|
fifty years have ridden off into the sunset
|
|
I'm sorry but I'm just thinking of
the right words to say
I know they don't sound the way
I planned them to be
But if you wait around a while
I'll make you fall for me
I promise, I promise you I will
|
|
One of the most amazingly illogical questions I get pertains to my political viewpoint as a Christian. Oddly, this is almost never a question from professing non-believers, but it's a question I get so, so often from people who call themselves Christian.
Why is that? I dunno. It seems like these people trap themselves within a cycle of names, determined to put a label on anything and everything, because if they can label it, they feel safe and think they can control it. Which is a completely different essay in and of itself, but I'm not going there. Yet.
Anyway, these people simply refuse to understand how one can be both liberal and Christian. To them, "liberal" is a derogatory term, a word that describes someone who doesn't believe in the Bible and who is fervently pro-choice and pro-evolution. While neither of these latter two is completely wrong, neither is it completely right. I have already discussed the false dichotomy of pro-choice vs. pro-life. It is possible, although doubtful, that a future essay will discuss the false dichotomy of evolution vs. creationism.
What these people fail to truly understand about the words "liberal" and "conservative" are ... well, there are a few things they don't quite get. The first is the major one: the meaning of the words. People have stripped these words of their true meaning by using them in ways that they never were meant to represent. So, the first order of business is to define these two words correctly.
Liberal refers to people who believe that society can be changed for the better, and that government can be used as an instrument of such change. A liberal does not feel constrained by established, traditional, or orthodox attitudes. They are not interested in How was it done in the past?, it is about How can it be done better now?. Very simply, a liberal is someone who believes that society is advancing towards a better state, and that humans can help that along. In its true definition, it is applied to people who favor progress and reforms in politics, government, and education which tend towards personal liberty and freedom.
Conservative refers to people who have a much more "realistic" viewpoint: money rules; greed, not altruism, is what really drives human behavior; and human nature is so powerful that society can never be changed (except to strengthen the institutionalization of greed). Someone who's conservative favors traditional views and values, tending to oppose change. This tends towards litigation and law-making about issues which the government or people face.
Note that neither of these definitions have anything to do with why many Christians today identify themselves as conservative! There's a reason for that. Neither of these terms has anything to do with religion, or faith, or abortion, or guns, or war.
The second order of business is to ask ourselves just why Christians feel the need to define themselves as conservative. William Anderson wrote a wonderful article on conservative Christianism that, while I don't agree with all of it, definitely hits on why Christians have suddenly -- and it is sudden! -- turned conservative since the 1960s.
Understand this right now: Christians have not always been conservative elements. Before the 1960s, they were devotedly liberal, as devoted to that political ideology as many Christians are devoted to conservatism today. Four major events sparked the turn to the political right:
•Prayer was outlawed in public schools
•Democratic nomination of George McGovern
•The Supreme Court's pro-abortion decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton
•Ronald Reagan's courting of major Christian evangelicals
All of these, but especially the last two, combined to cause many Christians to lose faith in their blind siding with the left. This is not a bad thing -- blind allegiance to any political agenda is never good. But in this case, all it did was cause many Christians to side blindly with the right. This tendency is just as destructive.
Before starting out on the main push of this question, I want to define something very important: I am not liberal when it comes to dealing with the Bible. Scriptural inerrancy is the major -- some would say sole -- basis for a possible faith in Christ. My outlook, however, is not constrained by this to be across-the-board conservative.
Now that we've defined those terms, let's ask two very important questions.
•What examples do we see of Jesus that incorporate one or the other of these viewpoints?
•Biblically, where should we stand in all this?
How Jesus dealt with people, and how he dealt with government, are the two major questions here. The government in question was in fact two governments: the religious and cultural Jewish Pharisees and Saducees, and the social and political Roman authorities. We don't have many examples of Jesus dealing with the Romans; as he states in Matthew 15:24, he "was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Others would come after him to preach to the Gentiles, but for now, he was concerned with Israel. We'll take a look at what we have, but let's concern ourselves likewise with the Jews.
So let's go into background. What was Jewish culture like at the time of Jesus?
Not a simple question to answer. There were several different major groups, not dissimilar to Christian denominations today. Common beliefs marked them: the belief in one God, YHWH or "I am". They believed in the covenant God had made with his people Israel, and the foundation of this covenant was found in the Mosaic Law or the Torah. The covenant between God and Israel comprised duties and commitments which pertained to both parties. God committed himself to treat Israel in accordance with its special position as his own people, and to teach the Israelites the principles of a good and blessed life. Israel made the commitment to be obedient to God and to live a life befitting the people of God. These principles are found in the Torah or Law of Moses, its teaching and practical applications. The Torah also included directions concerning atonement for offences committed so that the covenant might nevertheless remain in effect. We'll look at four of the major groups, and then we'll take a look at the disciples of Christ.
The Pharisees are the first group we'll look at. Most of those who have at least a passing familiarity with the New Testament know of the Pharisees. In the Gospels, they're portrayed as the enemies of Jesus, those who rule over the Jews with an iron-fisted Torah and oral tradition. Because of these accounts, they are often considered synonymous with hypocrites. Such a viewpoint would not have sat well with them; it would not have pleased them to be reduced so. True, they placed emphasis on oral tradition -- and this is why Jesus condemned them. Understanding why this was emphasized is critical to understanding this group. Their interpretation of the Law was designed to bring every member of Israel into participation with the purity of God, as closely as possible. Oral traditions were created as a hedge to prevent people from breaking the commands laid down in the Law -- if one did not climb the hedge of the traditions, then you could not break the structure, the Law, within that hedge. They were very tightly linked to Rome, which had paid for the temple in Jerusalem and supported the Jews having their own king instead of being under the direct rule of a Roman authority. For this reason, they were very much inclined not to make waves with the standing social order.
The Sadducees were a group of Jews whom we do not know much about. Most of what we know is from the Gospels, and that much tells us that they supported stable conditions and the prevailing social order, much like the Pharisees. We do know some of their beliefs, and that they conflicted with the Pharisees on some doctrinal issues, but we also know that they considered Jesus an enemy of the Jewish state, someone who would destroy what Rome had given them.
The Essenes were an ecclesiastical sect, a protest movement which had withdrawn from the world. Much of what we know about them comes from the Qumran discoveries of 1947-1956, which many of you would recognize as the place and time of the Dead Sea Scrolls' discovery. The Qumran sect considered themselves "children of light", the only true worshippers of God and distinct from the "children of darkness". They believed that the high priest of the Temple was invalid, thereby invalidating the whole Temple group. Essenes lived a monastic lifestyle, based on a disciplined system of regulations and strict values.
The Zealots were a general term for the rebels who wanted Rome kicked out of Israel. They supported armed resistance to Rome. A very good example of these can be found in the choice of which prisoner the Jews chose to release at the Passover. Barabbas is described in Luke 23:19,25 as a murderer and an insurrectionist. More specifically, he was a sicarii or dagger-man, part of a band of guerillas who espoused the philosophy of the Zealots.
The Jews in general were based on a physical kingdom, and this caused them to look for physical significance in their relationship with God. One of the most striking examples of this is in John 9:1-3. While this was not their only focus, it was the most important focus for them. It can also be seen in Acts 1:6 where we see that the disciples simply do not understand the spiritual significance of everything that they have seen and been through.
Why is this so important? To answer that question we must look to the teachings of Jesus.
In John 7:22-24, the mainline Jews are disgruntled with Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of rest for the Jews; no work is to be done on it. Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, and he challenges them to think differently. The Law commands the circumcision of a male child on the eighth day. Thus if a child were born on a Friday, the Mosaic Law commands that he be circumcised on a Saturday. This is acceptable. Yet they condemn him for healing a man on the Sabbath. His challenge to them is to stop thinking about how things were done in the past, but to understand these things in a new light.
Before Pilate, in John 18:33-37, Jesus states that "his kingdom is not of this world." How can he say that? He was the King of the Jews -- his purpose for being born was to restore the dominion of Israel. Or was it? But now my kingdom is not of this world. Those nine words destroy Jewish thought as to how Israel was to be restored.
In these and other examples, Jesus was not someone who came to uphold the standing order of social customs. It was in fact much closer to the opposite extreme -- he came to begin a revolution in thought, in worship, and in understanding of God. Rather than bend to the Pharisees, Saducees, Romans, or any other group who opposed him, he merely said, "This is how it is," and continued to preach exactly what he had been preaching. Worship would no longer be a physical pursuit, but a spiritual pursuit, done "in spirit and in truth," (ref. John 4:24) and this concept was revolutionary among the physically minded Jews and Romans. It is the very novelty of this concept which first defined Christianity. Can you pinpoint, then, where this is leading?
Maybe you can. Maybe you're still not quite sure. Either way, let's look to the disciples become apostles and see where they stand.
Acts 3:1-4:31 tells us the first run-in these disciples had with authority. Their response is quite simple: "You can tell us what you want us to do, but it's God who determines what we will do." This attitude is summed up in Galatians 1:10, where Paul very simply states, "Obey God. Ignore the rules of this world, if you must, to do so."
Why is this so important? Because, as noted above, Christianity is anything but conservative! Does that mean we should be liberal, then? No, not any more than it means we should be constrained to be blindly conservative by the events of the last 40 years. But understand right now that "liberal" and "Christian" are no more opposite than "conservative" and "Christian". If you take nothing else away from this essay, take that.
Turn with me now to Romans 13:1-7, which I've found is a key text that people often use to defend their unthinking adherence to conservatism. Let's go ahead and look at exactly what it says.
Verse 1: Christians are to submit to the governing authorities, because they are from God.
What exactly does this mean? Are we to simply accept all edicts of the government of the place in which we live? What if one of those edicts, as defined by the constitution, is a right to free speech against that government, specifically to defend the freedoms of that country? If you accept that the governing body is from God, you must also accept that the document which creates that governing body is from God.
Free speech is not anathema to the people of God. Unrestrained free speech is. To slander someone in authority over you is not Christian. To disagree with their actions because they are not acceptable to you as a Christian is not. Biblical examples? Take a look at every time the disciples run up against the Jews, the Romans, or various pagans in Acts. The disciple in question (Stephen in Acts 6:8-8:1 is a good example) rebukes and admonishes the people to whom he is talking, calling them to become right with God!
Verse 2: Anyone who rebels against their ruler rebels against God and brings judgment upon him- or herself.
Perhaps a better translation of "rebels against" is "resists" or "opposes." The Greek anqistemi (tl: anthistemi) denotes an struggle or opposition, especially ideologically. The word is used in several epistles to command resistance to Satan.
But does this truly mean that we are to blindly follow our leaders? Of course not. As noted above, we are to follow God first, then our leaders. If our leaders ignore or go against God, then we are to follow God above them.
Verse 5: Both conscience and punishment tell us to submit to the authorities.
Fear of punishment cannot, can not be a concern for a Christian, as long as you suffer for being Christian. Can you be a Christian and not endure trials? Don't laugh, because the two go hand-in-hand. Whose conscience, then, should you follow? God's. Not your leader's, whether he professes to be Christian or not. God's.
And I think that last is a distinction many people miss. With the build-up of many Republican presidents as "practicing Christians," they forget that the first duty of a Christian is to question. Christianity, contrary to the opinion of many, is not a blind faith, not a blind following of what people tell you. It cannot be, or you reduce it to a herd of lemmings.
It is entirely about questioning yourself, questioning others, and questioning what you are told. The recursion always, always takes you back to the Bible, from Acts 17:11. And if your leaders are claiming to be Christian, then this is a glass which you need to subject them to even more stringently. Matthew 7:15-20 says that "by their fruit you will recognize them." Is this true of you? Are you recognizing the fruit of your leaders, or are you ignoring it?
Christians cannot claim to be following God when they blindly consider themselves "liberal" or "conservative." Instead, they are following their chosen political ideology. Christ is, in the end, about a new order of things. It's about the renewing of your mind to think like God, and quite frankly anyone who doesn't examine their viewpoints regularly has some serious repenting to do.
So, what's the final lesson that we can take from this? Simple. Christian political ideology is about more than believing in one party over another. It's not about whether you vote Republican or Democrat or Independent. It's about God, and about whose choices more closely mirror the faith you profess to believe in. It's not about what they say. It's about what they do.
And for myself? I accept your labels. I even welcome them, because I know in my heart and my mind that who I am is a reflection, if only a poor one, of who God is. I do not feel constrained by anyone who tells me what I should believe, or by anyone who presumes to know what I believe without understanding who and what I am.
For those who are liberal Christians and examine what they believe, I salute you. Likewise, for you who are conservative Christians and have closely examined why, I salute you as well. For all those, liberal and conservative alike, who have yet to reconcile your politics with God, I think it would be most instructive for you to do so.
-David
|
So I have other news, most notably about the oddest fight I've ever seen. But for now, because I'm tired after a 16-mile bike ride, all you get is a tracklist for Lift and my personal assurance that the songs are amazing.
Surrender
Lay It Down
World Inside My Head
Hold On
I Will Come Through
All About The Love
In The Moment
Dreamers
Another Me
Firefly
Just What I Needed
Erin
Green
-David
|
Went to work today. Sounds weird saying that.
Prof says that Navy guys are coming in Wednesday and to come back Thursday.
Sometimes I hate my life. No, really. I've been bored for long enough this summer.
-David
|
... that maybe it'd all be okay.
... that one time, just once, there would be nothing wrong.
... that in the end, things were just going to work out.
... that I could be free, and happy, and true.
... that the people I love would know who I am.
... that in everything, for everyone, there is something special.
... that the beauty of life was that it's transitory and fleeting.
... that we could walk together.
... that maybe this is all we have.
... that this is all that matters.
... that today is unique and tomorrow will never be the same.
... that all of life's little joys are ours for the taking.
... that maybe you'd understand.
-David
|
Some of you may have heard vociferous complaints from me about my Powerbook emitting a beeping sound when I attempt to start it up. It's three beeps, and then it simply refuses to work.
This is only the case, oddly enough, when I'm trying to use the Powerbook with its top open. If I have an external keyboard, mouse, and monitor, I can leave the top closed and it functions perfectly. The second I open that case, however, it freezes.
I have ascertained that the three beeps it gives me are a system error which tells me that the Powerbook cannot find functioning RAM banks. Why this should only be the case with the top open, I cannot say, unless there's a short circuit somewhere in the RAM that having the top closed resolves.
Which doesn't make sense -- the RAM shouldn't be related to the case in any way.
But there you have it. Now I just have to figure out what to DO about it.
Yuck.
-David
|
| Lift II |
| 10:57 PM, Tuesday, July 06, 2004 |
-David
|
There was a time our happiness seemed never-ending
I was so sure that where we were heading was right
Life was a road, so certain and straight and unbending
Our little road, with never a crossroad in sight
Back in the days when we spoke in civilized voices
Women in white, and sturdy young men at the oar
Back in the days when I let you make all my choices
We can never go back to before
There was a time my feet were so solidly planted
You'd sail away, while I turned my back to the sea
I was content, a princess asleep and enchanted
If I had dreams, then I let you dream them for me
Back in the days when everything seemed so much clearer
Women in white who knew what their lives held in store
Where are they now, those women who stared from the mirror?
We can never go back to before
There are people out there
Unafraid of revealing
That they might have a feeling
Or they might have been wrong
There are people out there
Unafraid to feel sorrow
Unafraid of tomorrow
Unafraid to be weak
Unafraid to be strong
There was a time when you were the person in motion
I was your wife; it never occurred to want more
You were my sky, my moon and my stars and my ocean
We can never go back to before
We can never go back ... to before
-David
|
|
|