A while back I noted that I had worked at a grocery store that installed a CoinStar machine under the guise of serving customers better. Since the machine took a 7% cut of the change total, I always questioned the purpose of it. It wasn't like we turned down customers who opted to pay with coins, and at the least a bank would count and deposit coins free of charge for customers. Since the machine was providing a service that I felt the store should be providing anyway I was always a little bit cynical about that machine being used as a source of revenue. It seemed more a pointless extravagance in that situation, but I just today heard of a story that indicates that the grocery business may have changed since I was a cashier.
Apparently, a mother in Portland, Oregon, needed to buy some food for her kids but only had change. The information I have is that she had quarters, but perhaps there were smaller denomination coins there as well. The first grocery store she went to told her that they had a $5 limit on change-only purchases. The second grocery store tried to send her to their change counting machine (I don't know if it was specifically a CoinStar machine) that took a 10% cut of the money. When she pointed out that she could not afford to pay this fee and another customer offered to give her cash for the coins she had the store backed down.
This brings up a few points. First, the grocery store I worked for employed two types of people: high schoolers and the poor. Were the employees who enforced these rules all from the former category, because otherwise I would have expected them to be sympathetic to the woman's plight.
Second, apparently most chains do not have an official policy regarding how much you can pay in coins, but the stores themselves enforce these non-existent rules anyway. I am going to guess that the individual stores do not know that there is no actual policy on the matter because the chains want customers to feel the need to use their for-cost change counting machine.
Finally, this gives me pause since there has been a push over the last few years to accept the dollar coins. Why should anyone switch to using dollar coins if there is a chance cashiers may decide they are not going to accept them?
Saturday, November 05, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
politics: chosen
I am pretty sure that this is the last in my current political series. Maybe I'll hit on a lighter topic shortly.
I have already quoted from this passage twice in the last few posts, but that is only because it is such a relevant, yet under-appreciated, piece of Scripture. I have bolded the relevant points for this post.
Depending on your politics, it may be difficult to imagine that God technically voted for George W. Bush or Barack Obama. I do not really have any ill will toward either of them, but if I did I would have to acknowledge that it was God who put both into their respective positions of power. This passage is far more challenging when I consider that is means that in the last century God also cast a vote for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and innumerable other despots. Paul certainly knew that he was saying that God put objectively evil people in power, as it is likely that Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians in the early years of Nero's reign, and only about a decade-and-a-half after Caligula's reign. This was not Camelot.
This is not to say that the people God has chosen are blessed people because of it. In the Old Testament God used pagan rulers to punish Israel and Judah, then He punished those same rulers for their violence and sin. Even the people who God used who trusted Him were typically horribly flawed, and frequently paid for their sins (Samson, Jephthah, David, et al).
While I do not like the idea that people who I personally believe were bad rulers were put into position by God, I can accept that this is because God ultimately orchestrates things in the way that is most likely to draw people to Him. I do not say this lightly. Horrific things happen in many of these administrations implemented by God—things much worse than my Western mind can even imagine. I am sure if I were to witness some of those atrocities, I would strongly question God's wisdom or care. If I am to accept Scripture, though, I have to accept God's control of who is in power in the world as a hard truth.
So, what does this all mean? What is the respect and honor that we owe to government leaders with whom we disagree? How can we even know what is owed? Are dissenting opinions wrong? Does this mean that any form of protest is wrong? Should political satire be off-limits? I personally believe the answer to this is in the following passage from Titus.
Can I hold a strong political opinion without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? Probably, but I have to be on guard. Can I have a political debate with friends or acquaintances without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? That is more difficult, but probably not impossible. Can I join a peaceful political protest without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? This is pushing the envelope, but could conceivably be okay. Obviously, this is a subjective standard, but it does function as a Scriptural red flag.
I think the real danger here is to underestimate what counts as disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful. Political name-calling, while appearing to be merely immature, is inconsiderate and prideful. Assuming the worst about those we disagree with and allowing that to color our political conversations, while appearing to be merely strong-minded or informed, is slanderous and divisive. Violating laws in passive ways through civil disobedience, while appearing to be selflessly pushing forward a cause, is still disobedient.
This is not to say that I have achieved the level that Paul commanded. It is simply something that I must continually strive for.
I have already quoted from this passage twice in the last few posts, but that is only because it is such a relevant, yet under-appreciated, piece of Scripture. I have bolded the relevant points for this post.
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:1-7A few years ago I saw an online poll that asked whether Jesus would have been a Republican or a Democrat. While the question itself seems ludicrous to me since Jesus went out of his way to avoid the politics of His day (Matt 17:24-27, Luke 20:20-26), it eventually got me thinking along a broader point that God does technically vote in elections, coups, rebellions, puppet governments, and every other process that brings people to power. Any time I stop to contemplate that I am astounded.
Depending on your politics, it may be difficult to imagine that God technically voted for George W. Bush or Barack Obama. I do not really have any ill will toward either of them, but if I did I would have to acknowledge that it was God who put both into their respective positions of power. This passage is far more challenging when I consider that is means that in the last century God also cast a vote for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and innumerable other despots. Paul certainly knew that he was saying that God put objectively evil people in power, as it is likely that Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians in the early years of Nero's reign, and only about a decade-and-a-half after Caligula's reign. This was not Camelot.
This is not to say that the people God has chosen are blessed people because of it. In the Old Testament God used pagan rulers to punish Israel and Judah, then He punished those same rulers for their violence and sin. Even the people who God used who trusted Him were typically horribly flawed, and frequently paid for their sins (Samson, Jephthah, David, et al).
While I do not like the idea that people who I personally believe were bad rulers were put into position by God, I can accept that this is because God ultimately orchestrates things in the way that is most likely to draw people to Him. I do not say this lightly. Horrific things happen in many of these administrations implemented by God—things much worse than my Western mind can even imagine. I am sure if I were to witness some of those atrocities, I would strongly question God's wisdom or care. If I am to accept Scripture, though, I have to accept God's control of who is in power in the world as a hard truth.
So, what does this all mean? What is the respect and honor that we owe to government leaders with whom we disagree? How can we even know what is owed? Are dissenting opinions wrong? Does this mean that any form of protest is wrong? Should political satire be off-limits? I personally believe the answer to this is in the following passage from Titus.
"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy."- Titus 3:1-5aApart from the fact that God established the authorities that exist, the main reason we are to act with respect toward the governing authorities is that disrespect is a symptom of the former life. It is more consistent with foolishness, disobedience, and slavery to passions than it is to consideration and humility. I therefore believe that the Biblical line for respecting authorities is the point at which we become disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful. That sounds like a low bar, but my observation is that it is a very difficult standard for anyone with strong political opinions or for anyone who wants to fit in with a group of people who have strong political opinions.
Can I hold a strong political opinion without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? Probably, but I have to be on guard. Can I have a political debate with friends or acquaintances without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? That is more difficult, but probably not impossible. Can I join a peaceful political protest without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? This is pushing the envelope, but could conceivably be okay. Obviously, this is a subjective standard, but it does function as a Scriptural red flag.
I think the real danger here is to underestimate what counts as disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful. Political name-calling, while appearing to be merely immature, is inconsiderate and prideful. Assuming the worst about those we disagree with and allowing that to color our political conversations, while appearing to be merely strong-minded or informed, is slanderous and divisive. Violating laws in passive ways through civil disobedience, while appearing to be selflessly pushing forward a cause, is still disobedient.
This is not to say that I have achieved the level that Paul commanded. It is simply something that I must continually strive for.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
politics: taxes and welfare
I struggled mightily with how to write this one. I think it is an extremely important topic for Christians to consider, but one of the reasons it is important is that it hits on some hot-button issues where a firm stance can alienate people pretty quickly. I have to look no further than my Facebook friends news feed where I have seen plenty of articles posted that either harp on the dangers of a large tax burden or on the unconscionability of allowing the down-and-out to go without basic needs to know the gravity of taking or stating an opinion.
I definitely do have some opinions about what a proper tax system should look like and what the government's role should be in assisting the poor. Those opinions are informed by Scripture as well. That I have opinions or what those opinions ultimately are is not the point, though. The point is that I believe that on this specific issue there is an extraordinary temptation to bend Scripture to an already held position, whatever it happens to be, and ignore the foundational Scriptural principles.
First, I should address why I chose taxation and welfare versus any other spending category. Generally speaking the question of taxation in the United States boils down to an argument over the rights of the rich to their money and the responsibility of the state to provide for the welfare of the poor. Occasionally, I'll see an argument regarding balancing taxation and the size of the military, but it's not as popular an argument now as it was during our last presidency. Republicans not named "Ron Paul" generally don't argue to reduce the size of the military and the Democrats who argue for greater taxation generally aren't the same people who would want to grow the military.
There are serious pitfalls on all sides of this issue for Scripture-following Christian. The mistake that I have observed people on all sides of the issue make is to forget that it is God who provides. This foundational flaw is exposed in almost all of the rationales I have heard for this issue.. The people who argue against higher taxes do so under the guise that the money was earned and is theirs rather than the government's. The people who argue for government support do so under the guise that God will not provide, so therefore only the government is left. Going even deeper than that, though, is that the question is never about what my responsibility is, but rather it is about whether someone else is exploiting me in my position. This is a tempting, but very anti-Scriptural position to take.
A defense that we do not have the luxury of espousing is that such-and-such tax or government assistance policy will be economically better for the country. God is not concerned with the economics of the decision, but rather with the devotion and trust of His followers. From the Bible's standpoint, it is better to trust God in an impoverished economy than to trust self in an environment of wealth.
It is probably the easiest to argue Scripturally against the anti-tax people because the relevant verses are more straightforward. God did not leave room for debate regarding whose money taxes are. That money belongs to the government authority.
There is a further argument that is made that the government should only have a limited role in assisting those in need for a variety of reasons. This technicality is where Scripture gets a little foggy and the underlying principle is lost in the vagueness. A valid argument can be made for or against government being the proper proxy through which we support the poor, but a valid argument cannot be made that we should not sacrificially provide for the poor. If a Christian believes that the government is not the proper means to provide to the poor that is fine IF that same Christian in practice gives sacrificially to those in need. Sacrificial charity is serious business, too. It's enough to be the deciding factor in your salvation, as you should be able to tell from the verses referenced below.
First, while I personally believe that laziness accounts for a very small percentage of people who are down and out, there is no Biblical support for choosing not to work. Solomon was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (Prov 13:4). Paul was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (2 Thess 3:6-12). Paul also encouraged the Thessalonians to work and have a manageable standard of living so that they would not have to rely on others (1 Thess 4:11-12).
Probably the most important passage to argue against the idea that we should rely on government support, though, is one that illustrates on whom we should rely. In The Sermon on the Mount Jesus made the following famous statement.
Ultimately, my responsibility is to trust God and care for those in need regardless what others do. If I goad others into caring for the needy simply because if I am sacrificing others ought to as well, my motives are less than pure. Likewise, if I do so out of a sense of self-righteousness rather than humility my pride is sin. If I take this position because I trust in government more than God, then I am not right with God. Finally, if my motivation is so that others bear their share of the burden rather than having an undue burden fall on me, I am simply passing off my selfishness as duty or as equity.
In summary, no matter our lot in life, our focus cannot be on griping about being exploited by the tax system or by society in general. Our focus has to be on trusting God enough to handle our finances and everything else in our lives.
I should be clear that I am not better than anyone else on any of these counts. I have somehow espoused both anti-Scriptural parts of the anti-tax philosophy and of the trust-in-the-government philosophy at one time or another. My position here is only to point to pitfalls of the attitudes behind these philosophies as described by Scripture.
In conclusion, thanks to those who put the effort in to read this treatise. Politics is an uncomfortable topic anyways, and to make something I have one more post that will be much shorter than this one to conclude this series. I have had fun with this, but I know I should limit these sorts of posts because political topics are difficult to converse about with tact.
I definitely do have some opinions about what a proper tax system should look like and what the government's role should be in assisting the poor. Those opinions are informed by Scripture as well. That I have opinions or what those opinions ultimately are is not the point, though. The point is that I believe that on this specific issue there is an extraordinary temptation to bend Scripture to an already held position, whatever it happens to be, and ignore the foundational Scriptural principles.
First, I should address why I chose taxation and welfare versus any other spending category. Generally speaking the question of taxation in the United States boils down to an argument over the rights of the rich to their money and the responsibility of the state to provide for the welfare of the poor. Occasionally, I'll see an argument regarding balancing taxation and the size of the military, but it's not as popular an argument now as it was during our last presidency. Republicans not named "Ron Paul" generally don't argue to reduce the size of the military and the Democrats who argue for greater taxation generally aren't the same people who would want to grow the military.
There are serious pitfalls on all sides of this issue for Scripture-following Christian. The mistake that I have observed people on all sides of the issue make is to forget that it is God who provides. This foundational flaw is exposed in almost all of the rationales I have heard for this issue.. The people who argue against higher taxes do so under the guise that the money was earned and is theirs rather than the government's. The people who argue for government support do so under the guise that God will not provide, so therefore only the government is left. Going even deeper than that, though, is that the question is never about what my responsibility is, but rather it is about whether someone else is exploiting me in my position. This is a tempting, but very anti-Scriptural position to take.
A defense that we do not have the luxury of espousing is that such-and-such tax or government assistance policy will be economically better for the country. God is not concerned with the economics of the decision, but rather with the devotion and trust of His followers. From the Bible's standpoint, it is better to trust God in an impoverished economy than to trust self in an environment of wealth.
It is probably the easiest to argue Scripturally against the anti-tax people because the relevant verses are more straightforward. God did not leave room for debate regarding whose money taxes are. That money belongs to the government authority.
"Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:5-7It doesn't matter if the tax is egregious or simply seems unfair. It was never our money to begin with. We only had the money because of opportunities, abilities, and drive that God provided to us, and He explicitly states that the percentage of this money—His money—the government claims should indeed be paid in taxes.
There is a further argument that is made that the government should only have a limited role in assisting those in need for a variety of reasons. This technicality is where Scripture gets a little foggy and the underlying principle is lost in the vagueness. A valid argument can be made for or against government being the proper proxy through which we support the poor, but a valid argument cannot be made that we should not sacrificially provide for the poor. If a Christian believes that the government is not the proper means to provide to the poor that is fine IF that same Christian in practice gives sacrificially to those in need. Sacrificial charity is serious business, too. It's enough to be the deciding factor in your salvation, as you should be able to tell from the verses referenced below.
- God made it clear that true fasting was providing for those without: Isa 58:5-11
- At least one of the sins that led to Sodom's destruction was neglecting the poor: Ezek 16:49-50
- We all know about the sheep and the goats: Matt 25:31-46
- Our love is shown in how we value our possessions versus providing for brothers in need: 1 John 3:17-18
First, while I personally believe that laziness accounts for a very small percentage of people who are down and out, there is no Biblical support for choosing not to work. Solomon was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (Prov 13:4). Paul was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (2 Thess 3:6-12). Paul also encouraged the Thessalonians to work and have a manageable standard of living so that they would not have to rely on others (1 Thess 4:11-12).
Probably the most important passage to argue against the idea that we should rely on government support, though, is one that illustrates on whom we should rely. In The Sermon on the Mount Jesus made the following famous statement.
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."- Matt 6:24This sounds like an indictment of the rich, but Jesus immediately follows this with a command not to worry about food or clothing because God will provide these things. If there is something the rich do not worry about, it is whether they are fed and clothed. He concludes with the following promise.
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."- Matt 6:33To serve God is to not worry about the necessities, and to refuse to trust Him regarding the necessities is to seek something before God. This theme of trusting God comes up a lot in Scripture, to the point where it really is foundational to God's ultimate message to us.
- God orders our paths and blesses us if we trust in Him: Prov 3:5-10
- Abraham trusted God and it was credited to him as righteousness, and Paul notes that this promise is for us as well: Romans 4:18-25
- We cannot expect anything from God if we doubt Him: James 1:6-8
Ultimately, my responsibility is to trust God and care for those in need regardless what others do. If I goad others into caring for the needy simply because if I am sacrificing others ought to as well, my motives are less than pure. Likewise, if I do so out of a sense of self-righteousness rather than humility my pride is sin. If I take this position because I trust in government more than God, then I am not right with God. Finally, if my motivation is so that others bear their share of the burden rather than having an undue burden fall on me, I am simply passing off my selfishness as duty or as equity.
In summary, no matter our lot in life, our focus cannot be on griping about being exploited by the tax system or by society in general. Our focus has to be on trusting God enough to handle our finances and everything else in our lives.
I should be clear that I am not better than anyone else on any of these counts. I have somehow espoused both anti-Scriptural parts of the anti-tax philosophy and of the trust-in-the-government philosophy at one time or another. My position here is only to point to pitfalls of the attitudes behind these philosophies as described by Scripture.
In conclusion, thanks to those who put the effort in to read this treatise. Politics is an uncomfortable topic anyways, and to make something I have one more post that will be much shorter than this one to conclude this series. I have had fun with this, but I know I should limit these sorts of posts because political topics are difficult to converse about with tact.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
politics: the game
I haven't paid significant attention to politics as of late, so this isn't targeted to anyone in particular. I am sure there are plenty of people in politics who are fully committed to God and will not budge on their morals or ethics, so this isn't a complete indictment on everyone in the system. It is merely an observation of the contrast between the life we should live and the actions some see as necessary in politics.
Most American politicians claim some flavor of Christianity to accept portions of some version of the Christian Bible as God-breathed. Certainly there is a wide range of beliefs within this group Christian politicians, but I believe that most of them are largely genuine in their stated beliefs. If you threw out the politicians who claim non-Christian religions or no religion and also those disingenuous about their claimed beliefs, I believe that a strong majority would still be people who believed in Christ as their Savior. It is therefore very unfortunate that the political game is so opposite what Scripture teaches. If most of the political players accept Scripture on some level, and a large percentage of the electorate does as well, how could we end up with a system that encourages such abhorrent behavior?
One politician I will mention because he has dropped out of the presidential race, and because I was not strongly for or against his campaign, is Tim Pawlenty. When he dropped out of the race a few weeks ago something I read in a few places was that he was too much of a "good guy" who wouldn't go for the jugular enough. I read further that this works in some election cycles, but apparently not in this one. While I know that a lot of the explanations for why things happen in politics are storylines invented to sell news, it does not say much for the electorate if the reason some people turned from Pawlenty was because he didn't have enough bloodlust.
I think the Pawlenty storyline illustrates my point fairly well. Simply put, the strategies and games that politicians of all political stripes play, whether they feel they have to or not, are anti-Scriptural. This is no shock to anyone, I am sure, but what gives me pause is how easily the behavior is rationalized by those who support that specific candidate. It's unconscionable when a political opponent does X sleazy thing, but when it's someone I agree with then there is an excusable reason for it, or it's a personality quirk, or it's a personal matter, or...
The truth be told, a Christian who completely follows Scripture does not bend the truth to suit a need. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not craft his or her belief system for maximum political gains. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not grandstand. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not game the system for their own personal gain, whether it be financial (pay for play) or political (gerrymandering). A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not sell hate to get elected or push an agenda. I know there isn't a person alive who completely follows Scripture, but if there were that person would not be at all compatible with our current political system.
I would assert that it is far better to lose a political election to a scumbag opponent than it is to win using questionable means. I don't think that many people would disagree with that statement, but I again think that most would rationalize or write off political games as a necessary evil to keep even worse people from getting elected. So, I would assert once more that it is far better to lose a political election to a scumbag than to win it through questionable means.
I cannot hold someone who does not accept Scripture to the standard of Scripture, but I can hold those who claim Christ to Scripture. A Christian has to be a different kind of politician. I would like to conclude this with a passage from 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul is writing to the Corinthian church about handling legal disputes internally. Certainly, if read outside the context of a legal dispute as I am doing, I have failed this passage myself. Even so, imagine if Paul were writing about a political debate rather than a legal argument. I am sure he would still ask, "Why not rather be wronged?"
Most American politicians claim some flavor of Christianity to accept portions of some version of the Christian Bible as God-breathed. Certainly there is a wide range of beliefs within this group Christian politicians, but I believe that most of them are largely genuine in their stated beliefs. If you threw out the politicians who claim non-Christian religions or no religion and also those disingenuous about their claimed beliefs, I believe that a strong majority would still be people who believed in Christ as their Savior. It is therefore very unfortunate that the political game is so opposite what Scripture teaches. If most of the political players accept Scripture on some level, and a large percentage of the electorate does as well, how could we end up with a system that encourages such abhorrent behavior?
One politician I will mention because he has dropped out of the presidential race, and because I was not strongly for or against his campaign, is Tim Pawlenty. When he dropped out of the race a few weeks ago something I read in a few places was that he was too much of a "good guy" who wouldn't go for the jugular enough. I read further that this works in some election cycles, but apparently not in this one. While I know that a lot of the explanations for why things happen in politics are storylines invented to sell news, it does not say much for the electorate if the reason some people turned from Pawlenty was because he didn't have enough bloodlust.
I think the Pawlenty storyline illustrates my point fairly well. Simply put, the strategies and games that politicians of all political stripes play, whether they feel they have to or not, are anti-Scriptural. This is no shock to anyone, I am sure, but what gives me pause is how easily the behavior is rationalized by those who support that specific candidate. It's unconscionable when a political opponent does X sleazy thing, but when it's someone I agree with then there is an excusable reason for it, or it's a personality quirk, or it's a personal matter, or...
The truth be told, a Christian who completely follows Scripture does not bend the truth to suit a need. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not craft his or her belief system for maximum political gains. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not grandstand. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not game the system for their own personal gain, whether it be financial (pay for play) or political (gerrymandering). A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not sell hate to get elected or push an agenda. I know there isn't a person alive who completely follows Scripture, but if there were that person would not be at all compatible with our current political system.
I would assert that it is far better to lose a political election to a scumbag opponent than it is to win using questionable means. I don't think that many people would disagree with that statement, but I again think that most would rationalize or write off political games as a necessary evil to keep even worse people from getting elected. So, I would assert once more that it is far better to lose a political election to a scumbag than to win it through questionable means.
I cannot hold someone who does not accept Scripture to the standard of Scripture, but I can hold those who claim Christ to Scripture. A Christian has to be a different kind of politician. I would like to conclude this with a passage from 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul is writing to the Corinthian church about handling legal disputes internally. Certainly, if read outside the context of a legal dispute as I am doing, I have failed this passage myself. Even so, imagine if Paul were writing about a political debate rather than a legal argument. I am sure he would still ask, "Why not rather be wronged?"
"Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another--and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?"- 1 Corinthians 6:4-9a
Sunday, September 11, 2011
politics: 9/11
Today is the ten-year anniversary of the attacks of 9/11. It is one of those events where you know where you were when you heard the news, which for the majority of people in the East and Midwest was probably work or school because it was business hours on a weekday. Feel free to share what you were doing when you found out or other related memories in the comments. My greatest memory of that time was that for a short period there was a bit less political divisiveness in the country.
Something that I have noted in the time since is that this incident was one that has a remarkable ability to reaffirm to people what they already believed about whatever topics involved. Somehow, both people who think Islam is inherently peaceful and inherently violent find evidence for their worldview in 9/11. People who think the U.S. should take a more active role or less active role against rogue states both find evidence to support their worldview in 9/11. Some see the event as an indictment of the Western lifestyle and others see it as proof that our freedoms are so great we're worth attacking for them. It's telling that one of the big conspiracies from the past decade is that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. If I deep down want to hate the government why not invent some blame for one of the most significant events in recent history?
Maybe some of the arguments that use 9/11 as an illustration are valid. Most are probably just an excuse to trumpet a viewpoint. I would guess that all miss the gravity of the sacrifice that so many people experienced. I wonder how I would want the day honored if I had lost a loved one in the attack.
Something that I have noted in the time since is that this incident was one that has a remarkable ability to reaffirm to people what they already believed about whatever topics involved. Somehow, both people who think Islam is inherently peaceful and inherently violent find evidence for their worldview in 9/11. People who think the U.S. should take a more active role or less active role against rogue states both find evidence to support their worldview in 9/11. Some see the event as an indictment of the Western lifestyle and others see it as proof that our freedoms are so great we're worth attacking for them. It's telling that one of the big conspiracies from the past decade is that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. If I deep down want to hate the government why not invent some blame for one of the most significant events in recent history?
Maybe some of the arguments that use 9/11 as an illustration are valid. Most are probably just an excuse to trumpet a viewpoint. I would guess that all miss the gravity of the sacrifice that so many people experienced. I wonder how I would want the day honored if I had lost a loved one in the attack.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
politics: alienable rights
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."- The Declaration of IndependenceTypically, if a writer quotes one of the Founding Fathers or founding documents of this great nation the purpose is to prove that the Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom agreed with whatever point the author is trying to make. I have seen this done many times by people on the Right and on the Left in the political arena, and I have also seen it done by pundits, preachers, non-profits, and anyone else who is selling an opinion.
I have a different question for Christians, though. Why do we put the writings and opinions of fallible people nearly on par with Scripture, even if they helped found one of the greatest nations ever established? Patriotism is good when it involves paying honor, respect, and obligation due to our nation as the one under which God placed us. It is bad when our love of the nation or certain national ideals is in conflict with Scripture.
While I love my country and believe it is the greatest ever established (possibly second greatest to David's Israel) on this earth, I also acknowledge that its founding principles are not all Biblical. As a Christ-follower before I am an American, I have to refuse any American principles that contradict Christian principles.
In this case, the sentence above from the Declaration of Independence describes very accurately the underlying philosophy of our nation that all men are created equal and that certain rights are unalienable. The first part about all men being created equal is very Biblical (Gal 3:28). Unfortunately, that is where the Biblical agreement ends. The second part about unalienable rights is contradicted many places in Scripture as illustrated below.
The following passage is regarding the rights to life and the pursuit of happiness. The rich man had neither the right to live beyond his appointed time nor the right to pursue happiness in the way he saw fit.
"Then [Jesus] said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.' And he told them this parable: 'The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, "What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops." Then he said, "This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, 'You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.'" But God said to him, "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself ?" This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.'"- Luke 12:15-21Jesus also more explicitly demanded that His followers relinquish their right to life in the following passage.
"Then [Jesus] said to them all: 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?'"- Luke 9:23-25Another passage regarding our non-existent right to life is from Psalm 44. Paul quoted this in Romans 8 to essentially say that we might face death, but even that cannot separate us from the love of God.
"Our hearts had not turned back; our feet had not strayed from your path. But you crushed us and made us a haunt for jackals and covered us over with deep darkness. If we had forgotten the name of our God or spread out our hands to a foreign god, would not God have discovered it, since he knows the secrets of the heart? Yet for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."- Psalms 44:18-22This next passage is regarding liberty. There is no such thing. We are either slaves to sin and death or slaves to righteousness and God. The only true Christian freedom is freedom from sin rather than freedom from dictatorial authority.
"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."- Romans 6:15-18A proper response to the previous passage may be that liberty in a political sense is different than liberty in a spiritual sense. Even if this is the case, which is not a position that I hold, we don't have the inherent right to political freedom either. This passage should also offer some discomfort for those of us who believe that some revolutions have occurred for good rather than evil.
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:1-7Regarding the pursuit of happiness, is there anyone who truly reads the Bible with the intent of understanding it rather than cherry-picking verses who actually believes that pursuing happiness is a Christian right? Paul's following words to Timothy regarding people who are "lovers of themselves" and "lovers of pleasure" should dispel that notion if anyone actually has it.
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."- 2 Timothy 3:1-5Finally, James hit on all three of these inalienable rights in the following passage. God has the right to, and may, take our lives tomorrow. We do not have the liberty to stake out our long-term plans apart from God, especially as it relates to fulfilling our wants.
"Now listen, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.' Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, 'If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that.'"- James 4:13-15Seriously, this is something that I could do for days with passages from all of the major sections of Scripture if I was willing to commit the time to do it. There is no shortage of Bible passages that imply or outright state that these unalienable rights are very alienable for the sincere Christian.
I feel compelled to restate my point in this. I am not attempting to denigrate the great nation to which I owe so much. I am attempting to establish that the Founding Fathers were entirely capable of contradicting Scripture, and so nothing they said should be considered to carry equal weight with Scripture. On occasion we will have to make the choice whether we will accept national and cultural philosophies as our own worldviews even when they contradict Scripture. For my worldview, God's Word has to trump all else.
Friday, August 19, 2011
cute
I mentioned not long ago that a lot of words have different meanings to men and women. I don't have a good way of judging how well this applies to all men and women, but one word that has stuck out to me, especially when I was growing up, is "cute." It is completely possible that I am alone on this, but that word has devalued a lot of compliments in my life. The following example uses my grandmother as an example, and I have chosen to use this since she has passed and so will not read this some day in the future with embarrassment.
I like to share things that I think are funny with others. So, if I come across something I think is genuinely funny I like to share it. More than once when I was at my grandparents' house I read some joke I liked out of a Reader's Digest to my grandmother, to which her response was to say it was cute. It wasn't a huge deal because I knew it was supposed to be a compliment, but that was never the response I wanted.
I think "cute" is a go-to generic compliment for a lot of women because the word implies the sort of thing a lot of women want to be or that they want to own. In my life I've heard a lot of women say things in the vein of, "You look cute in those earrings," or "Those shoes are so cute," or "You have a cute baby," or "You two look cute together." In most contexts; though, the word is feminine. I haven't heard many men use the same sort of compliments, and it sticks out like a sore thumb when a man actually does say something like that.
The real problem is that a compliment is only effective if it makes the recipient feel how he or she wants to feel about himself or herself. Giving a man who would prefer to be masculine feminine compliments or a woman who would prefer to be feminine masculine compliments drains the value from those compliments.
In thinking through this I realized that I do not know which compliments men give that aren't really compliments to women. Is there a reverse version of "cute" that I am not aware of? I should probably learn before I start giving Golden or CD compliments that mean less than I think they do.
I like to share things that I think are funny with others. So, if I come across something I think is genuinely funny I like to share it. More than once when I was at my grandparents' house I read some joke I liked out of a Reader's Digest to my grandmother, to which her response was to say it was cute. It wasn't a huge deal because I knew it was supposed to be a compliment, but that was never the response I wanted.
I think "cute" is a go-to generic compliment for a lot of women because the word implies the sort of thing a lot of women want to be or that they want to own. In my life I've heard a lot of women say things in the vein of, "You look cute in those earrings," or "Those shoes are so cute," or "You have a cute baby," or "You two look cute together." In most contexts; though, the word is feminine. I haven't heard many men use the same sort of compliments, and it sticks out like a sore thumb when a man actually does say something like that.
The real problem is that a compliment is only effective if it makes the recipient feel how he or she wants to feel about himself or herself. Giving a man who would prefer to be masculine feminine compliments or a woman who would prefer to be feminine masculine compliments drains the value from those compliments.
In thinking through this I realized that I do not know which compliments men give that aren't really compliments to women. Is there a reverse version of "cute" that I am not aware of? I should probably learn before I start giving Golden or CD compliments that mean less than I think they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
