Since a number of people have been responding to the blog "I'm Christian, unless You're Gay," and the response to it, "A Teen's Brave Response," I thought I'd better take a look at them.
The articles are well-intentioned. The blog author is right that it is important to love. But there are so many misconceptions in both of the posts, and pretty much every point of view expressed by the various people in those two posts is wrong.
The author is wrong in his understanding of what it means when a person says, "I'm Christian."
The mom is wrong in how she felt as a Christian before she knew her son was gay.
The mom is also wrong in how she felt after she found out her son was gay.
And the teen is wrong about how he expects Christians should treat him as a gay.
First, saying "I'm Christian" doesn't mean, "I'm going to be kind to you." It also doesn't mean, "Hey, whatever you do is your own business; it's OK by me; I love everyone, so let's just be friends." And it doesn't even mean "I try to adhere to the great moral teachings of a wise teacher." No, "I'm Christian" means "I have been saved from the consequences of my sinfulness by Jesus Christ, and I now have a personal relationship with him." And if that changes when we encounter people who are different from us, then we are not truly Christians. The examples of so-called Christians cited in the blog, who are unkind to gays or who say they hate them, are very poor examples of Christians.
Second, the mom, as a Christian, was wrong to feel hatred towards gays or to think they were evil just because of being gays. Christians ought to know that every single person on earth, gay or not, is sinful; there is no difference between them. They ought to know that every single person, gay or not, needs Jesus Christ. Christians ought to know as well that no one is any worse than anyone else; that no one deserves to be hated. Without exception, Christians ought to know that everyone deserves to be offered the love of God. Jesus died for gays and Jesus died for heterosexuals. He loves them all and does not think of people in categories. Hatred against people, gay or not, is not open to Christians. It is a sin for Christians to hate.
Third, when the mom found out that her son was gay, she was wrong to suddenly totally accept everything her son did. She was right to want to express love to him. But she was wrong not to want to guide his actions. Christians, if they truly follow Jesus' teachings, should not suddenly change their minds about what is a sin just because they know someone nice who does it. Christians can love people while still expressing disapproval of sinful behavior. Parents do this all the time with their children. It is no different with sexual behavior than it is with anything else. One can express disapproval of a child's sexual behavior and guide the child away from it without hating the child.
Fourth, the teen, and many other LGBTQ people, expect that Christians (and everyone else) should treat them not only with love, but with approval of everything they do. In essence, LGBTQ people are asking Christians to change their beliefs so that LGBTQ people can live their lives the way they want without having to hear that anyone thinks that they are wrong. This is unfair and, in fact, hypocritical, because the LGBTQ people are telling Christians that the Christians are wrong. In a truly tolerant society, everyone would have to put up with hearing someone say that they were wrong, and no one should feel hated just because someone says they are wrong.
I would actually like to know where Jacob, and this teen, live, because I certainly do not know any towns where everyone hates gays. But I do know that in Western culture recently there has been a vociferous effort to make Christians stop stating that they believe that homosexual sex is wrong.
"I'm Christian, unless You're Gay" says this: "...sin is a very personal thing! It always has been and it always will be! And it has nothing to do with love. Absolutely nothing. Disparity and difference have nothing to do with love. We shouldn't choose who we will love and who we won't."
This makes several incorrect assumptions about Christian beliefs about sin. First, it assumes that it is only disparity and difference that constitute sin for Christians. Instead, Christians view as sin what the Bible has called sin.
Second, it assumes that when Christians call a behavior sinful, they have chosen not to love the person engaging in that behavior. There are two parts to that assumption: 1) the assumption that one could not love a person if one says their behavior is wrong; and, 2) the assumption that it is not loving to correct someone.
The first part of that assumption is proved wrong by all the times a loving parent tells a child their behavior is wrong. Since the parent has told the child about the wrong behavior, has the parent chosen not to love the child? The statement, "We shouldn't choose who we will love and who we won't," referring to disapproving of homosexual sex, is incorrect.
The second part of that assumption is proved wrong if you take into account the Christian belief that living one's life the way God has designed it to be lived will lead to greater happiness. In that case, telling people how to live the way Christians believe God has told us to live is indeed loving--Christians are trying to show people a happier way to live. It is not the case that urging people not to sin has nothing to do with love. Instead, seen from the Christian point of view, it has everything to do with love.
It is sad to me when I see articles such as "I'm Christian, unless You're Gay." This is not only because there are so many hurting people like the teen in the response. It is also because there are so many misunderstandings that lead to discord. If only people would truly listen to those who differ with them, rather than reacting with their first emotions. There would be much less hurt, even if we didn't all agree.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Saturday, August 27, 2011
E-mail with Kattie Coon
"Kattie Coon", a blog commenter who claims she is orthodox but who relentlessly takes the progressive point of view, had an e-mail conversation with Viola Larson, and when Viola cc'ed me, I joined in. (Kattie Coon is not her real name, and she says her employer requires her to be anonymous on her personal blog.) Kattie has been complaining on her blog that Viola did not post the entire e-mail conversation, but only parts of it, and she thinks that Viola must be trying to hide things. So I am posting the whole thing here.
Read from the bottom. And notice that Kattie set up proposal to do something, with a condition attached, and when Viola chose not to participate, but remain in the status quo, Kattie called that Viola wanting war.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, what a surprise, my comment was deleted. So asking why your employer wants you to remain anonymous is some form of not respecting what your bio says about your employer not wanting you to divulge information? I don't get that at all. Things sure do get intricate. I guess there is no explanation you are allowed to give? It's apparently a very strict employer? I think your rights are being violated. You ought to consider that. If it's true, that is.
________________________________________
From: dmberkley22@hotmail.com
To: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
CC: v.larson@att.net; davemoody@mac.com; jimberkley@msn.com
Subject: RE: talking
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:18:43 -0700
Kattie, looking for your answer on your blog, then.
> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:42:13 -0500
> From: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
> To: dmberkley22@hotmail.com
> CC: v.larson@att.net; davemoody@mac.com; jimberkley@msn.com
> Subject: RE: talking
>
> Debbie,
>
> Don't walk into my private domain and pick an argument with me. This
> email account was set up for a conversation between Viola and myself.
> She chose to have you all listen in, not me. I made that concession
> to her. I wouldn't have done it on my own.
>
> The ball is in Viola's court. Either she wants to make peace or she doesn't.
>
> If it's war she wants, then this is just the kind of thing that will
> turn my conservative friends away from the Fellowship. I have good
> friends in leadership in another large congregation of the NAP that is
> sending representatives to MN too. There are also people in their
> congregation, not in leadership, interested in hearing my report. What
> would you have me tell them? The truth I hope. Don't answer that
> Debbie, it was rhetorical.
>
>
> Quoting Debbie Berkley:
>
> >
> > But that's the whole question I asked, Kattie. Why should it be
> > secret, even just between you and Viola? You are dodging that
> > question. I'm not asking you to tell me your name, just to tell me
> > why your employer requires you not to have freedom of speech on your
> > own time.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:43:02 -0500
> >> From: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
> >> To: dmberkley22@hotmail.com
> >> Subject: RE: talking
> >>
> >> Debbie,
> >>
> >> I'm sure you noticed that I'm trying to negotiate all this with Viola.
> >> Let it be between she and I.
> >>
> >> The blog problem has me baffled. I can administer my own blog, but I
> >> can't make comments without logging in as Name/URL. When I log in to
> >> make comments with my blogger ID it says I don't have access.
> >>
> >> Kattie
> >>
> >> Quoting Debbie Berkley:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Kattie, I just asked you this question on your blog, and here it is,
> >> > in case you delete it. Notice I'm not asking who you are, only why
> >> > you can't say.
> >> >
> >> > Kattie, why does your employer want you to be anonymous? Surely you
> >> > can answer that question while remaining anonymous. Do you work for
> >> > a CIA-type employer?
> >> >
> >> > We know you live in the USA, and employers in the USA are legally
> >> > required to give their employees freedom of speech on their own
> >> > time. I worked at Microsoft for 11 years, and while being a
> >> > Christian did not help me there, and may have even subtly harmed me
> >> > (it is a determinedly secular corporation), I was not forbidden to
> >> > speak of it on my own time.
> >> >
> >> > Many of us are wondering if you perhaps actually work for an
> >> > evangelical church or organization where you do not want the others
> >> > there to know about the disdain in which you hold groups such as the
> >> > Fellowship. It's hard not to think that unless you explain yourself.
> >> >
> >> > It's also weird that you said I was welcome to comment here, and
> >> > then apparently blocked me. I'm having to use "anonymous" to take
> >> > you up on your welcome.
> >> >
> >> > Debbie Berkley
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:39:19 -0500
> >> >> From: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
> >> >> To: v.larson@att.net
> >> >> CC: jim@bethelpcseattle.org; dmberkley22@hotmail.com; davemoody@mac.com
> >> >> Subject: Re: talking
> >> >>
> >> >> Viola,
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow,rebuffed even before the details are spelled out.
> >> >> One of the things I was going to suggest was that we become facebook
> >> >> friends with full access. I have facebook friends who cover the gamut
> >> >> also, and our interactions aren't insulting to each other.
> >> >> Oh well, I guess you can't put the past behind us. I am making
> >> >> overtures of being willing to try, and find a way that we might be
> >> >> able to do that. I won't beg, but I really don't think you
> >> >> appreciated the offer, and I say that because you didn't know where I
> >> >> was headed with this.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm still willing, but I need your promise first.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sincerely, in Christ's name,
> >> >> Kattie
> >> >>
> >> >> Quoting Viola Larson:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Dear Kattie,
> >> >> > I appreciate the offer but that would mean aligning myself with one
> >> >> > person who
> >> >> > dislikes the Christian brothers and sisters I am close to. It
> >> >> would create a
> >> >> > separation in real friendships that I care a great deal about. I
> >> >> > don't live in a
> >> >> > secret world and do not want to now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I wish you all the best with love in Christ, but I feel extremely
> >> >> > sorry for you.
> >> >> > I have other friends, even on Facebook, who are extremely
> >> >> > progressive. They do
> >> >> > not feel the need to insult me nor I them, we simply disagree and
> >> >> debate the
> >> >> > issues. If you have to hide yourself that is one thing-but to hide
> >> >> > yourself and
> >> >> > at the same time make snide remarks on other blogs about people I
> >> >> care about
> >> >> > puts you in a whole different category.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sincerely in the love of Christ,
> >> >> > Viola
> >> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> > From: "kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net"
> >> >> > To: Viola Larson
> >> >> > Sent: Fri, August 12, 2011 9:22:47 AM
> >> >> > Subject: Re: talking
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Viola,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for writting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am willing to share information about myself with you, and you
> >> >> > alone. But I
> >> >> > require a promise from you that you will never divulge any of that
> >> >> > information
> >> >> > with anyone else without first getting my permission.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kattie
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Quoting Viola Larson:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi Kattie,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What did you want to say in private?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Viola
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Read from the bottom. And notice that Kattie set up proposal to do something, with a condition attached, and when Viola chose not to participate, but remain in the status quo, Kattie called that Viola wanting war.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, what a surprise, my comment was deleted. So asking why your employer wants you to remain anonymous is some form of not respecting what your bio says about your employer not wanting you to divulge information? I don't get that at all. Things sure do get intricate. I guess there is no explanation you are allowed to give? It's apparently a very strict employer? I think your rights are being violated. You ought to consider that. If it's true, that is.
________________________________________
From: dmberkley22@hotmail.com
To: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
CC: v.larson@att.net; davemoody@mac.com; jimberkley@msn.com
Subject: RE: talking
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:18:43 -0700
Kattie, looking for your answer on your blog, then.
> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:42:13 -0500
> From: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
> To: dmberkley22@hotmail.com
> CC: v.larson@att.net; davemoody@mac.com; jimberkley@msn.com
> Subject: RE: talking
>
> Debbie,
>
> Don't walk into my private domain and pick an argument with me. This
> email account was set up for a conversation between Viola and myself.
> She chose to have you all listen in, not me. I made that concession
> to her. I wouldn't have done it on my own.
>
> The ball is in Viola's court. Either she wants to make peace or she doesn't.
>
> If it's war she wants, then this is just the kind of thing that will
> turn my conservative friends away from the Fellowship. I have good
> friends in leadership in another large congregation of the NAP that is
> sending representatives to MN too. There are also people in their
> congregation, not in leadership, interested in hearing my report. What
> would you have me tell them? The truth I hope. Don't answer that
> Debbie, it was rhetorical.
>
>
> Quoting Debbie Berkley
>
> >
> > But that's the whole question I asked, Kattie. Why should it be
> > secret, even just between you and Viola? You are dodging that
> > question. I'm not asking you to tell me your name, just to tell me
> > why your employer requires you not to have freedom of speech on your
> > own time.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:43:02 -0500
> >> From: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
> >> To: dmberkley22@hotmail.com
> >> Subject: RE: talking
> >>
> >> Debbie,
> >>
> >> I'm sure you noticed that I'm trying to negotiate all this with Viola.
> >> Let it be between she and I.
> >>
> >> The blog problem has me baffled. I can administer my own blog, but I
> >> can't make comments without logging in as Name/URL. When I log in to
> >> make comments with my blogger ID it says I don't have access.
> >>
> >> Kattie
> >>
> >> Quoting Debbie Berkley
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Kattie, I just asked you this question on your blog, and here it is,
> >> > in case you delete it. Notice I'm not asking who you are, only why
> >> > you can't say.
> >> >
> >> > Kattie, why does your employer want you to be anonymous? Surely you
> >> > can answer that question while remaining anonymous. Do you work for
> >> > a CIA-type employer?
> >> >
> >> > We know you live in the USA, and employers in the USA are legally
> >> > required to give their employees freedom of speech on their own
> >> > time. I worked at Microsoft for 11 years, and while being a
> >> > Christian did not help me there, and may have even subtly harmed me
> >> > (it is a determinedly secular corporation), I was not forbidden to
> >> > speak of it on my own time.
> >> >
> >> > Many of us are wondering if you perhaps actually work for an
> >> > evangelical church or organization where you do not want the others
> >> > there to know about the disdain in which you hold groups such as the
> >> > Fellowship. It's hard not to think that unless you explain yourself.
> >> >
> >> > It's also weird that you said I was welcome to comment here, and
> >> > then apparently blocked me. I'm having to use "anonymous" to take
> >> > you up on your welcome.
> >> >
> >> > Debbie Berkley
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:39:19 -0500
> >> >> From: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
> >> >> To: v.larson@att.net
> >> >> CC: jim@bethelpcseattle.org; dmberkley22@hotmail.com; davemoody@mac.com
> >> >> Subject: Re: talking
> >> >>
> >> >> Viola,
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow,rebuffed even before the details are spelled out.
> >> >> One of the things I was going to suggest was that we become facebook
> >> >> friends with full access. I have facebook friends who cover the gamut
> >> >> also, and our interactions aren't insulting to each other.
> >> >> Oh well, I guess you can't put the past behind us. I am making
> >> >> overtures of being willing to try, and find a way that we might be
> >> >> able to do that. I won't beg, but I really don't think you
> >> >> appreciated the offer, and I say that because you didn't know where I
> >> >> was headed with this.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm still willing, but I need your promise first.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sincerely, in Christ's name,
> >> >> Kattie
> >> >>
> >> >> Quoting Viola Larson
> >> >>
> >> >> > Dear Kattie,
> >> >> > I appreciate the offer but that would mean aligning myself with one
> >> >> > person who
> >> >> > dislikes the Christian brothers and sisters I am close to. It
> >> >> would create a
> >> >> > separation in real friendships that I care a great deal about. I
> >> >> > don't live in a
> >> >> > secret world and do not want to now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I wish you all the best with love in Christ, but I feel extremely
> >> >> > sorry for you.
> >> >> > I have other friends, even on Facebook, who are extremely
> >> >> > progressive. They do
> >> >> > not feel the need to insult me nor I them, we simply disagree and
> >> >> debate the
> >> >> > issues. If you have to hide yourself that is one thing-but to hide
> >> >> > yourself and
> >> >> > at the same time make snide remarks on other blogs about people I
> >> >> care about
> >> >> > puts you in a whole different category.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sincerely in the love of Christ,
> >> >> > Viola
> >> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> > From: "kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net"
> >> >> > To: Viola Larson
> >> >> > Sent: Fri, August 12, 2011 9:22:47 AM
> >> >> > Subject: Re: talking
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Viola,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for writting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am willing to share information about myself with you, and you
> >> >> > alone. But I
> >> >> > require a promise from you that you will never divulge any of that
> >> >> > information
> >> >> > with anyone else without first getting my permission.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kattie
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Quoting Viola Larson
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi Kattie,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What did you want to say in private?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Viola
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Spiritual Violence
A certain Presbyterian minister says it is spiritual abuse to tell people that if they don't accept God's free gift of love offered through Jesus Christ, they will die in their sins, and they will not live eternally in heaven. This minister says that it is essentially spiritual violence to warn people that the consequences of not turning their lives over to God is eternal death--a loss of the joy they could have forever with God.
What a strange definition of spiritual abuse!
Let's look at an analogy. Suppose there were a road that everyone needed to take. This road has a fork, and one direction leads to a sudden hidden precipice. Suppose further that someone wants to place a warning sign at the fork saying "Look out! If you continue along this direction, you will fall off a precipice and die." Would placing that sign there be mental abuse? Would it be mentally violent? Or would it actually be helpful and saving to the people taking that road?
That is the case with those who want to tell people about God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ. They want to be helpful and offer what is lifesaving to those who don't have it.
Moreover, it is actually spiritually abusive to deny this offer to people. The minister who claims that God does not exist (he says, "No deity exists. Not Jesus Christ, not Yahweh, not Baal, not Marduk, not Allah, not Zeus, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not the Wizard of Oz. None of them exist. All figments of imagination. They are fun. But none are worth the spiritual violence they cause.") does not have a shred of proof to back up his assertion. It all rests on his own faith claim that this world is all there is, his own 21st-century weltanschauung.
He is like the stubborn medieval people who couldn't see that the world was round, so they insisted it was flat. This minister can't see or feel God, so he insists God is not there. And so he becomes spiritually abusive toward his parishioners, and the readers of his blog and newspaper articles, by denying them the saving knowledge of all that God has to offer them.
True spiritual violence is done to people when God's love is kept away from them.
What a strange definition of spiritual abuse!
Let's look at an analogy. Suppose there were a road that everyone needed to take. This road has a fork, and one direction leads to a sudden hidden precipice. Suppose further that someone wants to place a warning sign at the fork saying "Look out! If you continue along this direction, you will fall off a precipice and die." Would placing that sign there be mental abuse? Would it be mentally violent? Or would it actually be helpful and saving to the people taking that road?
That is the case with those who want to tell people about God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ. They want to be helpful and offer what is lifesaving to those who don't have it.
Moreover, it is actually spiritually abusive to deny this offer to people. The minister who claims that God does not exist (he says, "No deity exists. Not Jesus Christ, not Yahweh, not Baal, not Marduk, not Allah, not Zeus, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not the Wizard of Oz. None of them exist. All figments of imagination. They are fun. But none are worth the spiritual violence they cause.") does not have a shred of proof to back up his assertion. It all rests on his own faith claim that this world is all there is, his own 21st-century weltanschauung.
He is like the stubborn medieval people who couldn't see that the world was round, so they insisted it was flat. This minister can't see or feel God, so he insists God is not there. And so he becomes spiritually abusive toward his parishioners, and the readers of his blog and newspaper articles, by denying them the saving knowledge of all that God has to offer them.
True spiritual violence is done to people when God's love is kept away from them.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Passion Week
There is a moment in the St. John Passion by Bach when, after Christ has been arrested and Peter has denied three times that he even knows Christ, the Evangelist (narrator) says that Peter went out and wept bitterly. This is sung in a hauntingly beautiful tenor voice, with a long, slow melody on the German word for "wept".
Who does not know the same kind of wretched despair that Peter felt at that time? We do things wrong. We fail again and again. We resolve to do better, and yet we find ourselves repeating our mistakes. Well we know what this music expresses. If not literally, then figuratively, we weep and weep and weep. We are trapped in our human failings. Even Peter, who has just been with the living Christ, repudiates him. How can we ever do better?
Miserable sinners that we are, who can rescue us from this body of death, from this pattern of repeated failure?
But there is one who can. It is for this that God became man in Jesus, came to earth, and took upon himself the punishment for all our failings, endured the denials, the mocking, the pain, the weight of all of everyone's sin. Who can rescue us from this body of death? Who but God? Thanks be to him through Jesus Christ our Lord! May we never take this lightly!
(Romans 7:24-25a)
Who does not know the same kind of wretched despair that Peter felt at that time? We do things wrong. We fail again and again. We resolve to do better, and yet we find ourselves repeating our mistakes. Well we know what this music expresses. If not literally, then figuratively, we weep and weep and weep. We are trapped in our human failings. Even Peter, who has just been with the living Christ, repudiates him. How can we ever do better?
Miserable sinners that we are, who can rescue us from this body of death, from this pattern of repeated failure?
But there is one who can. It is for this that God became man in Jesus, came to earth, and took upon himself the punishment for all our failings, endured the denials, the mocking, the pain, the weight of all of everyone's sin. Who can rescue us from this body of death? Who but God? Thanks be to him through Jesus Christ our Lord! May we never take this lightly!
(Romans 7:24-25a)
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Assuming Intentions
Suppose Pat, a Christian, believes that a certain group of people (Group X) should be able to do things that haven't previously been allowed, and that it's a matter of human rights for Group X. Suppose that such a belief by Pat would require interpreting the Bible in a different way from how it has been interpreted before, but Pat believes that this new interpretation is legitimate. Furthermore, Pat is passionate about giving Group X what Pat believes are human rights.
Meanwhile, suppose that Lee, also a Christian, does not believe that the new interpretation of the Bible is legitimate, and, although Lee is sorry not to be able to give members of Group X what they want, Lee cannot in conscience go against what Lee believes the Bible says. Lee believes that to do that would not only be wrong, but would also encourage the people in Group X to do things that are actually sin and thus harmful behavior, according to Lee's interpretation of the Bible. Therefore Lee believes that allowing these things would not be doing the people in Group X a kindness.
When Pat and Lee are discussing this issue with each other online, not knowing each other personally apart from the discussion, would it be legitimate for Pat to assume that Lee has malicious reasons or motivations for holding Lee's beliefs? Would it be legitimate for Pat to flatly deem Lee a bigot or prejudiced?
Similarly, would it be legitimate for Lee to assume that Pat has malicious reasons or motivations for holding Pat's beliefs? Would it be legitimate for Lee to flatly deem Pat is immoral or loose in Pat's beliefs?
I contend that none of the above assumptions is legitimate. Without evidence otherwise, both Pat and Lee should be assumed to have arrived at their beliefs sincerely and with good intentions.
Meanwhile, suppose that Lee, also a Christian, does not believe that the new interpretation of the Bible is legitimate, and, although Lee is sorry not to be able to give members of Group X what they want, Lee cannot in conscience go against what Lee believes the Bible says. Lee believes that to do that would not only be wrong, but would also encourage the people in Group X to do things that are actually sin and thus harmful behavior, according to Lee's interpretation of the Bible. Therefore Lee believes that allowing these things would not be doing the people in Group X a kindness.
When Pat and Lee are discussing this issue with each other online, not knowing each other personally apart from the discussion, would it be legitimate for Pat to assume that Lee has malicious reasons or motivations for holding Lee's beliefs? Would it be legitimate for Pat to flatly deem Lee a bigot or prejudiced?
Similarly, would it be legitimate for Lee to assume that Pat has malicious reasons or motivations for holding Pat's beliefs? Would it be legitimate for Lee to flatly deem Pat is immoral or loose in Pat's beliefs?
I contend that none of the above assumptions is legitimate. Without evidence otherwise, both Pat and Lee should be assumed to have arrived at their beliefs sincerely and with good intentions.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Why an Angiogram Doesn't Scare Me
I'm having an angiogram in the morning, and it doesn't worry me. I had one almost 4 years ago, and it spooked me that time. But this time I feel quite different, and it's all because of what happened the day of that first angiogram.
The angiogram I'm having tomorrow is a precursor to probable open-heart surgery for me in perhaps a few weeks. I have a couple of heart valves that just aren't up to the job any more. But even the prospect of the open-heart surgery is not daunting to me in the long run, and it's all because of what happened the day of that first angiogram.
Maybe you'd like to know what that was. If so, take a look here: http://takingthering.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-god-started-my-cancer-journey_15.html.
The angiogram I'm having tomorrow is a precursor to probable open-heart surgery for me in perhaps a few weeks. I have a couple of heart valves that just aren't up to the job any more. But even the prospect of the open-heart surgery is not daunting to me in the long run, and it's all because of what happened the day of that first angiogram.
Maybe you'd like to know what that was. If so, take a look here: http://takingthering.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-god-started-my-cancer-journey_15.html.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Blogs from "Cops": Don't Hurt the Kids!
I'm now at the fourth and last of my blog posts on things I've observed on the TV show "Cops." This time I'm not going to write about a specific thing I've heard anyone say, but instead about a general attitude. And it's about an attitude of the cops themselves.
What I've found, from maybe 25 years of watching this show, is that cops hate it when kids get hurt. That makes them madder than anything else. They have a special kind of anger towards the people that do bad things to children.
They are also always on the lookout for protecting children. When they're chasing some guy, and he throws his gun out the car window, later when they've caught the guy, they often say to him, "What if some little kid had picked up that gun?" Or when they go to someone's house to arrest him, and they find drugs lying around openly, and there are little children in the house, they usually give the adults a thorough enraged lecture about what could have happened to the kids if they'd gotten into the drugs.
Sometimes when they have to arrest a guy, and his little kids are nearby, they ask the mother to take the kids inside so that they won't see their dad in handcuffs.
The cops really care about the safety and well-being of children.
I got to thinking that we are God's children. If cops care that much about kids that aren't even their own kids, how much more must God care about us, his own children? He must hate seeing any of his children suffer from injustice, or poverty, or war, or terrible disease, or broken relationships.
What a powerful motivation for us to help others! They are God's children that he loves. I recently stood in a grocery checkout line and looked at all the other people around me, and as I looked at each one, I thought, "God loves her as much as he loves me. God loves him as much as he loves me."
It's easy to get caught up in our own lives, not caring about others. But just like the cops, God wants all his children to be safe and protected. God doesn't want his children to be hurt. God doesn't want them to be victimized. I know that I need to remember that God loves all his children and cares about their safety and well-being. When I remember that, then maybe I will do something about it.
What I've found, from maybe 25 years of watching this show, is that cops hate it when kids get hurt. That makes them madder than anything else. They have a special kind of anger towards the people that do bad things to children.
They are also always on the lookout for protecting children. When they're chasing some guy, and he throws his gun out the car window, later when they've caught the guy, they often say to him, "What if some little kid had picked up that gun?" Or when they go to someone's house to arrest him, and they find drugs lying around openly, and there are little children in the house, they usually give the adults a thorough enraged lecture about what could have happened to the kids if they'd gotten into the drugs.
Sometimes when they have to arrest a guy, and his little kids are nearby, they ask the mother to take the kids inside so that they won't see their dad in handcuffs.
The cops really care about the safety and well-being of children.
I got to thinking that we are God's children. If cops care that much about kids that aren't even their own kids, how much more must God care about us, his own children? He must hate seeing any of his children suffer from injustice, or poverty, or war, or terrible disease, or broken relationships.
What a powerful motivation for us to help others! They are God's children that he loves. I recently stood in a grocery checkout line and looked at all the other people around me, and as I looked at each one, I thought, "God loves her as much as he loves me. God loves him as much as he loves me."
It's easy to get caught up in our own lives, not caring about others. But just like the cops, God wants all his children to be safe and protected. God doesn't want his children to be hurt. God doesn't want them to be victimized. I know that I need to remember that God loves all his children and cares about their safety and well-being. When I remember that, then maybe I will do something about it.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Blogs from "Cops": That's Not Mine!
This is the third posting in a series I'm writing on things I've heard people say on the TV show "Cops". Today it's not about something just one person has said, but rather something I've heard countless people say in many, many segments of the show.
The situation may be that the cops have found a little bag of weed in a person's wallet. Or perhaps they have found a loaded handgun in the console of a person's car. Or maybe they have found a large amount of crack in a person's purse.
Inevitably, what that person will say is, "That's not mine! I've never seen it before in my life! I have no idea how it got there."
Obviously the person hopes to convince the cops that he or she is innocent, and that the incriminating bit of evidence was planted there by someone else. The person in question claims that he or she is just a victim of (somewhat unbelievable) circumstances, and has done nothing wrong.
Well, we may not be driving around with loaded handguns in the consoles of our cars or stashes of crack in our purses, or otherwise flagrantly breaking the law, but I think we still have something in common with all these people on "Cops." What we have in common with them is that it's pretty hard to admit to our sins, even to the little everyday ones.
When we're caught in the act of doing something wrong, even something small like being careless with someone else's things or not doing a chore we had promised to do, our first reaction is usually along the lines of "That's not mine!" In other words, we usually want to either say that we didn't do it, or else find some excuse for why what we did wasn't bad.
It's even more the case if what we have done wrong is big, such as betraying our spouse, or embezzling. We try to deny that we've done it; we say, "That's not mine! I've never seen it before in my life!" and hope that we will get away with it.
It's even true that we try to deny what we've done when we're faced with God, just as we do when we're faced with another person who is disappointed in us. We make excuses to God as well.
But when the cops hear people say, "That's not mine! I've never seen it before in my life!", those cops are never fooled. And God is not fooled either, when we make excuses to him.
But there is one difference between the cops and God. The cops are usually going to haul the "subjects" they're dealing with off to jail for what those subjects have done. God also knows that what we've done deserves punishment. But God decided to take the punishment instead of us. So because he did that, now all we have to do is be sorry for our sin (admitting that it is ours and that we have seen it before), and accept his love. Instead of trying to pretend that our sin is not our sin, if we acknowledge that it is ours, we can be rid of it forever! That's a pretty good deal.
The situation may be that the cops have found a little bag of weed in a person's wallet. Or perhaps they have found a loaded handgun in the console of a person's car. Or maybe they have found a large amount of crack in a person's purse.
Inevitably, what that person will say is, "That's not mine! I've never seen it before in my life! I have no idea how it got there."
Obviously the person hopes to convince the cops that he or she is innocent, and that the incriminating bit of evidence was planted there by someone else. The person in question claims that he or she is just a victim of (somewhat unbelievable) circumstances, and has done nothing wrong.
Well, we may not be driving around with loaded handguns in the consoles of our cars or stashes of crack in our purses, or otherwise flagrantly breaking the law, but I think we still have something in common with all these people on "Cops." What we have in common with them is that it's pretty hard to admit to our sins, even to the little everyday ones.
When we're caught in the act of doing something wrong, even something small like being careless with someone else's things or not doing a chore we had promised to do, our first reaction is usually along the lines of "That's not mine!" In other words, we usually want to either say that we didn't do it, or else find some excuse for why what we did wasn't bad.
It's even more the case if what we have done wrong is big, such as betraying our spouse, or embezzling. We try to deny that we've done it; we say, "That's not mine! I've never seen it before in my life!" and hope that we will get away with it.
It's even true that we try to deny what we've done when we're faced with God, just as we do when we're faced with another person who is disappointed in us. We make excuses to God as well.
But when the cops hear people say, "That's not mine! I've never seen it before in my life!", those cops are never fooled. And God is not fooled either, when we make excuses to him.
But there is one difference between the cops and God. The cops are usually going to haul the "subjects" they're dealing with off to jail for what those subjects have done. God also knows that what we've done deserves punishment. But God decided to take the punishment instead of us. So because he did that, now all we have to do is be sorry for our sin (admitting that it is ours and that we have seen it before), and accept his love. Instead of trying to pretend that our sin is not our sin, if we acknowledge that it is ours, we can be rid of it forever! That's a pretty good deal.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Blogs from "Cops": The Police Ruin Your Life
Yesterday I began a series of blog postings on things I've heard people say on the TV show "Cops." It may be an unusual source for theological reflection, but I guess that's the way my mind works. So here's the next posting.
Just this past Saturday night, the broadcast included a segment where the police had stopped a woman who did not give them her correct name. She said that the car she was driving belonged to someone else, and so did the purse in the back seat, and all the other things in the car. But funny thing, the picture of the woman on the driver's license in that purse looked just like her! Eventually she admitted that she was that person and that the name on the driver's license was actually her name. The cop asked her why she didn't give her real name to begin with, and she replied, "Because I hate police! They ruin your life."
Well, as it turned out, there were several warrants for her arrest, so no wonder she didn't want to give her name. And in addition to that, she had some meth in the car. Wow, those police sure do ruin your life!
What irony! In her view, she was just having a great time, doing the things she did that caused arrest warrants to be issued for her, and using meth. What fun! And then those cops came along and ruined her life by arresting her for all that fun she was having.
But it's not just those who have run-ins with the police who think this way. What this woman was doing was getting upset that there were consequences for her behavior. She thought she had a right to do whatever she wanted, and she hated the consequences, even though she knew that what she did was not allowed.
To some degree, we can all fall into this type of thinking. We know that there are things that God does not want us to do. For example, we know that God does not want us to speak unkindly to our spouses, but we do it anyway, because it feels good at the moment. And then after we've done it a lot, when we have problems in our marriage relationship, we get angry with God: we wonder why a loving God would allow us to have relationship troubles. Or for another example, we neglect our relationship with our children, thinking only of our own work, because that seems more interesting at the moment. And then when our children become rebellious and troublesome, we get angry with God: we wonder why a loving God would allow us to have parenting troubles.
These are simplistic examples--marriage and parenting problems have multiple causes--but the principle is true. Our actions have consequences, but sometimes we blame God rather than realizing that our own actions have led to these consequences. We can sometimes be just like the woman in the "Cops" episode who said, "I hate police! They ruin your life." We weren't the ones who messed up, oh, no: it was that mean old God who let these bad things happen to us.
How good it would be to remember that the consequences of our actions are just that: consequences of our actions, and not something mean that God has done to us. Then we can turn to God for his loving help in getting ourselves back on track. He is willing! He's the one who loved us enough to die for us.
Just this past Saturday night, the broadcast included a segment where the police had stopped a woman who did not give them her correct name. She said that the car she was driving belonged to someone else, and so did the purse in the back seat, and all the other things in the car. But funny thing, the picture of the woman on the driver's license in that purse looked just like her! Eventually she admitted that she was that person and that the name on the driver's license was actually her name. The cop asked her why she didn't give her real name to begin with, and she replied, "Because I hate police! They ruin your life."
Well, as it turned out, there were several warrants for her arrest, so no wonder she didn't want to give her name. And in addition to that, she had some meth in the car. Wow, those police sure do ruin your life!
What irony! In her view, she was just having a great time, doing the things she did that caused arrest warrants to be issued for her, and using meth. What fun! And then those cops came along and ruined her life by arresting her for all that fun she was having.
But it's not just those who have run-ins with the police who think this way. What this woman was doing was getting upset that there were consequences for her behavior. She thought she had a right to do whatever she wanted, and she hated the consequences, even though she knew that what she did was not allowed.
To some degree, we can all fall into this type of thinking. We know that there are things that God does not want us to do. For example, we know that God does not want us to speak unkindly to our spouses, but we do it anyway, because it feels good at the moment. And then after we've done it a lot, when we have problems in our marriage relationship, we get angry with God: we wonder why a loving God would allow us to have relationship troubles. Or for another example, we neglect our relationship with our children, thinking only of our own work, because that seems more interesting at the moment. And then when our children become rebellious and troublesome, we get angry with God: we wonder why a loving God would allow us to have parenting troubles.
These are simplistic examples--marriage and parenting problems have multiple causes--but the principle is true. Our actions have consequences, but sometimes we blame God rather than realizing that our own actions have led to these consequences. We can sometimes be just like the woman in the "Cops" episode who said, "I hate police! They ruin your life." We weren't the ones who messed up, oh, no: it was that mean old God who let these bad things happen to us.
How good it would be to remember that the consequences of our actions are just that: consequences of our actions, and not something mean that God has done to us. Then we can turn to God for his loving help in getting ourselves back on track. He is willing! He's the one who loved us enough to die for us.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Blogs from "Cops": I Ain't a Crack Ho
One of the few shows that I watch regularly is "Cops". I come from a family of police-radio listeners, and I guess it's in my blood. Anyway, recently I've heard a few of the "subjects" (that's what the cops call the people they're dealing with) say some thought-provoking things. I thought I might write about them. So here's the first one.
One night the cops were talking to a woman working at a truck stop. She wasn't actually working in the truck stop; she was working out in the parking lot. In other words, she was a prostitute looking for truck-driver customers. In the course of the conversation they asked her if she ever accepted payment in the form of drugs. She was quite indignant and said, "I may be a ho [whore], but I ain't a crack ho." In other words, she had her standards! Only a woman with no standards, she implied, would be a crack ho.
This illustrated to me, in a pitiful way, that everyone wants to know that they have standards--that they are not at the bottom of society. Everyone wants to feel that they are worth something. We may be a ho, but we ain't a crack ho. But what a sad thing for this woman to base her worth on. She sells her body, but she only sells it for money, not for drugs. That's her basis for finding self-worth.
I wish I could have reached through the TV set to tell her about a better way to know that she was valued. She is worth so much that the God of the universe died for her. When we really know that, when we really understand how much God loves us, we don't need to find our self-worth in other things, such as in material possessions, or in who we know, or in being better than someone else, or in not being a crack ho. We know that we are worth something because God loves us enough to die for us. That is the most liberating knowledge! It frees us from the need to prove our self-worth in any other way.
May we all realize this: we don't have to prove our self-worth! God gives it to us by loving us. Since the God who created the universe loves us, we are worth something! Thanks be to God for that gift! And I will pray for the woman at the truck stop, that she will know that, too, and find liberation in God's love.
One night the cops were talking to a woman working at a truck stop. She wasn't actually working in the truck stop; she was working out in the parking lot. In other words, she was a prostitute looking for truck-driver customers. In the course of the conversation they asked her if she ever accepted payment in the form of drugs. She was quite indignant and said, "I may be a ho [whore], but I ain't a crack ho." In other words, she had her standards! Only a woman with no standards, she implied, would be a crack ho.
This illustrated to me, in a pitiful way, that everyone wants to know that they have standards--that they are not at the bottom of society. Everyone wants to feel that they are worth something. We may be a ho, but we ain't a crack ho. But what a sad thing for this woman to base her worth on. She sells her body, but she only sells it for money, not for drugs. That's her basis for finding self-worth.
I wish I could have reached through the TV set to tell her about a better way to know that she was valued. She is worth so much that the God of the universe died for her. When we really know that, when we really understand how much God loves us, we don't need to find our self-worth in other things, such as in material possessions, or in who we know, or in being better than someone else, or in not being a crack ho. We know that we are worth something because God loves us enough to die for us. That is the most liberating knowledge! It frees us from the need to prove our self-worth in any other way.
May we all realize this: we don't have to prove our self-worth! God gives it to us by loving us. Since the God who created the universe loves us, we are worth something! Thanks be to God for that gift! And I will pray for the woman at the truck stop, that she will know that, too, and find liberation in God's love.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Unknown Future, Known God
This is a scary time here in our country, and even around the world. True, many people have been rejoicing in the last few days over the inauguration of President Obama. But that hasn't made the economic crisis go away. I work for one of the most well-known companies in America, generally regarded as safe and secure: Microsoft. But yesterday, two days after the inauguration, Microsoft laid off around 1000 people, and announced that more jobs would be eliminated in the next 18 months. My job is still intact. But who knows what the future holds?
My husband lost his own job four months ago. The non-profit Presbyterian renewal group he worked for was a victim of the economic climate, and had to eliminate several positions. Now I'm our sole breadwinner, working for a company that is planning reductions in staff. And there are so many other families like us.
The papers are talking about the possibility of a second Depression. We're approaching retirement age. What does that mean for us? What does it mean for our children, for our three-year-old granddaughter, or the other grandchildren still to be born? It's easy to feel fear thinking of this possibly cloudy future.
At work yesterday, the Christians at Microsoft were talking via e-mail about the layoffs. Some of them were among those who had been let go. One of our Christian brothers in India sent the words from a poster he used to have. The poster had said this:
Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.
We certainly have an unknown future right now! But we also most certainly have a known God. His constancy, love, and care for us are known from the Bible. But they are also known from our experience with him. I know from going through cancer a few years ago that I can absolutely rely on him to get me through any hard time, to sustain me and support me and give me what I need to get by. He doesn't leave us when we're in need.
In fact, God's goodness and love are so great that, when I had cancer, I found that he can make a hard time into a time of blessing and relationship with him that can bring joy beyond imagining. It was a surprise; I hadn't expected it. But it was a wonderful surprise! Others have had this same experience. The hardness of the hard time fades away next to the joy--the joy that comes with the deepening of the relationship with God that happens in the hard time.
So, yes, he is a known God, and what is known about him is so wonderful that, when I read that sentence, "Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God," it actually gave me a thrill. It made me remember that I don't need to fear. In any future, he'll be there. So even if that future is hard, we'll have him with us, and that will make it good.
My husband lost his own job four months ago. The non-profit Presbyterian renewal group he worked for was a victim of the economic climate, and had to eliminate several positions. Now I'm our sole breadwinner, working for a company that is planning reductions in staff. And there are so many other families like us.
The papers are talking about the possibility of a second Depression. We're approaching retirement age. What does that mean for us? What does it mean for our children, for our three-year-old granddaughter, or the other grandchildren still to be born? It's easy to feel fear thinking of this possibly cloudy future.
At work yesterday, the Christians at Microsoft were talking via e-mail about the layoffs. Some of them were among those who had been let go. One of our Christian brothers in India sent the words from a poster he used to have. The poster had said this:
Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.
We certainly have an unknown future right now! But we also most certainly have a known God. His constancy, love, and care for us are known from the Bible. But they are also known from our experience with him. I know from going through cancer a few years ago that I can absolutely rely on him to get me through any hard time, to sustain me and support me and give me what I need to get by. He doesn't leave us when we're in need.
In fact, God's goodness and love are so great that, when I had cancer, I found that he can make a hard time into a time of blessing and relationship with him that can bring joy beyond imagining. It was a surprise; I hadn't expected it. But it was a wonderful surprise! Others have had this same experience. The hardness of the hard time fades away next to the joy--the joy that comes with the deepening of the relationship with God that happens in the hard time.
So, yes, he is a known God, and what is known about him is so wonderful that, when I read that sentence, "Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God," it actually gave me a thrill. It made me remember that I don't need to fear. In any future, he'll be there. So even if that future is hard, we'll have him with us, and that will make it good.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Presbyterians in Wonderland
Imagine that your car has been stolen, and you find out who took it--let's say it's someone named X. Then picture the following scenario: You go to the police and make a complaint. The police investigate, and determine that the facts are as you have reported them: your car is no longer at your house, but is at X's house. But, the police say, they cannot charge X with theft. They explain that the title to the car shows that the car belongs to you. Since the title clearly shows that the car is yours, X cannot possibly possess your car. Therefore they cannot charge X with stealing it, since it is not possible for X to acquire possession of something that X cannot possess.
At this point you would certainly think that the police were in collusion with X, or that you had somehow stumbled, like Alice, into Wonderland.
A similar thing has just happened in the PC(USA). The Rev. Janet Edwards, who officiated in 2005 at a marriage ceremony between two women, has been acquitted in ecclesiastical court of performing a marriage between two women. She has been acquitted by the Pittsburgh Permanent Judicial Commission because the Presbyterian constitution defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore, says the PJC, since the constitution says a marriage is only between a man and a woman, Edwards could not possibly have performed a marriage ceremony between two women, and so she cannot be charged with it.
This is the same so-called reasoning that was used earlier this year by the GA PJC to acquit the Rev. Janie Spahr of performing a same-sex marriage ceremony.
Just as in my hypothetical example above, either the PJCs are grasping at any way they can find to get an acquittal, because that's the side they're on, or the PC(USA) has stumbled into some sort of Wonderland.
Justice is no longer obtainable in the PC(USA), it seems.
We must all hope that this sort of reasoning does not spread to the criminal courts, or no law will be enforceable.
______________
Since first writing this post, another analogy has occurred to me. Human trafficking is a problem today, and unfortunately sometimes instances of it are discovered in the United States. The U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery. Suppose it were discovered that some people had been enslaved somewhere in the U.S. When those people were rescued and freed, we would expect that the people who had enslaved them would be charged with a crime. But according to the reasoning used by the PJCs described above, it could be possible for the authorities to say that since slavery is prohibited by our constitution, it is impossible for anyone in the U.S. to enslave anyone else. Therefore no one can be charged with enslaving anyone, because slavery in the U.S. is impossible.
Such an analogy shows how ridiculous and unfair these PJC rulings are.
At this point you would certainly think that the police were in collusion with X, or that you had somehow stumbled, like Alice, into Wonderland.
A similar thing has just happened in the PC(USA). The Rev. Janet Edwards, who officiated in 2005 at a marriage ceremony between two women, has been acquitted in ecclesiastical court of performing a marriage between two women. She has been acquitted by the Pittsburgh Permanent Judicial Commission because the Presbyterian constitution defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore, says the PJC, since the constitution says a marriage is only between a man and a woman, Edwards could not possibly have performed a marriage ceremony between two women, and so she cannot be charged with it.
This is the same so-called reasoning that was used earlier this year by the GA PJC to acquit the Rev. Janie Spahr of performing a same-sex marriage ceremony.
Just as in my hypothetical example above, either the PJCs are grasping at any way they can find to get an acquittal, because that's the side they're on, or the PC(USA) has stumbled into some sort of Wonderland.
Justice is no longer obtainable in the PC(USA), it seems.
We must all hope that this sort of reasoning does not spread to the criminal courts, or no law will be enforceable.
______________
Since first writing this post, another analogy has occurred to me. Human trafficking is a problem today, and unfortunately sometimes instances of it are discovered in the United States. The U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery. Suppose it were discovered that some people had been enslaved somewhere in the U.S. When those people were rescued and freed, we would expect that the people who had enslaved them would be charged with a crime. But according to the reasoning used by the PJCs described above, it could be possible for the authorities to say that since slavery is prohibited by our constitution, it is impossible for anyone in the U.S. to enslave anyone else. Therefore no one can be charged with enslaving anyone, because slavery in the U.S. is impossible.
Such an analogy shows how ridiculous and unfair these PJC rulings are.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
A Presbymeme
I have been tagged by Viola Larson at Naming His Grace to participate in a "Presbymeme" that she saw on the PCUSA Moderator's blog. So here goes:
What is your favorite faith-based hymn, song or chorus?
I can't name just one. I love hymns by Ralph Vaughan Williams for their beautiful music, and so two that I will always name right away are "Come Down, O Love Divine" (with the wonderful 15th-century words by Bianco da Siena) and "For All the Saints".
There are two aspects of the words of "For All the Saints" that I like. One is the encouragement in the midst of our troubles on earth. It's the same feeling I get from The Lord of the Rings, or The Last Battle:
"And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long,
Steals on the air the distant triumph song,
And hearts are brave again, and arms are strong,
Alleluia! Alleluia!"
(A note here: The warfare mentioned is spiritual warfare, and the triumph is triumph of good over evil.)
For this same reason, from modern hymns, I love "In Christ Alone", by Stuart Townend and Keith Getty. The last verse sets me tingling:
No guilt in life, no fear in death,
This is the power of Christ in me.
From life's first cry to final breath,
Jesus commands my destiny.
No power of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand.
Till he returns, or calls me home,
Here in the power of Christ I'll stand!
The other of the two aspects of "For All the Saints" that I like is what I like the most in my favorite hymns: I love hymns that praise God's majesty and glory, and that envisage the beauty and grandeur of heaven. So the last verse of "For All the Saints" always uplifts me:
"From earth's wide bounds, from ocean's farthest coast,
Through gates of pearl streams in the countless host,
Singing to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
Alleluia! Alleluia!"
This is why I also love hymns such as "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name"; here is its last verse:
"O that with yonder sacred throng we at His feet may fall!
We'll join the everlasting song, and crown him Lord of all!
We'll join the everlasting song, and crown him Lord of all!"
I thrill to picture myself one day amid that sacred throng, joining in that everlasting song.
Now on to the rest of the meme.
What was the context, content and/or topic of the last sermon that truly touched, convicted, inspired, challenged, comforted and/or otherwise moved you?
I can't remember; I hear good sermons all the time, but I have also been hearing a variety of preachers at different churches this summer, and it's getting mixed up in my head. But here's something I noted down from a sermon last May by Scott Dudley, our senior pastor. He said that what people long for most is transcendance, community, and significance. (I think he got this from John Stott.) However, people go running after our culture's trinity of pleasure, comfort, and happiness, and what they end up with is fear, envy, and loneliness.
If you could have all Presbyterians read just one of your previous posts, what would it be and why?
I would want them to read my post "The Atonement Is Good News." The Atonement is the best news ever, and people need to know about it.
What are three PC(USA) flavored blogs you read on a regular basis?
I'm afraid that I don't read any blogs on a regular basis, but the ones I read the most often are The Berkley Blog, Naming His Grace, and the blog of Mark Roberts.
If the PC(USA) were a movie, what would it be and why?
I guess I can't be specific here, but I'd have to say it would be one of the many World War II movies that focuses on a particular group involved in a particular struggle--but of course they are not the only ones; there are many other struggles going on all over the world at the same time. And the outcome is not yet known at the time the movie is made.
This leads me to end this post by repeating one of the verses from "For All the Saints":
"And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long,
Steals on the air the distant triumph song,
And hearts are brave again, and arms are strong,
Alleluia! Alleluia!"
What is your favorite faith-based hymn, song or chorus?
I can't name just one. I love hymns by Ralph Vaughan Williams for their beautiful music, and so two that I will always name right away are "Come Down, O Love Divine" (with the wonderful 15th-century words by Bianco da Siena) and "For All the Saints".
There are two aspects of the words of "For All the Saints" that I like. One is the encouragement in the midst of our troubles on earth. It's the same feeling I get from The Lord of the Rings, or The Last Battle:
"And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long,
Steals on the air the distant triumph song,
And hearts are brave again, and arms are strong,
Alleluia! Alleluia!"
(A note here: The warfare mentioned is spiritual warfare, and the triumph is triumph of good over evil.)
For this same reason, from modern hymns, I love "In Christ Alone", by Stuart Townend and Keith Getty. The last verse sets me tingling:
No guilt in life, no fear in death,
This is the power of Christ in me.
From life's first cry to final breath,
Jesus commands my destiny.
No power of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand.
Till he returns, or calls me home,
Here in the power of Christ I'll stand!
The other of the two aspects of "For All the Saints" that I like is what I like the most in my favorite hymns: I love hymns that praise God's majesty and glory, and that envisage the beauty and grandeur of heaven. So the last verse of "For All the Saints" always uplifts me:
"From earth's wide bounds, from ocean's farthest coast,
Through gates of pearl streams in the countless host,
Singing to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
Alleluia! Alleluia!"
This is why I also love hymns such as "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name"; here is its last verse:
"O that with yonder sacred throng we at His feet may fall!
We'll join the everlasting song, and crown him Lord of all!
We'll join the everlasting song, and crown him Lord of all!"
I thrill to picture myself one day amid that sacred throng, joining in that everlasting song.
Now on to the rest of the meme.
What was the context, content and/or topic of the last sermon that truly touched, convicted, inspired, challenged, comforted and/or otherwise moved you?
I can't remember; I hear good sermons all the time, but I have also been hearing a variety of preachers at different churches this summer, and it's getting mixed up in my head. But here's something I noted down from a sermon last May by Scott Dudley, our senior pastor. He said that what people long for most is transcendance, community, and significance. (I think he got this from John Stott.) However, people go running after our culture's trinity of pleasure, comfort, and happiness, and what they end up with is fear, envy, and loneliness.
If you could have all Presbyterians read just one of your previous posts, what would it be and why?
I would want them to read my post "The Atonement Is Good News." The Atonement is the best news ever, and people need to know about it.
What are three PC(USA) flavored blogs you read on a regular basis?
I'm afraid that I don't read any blogs on a regular basis, but the ones I read the most often are The Berkley Blog, Naming His Grace, and the blog of Mark Roberts.
If the PC(USA) were a movie, what would it be and why?
I guess I can't be specific here, but I'd have to say it would be one of the many World War II movies that focuses on a particular group involved in a particular struggle--but of course they are not the only ones; there are many other struggles going on all over the world at the same time. And the outcome is not yet known at the time the movie is made.
This leads me to end this post by repeating one of the verses from "For All the Saints":
"And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long,
Steals on the air the distant triumph song,
And hearts are brave again, and arms are strong,
Alleluia! Alleluia!"
Friday, June 27, 2008
An Evangelical with a Conscience?
(This post was originally written for Presbyterian Action's General Assembly blog.)
Thursday morning at General Assembly, various elected positions were filled for entities such as the Permanent Judicial Commission and the board of the Presbyterian Foundation. Each position had a nominee proposed by the General Assembly Nominating Committee (GANC).
For some positions, there was also a nominee made from the floor, and for those positions, each nominee (both the floor nominee and the GANC nominee) was presented in a three-minute speech by a person familiar with the candidate.
One person describing a nominee chosen by the GANC said that the nominee liked to describe himself as "an evangelical with a conscience." Undoubtedly this was meant to be seen by the voting audience as a positive quality, but it is in fact a slur, though veiled, against evangelicals.
I am a linguist. Linguists know that some terms in language are "unmarked,” and others are "marked." The unmarked terms, the ones without anything overt added to them, are considered basic and normal and definitional. The marked terms are considered unusual and remarkable.
For example, "president" is an unmarked term, and "lady president" is marked, because the word "lady" has been added to it. Therefore, due to the linguistic structure in "lady president,” it is implied that the normal, basic president is a man, but it is unusual to find a president that is a woman. This is why the women's movement has worked so hard to remove from our language the type of distinction such as "president" versus "lady president.”
Similarly, the term "evangelical" alone is unmarked. Therefore a phrase such as "evangelical with a conscience" is marked, because the phrase "with a conscience" has been added to it. By finding the marked term "evangelical with a conscience" a significant way to describe the candidate, the speaker was implying that the normal, basic, definitional evangelical is one without a conscience, because the unusual type of evangelical is an evangelical with a conscience.
I don't know if many people picked this up or not. Probably the speaker didn't even realize that evangelicals had just been insulted. If so, this may be because the speaker's prejudice against evangelicals is so ingrained that the speaker unconsciously assumed that everyone agrees that there is a lack of conscience in evangelicals.
The conscience that the speaker implied that evangelicals lack is most likely a social-witness conscience. In fact, however, a recent study has shown that evangelical churches give more money and participate in more actual social-witness programs (as opposed to doing social-witness political lobbying) than progressive churches do. The idea of a lack of conscience for evangelicals is not only insulting and prejudiced, it is based on incorrect information. Sadly, this shows up in everyday conversations and news stories all too often, and, as I saw Thursday morning, even in our church assemblies.
Thursday morning at General Assembly, various elected positions were filled for entities such as the Permanent Judicial Commission and the board of the Presbyterian Foundation. Each position had a nominee proposed by the General Assembly Nominating Committee (GANC).
For some positions, there was also a nominee made from the floor, and for those positions, each nominee (both the floor nominee and the GANC nominee) was presented in a three-minute speech by a person familiar with the candidate.
One person describing a nominee chosen by the GANC said that the nominee liked to describe himself as "an evangelical with a conscience." Undoubtedly this was meant to be seen by the voting audience as a positive quality, but it is in fact a slur, though veiled, against evangelicals.
I am a linguist. Linguists know that some terms in language are "unmarked,” and others are "marked." The unmarked terms, the ones without anything overt added to them, are considered basic and normal and definitional. The marked terms are considered unusual and remarkable.
For example, "president" is an unmarked term, and "lady president" is marked, because the word "lady" has been added to it. Therefore, due to the linguistic structure in "lady president,” it is implied that the normal, basic president is a man, but it is unusual to find a president that is a woman. This is why the women's movement has worked so hard to remove from our language the type of distinction such as "president" versus "lady president.”
Similarly, the term "evangelical" alone is unmarked. Therefore a phrase such as "evangelical with a conscience" is marked, because the phrase "with a conscience" has been added to it. By finding the marked term "evangelical with a conscience" a significant way to describe the candidate, the speaker was implying that the normal, basic, definitional evangelical is one without a conscience, because the unusual type of evangelical is an evangelical with a conscience.
I don't know if many people picked this up or not. Probably the speaker didn't even realize that evangelicals had just been insulted. If so, this may be because the speaker's prejudice against evangelicals is so ingrained that the speaker unconsciously assumed that everyone agrees that there is a lack of conscience in evangelicals.
The conscience that the speaker implied that evangelicals lack is most likely a social-witness conscience. In fact, however, a recent study has shown that evangelical churches give more money and participate in more actual social-witness programs (as opposed to doing social-witness political lobbying) than progressive churches do. The idea of a lack of conscience for evangelicals is not only insulting and prejudiced, it is based on incorrect information. Sadly, this shows up in everyday conversations and news stories all too often, and, as I saw Thursday morning, even in our church assemblies.
How Do We Love Our Neighbor?
(This post was originally written for Presbyterian Action's General Assembly blog.)
Wednesday morning at General Assembly I had the chance to listen to a short talk by the Bible scholar Robert Gagnon, who is the foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality. He reiterated some important points in the ongoing debate.
Often people will say that since Jesus hung out with prostitutes, who are we to judge anyone? Jesus didn't condemn them, so neither should we. They use this argument by extension to say that Jesus did not condemn homosexual activity.
Dr. Gagnon pointed out, however, that the reason that Jesus hung out with these people was not that sexual sin was so inconsequential; it was rather that their sin was so serious that they needed his personal attention in order to be rescued from it. So he hung out with them, but not merely to say to them, "You're fine just as you are." Instead, he said, "Repent, and sin no more." He said this because he loved them so much. He loved them so much that he wanted them to live, and it was only through their repentance, their turning from sin, that they could find life.
One important way that we love our neighbors as Jesus did is by pointing them away from their sin--from what is injurious to them--and towards life. But Dr. Gagnon said that if we don't know what is injurious to them, we can't know how to love them. In fact, we may actually act in a way that is in truth hateful towards them, if we don't know what is injurious to them. So we need to know what the Bible tells us: that sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sin, and that sin is injurious to us.
In Ezekiel 13:19b it says "By telling my people lies they wish to hear, you bring death to those who should not die." This is something that we need to remember. Love isn't just saying, "I love you. You're special. You're fine the way you are. Do what feels right to you." People do want to hear that; they don't want to hear that their behavior is wrong. But hearing these "lies they wish to hear," and believing them, brings them death, and they should not die. So telling them lies is not love; it is hate. Instead, love is reaching out and bringing our neighbors back from the brink of the pit.
Dr. Gagnon said that if we speak this truth in order to extend this love, we will doubtless be abused by those who disagree with us. But, as he said, behind us lies the cross; before us is the Lamb who was slain. We must go ahead and bear the abuse for the sake of our neighbors and our Lord.
Wednesday morning at General Assembly I had the chance to listen to a short talk by the Bible scholar Robert Gagnon, who is the foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality. He reiterated some important points in the ongoing debate.
Often people will say that since Jesus hung out with prostitutes, who are we to judge anyone? Jesus didn't condemn them, so neither should we. They use this argument by extension to say that Jesus did not condemn homosexual activity.
Dr. Gagnon pointed out, however, that the reason that Jesus hung out with these people was not that sexual sin was so inconsequential; it was rather that their sin was so serious that they needed his personal attention in order to be rescued from it. So he hung out with them, but not merely to say to them, "You're fine just as you are." Instead, he said, "Repent, and sin no more." He said this because he loved them so much. He loved them so much that he wanted them to live, and it was only through their repentance, their turning from sin, that they could find life.
One important way that we love our neighbors as Jesus did is by pointing them away from their sin--from what is injurious to them--and towards life. But Dr. Gagnon said that if we don't know what is injurious to them, we can't know how to love them. In fact, we may actually act in a way that is in truth hateful towards them, if we don't know what is injurious to them. So we need to know what the Bible tells us: that sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sin, and that sin is injurious to us.
In Ezekiel 13:19b it says "By telling my people lies they wish to hear, you bring death to those who should not die." This is something that we need to remember. Love isn't just saying, "I love you. You're special. You're fine the way you are. Do what feels right to you." People do want to hear that; they don't want to hear that their behavior is wrong. But hearing these "lies they wish to hear," and believing them, brings them death, and they should not die. So telling them lies is not love; it is hate. Instead, love is reaching out and bringing our neighbors back from the brink of the pit.
Dr. Gagnon said that if we speak this truth in order to extend this love, we will doubtless be abused by those who disagree with us. But, as he said, behind us lies the cross; before us is the Lamb who was slain. We must go ahead and bear the abuse for the sake of our neighbors and our Lord.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
What Might God Be Doing?
(This post was originally written for Presbyterian Action's General Assembly blog.)
There are a lot of people all over the USA who believe a lot of untrue things about the IRD. Without speculating about who started these rumors or why, I'll just say that the gist of it is that the IRD is supposedly just masquerading as a Christian renewal group, but in reality is a conservative political group whose aim is to silence or sabotage the liberal social witness of the mainline denominations, or, failing that, break up those denominations. Supposedly the IRD has deep pockets and takes orders, according to some of these rumors, from the Bush White House itself.
Of course this is all nonsense, but it's surprising how many people believe these things.
I found this out in person Saturday here at GA when another volunteer and I were manning the Presbyterian Action (IRD) booth in the exhibition hall. A woman started to walk by, and then stopped and said that we had no right to be there. I said that we were Presbyterians, and she said, no, we were not. I replied that I had been a Presbyterian for 34 years, and she still insisted that we were not really Presbyterians. She started to talk about all the evil that she "knew" about that the IRD had done to the PCUSA, and I started to tell her that those things were all myths, but as her voice became more and more raised, I realized that conversation would not be fruitful. So I told her that we would pray for her. She angrily replied that she would pray for us, and then she left.
My fellow volunteer, who had been unware of the anti-IRD rumors, was stunned, as were the people in the neighboring booths, and even I was left a little shaky.
Later that day, walking along the sidewalk outside, I passed the same woman, and we eyed each other uneasily and exchanged wary smiles.
The next day, Sunday, which was yesterday, committee meetings began, and, to my surprise, I discovered that the same woman is a commissioner member of the committee that I am observing. I started wondering if God was placing her deliberately in my path, and began wanting to reach out to her.
That evening, I prayed about the situation, asking God that if he was putting this woman and me together, that he would make it clear, and that he would help me know what to say.
This morning, Monday, I sat in on her committee meeting again. During a break, I was washing my hands in the restroom, when I looked to the right, and there she was, at the very next sink. It could hardly have been more clear that God was putting her and me together! So I said hi, and she said hi too. We ended up telling each other our names and having a conversation right there.
We did not convince each other of anything in that conversation. She still believes that the IRD has no right to be at GA, and that the IRD is harming the PCUSA. But she knows my name, and she knows that I love Jesus. She knows I'm a linguist, not some IRD automaton. I know her name, and that she has been a presbytery moderator. We told each other a little bit about our views. We named each other sisters in Christ. We even hugged. I hope that in her mind, I am not the enemy; she is certainly not the enemy to me.
I saw her again across the balcony this evening at the worship service held across the street in the civic auditorium. I'm interested to see what God is going to do with this. Or maybe I'll never know, but whatever it is, it should be good.
There are a lot of people all over the USA who believe a lot of untrue things about the IRD. Without speculating about who started these rumors or why, I'll just say that the gist of it is that the IRD is supposedly just masquerading as a Christian renewal group, but in reality is a conservative political group whose aim is to silence or sabotage the liberal social witness of the mainline denominations, or, failing that, break up those denominations. Supposedly the IRD has deep pockets and takes orders, according to some of these rumors, from the Bush White House itself.
Of course this is all nonsense, but it's surprising how many people believe these things.
I found this out in person Saturday here at GA when another volunteer and I were manning the Presbyterian Action (IRD) booth in the exhibition hall. A woman started to walk by, and then stopped and said that we had no right to be there. I said that we were Presbyterians, and she said, no, we were not. I replied that I had been a Presbyterian for 34 years, and she still insisted that we were not really Presbyterians. She started to talk about all the evil that she "knew" about that the IRD had done to the PCUSA, and I started to tell her that those things were all myths, but as her voice became more and more raised, I realized that conversation would not be fruitful. So I told her that we would pray for her. She angrily replied that she would pray for us, and then she left.
My fellow volunteer, who had been unware of the anti-IRD rumors, was stunned, as were the people in the neighboring booths, and even I was left a little shaky.
Later that day, walking along the sidewalk outside, I passed the same woman, and we eyed each other uneasily and exchanged wary smiles.
The next day, Sunday, which was yesterday, committee meetings began, and, to my surprise, I discovered that the same woman is a commissioner member of the committee that I am observing. I started wondering if God was placing her deliberately in my path, and began wanting to reach out to her.
That evening, I prayed about the situation, asking God that if he was putting this woman and me together, that he would make it clear, and that he would help me know what to say.
This morning, Monday, I sat in on her committee meeting again. During a break, I was washing my hands in the restroom, when I looked to the right, and there she was, at the very next sink. It could hardly have been more clear that God was putting her and me together! So I said hi, and she said hi too. We ended up telling each other our names and having a conversation right there.
We did not convince each other of anything in that conversation. She still believes that the IRD has no right to be at GA, and that the IRD is harming the PCUSA. But she knows my name, and she knows that I love Jesus. She knows I'm a linguist, not some IRD automaton. I know her name, and that she has been a presbytery moderator. We told each other a little bit about our views. We named each other sisters in Christ. We even hugged. I hope that in her mind, I am not the enemy; she is certainly not the enemy to me.
I saw her again across the balcony this evening at the worship service held across the street in the civic auditorium. I'm interested to see what God is going to do with this. Or maybe I'll never know, but whatever it is, it should be good.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Faithful or true?
(This blog posting was written for Presbyterian Action's General Assembly blog.)
As a member of the Presbyterian Action GA team, I was one of the observers last night (the 21st) in the back of the hall when Bruce Reyes-Chow was elected Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Reyes-Chow has a broad appeal due to his youthfulness and engaging manner. He injected an air of freshness and humor into his remarks. Much of this, in addition to his positions on theology and issues, undoubtedly went into his election. However, as I listened to his 5-minute statement, and to his answers to questions posed by commissioners and advisory delegates, one remark struck me and caused me to ponder its meaning.
Reyes-Chow said he wants the PC(USA) to be a church that "cares more about being faithful than about being right."
I understood this to mean that he hoped Presbyterians would care more about being faithful than about being doctrinally correct--care more about being faithful than about what they are faithful to. Later my husband said that he thought Reyes-Chow meant that he hoped that Presbyterians would care more about being faithful than about being the right one in a dispute--care more about being faithful than about winning an argument.
Let me discuss this second view first.
If Reyes-Chow meant that he hoped that Presbyterians would come to care more about being faithful than about winning arguments, this implies that he believes that now there are at least some Presbyterians who do care more about winning arguments than they care about faithfulness. No matter who he might have in mind, this is a patronizing attitude to take towards any group of people, let alone fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
If this is indeed his meaning, it implies that there are some Presbyterians that he has not gotten to know well enough to understand their motives. It is also disappointing to think that a candidate for Moderator--who now actually is our Moderator--would have such an uncharitable attitude towards any group. One always hopes that anyone would attribute the best possible motive to anyone until there is concrete evidence of a worse motive.
If this was indeed Reyes-Chow's meaning, let us hope that, as he grows into his role as Moderator, he will get to know all groups in the PC(USA) well enough that he will understand their motives and support them as fellow Presbyterians, even if he disagrees with them. I think he has expressed such intentions at least, and, since Reyes-Chow has shown kindness to our family in the past, I do not think that he intends a putdown to anyone. Perhaps the full implication of his words--if this was his meaning--have not occurred to him.
I thought, however, that what Reyes-Chow meant was that he was looking forward to Presbyterians caring more about being faithful than about being right or wrong in their beliefs. And after he said it, it struck me that--if that was his meaning--I didn't know how that could actually be possible in a meaningful way. How can anyone be faithful to anything if they don't know whether or not they're right about it? Or, at least, how can their faithfulness be meaningful in such a situation?
Faithfulness needs to be faithfulness to something. It's wonderful to care about faithfulness. But if we don't know whether or not we're right about what we're faithful to, then no matter how much we care about our faithfulness to it, we may actually be doing harm in the world rather than good, if we are wrong about what we're being faithful to.
For example, white supremacists may be very faithful to their cause. But, as I'm sure Reyes-Chow and most people reading this blog would agree, the white supremacist cause is both wrong and harmful. Faithfulness alone, without being right, is not sufficient.
Rightness, and truth, matter if we want to love the world with God's love, rather than blunder through it willy-nilly, even while being faithful. When we care about being right, we don't care about it for the sake of winning arguments, or for the sake of pride in the correctness of our doctrine, but rather we care about it so that we can serve God in the way that God knows best, to his glory, the furtherance of his reign, and the better love and care of all his people.
It sounds very friendly and inclusive to hope that Presbyterians will care more about being faithful than about being right, but it is actually careless and dismissive. I hope to hear better things in the future from our new Moderator.
As a member of the Presbyterian Action GA team, I was one of the observers last night (the 21st) in the back of the hall when Bruce Reyes-Chow was elected Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Reyes-Chow has a broad appeal due to his youthfulness and engaging manner. He injected an air of freshness and humor into his remarks. Much of this, in addition to his positions on theology and issues, undoubtedly went into his election. However, as I listened to his 5-minute statement, and to his answers to questions posed by commissioners and advisory delegates, one remark struck me and caused me to ponder its meaning.
Reyes-Chow said he wants the PC(USA) to be a church that "cares more about being faithful than about being right."
I understood this to mean that he hoped Presbyterians would care more about being faithful than about being doctrinally correct--care more about being faithful than about what they are faithful to. Later my husband said that he thought Reyes-Chow meant that he hoped that Presbyterians would care more about being faithful than about being the right one in a dispute--care more about being faithful than about winning an argument.
Let me discuss this second view first.
If Reyes-Chow meant that he hoped that Presbyterians would come to care more about being faithful than about winning arguments, this implies that he believes that now there are at least some Presbyterians who do care more about winning arguments than they care about faithfulness. No matter who he might have in mind, this is a patronizing attitude to take towards any group of people, let alone fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
If this is indeed his meaning, it implies that there are some Presbyterians that he has not gotten to know well enough to understand their motives. It is also disappointing to think that a candidate for Moderator--who now actually is our Moderator--would have such an uncharitable attitude towards any group. One always hopes that anyone would attribute the best possible motive to anyone until there is concrete evidence of a worse motive.
If this was indeed Reyes-Chow's meaning, let us hope that, as he grows into his role as Moderator, he will get to know all groups in the PC(USA) well enough that he will understand their motives and support them as fellow Presbyterians, even if he disagrees with them. I think he has expressed such intentions at least, and, since Reyes-Chow has shown kindness to our family in the past, I do not think that he intends a putdown to anyone. Perhaps the full implication of his words--if this was his meaning--have not occurred to him.
I thought, however, that what Reyes-Chow meant was that he was looking forward to Presbyterians caring more about being faithful than about being right or wrong in their beliefs. And after he said it, it struck me that--if that was his meaning--I didn't know how that could actually be possible in a meaningful way. How can anyone be faithful to anything if they don't know whether or not they're right about it? Or, at least, how can their faithfulness be meaningful in such a situation?
Faithfulness needs to be faithfulness to something. It's wonderful to care about faithfulness. But if we don't know whether or not we're right about what we're faithful to, then no matter how much we care about our faithfulness to it, we may actually be doing harm in the world rather than good, if we are wrong about what we're being faithful to.
For example, white supremacists may be very faithful to their cause. But, as I'm sure Reyes-Chow and most people reading this blog would agree, the white supremacist cause is both wrong and harmful. Faithfulness alone, without being right, is not sufficient.
Rightness, and truth, matter if we want to love the world with God's love, rather than blunder through it willy-nilly, even while being faithful. When we care about being right, we don't care about it for the sake of winning arguments, or for the sake of pride in the correctness of our doctrine, but rather we care about it so that we can serve God in the way that God knows best, to his glory, the furtherance of his reign, and the better love and care of all his people.
It sounds very friendly and inclusive to hope that Presbyterians will care more about being faithful than about being right, but it is actually careless and dismissive. I hope to hear better things in the future from our new Moderator.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
A Fun Little Tag
I've been tagged again, by Judy at Stitch Along with Me. This time I need to give answers to a bunch of categories, and they all need to start with the same letter as my first name. So here goes:
What is your name? Debbie
Four letter word: deer
Vehicle: Dodge
TV Show: Dr. Kildare (OK, it's old, but he sure was cute!)
City: Downey (where I grew up)
Boy's Name: David
Girl's Name: Diana
Occupation: developer
Something You Wear: dress
Food: dim sum
Something Found in a Bathroom: dental floss
Reason for Being Late: disaster
Something You Shout: Don't jump!
What is your name? Debbie
Four letter word: deer
Vehicle: Dodge
TV Show: Dr. Kildare (OK, it's old, but he sure was cute!)
City: Downey (where I grew up)
Boy's Name: David
Girl's Name: Diana
Occupation: developer
Something You Wear: dress
Food: dim sum
Something Found in a Bathroom: dental floss
Reason for Being Late: disaster
Something You Shout: Don't jump!
Monday, April 14, 2008
No to Torture
Because of a comment that was left on my blog recently, I want to make sure that my position is clear to everyone: I am categorically against torture. Moreover, my husband, Jim Berkley, director of Presbyterian Action at IRD, is categorically against torture, and IRD itself is categorically against torture.
Also, here is an example of another IRD staff person stating his position on torture, which is that he is completely against it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/663/story/481121.html
People who say that IRD supports torture have misinterpreted what IRD has written. Sometimes it's just because of their prior assumption that IRD is evil. Other times it's because they misinterpret the facts, which are the following: 1) IRD does not want to join people who blame only the US for torture, since the evidence that the US does indeed engage in officially sanctioned torture is not clear, and 2) IRD wishes that people who are against torture would focus on nations that are truly egregious torturers. The people who misinterpret these facts take them to mean that IRD is for torture. This is logically fallacious thinking. It's analogous to this situation:
Group A: "There's a guy that we know, and we think he killed another guy. Join us in a campaign against him!"
Group B: "We don't know that he killed him, and we think efforts should be focused on known murderers, so we won't join your campaign at the present."
Group A: "From what Group B just said, we can tell that Group B is in favor of murder, and we will now proclaim this to everyone."
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who have decided, on faith, without any facts to back up this faith, that IRD is evil. And so whenever they read or hear about anything that IRD says or does, they do so through an IRD-is-evil filter, and they interpret what they read or hear accordingly. It thus becomes extremely difficult for IRD to do anything at all that is not interpreted as more evidence of evil. For example, my husband once wrote to Steven Martin, who has made an anti-IRD film. His note to Martin was polite and kind, and Martin acknowledged that it was when he wrote about it in a comment on the Talk2Action website. The politeness and kindness was, to Martin, evidence that Jim was similar to Osama bin Laden. So, Jim was condemned ahead of time. There was no manner in which Jim could have written to Martin that would not have been taken as evidence of evil. IRD has been pre-judged (what stands at the root of the meaning of prejudice) as evil.
It is a sad state of affairs to see people who consider themselves to be open, liberal, and broadminded, fallen into prejudice, suspicion, and poor reasoning, and it is more than sad when this leads them to do injury to others.
Also, here is an example of another IRD staff person stating his position on torture, which is that he is completely against it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/663/story/481121.html
People who say that IRD supports torture have misinterpreted what IRD has written. Sometimes it's just because of their prior assumption that IRD is evil. Other times it's because they misinterpret the facts, which are the following: 1) IRD does not want to join people who blame only the US for torture, since the evidence that the US does indeed engage in officially sanctioned torture is not clear, and 2) IRD wishes that people who are against torture would focus on nations that are truly egregious torturers. The people who misinterpret these facts take them to mean that IRD is for torture. This is logically fallacious thinking. It's analogous to this situation:
Group A: "There's a guy that we know, and we think he killed another guy. Join us in a campaign against him!"
Group B: "We don't know that he killed him, and we think efforts should be focused on known murderers, so we won't join your campaign at the present."
Group A: "From what Group B just said, we can tell that Group B is in favor of murder, and we will now proclaim this to everyone."
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who have decided, on faith, without any facts to back up this faith, that IRD is evil. And so whenever they read or hear about anything that IRD says or does, they do so through an IRD-is-evil filter, and they interpret what they read or hear accordingly. It thus becomes extremely difficult for IRD to do anything at all that is not interpreted as more evidence of evil. For example, my husband once wrote to Steven Martin, who has made an anti-IRD film. His note to Martin was polite and kind, and Martin acknowledged that it was when he wrote about it in a comment on the Talk2Action website. The politeness and kindness was, to Martin, evidence that Jim was similar to Osama bin Laden. So, Jim was condemned ahead of time. There was no manner in which Jim could have written to Martin that would not have been taken as evidence of evil. IRD has been pre-judged (what stands at the root of the meaning of prejudice) as evil.
It is a sad state of affairs to see people who consider themselves to be open, liberal, and broadminded, fallen into prejudice, suspicion, and poor reasoning, and it is more than sad when this leads them to do injury to others.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
I can't imagine
For years, I have been praying the Lord's prayer in my own words. I don't think that Jesus meant it to be something that we learn by rote and then recite to God; I think he meant it as a template for the things that we should pray about. When I restate it in my own words, I really think about what I'm saying to God when I pray it.
I have learned a lot in the process of doing this, and one of the things I've learned just came to me the other night. It was when I was asking God for his kingdom to come soon, and for his will to be done here on earth, perfectly and all the time, just the way it is in heaven. I do long for that, because I think it will be the most wonderful thing imaginable to have everything happen all the time only in accordance with God's will.
But then a little stray (and very immature) thought of my own wandered in, and I thought, "What if, when God's will is the only thing that is ever done, I don't ever get to sit on my comfy chair and do my favorite puzzles any more?"
First the part of me that thinks I have everything all analyzed responded back to myself that, whatever I can and can't do then won't matter, because it will be so glorious to do God's will, and everything will be on such a different plane, that I won't think about comfy chairs and puzzles and things like that.
But then I remembered (or perhaps God reminded me of) something else. I have a relative who is an alcoholic. She has been sober for a few years now. But before that, she has told me, she was reluctant to go to Alcoholics Anonymous, partly because she thought that life would be too boring without drinking. What she couldn't imagine, until she became sober, was how much more fun, fulfilling, and interesting her life was without alcohol. She just didn't know how to picture it, but once she got there, she loved it. She would never go back to her old life. She is so happy being sober! Her life is so much better now!
I think it will be like that when God's kingdom comes. We just don't know how to imagine what it will be like, and sometimes, with our small imaginations, we fear that it might be boring or that we might not get to do the things we like to do best, because, perhaps, like my favorite puzzles, they're not centered around serving others, or worshipping, or so on. But what we can't picture is how much more fun and fulfilling and interesting our lives will be once we experience the fullness of God's kingdom, whenever that will be, at our death, or when he comes again. We won't want to go back to our old lives. It will be so much better!
Actually, already I can't wait. I'm so excited to be where glorious and perfect worship is taking place; it must be magnificent. And to catch a glimpse of God himself! One day....
I have learned a lot in the process of doing this, and one of the things I've learned just came to me the other night. It was when I was asking God for his kingdom to come soon, and for his will to be done here on earth, perfectly and all the time, just the way it is in heaven. I do long for that, because I think it will be the most wonderful thing imaginable to have everything happen all the time only in accordance with God's will.
But then a little stray (and very immature) thought of my own wandered in, and I thought, "What if, when God's will is the only thing that is ever done, I don't ever get to sit on my comfy chair and do my favorite puzzles any more?"
First the part of me that thinks I have everything all analyzed responded back to myself that, whatever I can and can't do then won't matter, because it will be so glorious to do God's will, and everything will be on such a different plane, that I won't think about comfy chairs and puzzles and things like that.
But then I remembered (or perhaps God reminded me of) something else. I have a relative who is an alcoholic. She has been sober for a few years now. But before that, she has told me, she was reluctant to go to Alcoholics Anonymous, partly because she thought that life would be too boring without drinking. What she couldn't imagine, until she became sober, was how much more fun, fulfilling, and interesting her life was without alcohol. She just didn't know how to picture it, but once she got there, she loved it. She would never go back to her old life. She is so happy being sober! Her life is so much better now!
I think it will be like that when God's kingdom comes. We just don't know how to imagine what it will be like, and sometimes, with our small imaginations, we fear that it might be boring or that we might not get to do the things we like to do best, because, perhaps, like my favorite puzzles, they're not centered around serving others, or worshipping, or so on. But what we can't picture is how much more fun and fulfilling and interesting our lives will be once we experience the fullness of God's kingdom, whenever that will be, at our death, or when he comes again. We won't want to go back to our old lives. It will be so much better!
Actually, already I can't wait. I'm so excited to be where glorious and perfect worship is taking place; it must be magnificent. And to catch a glimpse of God himself! One day....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
