The Voice of Reason

Previous Post

          Not long ago, I shared my thoughts about the athletic department at the University of Arkansas and their "free" use of loaner cars with dealer tags.  It turns out that these cars are, in some cases, considered a part of their total compensation package.  What this means is that they are paying income taxes on the use of the cars. 

          Above all else, I want to be fair.  I happen to be very fond of football Coach Houston Nutt.  He is a good Christian man with a fair sense of values, and he is very enthusiastic about Arkansas in general.  Still, I wonder why the university does not just buy the darn cars?  What benefit comes to the dealers?  I think the cars are being leased but if this is true, why should the University not go ahead and get their own darn tags?

Whoo, Pig Sooie.

The Recess Appointment of John Bolton and Ethics

          President Bush has done as he said he would.  He waited until the Congress went into recess and then appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN.  A few senators suggested that what the President did may have been constitutional, but it was certainly not ethical.

          Of course, the "ethics" charge comes from some of the President's adversaries in the Senate who successfully blocked a full vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination.  I'm not sure that failing to give my own senators an opportunity to vote up or down on this nomination is entirely ethical.  My "voice" in the Senate has been stymied by a handful of politicians, none of whom I got to vote for.  As ethics goes, I got robbed.

          I've heard both of my senators make extremely vague comments about Mr. Bolton, leaving me with the impression that they were trying to play on both sides of the fence.  In my mind, this is not very ethical.  What the Senate fails to realize - and I mean Democrats AND Republicans - is that those seats belong to the people of their respective states.  They are our collective voices.  We make our wishes known to them, and they carry out their marching orders from us.

          Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor was quoted in today's paper as saying that he was not sure how this "end run" by the President was going to play in the Senate when Judge Roberts' Supreme Court nomination hearings begin.  Senator Pryor essentially said, "Of course I won't be bothered by it, but you never know about the others!"  My cynical mind tells me that he has just planted a tit-for-tat seed that he may secretly hope to see come to fruition.  He has also effectively removed the monkey from his own back.

          I cannot help but laugh whenever I hear politicians talk about ethical behavior.

Moral Formation

          There is an outstanding article published in the July/August '05 issue of Circuit Rider magazine in which writer Bishop Timothy W. Whitaker of the Florida Conference asks a haunting question: "The Church is successful in helping people to feel good, but is it effective in enabling people to be good?"

          His thoughts were provoked by a visiting Jewish lady whose husband was a member of that UM church.  The youth group had expressed to the pastor an interest in learning more about different denominations and religions.  Naturally, the pastor invited the Jewish woman to make a presentation about Judaism.  I don't think the pastor was completely prepared for what was offered.

          "Judiaism is based upon the Torah.  The Torah is the law of God.  We Jews are interested in the moral formation of people by teaching them how to live their lives in accordance with God's law.  The emphasis in Christianity is upon God's forgiveness, but we Jews are interested in how God wants us to be good people by obeying God's law."

          The pastor, now bishop, admits that he can readily see how someone from outside would "get the impression that we are not seriously interested in a moral formation".  I have to ask the question, however: who sets the standard for the "foundation"?  Where must it begin?

          Yes, it is easy to say that the Bible is very clear about morality.  In trying to answer the bishop's question, however, one must be mindful of the reality that there are those among us who virtually dismiss much of the Hebrew text, reasoning that it is "an ancient code written in an ancient time for an ancient people who no longer exist."  The gay Episcopal bishop made this remark while being interviewed during that time in which he had been selected to the episcopacy.  In fact, Mr. Robinson even dismissed portions of the book of Romans for much the same reason.  It struck me as odd that a man who was of a Protestant tradition in which Martin Luther had been FREED by his understanding of grace in Romans,  this very same book was being dissected to suit him.

          This is not necessarily about whether gays get the set the standard for moral formation although it brings up the quandary.  How can we teach others to "be good" if we cannot agree on what IS good? 

          I've probably heard more "liberals" quote The Beatles ("All you need is love") when this type of discussion comes around.  The only moral "code", as it is, is love.  Indeed, Jesus was very intentional about His proclamations.  However, it must be remembered that when Jesus was asked about the GREATEST commandment, His response was that we are to "love the Lord our God with ..." everything we have and everything we are.  The second greatest commandment is LIKE the first; "Love your neighbor as yourself".

          So has the Church failed in enabling people to be good if we have simply allowed that "anything goes" as long as there is love, whatever "love" means?  I remember listening to Father Corapi, an excellent catechism teacher on Eternal Word Television Network, once define biblical love.  "When we speak of love in the biblical context, we are not talking about that infatuation, that overwhelming emotion during which we cannot eat, we cannot sleep, we cannot think straight.  Love is not a warm and fuzzy emotion that we cannot grasp.  Rather, love, in its truest sense, is AN INTENTIONAL ACT OF THE WILL."  In other words, we don't FEEL love; we DO love.

          It seems to me, then, that if love is the standard - and I think it must be - then the standard by which we must first be measured is in how we love THE LORD.  If we have genuine love, then our love must first be directed toward the One through whom all things are possible.  And if He says, "DON'T", then we don't.  If He says, "DO", then we do.  Why?  Because we love Him.  Because we TRUST Him.  We do because we want to do, because we have an intense desire to please Him and no other.  It is not unlike our first love or our married love in which we cannot do enough for those toward whom our love is directed.  It must mean that His Word must come first before we satisfy our own desires. 

          The standard must have a foundation, and that foundation has already been established.  The question still remains: will we stand on THAT foundation, or shall we choose another more to our own liking?

The Wheat and the Tare

          There is a debate raging within me in which I am not certain if what I want to share is a religious issue, a faith issue, or a question of ethics in the life of the Church.  On other blog sites, particularly Wesleyblog.com, there is continuing discussion about a VA pastor who was removed from his pulpit for refusing to admit a self-avowed, practicing homosexual into membership into the church where he was serving as senior pastor.  Absent any real comment from this pastor as to exactly why he refused to allow the membership, we can only speculate about what was in the pastor's heart at the time.

          There is also continuous discussion at other blogs about the relevance of Islam as a "genuine" religion or a religion of peace.  Far too many Christians for my comfort are extremely vocal in condemning Islam as a "sham" and accusing ALL Muslims of being supportive of violence against "infidels".  In the context of much of what is reported in the press, "infidel" pretty much encompasses all westerners, particularly those western Christians and supporters of Israel's right to exist. 

           Since 9/11, there has been an increasing interest in Islam on different levels.  I, for one, purchased a copy of Qu'ran for myself since much of what I had heard and read seemed to suggest that to a Muslim, the only good non-Muslim is a DEAD non-Muslim!  In my limited reading of Qu'ran, I don't find this at all. 

           Defending the Qu'ran itself, however, is not necessarily or exclusively, my intent.  Ethics, as a developed thought process dating back to the Greek stoics, is a systematic method by which we can determine right action.  Essentially, this is what ethical behavior is all about - doing the right thing.  Even if we are talking about pagans who had no real need for religion, there is still a fundamental value in doing no harm to another human being.  Refraining from hurting someone does not have to be in the name of any particular religion, I don't think, before it can have any value.  Unfortunately, however, we seem hell-bent on DOING harm and somehow arming ourselves with our Qu'rans or Holy Bibles or Torah and doing all we can to justify our harmful actions.  "Eye for an eye..." is an especially oft-quoted portion of Scripture when we feel a need to go after someone.

          In the book of Matthew 13:24, Jesus tells the parable of the "wheat and the tares" in which the farmer planted good seed.  "But while everybody slept, an enemy came and sowed weeds/tare (depending on which translation one is reading) among the wheat, and then went away."  The farmer's workers noticed the bad stuff and asked if they should remove the "bad stuff".  The farmer refused to allow the workers to do this since there was a risk to the "good stuff" in that they may do as much damage to the good as they might to the bad.  He told them to wait til the harvest so that the bad could be more easily distinguished from the good.  There is also reference to the "reapers".  Jesus' analogy, of course, referred to the reapers as His angels who would be FAR MORE QUALIFIED to discern between "good" and "bad".

          The danger that Jesus was referring to is the young wheat vs the young weeds.  Both were similiar in appearance even if a well-trained eye could tell that weeds had been planted among the good wheat.  A zeal for protecting the wheat could ultimately lead to its destruction.

          It seems to me that we have too many church members who have determined that they can tell the difference between "good" and "bad" by virtue of their own salvation, quoting Jesus' words: "by the fruits of their labors ..." can we tell the difference between "good" and "bad".  To this end, they might suggest that refusing church membership to a practicing homosexual is nothing more than preventive maintenance since "a little leaven will leaven the whole loaf".  Paul even admonishes the Corinthians put out a member who is actively involved in an "unlawful" life.  It would seem, then, that drawing a line as to who will be allowed membership and who will not is a moral responsibility of the church as a body.

          However, it has been my experience that those who would refuse church membership to someone based on moral arguments are usually among the first to condemn Islam and the Qu'ran even as they readily admit to never having read Qu'ran to begin with.  They have made up their minds about Islam based on the "fruit of ... the labor" of those who kill and maim in the name of Islam.  Should we then hope that others not of the Christian faith would draw their own conclusions about Christianity based on the "labor" of these few?  I would hope not, but I also know of far too many who will refuse to darken the doorstep of a church based on past experiences similar to these.

          Those who continue to condemn Islam cite the "dancing in the streets" in some Muslim countries after 9/11 as evidence of the fruit of Islam.  There have indeed been some Muslim clerics who have publicly condemned murder and suicide with a "but" attached to their statements.  We're talking about a virtual HANDFUL of men who happen to be Muslim clerics!  By this reasoning, we can surmise that all Germans were bad because of the "fruits" of one very charismatic man who somehow convinced the German people that their sorry lot in life was due to the Jews.  When our lives are less than ideal, isn't it easy - and even desirable - to find someone to BLAME?

          I wonder how much more press today's AP accounts will get beyond this date in which an American and an EGYPTIAN Muslim cleric have both unconditionally condemned murder and suicide bombing as being "cursed of God" - not blessed.  These are again a virtual HANDFUL who refuse to allow others to believe that the Lord can somehow use murder and torture as a useful tool for converting the heart.

          If it is a matter of doing right, does religion have to be involved?  I wonder sometimes if perhaps religion itself - as man understands it - has done more harm than good in the long run.  Could it possibly be that religion, in and of itself, can be considered "unethical"?

What's Fair is Fair

          You wanna talk about ethics?   When we think in terms of ethical behavior, we generally think in terms of fairness, yes?  What's right is right.  If one pays, all pay.  For the ethical, there is no other way.

          However, in our wonderful state of Arkansas, there are some who may be, shall we say, ethically challenged.  The state Department of Finance and Administration determined that auto dealers have been very loose with their "dealer tags" which were only intended for demo models that were essentially still for sale.  However, this courtesy had been extended to at least a judge who was convicted of using the dealer tag to avoid pay state sales tax.  He was also removed from the bench.

          Now it turns out that auto dealers have been loaning cars with dealer tags to the University of Arkansas athletic department staff.  The Athletic Director has cried "foul" because the DFA is going after ANY and ALL excesses and abuses of this dealer tag.  The AD has sent a letter to the governor essentially asking that an exception be made for the UA until the next legislative session.

          Now that's nerve.

The Christian Paradox

          In the August 2005 addition of Harper's Magazine, there is an outstanding essay by Bill McKibben entitled "The Christian Paradox".  In this essay, Mr. McKibben explores the connection (or, rather, the DIS-connect) between our nation as overwhelmingly Christian and yet being as disconnected as we can possibly be from that which we call our faith.

          He points out, "One day it occurred to me that the parts of the world where people actually had cut dramatically back on their carbon emissions, actually did live voluntarily in smaller homes and take public transit, were the same countries where people were giving aid to the poor and making sure everyone had health care - countries like Norway and Sweden, where religion was relatively unimportant.  How could that be?  For Christians there should be something at least a little scary in the notion that, absent the magical answers of religion, people might just get around to solving their problems and strengthening their communities in more straightforward ways."

          Ah, Mr. McKibben.  We are not so much like Jesus as we are the workers in the parable of the wheat and the tares.  We are more concerned about pulling the tare from the field before the wheat is compromised rather than trusting that the harvesters will take care of that later when the "final trumpet" has sounded. 

          What Mr. McKibben is talking about is essentially this: Christians are very righteous when it comes to exploring the biblical texts while in Sunday School or church.  However, if we take it outside and into the world, we are more afraid of being looked upon as Christian "taliban" than witnesses to Christ's glory.  He believes that for the Christian, there really is no such thing as "practical application".  It's all conceptual and theoretical. 

          The only problem I have with his arguments is this: we cannot compel generous hearts.  We can only plant the seed.  What others will choose to do with that seed that has been planted is truly between themselves and the Spirit who will nurture that seed.  Is it un-Christ-like to demand that the government get its hands out of our pockets?  Is it un-Christ-like to demand that the churches be more intentional about being the faithful witness and not worrying about how the government is spending the money?  Is it un-Christ-like to expect the government to cover our spiritual and charitable deficits?

          I can appreciate where the author is coming from, and I think he's right for the most part.  It is not easy living the Christian life but, God help us, we are working to make it as easy as possible for ourselves.

Religion As It Is

          Since I began this blog thing, I've read other blogs of various interests.  In my search, I have found several blogs that are distinct in their affiliation with Christian denominations as well as other major religions.  I've enjoyed reading most of them; others have left me with more than a bad taste.

          Recently a newly consecrated Anglican bishop was quoted as saying, "That which unites us is much more profound than that which divides us."  All due respect to the bishop, but I'm not so sure this is true. 

          This particular bishop has refused to allow himself to get dragged into the discussion about homosexuality.  While many of us would expect that a leader of the Church would be a bit more definitive, I can respect that this man may very well have his sights set on something more far-reaching than one single issue.  And it is, you know.  Homosexuality defines nothing beyond a life style.  It will not single-handedly destroy the Church.

          Jesus Himself said that the "gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church.  He is the Lord, is He not?  Do His words mean anything to us at all?  If so, then we must remember that He has stated emphatically that the CHURCH will prevail.  So why do we allow ourselves to get so worked up over a single issue?  Are there other issues that cut a much wider swath?  I'd say so.

          What I find much more dismaying than those who want the Church to defend itself against homosexuals are those who, apparently in the name of the Lord, continue to mound exhaustive attacks against Islam. 

          I could write a ten-page essay, but I won't.  What I will do is say this:  IF YOU HAVE NOT READ QU'RAN FOR YOURSELF, REFRAIN FROM COMMENTS UNTIL YOU DO.

          Can we have just a moment of peace?

Faith as the Life Preserver

          How many of us can actually live just in this lifetime without some measure of faith?  Even if one is not particularly religious, some faith is required just to maintain any semblance of sanity! 

          Trusting our spouses to any degree requires a certain level of faith.  When we agree with a new employer about a salary, faith requires that we will expect that certain amount.  When we allow a surgeon to put us to sleep on the operating table, faith is required to reasonably expect that the doctor will do his or her level best.  Well, I think you get the point.

          Having been raised in church, I cannot recall a time when I didn't believe that there was a God.  As I grew older and a bit more rebellious, I certainly did not live like I had any sort of faith but then, I do not recall a serious moment when faith for the sake of my salvation ever crossed my mind.  It's not that I didn't believe in heaven or hell; it's just that as a teenager, I probably remembered myself as being just this side of invincible.  It is not often that death and the after-life is seriously considered by many teenagers. 

          Faith is much easier to write about and talk about than to actually live.  With exceptions, of course, faith is not so easy to come by.  The Bible teaches us that faith is a divine gift, that there is no way man's limited mind can ever be comfortable in dealing with concepts as abstract as heaven or hell or even a single, Supreme Being.  However, this is exactly what preachers urge their congregations to hold on to.  We preachers tell our flocks that they have to have faith in order to get into heaven.  We urge them to trust in the Lord.

          There is nothing wrong with this message.  The Bible teaches us that "without faith, it is not possible to please the Lord."  Again, believing in something, or Someone, unseen is quite a stretch.  Given everything we face in this world today, faith is needed now more than ever before.  So if there is this much suffering and faith is "all that", why is it such a tough sell?  Why is it that so many parishioners will tell a preacher, "Nice message, but I'm just not so sure about all that ..."

          But we have to get through this life first, don't we?  Even for some who have been raised in a church and have always heard the Bible stories, faith is hard to grasp.  Why is that?  To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure that faith has much to do with a person who has always been in church.  Don't get me wrong.  I know there are many who would disagree with that completely.  However, at least in my own experience, I cannot help but wonder sometimes if we were indoctrinated more than we were educated.

          On Wesleyblog.com, there has been some good discussion about "or else" theology.  I know many who grew up in a church where preachers told their congregations that if they failed to adopt faith into their own souls, they would go to hell.  They never seemed to realize, or at least acknowledge, that Jesus never spoke those words even as He warned us that we might be in "danger of the judgment" if we did not repent.  So what happens with this "or else" theology?  Does it produce faith? 

          I don't think so.  I think it might frighten young children into coming forward to "get saved" (although what an innocent child needs to be saved from, I'll never know!), and it might play well with some who are genuinely burdened with a guilty conscience.  After all, there can be no greater message than to hear that there is a loving God and that there is no sin that the Lord God is not willing to forgive in order to be reconciled to His own creation.  You better believe folks need to hear this!

          However, it is painfully clear that there are too many who don't want to hear this.  At the very least, they may believe they don't NEED to hear it.  And even if they do, it's just too ... I don't know .... abstract.  It's not clear, and it's not compelling.  And if this faith is good for nothing except getting us into heaven, how can someone who cannot grasp "heaven" care whether they ever see it?  What will it take to help those who want to know and want to hear and want to hope but cannot comprehend?

Coming Of Age

            I don’t want to grow up.  There is too much ahead that will demand more from me than I may be willing to give.  Expectations will be great, and I’m not sure I’m ready.

            Many young people feel this way.  There is nothing abnormal about the anxieties I feel except for maybe one small, minute detail: I’ll be 47 years old this year.

            I remember a time as a child when I had all kinds of romantic notions about what I wanted to be when I grew up: a policeman, a soldier (I did proudly serve as a Marine), a cowboy.  Kids could not do these things – NO WAY! – but one day, I would be all grown up and able to do anything I wanted to do.  The sky was the limit, and the possibilities were endless!

            As I entered into junior high school, however, things suddenly changed.  Over the course of a single summer, expectations shifted and, suddenly, things were being demanded of me.  These demands and expectations moved too far beyond simple arithmetic and coloring inside the lines.  Simply following the instructions of the teacher would no longer be enough; I had to actually start thinking for myself.  Worse still - my time was no longer my own!

            Has the world gone mad?  I was just a kid!  When did I cross the line, and can I go back anytime soon?  Even at the ripe old age of 46 ½ (!!), I still sometimes find myself asking that very question.  I’m back in school to finish work on a degree and, yes, the teachers still expect me to think for myself and draw my own conclusions (though some would probably prefer that I reach conclusions pleasing to them).  I would still very much like to go home where the only real expectation of me is to do my chores and homework.

            However, it is not a return to childhood that I seek necessarily.  It suddenly occurred to me that my youngest child will be all of 11 years old soon.  There are no more babies in the house.  My oldest moved out some time ago, and my middle child is about to graduate from high school and will soon be headed off to college.  If she has anything to say about it, she will go to Julliard!  For dad and mom, that’s too far away.  That’s WAY too much of a grown-up thought! 

How can they do this to us?  Do they not realize that we are not ready for this?  For the parent, the paradigm is a little overwhelming.  There was actually a time when it was up to us to help prepare our young for the world.  We were the ones who were supposed to not only teach them to think for themselves and learn to take responsibility for their actions, but we would also look forward to having a little more free time getting re-acquainted with our spouses.

Now it is time for us to try and hold on to our young ones for just a little while longer.  We don’t necessarily want them to be helpless babies again, but we also don’t care to watch them walk out the door with not one thought about how all this will affect us.  We don’t want them to suddenly realize that their “need” for us is no longer so great. 

Does this mean that we are afraid of growing old?  Is this the time when we become more acutely aware of our own mortality, or is there something more?  I cannot help but wonder how it is that we couldn’t wait to grow up and then, once there, do our level best to help time stand still.

Is it the beginning of the end when we finally change our last diaper?  I have to tell you that reflecting on these things has brought a grim reminder home: we are not long for this world.  Our children grow up and move on.  Wow.  Remember when we couldn't wait for them to start talking so that we could finally communicate on a meaningful level?  And remember when we couldn't wait for them to SHUT UP once we realized that talking and communicating are not necessarily the same thing?

No exceptions.  It's been a good life even with all the heartaches and heart breaks.  I honestly believe that if something were to happen to my family tomorrow, I could look up to Heaven and thank the Holy Father for that magnificent gift He gave me - my family, even if for a short time.

Listen to this if you listen to nothing else.  Without faith in the Lord God, without believing that He loves and cares enough to make a New Covenant with mankind thru Christ the Eternal Covenant, the count down to death truly has begun.  And time is running out.  

I wonder ...

          "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman has really piqued my interest in theological antiquity.   Mr. Ehrman explores not only the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, but he also delves into the so-called "Nag Hamadi" writings.  For the novice, it is a very easy-to-read-and-understand guidebook through some of the more compelling areas.  I think even for the more advanced student of theology, it offers much to consider.

          I am currently reviewing the author's comments about Paul and his many writings as they are recorded in the New Testament.  There is some good stuff in there.  While I have long suspected that Paul is not exactly in line with, say, the Gospel according to Matthew, I had never considered some of the more direct conflicts that seem to exist between these two authors.  Mr. Ehrman especially explores and compares Galatians to Matthew and the conflict between Paul and the "Judiazers" as well as Paul and the author of Matthew.

          Paul emphasizes faith.  Matthew points out Jesus' words that "I did not come to do away with the law ..." 

          Well, the law clearly states that the circumcision is an "eternal" covenant.  There is no out mentioned, and there is no expiration date.    However, the argument seems to center around whether or not a Gentile must first enter into Judaism before he or she can enter into Christianity.  The "judiazers" to whom Paul refers are actually Jewish Christians who insist that at least some of the law still applies.  It must also be remembered that Paul had a conflict with Peter, the apostle who actually walked with Jesus, about certain portions of the law.  So how is it that, according to some, Paul could dispute something which had never really been established such as, Christians do not have to be circumcised? 

          I wonder how it is that living according to the law by faith had become a bad thing?