried about what they are for, than what they are against.
Observations from the (Irrational?) Right
I was talking to a family member recently who is a staunch Republican. After some heated discussion about Obama and Palin, and discussion about apparent media bias (he calls ABC the “All Barak Channel,” NBC the “Nearly Barak Channel,” and CBS the “Completely Barak Side”), we had a rather interesting exchange that I think reflects where the American psyche is for many people.
“ ‘Don’t call me Hussein!’ That's what he says. Barak won’t let people call him by his name!”
Antagonistically, and out of frustration, I said, “Because right-wing fear-mongerers use it only to imply that he’s Muslim! And he’s NOT!”
“You don’t know that! How do you know that?”
“Because he’s been going to a Christian church for 20 some odd years! He was married there, baptized there!”
“And it is a hate-mongering anti-American church!”
Another brief exchange: In the course of discussion, I pointed out that he was in Indonesia because his mom worked there. I said, “It is not like at age 8 he was like ‘Oh, I think I’ll go to the Muslim-predominant country of to Indonesia!’”
“Well, there are some questions now… Haven’t you heard? He may not have been born in Hawaii, he may have been born in Indonesia, and may not even be a U.S. citizen!”
I think that such exchanges demonstrate the deep concerns people have… and perhaps it shows how effective media spin (conservative and liberal) is at giving words, concepts, and phrases to deep-seeded, wordless feelings.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe for an instant that this family member is racist. Nor is he ignorant. When asked why he just doesn’t watch Fox when he gets angry at the “media bias” on CNN, he stated he likes to hear “the other side.” He may be mistrustful of Muslims, but he is a phenomenally hard working, intelligent man whose work ethic impresses me to this day. Yet, more than anything, I suspect that he simply has a deep mistrust of anything smacking of liberalism, which in his mind is centralization of government, which in turns means taking individual liberty AND individual responsibility away from people.
I can understand that line of argumentation. In fact, I am sympathetic. It frustrates me, however, that he grasps at minor and often outrageous claims to build his case against Obama, instead of building a case for individual liberty and responsibility (with the resultant consequences).
And on that note, of being against something, I will pick up in my next post.
“ ‘Don’t call me Hussein!’ That's what he says. Barak won’t let people call him by his name!”
Antagonistically, and out of frustration, I said, “Because right-wing fear-mongerers use it only to imply that he’s Muslim! And he’s NOT!”
“You don’t know that! How do you know that?”
“Because he’s been going to a Christian church for 20 some odd years! He was married there, baptized there!”
“And it is a hate-mongering anti-American church!”
Another brief exchange: In the course of discussion, I pointed out that he was in Indonesia because his mom worked there. I said, “It is not like at age 8 he was like ‘Oh, I think I’ll go to the Muslim-predominant country of to Indonesia!’”
“Well, there are some questions now… Haven’t you heard? He may not have been born in Hawaii, he may have been born in Indonesia, and may not even be a U.S. citizen!”
I think that such exchanges demonstrate the deep concerns people have… and perhaps it shows how effective media spin (conservative and liberal) is at giving words, concepts, and phrases to deep-seeded, wordless feelings.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe for an instant that this family member is racist. Nor is he ignorant. When asked why he just doesn’t watch Fox when he gets angry at the “media bias” on CNN, he stated he likes to hear “the other side.” He may be mistrustful of Muslims, but he is a phenomenally hard working, intelligent man whose work ethic impresses me to this day. Yet, more than anything, I suspect that he simply has a deep mistrust of anything smacking of liberalism, which in his mind is centralization of government, which in turns means taking individual liberty AND individual responsibility away from people.
I can understand that line of argumentation. In fact, I am sympathetic. It frustrates me, however, that he grasps at minor and often outrageous claims to build his case against Obama, instead of building a case for individual liberty and responsibility (with the resultant consequences).
And on that note, of being against something, I will pick up in my next post.
A Forced (but needed) Respite
It has been way too long in writing. I have needed to write, not just to update a little-read blog, or even to update the few friends that read this blog. No, I have needed to write as a process of digestion of what has occurred in the last several months.
As I start writing this, I am in the Atlanta airport, waiting for a connecting flight from Akron to Phoenix. It has been nearly one year since I have been back in Phoenix. That was a relaxing week spent with my family in the White Mountains of Arizona, and I think fondly on that week. Due to a variety of circumstances which I hope to elucidate in the next several posts, I have not had the vacation time nor the money to travel much in the last year, much less get back to Phoenix. I would not be making this trip now to spend over a week in Phoenix if it were not for the fact that my dad is having his hip replaced on Wednesday, September 3, and he paid for me to come out to be with the family during this anticipated rough week.
So, this was an unexpected respite, but one that is greatly needed. There is not a whole lot planned for much of the week, and I hope to spend much of my needed down time blogging about the last year. Topics I hope to touch on, if ever so briefly, include:
1. My best friend’s theo-philosophical journey
2. A huge job change and transition
3. A fun “business” trip to Denver with two great friends
4. My relationship with my wonderful girlfriend, Carey
5. The attempt at selling my house and future plans
6. Provoking thoughts about regarding theology provoked by a history book
7. My philosophical wranglings with atheism
8. The state of my spiritual journey and exciting trajectories
9. Thoughts about Obama and Palin in the current presidential races
This is an ambitious list, and I’m not likely to get to all of these, but by listing them, it provides a goal. Hopefully, this exercise will provide some clarity on some of these issues, for me if not anyone else.
As I start writing this, I am in the Atlanta airport, waiting for a connecting flight from Akron to Phoenix. It has been nearly one year since I have been back in Phoenix. That was a relaxing week spent with my family in the White Mountains of Arizona, and I think fondly on that week. Due to a variety of circumstances which I hope to elucidate in the next several posts, I have not had the vacation time nor the money to travel much in the last year, much less get back to Phoenix. I would not be making this trip now to spend over a week in Phoenix if it were not for the fact that my dad is having his hip replaced on Wednesday, September 3, and he paid for me to come out to be with the family during this anticipated rough week.
So, this was an unexpected respite, but one that is greatly needed. There is not a whole lot planned for much of the week, and I hope to spend much of my needed down time blogging about the last year. Topics I hope to touch on, if ever so briefly, include:
1. My best friend’s theo-philosophical journey
2. A huge job change and transition
3. A fun “business” trip to Denver with two great friends
4. My relationship with my wonderful girlfriend, Carey
5. The attempt at selling my house and future plans
6. Provoking thoughts about regarding theology provoked by a history book
7. My philosophical wranglings with atheism
8. The state of my spiritual journey and exciting trajectories
9. Thoughts about Obama and Palin in the current presidential races
This is an ambitious list, and I’m not likely to get to all of these, but by listing them, it provides a goal. Hopefully, this exercise will provide some clarity on some of these issues, for me if not anyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)