A couple of days ago President Bush gave a speech about Sudan. In it he raised sanctions. One of his sound bites was "we will not turn a blind eye to the genocide" happening in the Darfur region. It sounds good. Really, though, it is just a continuation of our standing policy. We don't turn a blind eye to it, we do turn our good eyes away. As far a good, non-made-up intelligence goes, we have more reason to go into the Sudan than we had for going into Iraq. Human rights issues that make Iraq seem like a bad day at Disneyland. Well established connections with terrorist organizations. No WMD, but then, no WMD for Iraq either.
We stood by, averting our healthy eyes, during their civil war. We stand by now as several farming peoples are decimated. We failed to act when it was Christians being killed, we don't act now when it's Islamics. They have horrific human rights violations, but we don't act over horrific human rights violations. They have ties to terrorists, but we don't act over terror connections. We don't seem to act over anything, oh, they don't have oil.
As Americans one of the basic tenets of our political and social beliefs is that government only has power by the consent of the governed. I can pretty much guarantee that tribes being wiped out in the Darfur region aren't consenting. There are governmental and government sponsored human rights attrocities going on right now, as they have been going on for four long, deadly years. We don't have to agree with every other form of government on this planet, and they don't have to agree with ours. But our theory of government self authorizes us to take action when we know something like this is taking place, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks about it. Instead of acting because its right to do so we stand by, shaking our finger. Perhaps its unrelated, but the Darfuri don't effect us economically.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Religion (2b)
We can also look within the group of Israel to a position and correlate that with a present person in like position. Let's look at kingship. Samuel's discourse to all Israel, 1 Sam. 12, "if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the Lord your God -- good! ... Yet if you persist in doing evil, both you and your king will be swept away" and 13:13-14, "You have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. But now your kingdom will not endure." We can see that God, who does not change, had conditions regarding the kingship. Perpetuation over generations depended upon obedience and adherence to God's rules for the kingship. When God's conditions weren't kept, the kingship was removed. As that applied in the OT over the great length of time regarding generations, at present it applies to us as individuals in the NT. God has rules for leaders. We find them listed in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. These "qualifications" aren't a set of achievements and once attained you get a placard to put on the wall and refer people to for your credentials. They're written in the present imperative, as constantly necessary. Not as we must breathe to live but rather as we must be breathing to live. It doesn't matter that you breathed last week. You have to be breathing now. If you stop breathing, then you suffocate and die. It doesn't matter that your pastor used to not be a drunkard, he has to not be a drunkard now. It doesn't matter that your pastor used to be sexually moral, he has to be sexually moral now. It doesn't matter that your pastor didn't used to steal, he has to not be given to dishonest gain now. They're God's rules. They're God's requirements. It is imperative that your pastor meet these qualifications. Initially he must prove himself over a period of time before ordination. That is not to say that God's requirements are completed. He must meet those requirements now. If he doesn't meet the requirements God laid out, then he cannot be in that position. God set things out in the OT. When Saul was disobedient God didn't just remove Saul, he removed Saul's lineage. It wasn't a question of killing Saul and the bad king wasn't king anymore. God removed Saul line from the kingship. He left it so Saul's line had no claim on leadership. So it is today for a person as it was then for the generations. If your pastor doesn't meet the requirements God said he must meet, then he simply isn't a pastor in God's eyes. It doesn't matter what piece of paper you can pull off his wall and hold up for God to see. It doesn't matter how many people in the congregation like him. If he isn't what he must be to be pastor, then he must not be pastor. Because Saul didn't meet God's requirements the kingship did not continue in his line. If your pastor doesn't meet God's requirements then the pastorship doesn't continue in his life. In many areas the principle of proving yourself responsible in the little areas to have responsibility in the big areas applies. Was your pastor a married man while ordained and then went through a divorce? Does he fail to meet the fatherly duties that are required of all fathers? Are his children sexually promiscuous, drug abusing criminals? Then he doesn't manage his own family well and/or his children are wild and disobedient. See the parenthetic I Tim. 3:5.
If you are part of a congregation where the pastor doesn't meet God's explicit standards then you are part of a church that is a perversion of God's will. Leadership that doesn't meet God's standards cannot possibly instruct the congregation in God's will or direction. They are in open rebellion against it. Any that have remained because they weren't sure what to do: First, cannot follow the clear word of God distinctly and explicitly provided for us; Second, are obviously not open to the wooing of the Holy Spirit who would, in the event that your pastor was not able to understand the clearly written (and it is quite clear in Greek, and if your pastor is preaching based on the English translations and all the traditional meanings -- well, that's a whole other blog) instruction God has given us (btw: then he clearly can't ever have been holding firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught) (Holy Spirit who would ...) be urging him out of the pulpit so that a man who truly is of God could step in and lead righteously.
Is it important to have righteous leadership who are in line with the word and will of God?
Is it important to not have unrighteous leadership who are out of line with the word and will of God? (Important to note: In many instances lack of qualification isn't because the person is unrighteous but merely because they haven't proven their ability to lead or have proven an inability to effectively lead in lesser circumstances. This doesn't make them dispicable people, it just means that they have been unable to rise to the elevated standard God has for his leaders. In most cases it just means that they only meet the lower standards that you and I are only meeting.)
I have been under pastors who went through a divorce -- merely couldn't manage the lesser responsibilities of personal family, whose children were sleeping with the hot young wives and other women of the church and beyond, and who left their familial responsibilities to pursue the greater purposes of God. I am definitely not under them now. I urge you to openly evaluate your leadership. Try to prevent the congregation from being led astray, even with the best of intentions. Definitely don't led yourself be led estray.
If you are part of a congregation where the pastor doesn't meet God's explicit standards then you are part of a church that is a perversion of God's will. Leadership that doesn't meet God's standards cannot possibly instruct the congregation in God's will or direction. They are in open rebellion against it. Any that have remained because they weren't sure what to do: First, cannot follow the clear word of God distinctly and explicitly provided for us; Second, are obviously not open to the wooing of the Holy Spirit who would, in the event that your pastor was not able to understand the clearly written (and it is quite clear in Greek, and if your pastor is preaching based on the English translations and all the traditional meanings -- well, that's a whole other blog) instruction God has given us (btw: then he clearly can't ever have been holding firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught) (Holy Spirit who would ...) be urging him out of the pulpit so that a man who truly is of God could step in and lead righteously.
Is it important to have righteous leadership who are in line with the word and will of God?
Is it important to not have unrighteous leadership who are out of line with the word and will of God? (Important to note: In many instances lack of qualification isn't because the person is unrighteous but merely because they haven't proven their ability to lead or have proven an inability to effectively lead in lesser circumstances. This doesn't make them dispicable people, it just means that they have been unable to rise to the elevated standard God has for his leaders. In most cases it just means that they only meet the lower standards that you and I are only meeting.)
I have been under pastors who went through a divorce -- merely couldn't manage the lesser responsibilities of personal family, whose children were sleeping with the hot young wives and other women of the church and beyond, and who left their familial responsibilities to pursue the greater purposes of God. I am definitely not under them now. I urge you to openly evaluate your leadership. Try to prevent the congregation from being led astray, even with the best of intentions. Definitely don't led yourself be led estray.
Religion (2a)
I'm subdividing because this is just to establish an idea that is critical to the point.
Generally, this deals with OT allegory. See Gal. 4 Sarah/Hagar, etc.
Now look at Israel. Not the guy, but God's first son (Ex. 4:22). The chronicles of Israel over generations and millennia could just as well be the spiritual memoirs of an individual over years. That is certainly God's view of it (Hos. 11:1-4, and various other times God refers to the back-and-forth, on-again-off-again nature of Israel's spiritual life). This story of a people's spiritual life can be seen allegorically as the story of a person's spiritual life. Drawing close, then walking away, returning to find acceptance, forgiveness and intimancy. This is in holding with God's view of time: A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day (Ps. 90, II Pet. 3). We see that, when dealing with God, time isn't such a fixed commodity. Peter was speaking of God's promises, elsewhere we see references to "God's time." All things happen in God's time, he does as he does when he is pleased to act. The promises we see in the Bible are generally given. That is, they are given to us as a collective, and not to me and you and you and you as individuals. If the latter were the case then God would have lied to all those who waited till death for the promises we still wait for. We have faith that all his promises will be fulfilled in his time. So about God's time, and his rules, and allegory.
God has rules for his people, those rules are aligned to his character. We can see those rules administered to the people Isreal over great lengths of time just as they are administered to a person (me, you, Bob down the street) over the course of one lifetime. (please continue to Religion 2b)
Generally, this deals with OT allegory. See Gal. 4 Sarah/Hagar, etc.
Now look at Israel. Not the guy, but God's first son (Ex. 4:22). The chronicles of Israel over generations and millennia could just as well be the spiritual memoirs of an individual over years. That is certainly God's view of it (Hos. 11:1-4, and various other times God refers to the back-and-forth, on-again-off-again nature of Israel's spiritual life). This story of a people's spiritual life can be seen allegorically as the story of a person's spiritual life. Drawing close, then walking away, returning to find acceptance, forgiveness and intimancy. This is in holding with God's view of time: A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day (Ps. 90, II Pet. 3). We see that, when dealing with God, time isn't such a fixed commodity. Peter was speaking of God's promises, elsewhere we see references to "God's time." All things happen in God's time, he does as he does when he is pleased to act. The promises we see in the Bible are generally given. That is, they are given to us as a collective, and not to me and you and you and you as individuals. If the latter were the case then God would have lied to all those who waited till death for the promises we still wait for. We have faith that all his promises will be fulfilled in his time. So about God's time, and his rules, and allegory.
God has rules for his people, those rules are aligned to his character. We can see those rules administered to the people Isreal over great lengths of time just as they are administered to a person (me, you, Bob down the street) over the course of one lifetime. (please continue to Religion 2b)
Religion (1)
I decided to do some overtly religious and political posts. So I'll name them that way, hope I can keep the numbers straight. BTW, NIV as a standard for references, others as noted.
The first point to make in any religious discourse is that we should all be at least five years old to be involved in any discussions. No offense to any three year olds out there, but I'm just not looking to you for sagely advice. I picked five years because by that time we should all understand what "fair" is. I've had the priviledge of working with groups of little kids and fairness is a big issue. It's really important when cookies come out. Little Mary wants all the cookies for herself, but doesn't want Joey to get all the cookies for hisself. That should be obvious because the two are mutually exclusive. Mary gets upset that Joey wants all the cookies and is aggressive in her contention that it's not fair for him to get them all. I state that if she gets them all then Joey won't get any. She understands. I ask if it would be fair for her to get them all and Joey to get none. She looks relieved because I finally get it. "Yes," she says, "that would be fair."
Names were changed to protect the guilty (read : rat children). Mary was only concerned about herself. Fair meant favorable to her. Likewise for Joey, but he's only an antagonist in this story. This is a blatant display of self-centeredness. All that matters is that she is taken care of no matter how many other people get screwed. That's not the way fair works. Fair is a rule that has the same result for all that have the same conditions. If Mary wants a cookie then she can have a cookie, if Joey wants a cookie then he can have a cookie. This works as long as you have more cookies than wants. If you have 20 cookies and 21 kids who want a cookie then the only fair thing is that no-one gets a cookie, then everyone gets the same bad deal. Except me, of course, I'm the adult, I get a cookie. We're staying quantum on this, I'll not entertain the idea of cutting 1/21 off of every cookie. There are compromises that work well for long term fairness. One kid goes without a cookie each day and at the end of 21 days each kid has had 20 cookies. Better long term results than at the end of 21 days each kid has had zero cookies and I gained 10 pounds. But those compromises mean one kid has to go without each day. Did I mention these are little kids. Not going to work. Those compromises are way better for the community, unless you're a hardcore nutritionist, in such case substitute apples for cookies. Sometimes the best fair we can have means somebody gets screwed everytime, and we're all better for it.
But I digress, this is a religious entry. God = cookies? No. That was all just to establish fair. To start talking religion, at least Christianity, we begin with love. The nature of love is not self-centered. Love is other-centered. But love is fair. It's not fair if I love you, the individual, above all other individuals and do things that are good for you at everyone else's expense. Though we are not bound by the Old Testament, it is an example of righteousness. It is the expressed character of God and, as God is love, is an expression of love. Now we get to the hard part. For this I'm talking about our physical existence and interaction with each other, so we'll overlook loving God. It's not about loving myself. It's not about loving my family. It's about loving my neighbor, I think Jesus summed up the whole of the law (read : expression of God's character) that way. Most of the laws of the OT dealt with either our relationship with God (overlooked for this discussion), or with how we (God's chosen, the Israelites in the case of OT, Christians for this purpose) get along as a community. Love is about putting the good of the community above my family and above myself. Doubt it? Read Dt. 21:18-21. Like most other putting someone to death issues, the reason isn't validation of one's self or revenge, it's protecting the society from the influence of pagan religions, contempt of God, or, as in this case, the degrading of societal standards of moral righteousness. See the great bulk of Paul's writing on the church being deceived and led away from pure doctrines, a process of debauchery -- archaic meaning. We have accepted boundaries. Someone pushes those boundaries and we become tolerant. Then those boundaries are the accepted norm and we have new boundaries that weren't acceptable at the beginning. Then the cycle repeats and we end up being tolerant of anything. When I was little it was tolerable for unmarried couples to live together. Then that became normal but gays living together was slanderous. Now that's normal and gay marriage is acceptable in some places. You just can't accept a rebelious son, you have to love your community more than you love your child. That observation being made, like sex and alcohol, things perfectly acceptable before God in and of themselves but capable of being misused to sinful ends, this tenent of Biblical Christianity (that true love entails a love of others and places the good of community above the good of individuals) is what is misused to form cults. I am not advocating cults. Have sex, but have it righteously. Drink alcohol, but drink it righteously. Love your community, but love it righteously.
The first point to make in any religious discourse is that we should all be at least five years old to be involved in any discussions. No offense to any three year olds out there, but I'm just not looking to you for sagely advice. I picked five years because by that time we should all understand what "fair" is. I've had the priviledge of working with groups of little kids and fairness is a big issue. It's really important when cookies come out. Little Mary wants all the cookies for herself, but doesn't want Joey to get all the cookies for hisself. That should be obvious because the two are mutually exclusive. Mary gets upset that Joey wants all the cookies and is aggressive in her contention that it's not fair for him to get them all. I state that if she gets them all then Joey won't get any. She understands. I ask if it would be fair for her to get them all and Joey to get none. She looks relieved because I finally get it. "Yes," she says, "that would be fair."
Names were changed to protect the guilty (read : rat children). Mary was only concerned about herself. Fair meant favorable to her. Likewise for Joey, but he's only an antagonist in this story. This is a blatant display of self-centeredness. All that matters is that she is taken care of no matter how many other people get screwed. That's not the way fair works. Fair is a rule that has the same result for all that have the same conditions. If Mary wants a cookie then she can have a cookie, if Joey wants a cookie then he can have a cookie. This works as long as you have more cookies than wants. If you have 20 cookies and 21 kids who want a cookie then the only fair thing is that no-one gets a cookie, then everyone gets the same bad deal. Except me, of course, I'm the adult, I get a cookie. We're staying quantum on this, I'll not entertain the idea of cutting 1/21 off of every cookie. There are compromises that work well for long term fairness. One kid goes without a cookie each day and at the end of 21 days each kid has had 20 cookies. Better long term results than at the end of 21 days each kid has had zero cookies and I gained 10 pounds. But those compromises mean one kid has to go without each day. Did I mention these are little kids. Not going to work. Those compromises are way better for the community, unless you're a hardcore nutritionist, in such case substitute apples for cookies. Sometimes the best fair we can have means somebody gets screwed everytime, and we're all better for it.
But I digress, this is a religious entry. God = cookies? No. That was all just to establish fair. To start talking religion, at least Christianity, we begin with love. The nature of love is not self-centered. Love is other-centered. But love is fair. It's not fair if I love you, the individual, above all other individuals and do things that are good for you at everyone else's expense. Though we are not bound by the Old Testament, it is an example of righteousness. It is the expressed character of God and, as God is love, is an expression of love. Now we get to the hard part. For this I'm talking about our physical existence and interaction with each other, so we'll overlook loving God. It's not about loving myself. It's not about loving my family. It's about loving my neighbor, I think Jesus summed up the whole of the law (read : expression of God's character) that way. Most of the laws of the OT dealt with either our relationship with God (overlooked for this discussion), or with how we (God's chosen, the Israelites in the case of OT, Christians for this purpose) get along as a community. Love is about putting the good of the community above my family and above myself. Doubt it? Read Dt. 21:18-21. Like most other putting someone to death issues, the reason isn't validation of one's self or revenge, it's protecting the society from the influence of pagan religions, contempt of God, or, as in this case, the degrading of societal standards of moral righteousness. See the great bulk of Paul's writing on the church being deceived and led away from pure doctrines, a process of debauchery -- archaic meaning. We have accepted boundaries. Someone pushes those boundaries and we become tolerant. Then those boundaries are the accepted norm and we have new boundaries that weren't acceptable at the beginning. Then the cycle repeats and we end up being tolerant of anything. When I was little it was tolerable for unmarried couples to live together. Then that became normal but gays living together was slanderous. Now that's normal and gay marriage is acceptable in some places. You just can't accept a rebelious son, you have to love your community more than you love your child. That observation being made, like sex and alcohol, things perfectly acceptable before God in and of themselves but capable of being misused to sinful ends, this tenent of Biblical Christianity (that true love entails a love of others and places the good of community above the good of individuals) is what is misused to form cults. I am not advocating cults. Have sex, but have it righteously. Drink alcohol, but drink it righteously. Love your community, but love it righteously.
A republican form of government.
I thought that our elected representatives were supposed to issue a vote in proxy for governmental affairs at the level of their office. So why do our congressmen, both Senate and House, vote strictly on what is good for the nation? (Their level of government.) Why do they, instead, vote for what is good for their constituency? My understanding is that those we send to Washington are to look after the whole country, those we send to Phoenix, remember -- I'm in Arizona, are to look after the best interest of the entire state, and so forth for county and city government. If our politicians would follow that precept, which I believe is evident in our political structure, wouldn't government be less expensive, more effective, more reactive to problems that do arise, and more proactive to forstall problems that are not yet adversly effecting us? Wouldn't the nation thrive if we had politicians who looked after one indivisible nation instead of their individual states? Wouldn't the states thrive if they were under the umbrella of a nation that was operating as it should? Wouldn't the states thrive if we had politicians looking after the single state instead of the one county they represent? Instead we have politicians whose main concern is for themselves and their work is toward furthering their own carreers by bringing back benefits for their voting constituency at the expense of the greater population. On a personal level we call that theft. When someone breaks into your home and takes things that belong to you because having them will benefit him we call him a criminal.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
I'm so mean
Most people I know tell me I'm mean. I think that it's just a case of scocietal convolusion. Take the "Blonde Bombshell" for instance. She never has to open her own door, buy her own drink, ask for help or apologize. All this because of the way that men, and even some women, treat her based on her looks. This way of life isn't special for her, it's just normal. She doesn't think the people who do these things are out of the ordinary. So the few isolated people who don't treat her that way are, by comparison, mean. If I get pulled over for 80 in a 65 and the cop cites me for waste of finite resources then he's being really nice, 5 mph more and it was a felony and this citation doesn't even count as points against my license. Same sitcuation for the blonde and the cop was mean to write her up at all. My meanness amounts to a lack of lying. In reality I think it's mostly being nice. I don't offer rave reviews of an unpracticed performance that sucked. I say it sucked and you should have practiced. That's being honest, not mean. Encouraging people to continue not practicing so that they will never get really good, all the while decieving them into thinking that they are good, that just sets them up for failure on the braoder scale. In my opinion that is the real meanness. If I tell you three things you need to work on it's because masterning those things will improve your performance to a level you should be proud of. How many of your friends treat your failures as great accomplishments and encourage you to feel good about an effort you know to be grossly inferior. It's seams that that is the social definition of niceness.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Proving god(s)
I guess thats all the rage right now. I've heard "proofs" of god for some years, but now its prime time. It is my belief that the god of Christianity isn't supposed to be proven, he's supposed to be accepted without proof. How many Christians spend how much time coming up with how many hokey ways to prove god that are really just a bunch of bs? I've heard plenty that I believe but none that actually prove anything. (That means you can tell anecdote after anecdote that "proves" 1 + 1 = 2 and I'll believe you every time, but most won't really prove it.) For what it's worth the most impressive persuasive argument I've heard on the subject of religion belongs to the Hindu. In their system of belief as life beings reach higher planes of consiousness they reincarnate as higher beings, and the reverse, and if they obtain enlightenment as humans they get out of the reincarnation loop. By this most ancient of religous systems our current condition of deforrestation and overpopulation makes perfect sense and is quite encouraging. Perhaps I should convert, of course, I'd have to die first. (My apologies to anyone who realizes how symplistic the above is.)
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Springtime
I live in Arizona so I don't get to enjoy the regular set of seasons. We have three: cold, dry heat, monsoon. Easter occurs in either cold or dry heat. We could have our Easter egg hunt early in the morning to avoid triple digit temperatures or we could suffer through a sunrise service in freezing rain. It just doesn't seem fair. I was born in Ohio. We had Spring there. Mild, warm days. Cool nights. Comforting breeze. You could count on it year after year. Here we get that a day or two at a time as the weather fluctuates between highs in the 50s and 90s. On Tuesday you could plan a fun filled day at the lake to take the edge off the sweltering heat only to cancel on Thursday because nobody wants to smim when the forcasted high is 62. Well, nobody around here anyway, there are a few people who come in from Minnessota and, ... brr! At least I don't have to put up with snow.
That's my schpeil on weather. I was thinking that someday in the far off future I might write about something that matters. I dunno.
That's my schpeil on weather. I was thinking that someday in the far off future I might write about something that matters. I dunno.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
copyrights
I guess the first thing on my mind, after starting out on this, is copyrights. I like 'em. There's a special provision in the US Constitution for 'em. If you want to keep your writing copyrighted, fine, do it. You just can't do it here. Anything on your own blog is another matter. Post here and you made it public, despite any statements you may make to the contrary. I hate seeing disclaimers on forums where someone posts to a public site and wants to enjoy a copyright on what they say. If you want your thoughts to be privately owned post them on your privately owned site. Allow public access and maintain copyright. Get on a public forum, or comment on a site owned by someone else, and you lose it. Anybody remember when the internet was about the sharing and open exchange of information and ideas? I think that was before internet lawyers.
Friday, May 18, 2007
General Stuff
I'll post my thoughts and opinions, you're welcome to do the same. I probably won't spend too much time trying to be pc so people with fragile emotions should beware. If you just read what I write and take it at face value you should be okay. If you want to be offended, and some people are just like that, then I can all but guarantee that you will be. I encourage the intelligent voicing of opposing points of view that add something of value. I'll periodically remove comments that are just rants - my standards apply as to which is which. Also, I definitely won't be camping out on this, so dialog could take some time.
Happy reading.
Tim
Happy reading.
Tim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)