Sabbatical?

Perhaps the mathematicians among us can find some multiple of seven in the number of my posts or in the days or weeks of the duration of this blog. But even if there is none, I have decided to take a sabbatical from this endeavor. I tire of the via negativa of this approach. I will continue to faithfully read Engaging Your World to be aware of what is being said. I choose not to shoot from the hip in response. A good example is Pastor Tom's concern about Islam. He may have studied this topic extensively, but I have not done enough study myself to feel comfortable either agreeing with his assessment or finding fault. His abiding concern has led me to study Islam as objectively as I am able, but I cannot respond with a quick blog reply. Since I am writing a weekly 500 word column I need to focus my thoughts and craft them accordingly. Thus, this reactionary blogging has become a distraction.

I hope you will read my weekly offerings (and respond to them) at OpEdNews.com and at my primary blog, Culture Dove. I will leave this blog here and will notice if any comments are left, but for now I will not be posting daily.

Blog you later?
Pastor Ian

PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE

The lesson I take from this high profile hypocrisy of talking the talk without walking the walk is simply that we all need to humbly walk the walk. We should be careful to avoid preaching black and white while living in the gray.

Now this may be a stretch if you are not a fan of Babylon 5 (quite possibly the best TV series ever), but bear with me. There was a threat of total annihilation from a force known as the Shadow. They had overwhelming strength and could simply materialize at will. Now there was surely some psychological meaning involved there. But there was also a wise race governed by what was called the Gray Council. They were so named because they stood in the place between the darkness and the light. Shadows are a difficult place to be, but we must go there. Carl Jung spoke of the "shadow side" not as a force of evil but the necessary consequence of standing in the light. True danger exists in denying the shadow side, true humility and power to do good comes from accepting its presence. Should Randy and Paula White be held accountable for their behavior? Absolutely! In fact, likely the best thing for them is to learn through the consequences of their behavior. I think that that lack of logical suffering due to their wealth and the likely blind following they will keep is what is upsetting Pastor Tom most. I would agree.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

DR. DOBSON, WHAT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION?

If the Religious Right makes good on its threat to start its own political party it will be very interesting to see if they will admit that this is a pluralistic country and that the president is president of all the people. The exclusive language put forth by Dr. Dobson has no place in the government. I certainly defend his right to speak up about his beliefs and to try to influence government policy. But a political party representing an exclusive Christian position would violate constitutional law if it began treating the government as a theocracy. As much as civil liberties have disappeared under this current administration I shudder to think what this political party would consider appropriate obedience to God. Would they support laws against all that they consider blasphemous? What would the fate of Muslims in America be under an administration of their candidate.

I do share Pastor Tom's assessment that splitting the vote on the right would be helpful to any candidate to the left. I would certainly welcome that.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

DO I GET AN A?

I scored 18 out of 20 on Pastor's Tom's quiz, but I think he only gets barely passing marks for his lack of biblical perspective. America is not the theological equivalent of ancient Israel, although sometimes the Religious Right seems to want us to think that. Of course, if we were to consider ourselves responsible to God in our national behavior in the same way, we most certainly would need to understand the biblical mandate to care for the stranger. Providing hospitality to the sojourner remains a mandate of the first order in the Middle East to this day. When fields were harvested, the edges were to be left for gleaners to come and take care of their needs. The covenantal promise to Abraham was that God would bless him so that every family of the earth would bless themselves by the descendants of Abraham.

So I guess it is a good thing that we aren't a Christian nation so that we can ignore our neighbors and accumulate all the wealth we desire and keep it to ourselves!?!?

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

DO YOU LOVE ENOUGH TO SPEAK THE WHOLE TRUTH?

Mardi Gras is a taxpayer supported "heterosexual" festival in New Orleans...
What if that were the focus of the post by Pastor Tom, would he speak of the intolerance of all heterosexuals because of the decadent behavior of a few? I have known a couple of dozen homosexuals and only one or two of them have ever flaunted their sexuality in public to any extent that I witnessed. Overwhelmingly, the gays and lesbians I know simply want to live their lives quietly permitted to have their private lives remain private just like heterosexuals.

Is there something wrong with the decadence in public that this street fair represents? Sure, just like the drunken debauchery at Mardi Gras and spring break. Fortunately, events like these are predictable in that they happen at arranged times in specific places and thus are avoidable by the general public who doesn't want to see that sort of thing.

As for love enough to speak the truth, I'll take the encouragement to heart and loving all of you who read this enough, I want to warn you that faith without works is dead. I also want to warn you that God cares a whole lot about the needs of people who are poor. In fact Christ is present among you right now in the form of people who are sick, hungry, homeless and in prison. He is waiting to see you. On these things the Bible is most definitely clear, certainly clearer than on the issue of committed, loving relationships between members of the same sex.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

WHAT D'YA KNOW?

What d'ya know, a blog from Pastor Tom to which I can wholeheartedly say, "Amen, brother!" That warms the cockles of my ecumenical heart.

I'm also saddened with Tom that more folks don't know the history the Little Rock 9, but I also wonder how many of us today are moved by and see the parallels in the story of the Jena 6 in the headlines (finally) today?

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

JUST DESSERTS

I am very pleased to see Pastor Tom finally draw a line limiting the good effects of the free market. A $14,500 dessert is surely a decadent extreme that can result from the free market run amok. But where does the Gospel demand that we draw the line? The word of God is clear that we cannot serve both God and mammon. So once we start concerning ourselves with the making of money, we have turned our gaze away from God. We must choose what obedience means in the context of our own individual situations, but given the model Jesus provided (he was homeless don't forget) and relative wealth we all know as Americans, I would suggest that that line is a lot closer to where we all live than this outrageous luxury in Sri Lanka.

While not looking for a debate, I did take notice of this line that I found troubling:

I also understand we can abuse the call of God to look out for the poor among us, making that the satisfying of the Gospel to the exclusion of truth.

Given the Bible's exceptional attention to the needs of poor people I find it hard to envision a scenario where anyone can do TOO much in this area. The truth of the Gospel is that it is impossible to love God whom you haven't seen while ignoring the suffering around you. Surely the parable of Dives the rich man and Lazarus shows the truth of the Gospel.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

THE MOUSE THAT ROARED

Have you seen the movie, "The Mouse that Roared"? It is about a small duchy that decides that the solution to their financial woes is to lose a war against the United States so they can receive reparations. They "invade" during a bomb drill and can't find anyone to surrender to. Eventually they happen upon a scientist working on a real bomb. They take him captive and end up having all the power they need to negotiate.

I am also reminded of board game one of my political science classes in college played call, Guns or Butter. I was chosen as prime minister of a fictional third world power. We chose to put all of our money into industry and agriculture and not a penny into military. We then decided to agree to any treaty we were offered regardless of whose "side" that put us on and then set out to lie to the world that we had nuclear capability! The plan worked perfectly as no one ever questioned us, never demanded any evidence. We were largely ignored except when we might serve another country's interests. In the end, the two super-powers nuked each other! Winning the game was based on percentage growth in gross national product. Even without the super-powers' self-inflicted economic crash, their mad rush to spend on guns instead of butter limited their GNP growth, meaning that my country would have won even without the war!

So what does all of this have to do with Ahmadinejad? He is the mouse that roared. Is he a mad man to be feared? I'd have to say "yes." But he is also crazy like a fox and we would be fools not to engage him diplomatically. We've already seen what happens with a military response next door in Iraq, why would we want to repeat that mistake? Ahmadinejad has made a career of asking questions that embarrass us. He has called on us to live up to our Christian principles. Maybe that is exactly what we should do. If we were to show kindness to him that he did not deserve we would be "heaping burning coals on his head." That surely seems better than surrounding him with real burning coals and the death of thousands.

Yes, I realize that this goes far beyond what Pastor Tom raised today, but it is in keeping with the saber-rattling that is currently increasing in volume. Also, my condolences to Tom on the loss of his grandmother.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

WOULD JESUS VOTE FOR HIM?

I don't know if Jesus would vote for Alan Keyes, but apparently he knows who Jesus wouldn't vote for. When Keyes was brought in by the Republicans to run against Barack Obama for the Senate seat from Illinois, one of the things he said was that Jesus wouldn't vote for Obama. It was that comment among other attacks on his faith that finally gave Obama the incentive to start talking publicly about his faith.

I don't want politics to sully religion, and I'm convinced the best place for the prophetic voice is outside of the power structure, but if politicians are going to cite their religious beliefs it is my hope that they will use them to unite and provide hope, not to divide and attack. I'm sure that Mr. Keyes brings a lot to this already crowded field, I simply hope that it is positive and uplifting.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

WAITING ROOM

Pastor Tom passes on some good advice today. It is good to provide some room between initial response and posting on a blog (whether as the author of the blog or through comments). This "waiting room" can save many a subsequent apology for hot-headed remarks by allowing things to cool and gives room for more thought-through expositions.

I admit that this blog in particular tends to be closer to a knee-jerk "thought-dump," but I do try to keep away from emotional tirades. If something at EYW pushes my buttons I'll usually wait a while before writing my post here. Still, my blog posts here don't tend to be very polished. On the other hand, my weekly columns for the local paper that I sometimes post at Culture Dove and regularly post at OpEdNews and Cross Left are intentionally crafted and edited articles that often take me more than an hour to write.

There ought to be room for both styles. Also, it is wise to question how much our egos get in the way. I realize that my ego does provide a good deal of my motivation. In the end, it is my hope that I can put the message ahead of my personal desire for recognition.

Good blog today Tom, including a reasonable explanation for why you no longer accept comments there.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

CAN YOU HANDLE THE CONSEQUENCES?

Today Pastor Tom did exactly what I wanted him to do yesterday, provide source material.

I found the article intriguing. I came away with questions that surely are being debated in scientific circles. For one, I wondered if these scientists agree that carbon dioxide is leading to global warming. I understand that they are suggesting that there are more significant sources than humans, but would they agree that humans are contributing to global warming. I also found it interesting that they seem to be suggesting a somewhat fatalistic "ride it out" approach. They don't seem to be denying that global warming is occurring, just that the consequences may not be as severe as others predict and that we may not be as responsible as others suggest.

Whoever proves to be correct, it still seems that there is some reason to be concerned about global warming. The thing that Tom did not do today that I would expect from him is to tell us why this issue is relevant to us as Christians. For me the relevance lies in our obligation to fellow human beings now and in future generations to be good stewards of the resources of God's creation. Not to mention that whether people are suffering from cold or heat those who suffer are Christ in our midst challenging us to serve them. "When did we see you, Lord?" (Matt. 25)

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

CULTURE ACTIVISTS?

This film does sound odious. Granted, having neither seen it nor read a review (Pastor Tom's opinion piece aside) I don't have any way of knowing what the objective is for the portrayal of pederasty. It seems unlikely that the graphic nature of the depiction is anything but gratuitous, but the motivation of the producers may be to point out the horror of the situation, I simply don't know. Assuming that the film is anti-pedophilia, perhaps the disturbing story line is the intent, i.e. it should be disturbing because it is a disturbing issue and they may intend to stir debate.

I remember seeing a series on TV called "War" with Gwynn Dyer. In it he interviews a Canadian soldier who talked about his motivation to enlist coming from watching the movie Apocalypse Now. I remember being stunned since that movie clearly was intended to be anti-war in its sentiment and in fact is one of the best movies for doing just that. I don't know that is not the intention of this film.

On the other hand, perhaps they are attempting to titillate with gratuitous perverted sex. It is possible that Tom is correct that they are "activists" although my first hunch is that they are simply willing to do anything to make money. But again, I have no idea what their motivation is. Tom hasn't dug out a quote from anyone behind this film to back up his point. Then he lumps these silent people in with an anonymous group that he calls culture activists. If he wants to make this point he needs to show some sources, otherwise it is no more than conspiracy theory.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

APPLES OR ORANGES?

Color me confused. Archaeologists discover evidence of an event that is not recorded in the Bible (did I miss an allusion to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD somewhere in the New Testament?) and somehow that provides external evidence to the internal claim of the authority of the Bible?

I suppose that I can agree with Pastor Tom that seeking external proof of the truth of the Bible is a fruitless endeavor. Except that the reason I would agree is that the "facts" of the stories in scripture do not lie in the historical accuracy of the events, but in the truths of the meanings.

This is one of those foundational, enormous issues that define differences among Christians, so I will resist going into it more here. The centrality of this issue for Tom likely explains why he so quickly made the connection between the "apples" of this discovery and "oranges" of his doctrine.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

WHY ALWAYS ASSUMING?

So why does a study into the learning abilities of 2 year-old children compared to other primates automatically mean that there are Darwinists out to prove that God doesn't exist? These illogical leaps from Pastor Tom are not only tiring but exceedingly unfair. I don't know what the motivation of the researchers was and I'm sure Tom doesn't know either. But I can imagine the researchers wanting to explore what factors impact a young child's learning. Their research may be misguided or lacking substance, but it is totally unfair to accuse them of presupposing that there is no God or that they are out to prove that.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

REST IN PEACE

I am sorry for the family and friends of D. James Kennedy, as well as the people of his church as they grieve his loss. I trust that he has found the comfort of heaven and is now at peace.

I do wish, however, that he had done more for peace in his life. There are a number of issues where I differ from him on theology and on the application of faith in the world. He was a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, believed that judges needed to acknowledge God as the provider of all law, was a young earth creationist, and was a member of the Moral Majority. Needless to say, he and I would not have seen eye to eye. But the one position that he took that I find most disturbing was the way that he found to justify the war in Iraq. He signed a letter sent to President Bush outlining how a preemptive attack on Iraq could be justified by the just war theory. He also preached about the biblical justifications here and here. You may find that you agree with his arguments, but I found them to be both bad theology and a misuse of scripture.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

IS GOD NOT GREAT?

Some Evangelicals had a fit when Bush had the gall to suggest that Allah was the same God that Christians worship. Talk about taking your ball and going home! Sorry, but just because Jews use YHWH to describe the God Abraham worshiped and Muslims use Allah, doesn't give anyone the right to change history and say that they are different deities. So when a Muslim says "Allahu Akbar" he or she is proclaiming that God (yes, the God whom we Christians worship) is great. If Timothy McVeigh or the killers of Matthew Shephard said "Praise the Lord" or "Hallelujah" before committing their crimes does that take the true meaning out of the phrase?

Now that the first Muslim has been elected to Congress. Yes, he got more votes in a free election in America than his opponents. So does that mean that the people of that district are now guilty of some heinous crime for voting for a Muslim? Were they duped? Are they just that ignorant? Of course, some would ask those same questions about the whole nation in relation to electing our current president. Surely he did not suggest some radical, violent Islamic Jihadist agenda in his campaign for this office. Has anyone looked at his record? Has anyone bothered to see what his campaign promises were? Pastor Tom has certainly not done this for us (and I have heard him speak about Ellison on his radio show as well). All that has been provided is guilt by association. I am not sufficiently motivated at the moment to re-do the research I did previously on this group that Ellison has spoken to and his relationship to it. I did do that once and I recall that he has been on record saying that he doesn't support their violent goals. I may not be remembering all the details, but then again, if this is so troubling to others then where are their direct questions to Representative Ellison? Use the freedom of speech and the press to expose the truth directly, not through innuendo.

Show me where Ellison's own words have indicate a personal disdain for Jews and then we'll talk about whether he belongs on a committee about antisemitism. Perhaps that exists in the record, but again, that is not what is being presented.

And just for the record, the definition of Semite is 1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples 2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language So technically, antisemitism is prejudice against any Semite, even an Arab, thus Muslims would be included. I know that the term is not used that way, just food for thought.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

CHICKEN OR EGG?

I, too, am disappointed that a slasher movie is a record breaker. Though it may not matter, it isn't clear to me whether movies like this reflect the culture or create the culture. The fact is that Pastor Tom is correct that the message is that life is cheap. I would simply add to what he says that constant warfare and deadly disease and starvation around the world are also part of the culture of life being cheapened.

It is also noteworthy to think about the fear factor. I don't go to these movies, but it is my understanding that people who do are looking for the thrill of the fear. This seems to be a lesson learned by this administration as they are using fear to motivate cooperation with their policies, which include surrendering civil rights.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Weekend Edition

During one of his nearly daily calls to EYW this week, Pat (Holland's Opus of Think Worm) took aim at my denomination, the United Church of Christ, so I thought I should provide a response.

He referenced the "Bouncer" commercial that the UCC produced which included the line, "Jesus didn't turn people away, neither do we." He raised a complaint that was raised at the time the commercial aired, that it implied that other churches did turn people away. He called this elitist. The fact of the matter is that some people do get turned away from churches. Indeed UCC churches are sometimes guilty of this ourselves. Focus group studies done by the firm that produced the commercials found that this feeling of exclusion was common among the unchurched. Ecumenical leaders were shown the commercial and didn't object, realizing the importance of the message of extravagant welcome. It was edgy, but it wasn't elitist.

Perhaps the edgiest part of the message was showing same-sex couples being turned away. Pat and Pastor Tom discussed how homosexuals were welcome to attend their church. Of course, they also were clear that since they saw homosexuality as a sin that these sinners would feel uncomfortable in their church, but that that was a good thing because that is what leads to repentance and salvation. My question for them is that since all of us are sinners (depraved as they would say) and salvation doesn't change that (we are forgiven not made perfect) then wouldn't everyone be uncomfortable in church all the time? Do you faithfully preach the "whole word of God" all the time and thus decry all sin and make it clear that it is keeping these sinners out of heaven?

Now I get the point that the church is for believers. I agree that we shouldn't be throwing out our convictions in order to make people feel comfortable. But there has to be room for the seeker. Since none of us has it all together, each of us is a seeker, always learning and growing. Maya Angelou's answer to the question "Are you a Christian?" is "Not yet." There is wisdom in that sort of humble assessment of one's pilgrimage. So, yes, everyone is welcome, just as they are. Does the UCC do that better than most? Perhaps, and I hope that we try. Some of our churches don't see homosexuality as a sin, so we are indeed more welcoming. Call that elitist if you like, but that seems to strain the meaning of the word.

What we are is diverse. Pat and Tom would call that pluralism and name us as enemies of God. In my book, that sounds more like an elitist position. They sound like they are claiming to have all the answers. I'm not that prideful, I humbly admit that God isn't finished working with me yet.

ALL POWERFUL OR ALL LOVING?

Questions about whether God is really in control when a tragedy like the Minnesota bridge collapse happens point to the classic theological dilemma known as theodicy. The argument goes like this:

1. An all-powerful God could prevent innocent suffering.
2. An all-loving God would choose to prevent innocent suffering
3. Innocent suffering exists in the world
4. Therefore God is not bot all-powerful and all-loving

The logic is sound, so that leaves discounting one or more of the premises to avoid the conclusion. The Calvinism of Pastor Tom defines the love of God in a rather limited way since there is no room for admitting that God is not in control of all things (with foreknowledge to predestine what happens). In light of the very real suffering in the world that leaves us with a somewhat uncaring deity. That school of thought finds plenty of support for an all-powerful God in the Bible and puts the blame for suffering on the depravity of human beings.

There is little appeal to be drawn to the extreme version of this theology. Logically, it leads to the Deist version of a "clockmaker God," i.e. God made all that is, "wound it up" and just sits back and watches things unfold. But in the end, even the strictest Calvinist acts as if free will exists. This is the point where I have gone hammer and tong with conservative "Bible-believing" Christians. I contend that even to accept what is purported to be an objective truth requires first a subjective choice. I understand why they won't accept this point, because it then becomes a slippery slope of deciding where to draw the line between subjective and objective truth. I can see the appeal in possessing the kind of certainty that they claim, but sadly I don't think we have that option.

When all is said and done, more is said than done. That is why in the face of innocent suffering I will choose to act as if God is all-loving and not worry what that says about the possibility of God not being all-powerful. If logic forces the choice, then I'm betting on love every time.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

IS WINNING A FAMILY VALUE?

Hey, I like tag as much as the next guy. I'd even say that losing at tag probably doesn't do significant emotional or psychological harm. So, yeah, banning the game may be an over-reaction. But why is defending competition something that Pastor Tom feels he needs to do? I would only be guessing, so I wont. But I do think that games without competition can provide valuable lessons in cooperation and group building. They can also be a lot of fun. Have you ever tried to do a "group sit"? Form a circle, then everyone turn the same direction and slowly try to sit on the lap of the person behind you. Of course that lap doesn't appear until that person begins to sit and your lap appears only as you start to sit, etc. It is not easy and requires everyone working together. There is a wonderful collection of these types of games called the New Games Book. The rules are simple: 1. Play hard 2. Play fair 3. Nobody hurt When you play this way everyone wins. Anyone, since the Bible tells us that the last will be first, it would seem better either to lose on purpose or to play games where there are no losers.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

HOW CAN WE ELECT A POOR PERSON?

I can't defend John Edwards' lifestyle. The hypocrisy of his message and his lifestyle is inescapable. But what do we do with his message of the two Americas and the need for sacrifice? Is is less true because he only talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk? The sad reality is that the political system as it is currently dys-funtioning requires millions of dollars to get elected president thus nearly requiring candidates to have personal fortunes. We need to hear the message, perhaps a better messenger may come along. I don't know what it will take, perhaps it is not about the messenger but about America. JFK certainly had great personal wealth, but somehow he was able to speak with integrity about poverty. This is certainly true of his brother Ted, who despite his extreme wealth has consistently supported legislation that favored the working class and the impoverished. Perhaps we are simply too accustomed to fault-finding as a way of discrediting opponents to see beyond that sort of pettiness. Having said all that I still wish Edwards the individual had the credibility to match Edwards the politician.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

WHAT IS THE PRICE OF ONE LIFE?

Refusal to negotiate with terrorists has always been one of those allegedly obvious truths that the powerful put forward. Clearly, the worry is that even by showing the terrorist any legitimacy that the terrorist is empowered. Indeed, this is about power, especially about those with power not conceding any of it. I can understand that nations don't want to grant undue power to rogue groups, but when they take hostages then they have already seized a certain amount of power. Getting them to release the hostages thus releases the power they gained in exchange for whatever they receive in return. So whatever is given to the hostage takers is seen as the equivalent of the lives of the hostages. So is there any price too high for just a single life, let alone 19? We can all too easily get calloused by the overwhelming loss of life that war brings to us in daily body counts. Names get lost in numbers, lives become something less than personal when they become the currency of conflict.

Does Jesus' overturning of the "eye for an eye" code in favor of "turning the other cheek" only apply to individuals...and civilian (i.e. non-military) ones at that? Sure, you can point out that Jesus didn't tell the Centurion to leave the army, but by extension would you say that he then supported the warfare of the Roman Army? Clearly, Jesus calls us individually to a high calling with a high price, why should we be appalled when nations choose not to resist the evildoer and not to return evil for evil?

Am I sorry that Korea will now be restricting Christian missionaries from going to Afghanistan? Sure, it would be better if they could go. On the other hand, the peaceful resolution of this issue and the respect shown by Korea to those who don't deserve it just might work on the hearts of the terrorists. If we believe in grace and forgiveness and the power of love, maybe we should give them a try. This may end up being a more powerful witness than what could be accomplished by Korean missionaries on the ground. At least I pray that it might be, because I am willing to trust the power of God over human power to work.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

QYW Goes Analog

I am now writing a weekly column called Questioning Your World in the Tantasqua Town Common. The paper is delivered free to every home in Brimfield, Brookfield, Sturbridge, Wales and Holland. If you go to their site you can read the entire paper, but it is in pdf format, so it is a big download. I'm posting all my columns here at Cross Left (you can get an early read of tomorrow's column there today).

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

TESTIMONY

I'm sorry to hear about the robbery at Holland Congregational Church. I really feel for Pastor Tom finding his office ransacked. I can only imagine the feeling of violation that brings. But I am also glad that he was filled with inner peace and that it was obvious to the reporter he talked with. Good for him to be able to offer that good testimony to the faith. The church will be in my prayers.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

BULLY OR BULL?

I don't want to live in the "Christian" world of Theodore Roosevelt. If my ability to practice Christianity relies on the killing of Muslims, then I don't want to be that kind of "Christian." Frankly, I should be thanking Pastor Tom for this blog post as it sums up precisely what is wrong with this way of thinking. It reminds me of the saying, "why must we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?" As long as we see the Christian faith as something that requires democracy and capitalism, as well as the militarism to defend it, we will be practicing some religion foreign to what Jesus came to proclaim. If Pastor Tom is saying something different then he needs to explain himself. As far as I can tell, he is supporting a crusade mentality that justifies killing of infidels. I suppose I should be fearful that he would declare me among them or that he will take the next step of supporting the killing of heretics of which I'm sure he considers me one.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

THOUGHT POLICE?

Pastor Tom has at times been quite concerned about legislation focused at one's beliefs or thoughts. That would indeed be dangerous. Legislation can only restrict observable behavior, such as the bagginess of pants or exposure of bra straps as is the topic of today's post. Tom is right not to make the blanket statement that these externals do not necessarily reveal with reliability what is in the heart. So if his job as a preacher of the word of God is to focus on the heart, what does that say about the limitations of what can be accomplished by legislation that only speaks to the external not the internal? I don't have firm answers, but I take this as an important caution when suggesting restrictions on another's behavior, particularly through legislation.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

MISSING THE POINT?

On the surface (I didn't do any research) the suspension of a 13 year-old student for a doodle that only nominally resembles a gun is indeed an over-reaction on the part of a school. However, it seems to me that this is about fear of a school shooting rather than some agenda to "de-genderize" boys. But even if it is about moving boys away from violence, someone needs to explain why that would be a bad thing. Oh, I forgot, God designed boys to be interested in guns and cars (at least Pastor Tom thinks so, just follow the link to his blog post). He's the one who believes that the Bible is free from error and contains all the answers, so I'll leave it to him to quote chapter and verse to support that absurdity. Yes, there are differences between boys and girls and boys will tend toward violence more so than girls, but is this a "God-given right" that must be defended? Tom didn't quite go so far to say that, but that seems to be the gist of his post. It is disturbing and dangerous to involve God in the fight to defend guns. May God forgive us all for too easily sinking to this way of thinking.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. As a pacifist, I oppose any violent means to achieve any end, no matter how noble. Still, as a nation reliant on violence to achieve our goals we have little credibility when accusing others. If indeed, intifada, means "shaking off" then who are we to say it doesn't? Yes, in Palestine it has meant a violent shaking off, but the use of this word in relation to this school has to do with young people of Arabic descent in America choosing to shake off the oppression of prejudice against them not through violence but through art. Should they have chosen a less politically-charged word? Probably, but if we truly believe in freedom of speech we should be able to accept the language and move toward dialogue.

It is very sad that knee-jerk reactions keep an inter-faith and inter-cultural conversation from every beginning in this country. Surely Pastor Tom would compare my position to Chamberlain's misguided notion that talking with Hitler could prevent World War 2. I'll risk taking my stand with the Prince of Peace who was willing to spend time with the marginalized in hopes that they might understand the Reign of God.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Intelligent Design?

It is a wonderful to learn that teens want to spend time with their families (I am actually returning from vacation...and pre-dating this week full of posts...with my family and have had first hand experience of spending time with my teenage children). I just wonder how Pastor Tom takes the leap to conclude that God designed families in this way. If we look to the Bible for examples we see Jesus tell us that we need to hate our families choosing only the family of God. We also have examples of great dysfunction in the families of the patriarchs. Don't get me wrong, I think that families are vital to our well-being. I also think that the biblical example of extended families taking care of each other is a fine model that we can learn from. But I also think that we need to avoid the wall-building of isolating my family against others. Remember that God's blessing of Abraham in Genesis 12 was so that all the families of the world might bless themselves by his family.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Would You Go?

I'm glad to agree with Pastor Tom that the rescue workers who sacrificed their lives in the mines attempting to save others showed Christ-like love. I simply would expand the consideration to a reflection on our own lives. Look deep inside and ask yourself if you have what it takes to be this kind of hero. As followers of Christ we are called upon to take up our crosses and follow Christ. That implies a willingness to show the greatest love, to lay down our lives for another.

Following Christ is a lofty as well as a demanding calling. May we all be inspired by these heroes to more fully realize our faith. And I'm sure you join me in offering a prayer for their families and friends.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Live the Word?

The death of Elvis Presley ought to be a reminder to us all that wealth and fame cannot satisfy the soul. Presley apparently was searching for meaning despite these things, with tragic results. I have to agree with Pastor Tom that life and life's riches are fleeting and that we need to search for permanence in those things that transcend this life.

I even agree that we should live our lives for the glory of God. What I want to know is exactly what Tom means when he says that the Word of God shows us how to do that. The reason I ask is because he and I seem to read the book differently. I certainly don't think that simply talking about how God has forgiven my sins and saved me to be a sufficient description of living my life to the glory of God. Faith without works is dead, so if people don't see my faith in what I do then I haven't lived my life to the glory of God.

I'm not saying that Tom wouldn't agree with that, but he and I might disagree about what actions should flow from faith, or at least the priorities. In part, I think the differences would come from our understanding of what constitutes the Word of God. The Bible is a human document and shows the limitations of being a human creation. The Word of God is living and real in a way that goes beyond words on a page. I believe that the only way to find God's Word is to "listen" for it among God's people. This is on-going work because God is still speaking.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

What If Jose Were Gay?

Lots of leeway and forgiveness is being shown for Jose Offerman over at Engaging You World. Pastor Tom is "sure" that something is going on in Offerman's private life, although he doesn't seem to know if he is a believer. I just can't help but wonder if Tom did have a chance to meet Jose and hear his story if the same compassion and understanding would continue if Jose turned out to be gay?

Sure, competition brings all of us closer to our animal natures, making us more likely to do most anything to survive. But to be a professional certainly should mean that one has learned to remind oneself that this is only a game, not survival. Especially since professional athletes become idolized, we ought to expect at least civil behavior from them. Another of my sports heroes growing up was Willie Stargell. He used to say that the umpire doesn't start the game by yelling, "Work ball!" He yells, "Play ball!"

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Can You See the Irony?

Today Pastor Tom attacked a poor defenseless eggplant! OK, so it was a comment about the absurdity of seeing God in the sliced eggplant. I dunno, just look at that picture , it sure looks like the letters G-O-D, so maybe that is not so absurd. Fine, I'll peel away one more layer and agree with Tom that finding a message in an eggplant is odd. But, the problem only exists with literalist nature of calling this a miracle. that is, claiming that God is speaking through the vegetable. But wait a minute, Tom, are you claiming that God cannot use a part of creation to speak to us of the glory of God? That sounds a bit like saying that there are limits to God's power.

Can God only speak through humans? (What about Balaam's donkey?) Can God only speak through the Bible? (God couldn't use the Koran or the Tao Te Ching to bring truth into the world?)

These lines are tricky to draw. Maybe God is simply still speaking...perhaps even through an eggplant.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Clear as Mud?

Pastor Tom is certain that the Bible is crystal clear on the issue of homosexuality, calling it an abomination. Well there are a number of things that the Bible calls abomination and until we starting giving them all equal weight I don't see how we can cherry-pick the ones we care to enforce.

Let's take kosher laws as an example. Christians have long rejected those restrictions, primarily based on Peter's vision recorded in the book of Acts in which he saw unclean animals but heard from God that all things were clean. OK then, pork is back on the menu, right? Sure, ALL things are clean...like the Gentiles that Peter was sent to visit. Let's stop talking about people as abominations shall we then? Perhaps we can talk more about how we are to be responsible in love to one another. If two people can experience the grace of God and commit themselves to each other in the presence of God and honor that commitment, who am I to say that they are hearing God incorrectly?

I'm not so sure that the Bible is as clear on this subject as Tom would have us believe. There are precious few verses on the topic and there is the cultural context to consider (such as homosexual pagan temple prostitution) before we pass judgment on faithful couples committed in loving relationships that harm no one.

On the other hand, I've never heard anyone argue that the Bible supports exploitation and oppression of the poor or sanctions neglecting those who can't care for themselves. And the last time I checked there was more than enough suffering in the world for us Christians to be concerned about, so I have a simple proposal for a truce on this subject: let's take care of every widow, orphan, sick person, homeless person, hungry person, prisoner, and stranger first, THEN we can talk about homosexuality (I won't even demand peace first, I'll settle for justice).

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Rule of Thumb?

The expression, "rule of thumb," comes from the English common law that permitted a man to beat his wife as long as he used a switch no larger around than his thumb. Of course, this is one area where the absolute "no beating" is better than a relative drawing of the line.

Pastor Tom is typically one to draw absolute lines, but is taking the relative route in relation to the thumb surgery a man chose to improve his ability to use his iPhone. Tom admits to a bit of technophilia and I likely am a greater lover of technology than he. So neither of us can take the Luddite moral high ground here and declare an absolute.

But that doesn't mean that we are left with moral relativism. We have an obligation to apply our principles as ethical decisions. Looking at the motivation of the man who chose the iThumb is certainly the correct thing to do. I didn't find anything in my research that showed me the intentions of his heart. Pastor Tom went quickly to his theology to speak of the unregenerate heart. Since I don't have more to go one, I'll reserve judgment on this man. What I am willing to say is that I hope that he will use his new one-of-a-kind thumb to serve the greater good.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Context?

I would suggest to Pastor Tom that he take his own advice and read the Bible in context. Taken in small enough snippets, the Bible can support most any position, such as the health and wealth heresy as he suggests. The way to avoid this sort of problem is to read the whole book before drawing conclusions and looking at the big picture of that story. I suggest that his view of homosexuality suffers from a lack of this sort of reading in the big context.

Perhaps if there were more Bible-believing Christians we wouldn't have this problem. And I'm pretty strict in my definition of "Bible-believing." According to Faith Comes by Hearing, 65% of Bible-believing Christians have not read the entire New Testament. I disagree with this statistic for one simple reason: I would not call anyone "Bible-believing" who has not read the whole Bible! I've read the whole Bible and I read it as a whole. How about you?

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Who Knows the Heart?

Just when I thought Pastor Tom was on vacation, Barry Bonds has to go and make news (to show who little I follow baseball, it was that blog where I got the news...after getting home from a soccer match...New England Revolution 2, Harrisburg City Islanders 1)

While I know little about Barry Bonds, I do know that I've heard about his faith. He talks God-talk doesn't he? Doesn't he thank God for his ability? Now Pastor Tom assures us that Bonds' problem is that he is not content in the Lord. How exactly does he know that?

I can't say that I disagree with Tom's theory, but I'm sure that I would suggest it a bit more reservedly, at least without some quote from Bonds or someone who knows him well (his pastor perhaps?) I would venture to guess that if Bonds didn't have the specter of steroids use hanging over him and he was praising God for the accomplishment that many would be holding him up as a stellar example of striving to give glory to God. In fact, if I recall correctly, Engaging Your World sang the praises of the Super Bowl coaches ascribing their success to God.

While it is nice to see people being able to name their callings in doing what they do well, it is equally dangerous to ascribe motives to people when we don't like what we see. I, for one, don't know the heart of Barry Bonds or know if he is guilty of juicing, so I will refrain from saying with certainty whether he did what he is alleged to have done because of his discontented life.

One thing I do know is that I'm looking for more significant heroes. I grew up watching Roberto Clemente play elegant baseball while being the consummate gentleman even though he knew the sting of prejudice being the first Puerto Rican to succeed in the Major Leagues. He also knew what it was to serve God, literally giving his life in a plane crash as he took relief supplies to Central America after an earthquake.

I wish we could spend more time accentuating the positive instead of speculating about the negative.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

The Consequence of Truth?

Pastor Tom shows a great concern for the defense of our nation and very little concern for the Bible in today's blog.

He obviously puts higher stock in the Hebrew Bible's theocratic directives that allow an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, than in Jesus' command to turn the other cheek. I won't get into a long discussion of Biblical truths and whether they apply to individuals and not nations for two reasons: first, it is long and messy, and second, I refuse to accept that what is immoral for me as an individual can conveniently become moral when done as a group of individuals.

Congressman Tancredo is simply pandering to fears and counting on nationalistic chauvinism to win him some votes. He goes so far as to say that it isn't the job of the president to make sure that every child has health care. This sort of swaggering bravado, if allowed to lead this nation, will be like painting a target on ourselves. Warmongering begs warfare.

Jesus taught us a different way. Does that mean that our way of life might end? Absolutely! Is that a bad thing? Only if you consider dying to self and the sinful ways of the flesh bad. Even in the bloody warfare of the time of ancient Israel, there were the voices of the prophets. Look at what the messages are in the books at the end of the Old Testament. During the time that Israel had a strong nation, God's message to them again and again was not to conquer or even to protect themselves (that was God's job). Their job was justice, taking care of the weak, poor and disenfranchised among them, whether Hebrew or foreigner. Don't believe me? Just crack open your Bible and read pretty much anything after Song of Solomon before Matthew.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

BTW I have to say that talking about nuclear attacks and retaliatory strikes on the 62nd anniversary of the day OUR nation dropped the first atomic weapon (on civilians, no less) is rather sickening.

Special Comment

Keith Olbermann calls his editorials special comments. Everyone's opinion is a special comment and I believe I have been wrong to deny them on this blog. I was taking my cue from Pastor Tom who turned off that feature at Engaging Your World. I'm sure his reason was to control the major influx of rude and thoughtless attacks. I can't say that I blame him. Now Holland's Opus has turned off comments at Think Worm. His reason is to encourage more listening.

I started this blog to voice my differences with Engaging Your World as a sort of pseudo-dialogue. What is much better is real dialogue, so I will start allowing comments.

This will remain a venue driven by the choices Pastor Tom makes at Engaging Your World. When I want to address a topic I will continue to do so at Culture Dove So let's see how this goes.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Is Sabbath the Answer?

If Pastor Tom's numbers are accurate, the frequency of the tragedy of a child dying in a car left there by parents is about once every ten days or so. Let us all pray that it doesn't need to become more frequent before we figure out how end it. Pastor Tom suggests "slowing down," he could have used Biblical language and called it what it is, Sabbath.

I am fully convinced that stress is something we do to ourselves. We can all be busy without being stressed. Granted, it can be extremely difficult to do and in many cases the far better solution is to be free from the burden. Thankfully, the Biblical model for community, using Sabbath principles, is to take time off from our labor to realize the truth that it is God caring for us all along. In Leviticus 25, the principle of Sabbath is extended from weekly to yearly, ultimately to a Sabbath following seven seventh years-the Jubilee every 50th year. The Jubilee brought economic justice, restoring balance to the community with forgiveness of debts, liberty to the captive....and in Jesus' interpretation in Luke 4, even return of sight to the blind.

Perhaps we have been too blind to Sabbath principles and need to put more trust in God, not just as individuals, but even more importantly, as a community and a nation, so that we might proclaim a Jubilee for all the oppressed people of the world.

Finally, one observation to watch in Pastor Tom's blog: he said "I don't want to question God's sovereignty, but..." I'm not sure I understand that comment, but I guess he is saying that the death of 340 children over 10 years might be part of God's plan. That is a complex and tricky theological discussion if that is indeed what he means. I would simply say that if God informed me that God had a plan to kill children, I know full well that like Abraham arguing with God trying to save Sodom, I would very much question God's sovereignty (or at least I pray I would have the chutzpah to do so).

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Can You Get There from Here?

Sometimes it is really hard to draw a straight line. Today Pastor Tom started out talking about a Scottish woman surprised by a dead frog in her bag of prepared salad and ended up talking about the need for families to spend more time together. It wasn't the most direct path, but I suppose it is one way of getting there.

I have to agree that much would be gained by families spending more time together and family meal time is one good way of doing that. I wouldn't be so quick to paint all families that have two parents working as "living beyond their level of income" as many families would find themselves homeless without multiple incomes. Until we replace minimum wage with a living wage we will never be able to return to the alleged halcyon days of 1950s suburbia.

Still, the point is well made that too many of us don't know the meaning of the word "enough." Instead we pursue "super-sufficiency" instead of counting our blessings when we have enough and using the extra to help others. It is deeply counter-cultural to suggest that, but then wasn't Jesus so radically counter-cultural that the powers of his day put him to death?

And just to complete this tortured circle of conversation, let me add that one great way to avoid dead frogs in your salad is to shop at farmers' markets. It is likely that any critters you find in your veggies will still be alive and you can release them out the door knowing that this is the ecosystem they inhabit since the food is local! ;-)

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Can Heaven Wait?

Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, scripture tells us. So on the whole I agree with Pastor Tom about the misplaced priorities of beautifying the body in this world. On the other hand, the idea of seeking salvation in order to have literally a "heavenly body" is shallow at best. I don't imagine that he is suggesting this an evangelistic tool, but it seems to be a misplaced priority to seek some eternal reward when Jesus clearly and consistently proclaimed that the reign of God was at hand. I am unashamedly biased toward the here and now, not the by and by.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Would You Like Fries with That?

Pastor Tom today again cites "the wires," by which I assume he means World Net Daily I don't begrudge him using references with biases, just why not share the reference?

So I don't know how much stock to put in the story he mentions (since I could only find three sites on-line and they reference each other, and one site says the boys are twins who were 11 over a year ago, while the recent WND post lists them as 11 and 13 now). I am willing to concede that it is not a good thing if a government is meddling in the religious beliefs of its citizens to the extent that these sites say that Egypt is. Indeed, there are certainly Islamic states around the world that are religiously repressive and that is very bad indeed. I admire the courage of these young men to stick to their guns and take the consequences; civil disobedience at its best, breaking an immoral law.

Still, inherent in Pastor Tom's position (not just from this one post) is that Christianity is the superior religion AND governments would do well to propagate it and defeat Islam (which he sees as inherently violent). Whether force-fed or spoon-fed, any religion becomes distasteful. I prefer the free marketplace of ideas, unhindered by external expectation or obligation.

There was an agnostic professor in the Christian college I attended who kept his job because of tenure although at the time the school was working hard to reclaim its conservative Christian heritage. I remember him challenging us to consider why the administration felt compelled to require all students to take courses where they were taught one narrow type of theology. He would ask us, "If Christianity is so wonderful, why isn't it attractive enough on its own? Why must students be force-fed?" It was a good question then....it still is now.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Gone to the Dogs

Michael Vick's problems cannot be solved by money, although he may find that he can hire good lawyers to keep him out of jail. His problems are also not caused by money. But at the root of his problems surely is the trust in money.

Pastor Tom does well to point to this problem, since the Bible cannot be ignored on the topic of money. This coming Sunday's Gospel reading is from Luke 12, where Jesus tells the story of a man who builds more barns to hold his "stuff" but dies before he can "enjoy" it. I will be preaching on that this week, so Michael Vick, as well as the whole culture of sports that at times boils down to worshiping our heroes with our money will be on my heart and mind as I prepare.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Weekend Edition

Since Pastor Tom asked a question on one of his radio shows this week, it only seems right that "Questioning Your World" should on the Sabbath try to give an answer or two.

Tom raised the issue of a young man charged with animal abuse through an act of bestiality. He suggested that if love is reason enough to allow same-sex marriage then why not allow inter-species marriage on the basis of love? Well, on the surface I suppose that there is something of an equal comparison, but just scratching the surface will show that this is apples and oranges. The fact is that first of all it certainly takes two humans to even talk about equality and consent. Beyond that, it takes two adult humans, thus explaining why pedophilia is not defensible. It really is clearcut in both cases.

Surely the time has come for us to stop worrying about what consenting, loving adults do with each other in private and begin truly worrying about matters that make a difference in the lives of most people living, struggling and suffering in the world today.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Media Free-for-all Market

Pastor Tom does well to raise multiple questions about the problem with the media coverage gone wild. He is right to point out the rampant voyeurism in our culture. It seems safe to assume that he would name this as a sign of depravity. So I'm pleased to agree with him today. But this issue again raises questions about the free market. If the market remains free to sell what depraved humans desire then how will this sort of problem ever change? We all need to be willing to work together for change, one depraved human at time if necessary.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

How Much Does Free Speech Cost?

Larry Norman once sang "you say all men are equal, all men are brothers, then why are the rich more equal than others?" And in regards to the way the Supreme Court defines free speech, the rich are certainly "more equal" than the poor since spending money is seen as a protected first amendment right when it comes to political advertising. OK, so the Fairness Doctrine is a different issue, but a similar principle. Of course the "free market" will pay for conservative talk since it is the conservatives in this country who fight the hardest to protect big business. This is not rocket science!

The airwaves are meant to be public, that is, they are "owned" by you and me. It is a limited resource in need of regulation because it would be chaos if anyone with a transmitter started broadcasting on any frequency they felt like. But the airwaves have been sold to the highest bidders and now most of the media is controlled by a handful of huge conglomerates. Without something like the Fairness Doctrine the equal access will go the way of the dinosaur.

And I find it strange that Pastor Tom has so much faith in the wisdom of the free market given his strong belief in human depravity. Yesterday big government was going to doom us, but today big business will save us? What about the "wisdom" of the market that brings us violence and pornography through multiple media? Aren't those examples of the market deciding what is best? Something isn't fair and balanced here.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

What if God is a Commie?

As a father of five, you might think that you could predict how I would respond to Pastor Tom's warning about huge fines for multiple children...and you would think wrong. Only two of my children are by birth, the others are adopted, so my wife and I have not done more than replace ourselves in the world's population. We have to organize ourselves somehow to allocate resources. For example, we wouldn't like it if the one person who lived where all the...let's see....crude oil was didn't want to share any of it with the rest of us. And when there are disputes we require mediation. So if we are going to live together on this planet we will have to suffer through government of one form or another.

So, do I have a God-given right to have as many children as I like and care not a fig about how my family now consumes more than the smaller families around me? Surely not. Again and again the Bible calls us to care for the other, particularly the one who has little.

So what sort of government should we choose, big or little? Pastor Tom suggests that human depravity requires a small government so that we can all be left to our own devices. Now wait a minute, wouldn't that mean unregulated depravity run amok? Sure, big government could represent concentrated depravity, but it could also (and I would contend more likely) represent collective enlightened self-interest. In either case, human depravity doesn't seem to be a sufficient theological principle to argue for one form of government or the other.

So I'm more inclined to look for an example in the Bible. I think the absolute equality of distribution of the precious and rare commodity of manna might give us a glimpse into what sort of economy God prefers.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Conspicuous Tangerine Consumption?

Today Pastor Tom suggested that it is scary that some people believe in global warming and have the crazy notion that they should modify their behavior in some way.

OK, so I'll concede that the mercury in the compact fluorescent bulbs presents a disposal problem, but they certainly do significantly reduce electricity usage. I'll also agree that a single sheet of toilet paper is insufficient for the task most of the time, but how is using more than you need (of anything) a good thing?

And then there are the tangerines from afar...Exactly how is it a bad thing to choose to eat more of what is local so that transportation and storage demands are reduced? Is God pleased when we blithely continue consuming all that we want simply because we can? Is it too little to have an impact? Surely no act of kindness, or justice is too small or ever too late.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian