As I was driving today, I got behind this plumber's van (Joe the plumber?) and read his bumper sticker, which said "To Hell with our enemies. God Bless America!"
I could go into politics and the wars we're fighting and rail about this mindset that is mostly contained in (but does not fairly represent) the Republican party. However, I'd rather just address this mindset within Christendom.
I would consider this bumper sticker to be one end of an extreme. The book I'm currently reading offers the opposite extreme, stating that violence is never redemptive, and in fact only provokes a cycle of violence. It takes quite literally Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount.
I am repulsed by the bumper sticker and all those that offer up this hate in the name of my Savior. But the other extreme leaves me intrigued, afraid, inspired. What do you think?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Ghandi and Jesus
I'm a chapter in on a new book Ghandi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence, and I'm enjoying it quite a bit. I must admit that I'm wary of a book title that pairs Jesus with a modern Hindu; however, I'm coming to realize that Ghandi knew the New Testament better than most Christians I know. And while Ghandi never totally committed to Christianity, Jesus was a huge influence on him--to the point where Ghandi actually "re-interpreted" some Hindu teachings.
Anyways, what I'm admittedly hoping to validate by reading this book is an idea that I've been struggling with for a long time--uncompromising pascifism. Or to put it another way--the idea that "redemptive violence" is in no way scriptural. Rather, it puts faith in our own worldly ways--rather than putting faith in Christ's ways and indeed, his own example.
More to come...
Anyways, what I'm admittedly hoping to validate by reading this book is an idea that I've been struggling with for a long time--uncompromising pascifism. Or to put it another way--the idea that "redemptive violence" is in no way scriptural. Rather, it puts faith in our own worldly ways--rather than putting faith in Christ's ways and indeed, his own example.
More to come...
Friday, March 20, 2009
I love Matthew 9:9-17. I recommend reading it before reading the rest of this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%209:9-17
The Pharisees had a system of laws--thousands of them--that were designed to exalt themselves over others. Those that did not obey all of the laws were "sinners", and the Pharisees were righteous.
But Jesus comes and flips their whole system on its head. First, he quotes the Old Testament with God's words: "I desire MERCY, not sacrifice." Secondly, Jesus broke many of these laws himself. I imagine the Pharisees would have loved to label Jesus a "sinner", except for the problem of all of his miracles and teaching with Authority stuff...
But God's desire for mercy was a problem for the Pharisees. See, if mercy trumps sacrifice, then the Pharisees' system is void, and their power is gone. Mercy sets the sinners on the same level as the Pharisees. And so this is why Jesus said "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners": because he knew the Pharisees would reject mercy (Jesus) because it didn't perpetuate their system. Jesus did NOT say this because he didn't want to save the "righteous" or because he didn't think the Pharisees needed saving; he just knew that their system wouldn't be able to handle His mercy.
Further along in the passage, Jesus is asked why his disciples don't fast like the Pharisees do. His answer again implies that there is no room in the Pharisees' system for His mercy. Jesus says: "Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."
The old wineskins are a metaphor for the Pharisees. The new wine is a metaphor for Jesus and His mercy. The new wineskins are a metaphor for the "sinners". And not mentioned but implied is the old wine, which represents the Pharisees' self-exalting laws.
Am I an old wineskin, or a new one? Does my "Christian lifestyle" make me "more righteous" than others in my own eyes? Is there room for Jesus' mercy in my life, or am I too busy with offering "sacrifices"? (Did you sacrifice something for lent? Remember that what God really desires is that you reflect His mercy.)
To accept the mercy of Jesus is to completely abandon our innate systems of judgment, which by nature seek to exalt ourselves over others.
The Pharisees had a system of laws--thousands of them--that were designed to exalt themselves over others. Those that did not obey all of the laws were "sinners", and the Pharisees were righteous.
But Jesus comes and flips their whole system on its head. First, he quotes the Old Testament with God's words: "I desire MERCY, not sacrifice." Secondly, Jesus broke many of these laws himself. I imagine the Pharisees would have loved to label Jesus a "sinner", except for the problem of all of his miracles and teaching with Authority stuff...
But God's desire for mercy was a problem for the Pharisees. See, if mercy trumps sacrifice, then the Pharisees' system is void, and their power is gone. Mercy sets the sinners on the same level as the Pharisees. And so this is why Jesus said "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners": because he knew the Pharisees would reject mercy (Jesus) because it didn't perpetuate their system. Jesus did NOT say this because he didn't want to save the "righteous" or because he didn't think the Pharisees needed saving; he just knew that their system wouldn't be able to handle His mercy.
Further along in the passage, Jesus is asked why his disciples don't fast like the Pharisees do. His answer again implies that there is no room in the Pharisees' system for His mercy. Jesus says: "Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."
The old wineskins are a metaphor for the Pharisees. The new wine is a metaphor for Jesus and His mercy. The new wineskins are a metaphor for the "sinners". And not mentioned but implied is the old wine, which represents the Pharisees' self-exalting laws.
Am I an old wineskin, or a new one? Does my "Christian lifestyle" make me "more righteous" than others in my own eyes? Is there room for Jesus' mercy in my life, or am I too busy with offering "sacrifices"? (Did you sacrifice something for lent? Remember that what God really desires is that you reflect His mercy.)
To accept the mercy of Jesus is to completely abandon our innate systems of judgment, which by nature seek to exalt ourselves over others.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
It seems that it's been awhile since I've actually written a blog about my self and those in my life--most of the time I prefer writing about "issues". I suppose I could now delve into a psychological exploration about why that may be, but I'll pass on that for now.
It's been kind of a crazy week. Last Thursday I was preparing to go to Canada with my dad to attend a cousin's wedding, see family, and especially see my grandpa, who has stage 4 colon cancer. Then I got word that my brother's (Jordan) lung collapsed that day. He had his other lung collapse on him five years ago, and had to have surgery and stay in the hospital for three weeks. After a few days in the hospital, it became clear that Jordan would need surgery again, and is in fact under the knife as I'm typing. I would really like to be there, but I know that he's in good hands with his father, mother, and fiancee by his side. (yeah, he's engaged...you didn't know that?)Speaking of which, I need to start thinking of ideas for his bachelor party.
Well, my dad and I did go to Canada despite Jordan's hospitalization. It was so good to see all my family up there again, and great to get a lot of one-on-one time with dad. I'm so thankful to have a good relationship with my father--which exists mostly because he's a good father. I'd like to be that kind of father.
I love getting away from home, taking adventures, getting lost (almost on purpose) and then finding your way back, roughing it, being disorderly, or dangerous, or strange. I think many men feel this way. But then, I also love coming home to a wife that missed me, spoils me, calms me, comforts me, helps me dress, and otherwise belong in a concept called "society". And coming home to a very smart and cute little puppy that also missed me is nice too.
It's been kind of a crazy week. Last Thursday I was preparing to go to Canada with my dad to attend a cousin's wedding, see family, and especially see my grandpa, who has stage 4 colon cancer. Then I got word that my brother's (Jordan) lung collapsed that day. He had his other lung collapse on him five years ago, and had to have surgery and stay in the hospital for three weeks. After a few days in the hospital, it became clear that Jordan would need surgery again, and is in fact under the knife as I'm typing. I would really like to be there, but I know that he's in good hands with his father, mother, and fiancee by his side. (yeah, he's engaged...you didn't know that?)Speaking of which, I need to start thinking of ideas for his bachelor party.
Well, my dad and I did go to Canada despite Jordan's hospitalization. It was so good to see all my family up there again, and great to get a lot of one-on-one time with dad. I'm so thankful to have a good relationship with my father--which exists mostly because he's a good father. I'd like to be that kind of father.
I love getting away from home, taking adventures, getting lost (almost on purpose) and then finding your way back, roughing it, being disorderly, or dangerous, or strange. I think many men feel this way. But then, I also love coming home to a wife that missed me, spoils me, calms me, comforts me, helps me dress, and otherwise belong in a concept called "society". And coming home to a very smart and cute little puppy that also missed me is nice too.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Roseland
This morning Kendra and I went to Roseland Christian Ministries with some people from our church. I had been there before, but it was with a group of students for a class, and wasn't really a choice. This time, we went because we wanted to.
It wasn't really much work. We just went down and made breakfast for the women and children who are staying at the shelter, and our group was large enough that not everyone was working all the time. This allowed for time to get to know some of the mothers and their kids. This was what I really wanted to do, anyways. It was a lot of fun, and the kids were so funny...
I would really like to get back there soon. Apparently my church goes once a year...seems almost like something we do to get our "fix" of service, so that we can go back to wealthy Orland Park and feel better about ourselves for being so generous. Perhaps that sounds harsh, and I'm certainly not casting blanket judgements over everyone in that group. But...
When we were driving there, one of the ladies with us was telling us about how she used to live in Roseland up until she was in 3rd grade. But then the demographics started changing, and the (largely) Christian Reformed Community took flight (to Orland Park, Tinley Park, Palos Heights, etc.) And it wasn't just people--the Back to God Hour and CRWRC used to be there--and they up and left too! What a failure by the CRC.
I'm thankful to say that many in the CRC have seen the error of the church in this regard, and have devoted much time, money, and energy to Roseland. However, far too many remain ignorant about its history. Here's a short but good article if you'd like to know more:
http://www.roselandchristianministries.org/history.cfm
It wasn't really much work. We just went down and made breakfast for the women and children who are staying at the shelter, and our group was large enough that not everyone was working all the time. This allowed for time to get to know some of the mothers and their kids. This was what I really wanted to do, anyways. It was a lot of fun, and the kids were so funny...
I would really like to get back there soon. Apparently my church goes once a year...seems almost like something we do to get our "fix" of service, so that we can go back to wealthy Orland Park and feel better about ourselves for being so generous. Perhaps that sounds harsh, and I'm certainly not casting blanket judgements over everyone in that group. But...
When we were driving there, one of the ladies with us was telling us about how she used to live in Roseland up until she was in 3rd grade. But then the demographics started changing, and the (largely) Christian Reformed Community took flight (to Orland Park, Tinley Park, Palos Heights, etc.) And it wasn't just people--the Back to God Hour and CRWRC used to be there--and they up and left too! What a failure by the CRC.
I'm thankful to say that many in the CRC have seen the error of the church in this regard, and have devoted much time, money, and energy to Roseland. However, far too many remain ignorant about its history. Here's a short but good article if you'd like to know more:
http://www.roselandchristianministries.org/history.cfm
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Blagosphere
It's been the talk of the globe for the last couple days: Yet another corrupt IL Governor busted. His crime? Well, they're many...but the most serious: soliciting bribes for a now-vacant United States senate seat. Some of his other crimes: pressuring the Chicago Tribune to fire editorialists that were bad-mouthing him in exchange for "help" in the sale of the Chicago Cubs. And then there's the Rezko fiasco. All these crimes have one common denominator: Blagojevich used his politcal power for personal gain. This is illegal.
However, there is a variation of this sort of pay-to-play politics that is legal, and is going on outside of our National Capital every day. It's called Lobbyism. I won't waste time on details about Lobbyism, but suffice it to say that corporate America has their lobbyists, and so does the NRA, and the AARP, and just about every group of people in America (except one: poor people).
On one hand, Lobbyism can be seen as the people letting their legislators know what they want. It's representative government, right? Well, yes and no. These lobbyists are being paid to lobby...it's their full time job. And so while most of America is working a "real" job, these lobbyists are influencing the legislators of our country. How? Promises of political campaign contributions, for one (although dollar amounts have been limited by the government). But there's also the promise of votes and endorsements, because the lobbyists represent an organization which is organized and which can rally support for one particular candidate.
This explains a few things...I'll give some examples. It explains why so much federal money is spent in the pharmaceutical industry, while many needy people can't pay for their medications.
It explains why 75% of Medicaid spending (which was established to assist the poor with basic medical costs) is spent on long-term living costs for the elderly, which constitute only 25% of the Medicaid recipients (AARP at work). This has been a disaster, by the way. Medicare (established for the elderly) and Medicaid (established for the poor) are HUGE parts of the National budget, but thanks to the elderly's takeover of Medicaid as well as Medicare, there is not enough money for the nation's poor that need medical attention, and therefore now we have calls for UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE. Think about it: the over-represented minority (elderly w/ AARP) have, over time, usurped the benefits of the under-represented majority (the poor), which has led to the failure of our national healthcare system.
What to do about it? I don't know.
However, there is a variation of this sort of pay-to-play politics that is legal, and is going on outside of our National Capital every day. It's called Lobbyism. I won't waste time on details about Lobbyism, but suffice it to say that corporate America has their lobbyists, and so does the NRA, and the AARP, and just about every group of people in America (except one: poor people).
On one hand, Lobbyism can be seen as the people letting their legislators know what they want. It's representative government, right? Well, yes and no. These lobbyists are being paid to lobby...it's their full time job. And so while most of America is working a "real" job, these lobbyists are influencing the legislators of our country. How? Promises of political campaign contributions, for one (although dollar amounts have been limited by the government). But there's also the promise of votes and endorsements, because the lobbyists represent an organization which is organized and which can rally support for one particular candidate.
This explains a few things...I'll give some examples. It explains why so much federal money is spent in the pharmaceutical industry, while many needy people can't pay for their medications.
It explains why 75% of Medicaid spending (which was established to assist the poor with basic medical costs) is spent on long-term living costs for the elderly, which constitute only 25% of the Medicaid recipients (AARP at work). This has been a disaster, by the way. Medicare (established for the elderly) and Medicaid (established for the poor) are HUGE parts of the National budget, but thanks to the elderly's takeover of Medicaid as well as Medicare, there is not enough money for the nation's poor that need medical attention, and therefore now we have calls for UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE. Think about it: the over-represented minority (elderly w/ AARP) have, over time, usurped the benefits of the under-represented majority (the poor), which has led to the failure of our national healthcare system.
What to do about it? I don't know.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monopoly
Lately there's been a lot of (unintelligent) public discourse about capitalism and socialism/communism. At its most basic level, the argument for capitalism is that competition in the private sector is good, allows for creativity and ingenuity, rewards hard work, and benefits the Joe the Consumer because businesses compete for Joe's business. I believe this to be true, which is why I'm not a socialist. At its most basic level, the argument for socialism is that the government should "own" all the industries...what the advantage to this is I can't even tell you, which only goes to show how far I fall from a socialist.
But there's a scary trend going on in Western capitalism. Many of our major industries--the financial sector, automobile, communications, gas companies, farming (the list goes on, I'm sure)--are becoming more and more centralized; that is to say, what was once "competition in the private sector" has become one or two major companies dominating the industry. Obviously, less competition means higher costs for Joe (think gas prices a few months ago). But it also leads to a lack of creativity and ingenuity (think auto industry's failure to go green). It makes it almost impossible for the average American to start a business in one of these industries, (which doesn't reward hard work.) But most disturbing of all is that the failure of one of these major companies in a major industry can threaten to bring the whole economy to a screeching halt (think AIG, and the government's $85 billion bailout in order to avoid this.)
Think about our current economy, and tell me how the situation I've just outlined is all that different from socialism? Look at the recent bailouts...the goal is to reduce the impact of the financial crisis on main street. And how do they propose doing this? Essentially, by nationalizing our ailing major financial institutions! It's simply a transfer of power from one highly centralized power to another. I feel like ridiculing those who call our country's recent actions as "socialist" while clinging to the present system. They're not that different!
So what's my suggestion? Well, as I mentioned earlier, I believe in the theoretical fundamentals of capitalism, that is: that competition in the private sector is good, allows for creativity and ingenuity, rewards hard work, and benefits Joe the Consumer because businesses compete for Joe's business. However, I am not so naive as to think that capitalism can maintain "competition in the private sector" in the long term. Think of the game Monopoly: as one player gains more and more financial power, what happens? You pay much more money for landing on their property...eventually, there is one winner who owns everything, and many losers. It makes for a great game, but a very poor economy.
If capitalism is to work like we intend it to, there must be a regulator who helps to maintain a healthy competition between businesses. Yes, this calls for interference from government...but it also allows the positive aspects of capitalism to flourish, while controlling the devastating effects that our economy is experiencing right now. This is nothing new, by the way. Read up on Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busting. Regulation of capitalism is necessary if we want to avoid the fate which Karl Marx predicted--that is, that capitalism will bring about its own destruction.
But there's a scary trend going on in Western capitalism. Many of our major industries--the financial sector, automobile, communications, gas companies, farming (the list goes on, I'm sure)--are becoming more and more centralized; that is to say, what was once "competition in the private sector" has become one or two major companies dominating the industry. Obviously, less competition means higher costs for Joe (think gas prices a few months ago). But it also leads to a lack of creativity and ingenuity (think auto industry's failure to go green). It makes it almost impossible for the average American to start a business in one of these industries, (which doesn't reward hard work.) But most disturbing of all is that the failure of one of these major companies in a major industry can threaten to bring the whole economy to a screeching halt (think AIG, and the government's $85 billion bailout in order to avoid this.)
Think about our current economy, and tell me how the situation I've just outlined is all that different from socialism? Look at the recent bailouts...the goal is to reduce the impact of the financial crisis on main street. And how do they propose doing this? Essentially, by nationalizing our ailing major financial institutions! It's simply a transfer of power from one highly centralized power to another. I feel like ridiculing those who call our country's recent actions as "socialist" while clinging to the present system. They're not that different!
So what's my suggestion? Well, as I mentioned earlier, I believe in the theoretical fundamentals of capitalism, that is: that competition in the private sector is good, allows for creativity and ingenuity, rewards hard work, and benefits Joe the Consumer because businesses compete for Joe's business. However, I am not so naive as to think that capitalism can maintain "competition in the private sector" in the long term. Think of the game Monopoly: as one player gains more and more financial power, what happens? You pay much more money for landing on their property...eventually, there is one winner who owns everything, and many losers. It makes for a great game, but a very poor economy.
If capitalism is to work like we intend it to, there must be a regulator who helps to maintain a healthy competition between businesses. Yes, this calls for interference from government...but it also allows the positive aspects of capitalism to flourish, while controlling the devastating effects that our economy is experiencing right now. This is nothing new, by the way. Read up on Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busting. Regulation of capitalism is necessary if we want to avoid the fate which Karl Marx predicted--that is, that capitalism will bring about its own destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)