Disclaimer: before reading the following post, please remember that I'm all about freedom of speech and I fight to protect it- even if it means hearing things I disagree with... *** There's something really wrong with people who force a message of hate into the celebration of a holiday that's supposed to be about Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward Men. What I'm talking about, of course, is the anti-religion placard that was placed near the nativity scene in Olympia, WA by Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.
The sign reads: "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
First, allow me to remind the reader that here in the US, we enjoy freedom of expression that shouldn't be trampled. So, I'm not about to tell Washington State to remove the sign. That isn't the point of this post.
The point is this: Although atheists don't believe in God, they don't have to rain on everyone else's parade. They can put whatever they want up next to the nativity- as Bill O'Reilly suggested they could put up a picture of Darwin or a Festivus celebration scene. Anything at all, really. And since they've looked at all their options and decided to go with a placard of provocative, antagonistic prose, the question becomes this: Why did they choose to inscribe something so hateful and mocking of another belief, and what does thier sign say about them? Personally, I think it says that they are really hurting because only people who are wounded and angry feel that they need to be so hurtful and angry toward others.
At first, it may seem that I'm overreacting. As a Christian, it may seem that I'm simply upset that my beliefs are being attacked. I'm not- I actually invite open dilogue about belief and orthodoxy. And I'm not holding up a double standard, either. I have the same reaction to Westboro Baptist Church when they, as self proclaimed Christians and prophets, do just about anything at all (they're the "God Hates Fags" church that boycotts funerals, local diners, and other churches who do anything to reach out to homosexuals). And I don't believe that anyone should be using words as weapons, Christian or Atheist.
Basically, when we're entering into this conversation with others about belief and when we participate in our freedom of speech, I think it should be done with respect and dignity. Freedom doesn't necessitate a verbal or intellectual attack on another.
It's not acceptable for Christians to use the same antagonistic language toward others, and it shouldn't be acceptable to be this openly hostile toward Christians.
Of course, this hostility shouldn't come as a surprise. The New Atheists don't hide behind a curtain of politeness. Guys like Richard Dawkins are openly ANTI-religion and have dedicated themselves to destroying the idea that God exists. They are ready to use any means nessisary to attack religion and the religious- whatever the cost.
So it comes down to this- we've got a battle on our hands and it won't be won through counter-attacks by Christians. It's not going to be won by throwing angry words back and forth. The only thing that can beat back antagonistic placards and open hostility is Love.
Love wins every time, and I encourage those who profess to know and serve Christ to use care and caution when they engage the world. Don't resort to this sort of foolishness. Words hurt sometimes. And as Christians, we don't need to be in the business of using anything in our posession to hurt others.
Memory: It's 1980-something and I'm looking through some floppy disks for our Commodore 64. I find one labeled BBS and figure that it's some sort of game- what else is the C64 for? After a half hour of trouble shooting, I've got phone lines connected to our modem and I'm online, only to find out that BBS stands for Boring-Boring-Stupid. I suddenly regret my stubborn curiosity because I now only have 15 minutes of "computer time" left, most of which I spend loading up The Nodes of Yesod.
*** Memory: It's 1991 and I'm over at my friend Tim's house. We play Sim City for a while before he decides to show me this new thing they've got. He loads up CompuServe and we browse around for a few minutes before I tell him that I'd rather get back to building our city.
*** Memory: It's 1995 and my family installs America Online for the first time on our home computer. By this time, I'm in high school and although I'm still interested in video games I'm also very interested in this new form of technology that's beginning to permeate past Compute Magazine and into the mainstream.
*** Memory: It's 1999 and I'm back home from college. My parents are talking about ditching AOL and I'm glad. Other Internet Service Providers have taken its place and now AOL seems somewhat confining since the service wants to control every aspect of my online interactions. I've been away at college using an "ISP only" to explore world wide web. I'm now used to "surfing the net" and getting lost in different pages. AOL wants to bring it all to me, and I'd rather go out there and get it.
*** Memory: It's 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. I'm creating a presence on livejournal, myspace, facebook, youtube, and wikipedia. I'm also visiting the pages for about 10-15 webcomics, news sources, and blogs that I enjoy reading. I'm surfing the net less and less because I'm finding things I like and don't have time to go looking for other things.
*** Memory: It's mid-late 2008 and I'm loading a bunch of applications into my iGoogle homepage. Most of them are designed to bring content from all over the internet directly to me in one place so that I don't have to go to multiple sites a day just to get it. My spirit of exploration and adventure is still there, but it's nice that I don't have to spend so much time blazing through trash just to find things I enjoy.
*** Now: I don't know exactly when it happened, but somewhere between the time I said hello to AOL and the time I streamlined content into my iGoogle page I followed the philosophy behind the Paradox of Choice.
Basically, it boils down to this- choice is a good thing, but too much choice is stagnating.
Too many options paralyzes us and forces us into this place where we can't really do much because we're too busy trying to figure out what we'd like to do. The unlimited world of the web was great for a while- surfing the net was filled with potential and excitement. There were places to explore and new things to see. But, eventually it simply became too much. It was too time consuming and there was too much information.
What Google and other sites that are allowing modifiable content are offering is the chance to customize a limited experience on the web that's filled with options- just not so many options that we're overwhelmed by the experience.
I like that.
I like the less is more philosophy behind the Paradox of Choice and I like that Google is smart enough to allow me limited interactions on the web, but ones that I can optimize and control- unlike AOL who always wanted to force certain things into my online experience and didn't allow the user to define the experience.
And how's this for irony- from what I remember of that BBS program, it looked an awful lot like my current iGoogle homepage. It just took 20 years for me to appreciate it.
When I was a child, I used to dread punishment.
Most kids do, but I was so sincerely afraid of being punished that I took punishment avoidance to a whole new level and would thwart my mother's attempts to give me a spanking or a grounding with all my might. I threw a toy airplane at her head one time when she got out the wooden spoon. Another time, I hid under the bed and refused to come out until my mom had to throw cups of water at me. Another time I brought my brother along with me as we fled into the woods across the street from my house. We hid behind trees and bushes for a few hours until my brother was homesick and crying. By that time, I didn't actually know where we were so it was a relief when my mom showed up looking for us.
As I got older, I things didn't change.
I tried to hide my report cards if I had anything less than a B and even in my adult life, I tried to repress anger or resentment rather than deal with conflict head-on. I still avoid taking responsibility for my actions whenever I make a mistake.
So I know first-hand that delaying consequences almost always makes matters worse. When I was younger, it meant a few additional smacks on my bottom, extra minutes in the corner, or more weeks without friends and TV. And in recent years, it's meant that relationships have gone unmended and additional late fees from creditors.
Putting off punishment & consequences made things worse every time. In fact, I can't think of an example from my own life where I've been better off after holding out or avoiding what's coming to me. Honestly, things would be much easier if I would just go ahead and get it over with, face the music and accept my fate.
Owning up to the consequences of our actions is an overlooked part of integrity. I'm striving for the kind of integrity where I can admit when I'm wrong and be willing to accept whatever life hands me because of it. I struggle with this, sure, but at least I'm beginning to see the benefits of dealing with failure head-on. And since I get it, I would have hoped that the businesses across our fine nation and our own government here in the United States would get it, too.
But apparently, they don't get it.
You see, there's a mounting debt problem within our country. It's evident in our national debt, and in state deficit problems. It's effecting counties and cities and it's even permeated down to individual households where the average debt for American families is nearing $19,000. It's plain that we've made a lot of bad choices about money. We've overspent and now the reaper is here to collect. The reaper has come in the form of an economic downturn.
But instead of admitting that we went too far and allowing some of our loans and bad credit to be realized and dealt with appropriately, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government is jumping and talking about printing more money and bailing out all sorts of businesses and corporations across the country.
This of course, didn't work during the Great Depression when we were in a similar mess, but somehow, like a small child cowering under the bed, hoping that his mother will forget that he backtalked to her, these big businesses and big government agents assume that this time is different. It's different this time, they assume, because we're throwing MORE money at the problem.
I thought that doing the same thing over and over again, hoping that you'll get different results was the definition of insanity? But No, No, No- they say... it's different... more money, remember? bigger debt this time. it's totally different.
The truth is, unless we're allowed to fail, unless we're allowed to suffer the consequences of failure, we're never going to rebound either. All this talk of bailout and financing ignores the root of the problem. The root problem is that American businesses and American individuals got greedy. We bit off more mortgage and more debt than we could handle and unless that is actualized and accounted for, things aren't going to get better. In fact, they're going to get worse. Automakers will keep producing cars that aren't in demand, wall street will keep betting on exponential growth, and banks will keep lending to individuals who won't be able to pay them back. This isn't good, sound business, and those who do such things should have to pay the price, not be funded by taxpayers.
You see, a free market only works when you allow it to work. Those who say that the free market has "failed us" are misinformed. Government has failed us because they don't understand that part of free markets include letting those who fail, fail. They keep trying to delay and postpone our troubles and in doing so it's just getting us into more and more trouble. Rome, if I recall correctly, was destroyed because of the consequences of debt- not because of their culture.
I learned my lesson that delaying punishment makes things worse. I'm trying to deal with things when they happened. And I sure hope Washington learns this it too because ultimately, it's going to cost more to bailout and delay the inevitable than to let things resolve themselves naturally and in a timely manner.
I was reading through Jon Franklin's book Writing For Story the other day when I noticed the following passage: "The reader and editor want a story with a minimum of loose ends, a tale that's been simplified and crystallized in such a way that it clarifies and enlarges the mind. They don't want reality, they want Truth, and that's not the same thing at all.
Truth... is art?"
I had to reread this a few times before I realized exactly what he was getting at and then it hit me. What makes art meaningful, whether it's a collection of brilliant prose or an incredibly filmed piece of cinema or a handcrafted boat, is that it makes us step back and learn something about ourselves, and about life, and about the world.
We don't use art but rather, we behold it. We engage it. And art makes us more human in the process because it reveals something true about the way we are or the way the world works. So, when we finish a good poem or a view a good painting, we must walk away transformed into something different than what we were previously.
And this brings me to Eugene Peterson, who says something similar about scripture:
"...In our reading of [scripture] we come to realize that what we need is not primarily informational, telling us things about God and ourselves, but formational, shaping us into our true being.
It is the very nature of language to form rather than inform. When language is personal, which it is at its best, it reveals; and revelation is always formative - we don't know more, we become more..."
What Peterson is saying is that in the same way that true art reflects Truth and reveals something that expands us and broadens our worldview, so also scripture (some may even call scripture an art form at one level or another) does the same thing. Of course, neither scripture nor art are Truth on their own- but rather they invite Truth. Namely, they both reveal The Truth. And an encounter with The Truth is always life-changing. So, both Art and scripture are formative. They both cause us to reevaluate who we are and what we should be doing with our lives.
And that brings me to when I began working at Media Partners last July. Jim, one of the partners, pulled me into his office a few times to tell me all about the vision of the company.
"We want to make films that express basic human truths," He said, "because that's what separates what we do from the mountains of crap that litter most of the training video world. We don't just want to inform people, we want them to connect with our shows on a fundamental level and use that connection to give them a new perspective about live and work."
And I believed him. At least I think I did. All the same, every time I turned in a script or an e-mail or a training outline he'd ask me very kindly- "what's the truth behind this?" And I think, now, I get what he was driving at.
He wanted our clients to become more after reading a marketing e-mail. He wanted them to become different because of a script we worked on. He wanted us to latch onto something that everyone knows about- yet no one understands- and work at it and massage it until it became revelation rather than just reality. In other words, anyone can tell the facts- we needed to get to the heart of it and describe the Truth. *** And all this brings me to a little bragging about two screenplays I wrote last year. I suppose I did pretty well crafting the prose, because both of them were awarded top honors with AMCP. Is 'Good' Enough took home a gold award, meaning it was rated top notch in its category. And my baby, Moment of Truth, took home a platinum award, meaning it was rated head and shoulders above everythings else in its category. I'm glad for both of these recognitions, because it was really challenging to get the screenplays approved by the powers that be. Both Jim & Bob (@ Media Partners) have very high standards for their films. When I began, I thought my first drafts were pretty good, only to find that months and months of work were required to get them right.
I'm glad, now, that we took the time to polish them into something true, rather than simply something real. It took a lot of work, but I think I finally get it. Truth, after all is art.
My good friend Chris wrote a blog the other day called The Things About Consumerism. It teetered on the brink of validating it but refrained from actually plunging over and endorsing it. In the process, he brought up a couple of really good points and you should probably head over there and read through it before beginning mine. It's OK. I'll give you a couple minutes right now. I'll be here when you get back.
*** There are a bunch of Christians who have misread and misquoted a few passages of scripture, building the rich people are evil theology that seems to permeate a lot of people's hearts. They begin by leaving out the words "The Love of" from their reading of 1 Timothy 6:10 (For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, in their eagerness to get rich, have wandered away from the faith and caused themselves a lot of pain). Then they pair this misquoted passage with Jesus' parable of the rich young ruler, especially the ending when Jesus tells us that it's easier for a camel to walk through the head of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven- obviously indicating to those who subscribe to the former that it's nearly impossible for rich people to be saved. There's also James and a few other writers who warn the rich that they should be generous, OR ELSE. And then there are other parables where Jesus apparently tells the masses that the the rich are terrible people who will burn in Hell for all eternity (Luke 16).
Let's begin with the first problem. Whenever one takes passages from any text and mangle it up, disregarding the entire sentence (or paragraph, or chapter, etc.) it's going to be troublesome for the reader. In the particular case of 1 Timothy 6:10, it's troublesome because the reader, leaving out a few key words forgets that it's the love of money that is a root (not THE root, but A root) of all evil rather than money itself. It's a fine distinction, but one that needs to be agreed upon before moving ahead. Money should be used, not loved. It's a tool that we can use to attain things, give things, and receive things. It's not something that anyone should love in and of itself.
And with this in mind, I'd actually add to Chris' argument that the thing about consumerism is that it can actually break us of our love for money. Without being reckless and running ourselves into enormous amounts of debt, using money (rather than hording it) is a really good thing. When I buy things with my money, whether they be goods or services, I usually do so by diminishing my supply of money. Instead of gathering wealth- I'm giving it away. I'm forced to release my money to the hands of someone else.
If I'm unable to do so, if I'm a misery like Scrooge, there is a real problem for my mind cannot be set on amassing wealth and on Christ simultaneously. I must give my love to one avenue of security or the other.
After all, that's what the love of wealth and money is about, isn't it?
If I love money more than anything, it's because I'm putting my hope in money to keep me safe from economic downturn, medical bills, homelessness, debt, and even death. Money is a savior that many people- whether rich or poor, turn to for salvation because they think that it will solve their problems.
Now, it's true that sometimes those who have a lot of wealth have a harder time letting go than others. I can't imagine that someone with a house that's paid in full, filled with a lot of really nice stuff would be quite as willing to part with almost everything they own, move across the country, and live with their in-laws (as I just did this past month). Someone with property and ownership and investments would have done their best to hold up in Seattle for a while. They wouldn't have been able to move so freely.
And that's the thing about wealth. When we have it or when we put our faith in it rather than in Christ and in relationships and in truth- it holds us down. It keeps us where we are, unable to move and react with whatever comes next.
I've met a few really wealthy people in my lifetime. Some of them have been incredibly generous with their resources and their lives. They've been able to let go of whatever they feel called to let go of and in doing so, they've lived out the words of Jesus more completely than some of my other friends who are poor beyond measure.
No man can serve two masters. We have to choose whether to be enslaved to cash or enslaved to Christ. See, it's not about wealth. It's about what you do with it.
First, let me candidly express that I thought that the following video is one of the funnier things I've seen online. Its clever caricatures border on stereotype and then tumble so far over the edge that it's obvious that this is a lampoon meant as a polemic of sorts, mocking itself while exposing some truths in the process. I really enjoyed watching it:
But although the video is a funny poke in the eye of both sides of the gay marriage amendment issue, it also brings up a couple of things that I believe to be misconceptions about Christianity. This happens when Jack Black's Jesus character appears in the middle of the argument to divulge a long list of things that the Bible tells us "not to do." Things that are obviously not taboo from most westerners. Shrimp Cocktail is first on the list (in the Old Testament, Moses writes that the people of Israel are separated to God and therefore aren't to eat shellfish). He then proceeds to postulate a number of other forbidden things, all of which are contrary to the lifestyles practice by the conservatives that are so hard and fast against gay marriage. The point, he tells us, is that if we're going pick and choose anyway, why not choose love?
It would be a good point, except for one thing...
Although God in the Bible does cast a pretty narrow set of rules and regulations in the Old Testament regarding what people can and can't eat, say, wear, sleep, how they should act, and what punishments coexist with rule breaking- many, if not all of those commandments were only for the people of Israel at that moment in time. When Jesus arrives on the scene, He points out that the rules aren't what saves people- they're merely a way for us to realize that we need saving in the first place. Later, Peter receives a vision from God that basically clears out a lot of the "Jewishness" of Christianity and invites them to engage the world, not just their little nation in the middle east. With this engagement, a lot of the former regulations on circumcision and diet and dress were lifted as well.
This is not to say that Christ followers were free to do whatever they wanted. They were still instructed to follow the rules set down by government and to live as good citizens (one would assume that meant that they refrain from killing each other, stealing from each other, and many of the other 10 Commandments). They were instructed to follow hard after the example of Christ and pour themselves out as an offering for the world.
So, do we pick and choose what to believe? In one sense, yes, we don't follow all the mandates of the Old Testament. But the reason is that many of those commandments were for a specific people at a specific time. Since then, the burden of the law was removed by Christ's sacrifice and we live under grace rather than rules.
So, if that's the case, should Christians give grace to homosexuals? Absolutely. But should they allow homosexuals to marry? Possibly not. You see, the problem is that marriage for many is a religious symbol rather than a legal action. For Christians, especially, it's a representation of Christ and the Church- the eternal bride and groom.
For everyone who isn't religions, it's mainly just a legal process. It's one that unites two people together legally. It gives them rights to each other and about each other from the State. Does it involve love and commitment- absolutely. But, it's not particularly religious. It's not symbolic of God, or if it is, it's not symbolic of the Christian God most of the time.
What Christians need to understand is that there are legal issues at stake here. It's absolutely not fair to deny someone the legal benefits of marriage on the basis of gender (or race, or religion, or disability). And as Christians, we should be working to lift the oppression of the law and seek to enable anyone, regardless of gender, race, religion, or creed, to enjoy the legal aspects that come from the State.
But what advocates of gay marriage need to understand is that the very word MARRIAGE means something different to those who are religious than those who are not. And while it's true that my marriage should not be defined by someone else's commitment (as advocates of gay marriage proclaim), at the same time there's something special about the religious verbiage of marriage that I should not be forced to share with someone who doesn't actually want "marriage" in the way that I define it.
The answer, I believe, is by making a disctinction between marriage and civil union. But since there's a stigma attached to civil union- I'd even be willing (as a Christian) to give up the word marriage and cleave to another word, like "covenant" or something like it if it meant that we could maintain some sort of distinction that my relationship with my wife isn't just a lifelong commitment of love- but also a deeply spiritual commitment that's symbolic of something else.
I've ranted and raved about this before. I hope that we can eventually come to a clean understanding that allows everyone to understand each other plainly. That religion isn't trampled, nor the rights of those without religion. Gay, straight, white, black, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist- we all need to treat each other respectfully, without forcing the other to bend to our will.
The only compelling argument I heard for a McCain Presidency during the past election cycle want that his Republicanism could potentially thwart a Democrat dominated Congress and Supreme Court. This, of course, was a silly proposition that was only a little better than the one Democrats made when John Kerry was running- that anyone was better than Bush. Neither one was very convincing, and it just goes to show that one needs a solid argument FOR their own candidacy rather than AGAINST their opponent.
Unless, of course, you happen to be running for a Senate seat in Georgia or Minnesota this year. Because if you're a Republican running for reelection in either one of those states, this particular argument works just fine.
"Republicans need to win this election, or they'll be giving Obama a filibuster-proof Senate" is a theme and variation that I've heard from the mouths of almost every single commentator on almost every major news network over the past few days. Nothing particularly compelling has been mentioned about the belief systems or voting record of the four men who have been running- simply a polarizing blanket of Democrat vs. Republican.
"I vote for gridlock every time," a professor told me a few year ago during his economics class. "There's nothing worse that unopposed politicians in Washington. I'll do everything I can to see that they have to fight for every decision they make and ever law they try to pass."
It sounded like lunacy at the time, but as the years pass by, I've witnessed the dangers of unchecked power and I'm becoming more and more apt to agree with him. The balance of power needs to be maintained.
Here are two reasons why it's a good idea to maintain as much partisanship as possible in our government.
1. Gridlock means that only the best laws are passed.In order to pass a bill through a bi-partisan (or multi-partisan) Congress, it needs to be one that can be agreed to by a variety of viewpoints and ideologies. It has to be good enough that counterpoints can be appeased and it needs to be written in such a way that it finds consensus by opposing forces. In a filibuster-proof Congress, this isn't necessarily the case. When one party gets too much of a majority, a lot more legislation goes through, but it doesn't need to be honed and perfected. It simply won't meet with opposition and so it doesn't need to be held to high standards.
2. Gridlock means that less laws are passed.
I've gotta be honest, I rarely want MORE legistlation. We have so many laws in this country already and I doubt that new ones are going to fix our problems. Laws usually inhibit and restrain. The only inhibition and restraint that needs to take place is from the people toward their government- not the other way around (at least, that's what our founding fathers came up with). A government in gridlock means that less laws are passed each year which usually means that freedom wins for another few sessions.
While it's usually a rather weak argument to vote in a candidate simply because he's from a certain party or ideology, in this particular case it's probably a good idea. Even if the people in office agree with you completely, they need to be kept in check by opposing viewpoints to that change doesn't happen too fast.
Change is good, obviously. But too much, too fast could interrupt the continuity of our country and ruin us quickly.
As of Today, December3rd, I'm going to be dual posting my blogs through Livejournal and nathankey.com.
Then, on January 1st, I'm going to make the switch over to this site alone because I'm not really interested in the new advertising that Livejournal has been posting on my blog. Please update your RSS feeds and bookmarks appropriately.
|
