“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”--William Pitt
Ironic that a British Prime Minister so closely tied to the American Revolutionary period would have made such a clear statement on what the United States fought for during the Revolution. Make no mistake, he remains correct today, just as our founders were correct. It is not Islam, Republicans, Democrats, that radical preacher in the news, immigrants (legal or illegal), guns, or any other thing the politicians and the media want to make you afraid of that you have to fear. It is the government you have to fear. Daniel Webster describes it like this: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Also, while there is no evidence that Jefferson ever actually said it, it has been attributed to him for a very long time. Regardless, the sentiment is a fair one whomever said it. "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
Sure, there are real threats out there, but, Jefferson said it best: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." In essence, liberty is more important than the fear, so we need to realize that with liberty comes the ability of crazy people to kill you. That fear is no excuse to abandon liberty as we have done with the TSA, DHS, and shutting down the people's mall in Washington with security gates whenever there's an event. Benjamin Franklin described this a different way, but the essence is the same: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I'll stick with Ben on this one.
So, tyranny is defined in today's legal dictionary this way: The violation of those laws which regulate the division and the exercises of the sovereign power of the state. It is a violation of its constitution. The violation of the Constitution? Any act carried out by Congress where no Constitutional authority (delegation) exists is unconstitutional. This is true regardless of whether the Supreme Court says it is. The Supreme Court after all, sides with the federal government 90% of the time whenever expansion of federal power is the issue. Really? The federal government is right that often? I think not.
Now, the road towards tyranny is not a short one and it is not from one party or one President. It has slowly corrupted every aspect of American government and politics. Each successive President has expanded the "imperial" presidency by trying to usurp Congress or get around the law, particularly through the use of executive orders, to further their ends, it has culminated in the ridiculousness of Bush and Obama's executive orders used to get around Congress and their complete contempt (it seems to me) for the rule of law and the Constitution. However, it was Congress who gave Obama the right to detain people indefinitely, it was Congress who passed the Patriot Act under Bush, it was Congress who created the Department of Homeland Security, it was Congress who established the TSA, it was Congress who set up special courts to try terrorists at Guantanamo, and it was Congress who decided they could stick their nose into whatever suited them, regardless of whether the Constitution delegated that power to them.
These are recent examples, but they are the worst for one simple reason. They aren't temporary. In the past, the people and government of the U.S. have "lost their head" for a little while when under imminent threat. The suspension of Habeus Corpus and the trouncing of freedom of press and speech rights during the Civil War. The treatment of German Americans during the first world war. The Japanese internment during WW II. The trouncing of rights during the McCarthy era. All examples of government tyranny and overreach. All of these examples were eventually turned back and sanity restored, once the "threat" that brought them about was removed. However, these new laws and loss of sanity have no end in sight. Terrorism isn't a threat we can eventually eliminate or defeat. Unless one plans to nuke every single terrorist camp identified, which would essentially end the world anyway. Therefore, if the threat of terrorism has no end, then the government has no reason to restore sanity. So, these losses of liberty aren't temporary while the threat is dealt with, but permanent changes to the American way of life. Therefore, I submit freedom is dead and that maybe the terrorists have won the war long before the final battles are fought because we have chosen security over freedom, just as Franklin warned us against.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Friday, April 4, 2014
Criticizing fathers?! Really?!
It seems that New York radio hosts Boomer Esiason, Craig Carton and Mike Francesa took to the airwaves this week to criticize New York Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy for missing the first two games of the season in order to be there for the birth of his first child. There were several issues here that I take umbrage with. First, they felt he should have not taken the time off. Second, they felt he should have insisted on having a C-Section before opening day. Third, they felt he is a rich baseball player and could just hire a nanny. Finally, they felt he was letting his team down. I am a father of two and so am very opinionated about this issue, so keep that in mind if you believe something differently. However, it seems that many agree with me...CNN here and ESPNW here.
Should he have not taken time off? To suggest this is inexcusable to me. Men have a responsibility to their families that takes precedence over everything else. A man should be there for his wife, children, etc. whenever possible. To make special efforts for the big moments is particularly important, especially if you are a man who must travel a lot for his job, as Major League baseball players are. Society today pushes images of manliness that are not accurate and allow people the misconception that somehow men shouldn't take paternity leave. This fallacy leads to this kind of criticism. In addition, MLB and the player's union have negotiated that players can have three days for paternity leave. If it is in the contract, then the Mets and MLB certainly aren't going to complain. It is shocking to me that any man who is also a father and takes that responsibility seriously would say that there is something wrong with being present at the birth of your child. Any child, not just your first, but your first might be even more important.
The second statement made was that Murphy should have gotten his wife to have a C-section before opening day. This was in conjunction with the idea that certainly he could have made it back before the second game since there was a day off in between. First of all, clearly these men are ignorant about C-sections. They are more invasive, more risky, and require a longer period of recovery. In my opinion, they should only be performed when necessary and never simply for convenience sake. At any rate, insisting on a C-section just so he can make it to work on opening day would have been the irresponsible choice. Boomer Esiason said he would have done something like that. That makes him an idiot and irresponsible, not Murphy. Boomer also isn't looking at it with an apples to apples comparison. Even if I were to accept the idea that he shouldn't be at the birth of his child because he has work responsibilities, which I don't, then Boomer was a football player who played 16 games. Murphy is a baseball player who plays 162. The importance factor of the individual games played is dramatically different. In fact, most baseball players average something around 150 games a year. Very few these days, relatively speaking, actually play all 162 games.
The third complaint was that he should be able to hire someone to help out since he's so rich. Well, maybe he is rich and can afford it, but when did being rich mean you stopped being human, or stopped being a father? It doesn't. This argument is so ludicrous it almost isn't worth addressing. However, they clearly believed it when they said it, so I'll address it. The responsibilities of a father do not end when you hire a nanny, a maid, a cook, or any service to assist you with domestic duties. One of the more important aspects of fatherhood is being there. Three days to be there for the birth of your child is reasonable even for a rich man. Would these guys be asking Warren Buffett not to take time to be present at the birth of his children? I think not.
Fourth, the believed his behavior was letting his team down. Well, I have two points on this. One, the primary team in a man's life is the one that exists at home, not any team that exists on a ball field, in an office, etc. Two, if his team felt he was letting them down by attending the birth of his child, then they should be ashamed of themselves. I've already shown above the relative importance of any game in baseball, but an additional consideration is that no one person on a baseball team in indispensable or irreplaceable. Sure, you may lose some defensive or offensive production based on an individual player, but over a 162 game season, you expect to lose almost every player on the team for at least 2-5 games due to various reasons, including nothing more nefarious than the coach deciding someone needs a day off.
Finally, these guys need to get a life. They are New York radio show hosts who have a New York audience and they are talking about a New York team and player. There's a reason the rest of the baseball world doesn't care for the New York teams and perhaps the lack of simple honor and class on display by these three radio hosts is one of the reasons. In essence, they are saying that every baseball game is so important that no player should miss one for any reason. In the end, they aren't really complaining about him going to be there for the birth of his child. They are complaining that they lost the first two games and using this guy as a scapegoat to explain why. It really is that simple. When did sportscasters become as bad as shock media to pick on someone's personal life and drag their family into the equation simply because they're upset they lost a couple of games. Here's a hint. The Mets are awful and will remain awful whether Murphy is out there or not. Focus on that rather than picking on a man for making the correct and responsible decision to be with his wife for the birth of their child and sticking around to be with her for several days after. I don't know when she was released from the hospital with the child, but I believe he should have stayed with her until she was, regardless of what these idiots might think. We have enough trouble with men being responsible and taking on the role of father as it is, we don't need stupidity from the media continuing to foster an irresponsible image of manhood and fatherhood.
Should he have not taken time off? To suggest this is inexcusable to me. Men have a responsibility to their families that takes precedence over everything else. A man should be there for his wife, children, etc. whenever possible. To make special efforts for the big moments is particularly important, especially if you are a man who must travel a lot for his job, as Major League baseball players are. Society today pushes images of manliness that are not accurate and allow people the misconception that somehow men shouldn't take paternity leave. This fallacy leads to this kind of criticism. In addition, MLB and the player's union have negotiated that players can have three days for paternity leave. If it is in the contract, then the Mets and MLB certainly aren't going to complain. It is shocking to me that any man who is also a father and takes that responsibility seriously would say that there is something wrong with being present at the birth of your child. Any child, not just your first, but your first might be even more important.
The second statement made was that Murphy should have gotten his wife to have a C-section before opening day. This was in conjunction with the idea that certainly he could have made it back before the second game since there was a day off in between. First of all, clearly these men are ignorant about C-sections. They are more invasive, more risky, and require a longer period of recovery. In my opinion, they should only be performed when necessary and never simply for convenience sake. At any rate, insisting on a C-section just so he can make it to work on opening day would have been the irresponsible choice. Boomer Esiason said he would have done something like that. That makes him an idiot and irresponsible, not Murphy. Boomer also isn't looking at it with an apples to apples comparison. Even if I were to accept the idea that he shouldn't be at the birth of his child because he has work responsibilities, which I don't, then Boomer was a football player who played 16 games. Murphy is a baseball player who plays 162. The importance factor of the individual games played is dramatically different. In fact, most baseball players average something around 150 games a year. Very few these days, relatively speaking, actually play all 162 games.
The third complaint was that he should be able to hire someone to help out since he's so rich. Well, maybe he is rich and can afford it, but when did being rich mean you stopped being human, or stopped being a father? It doesn't. This argument is so ludicrous it almost isn't worth addressing. However, they clearly believed it when they said it, so I'll address it. The responsibilities of a father do not end when you hire a nanny, a maid, a cook, or any service to assist you with domestic duties. One of the more important aspects of fatherhood is being there. Three days to be there for the birth of your child is reasonable even for a rich man. Would these guys be asking Warren Buffett not to take time to be present at the birth of his children? I think not.
Fourth, the believed his behavior was letting his team down. Well, I have two points on this. One, the primary team in a man's life is the one that exists at home, not any team that exists on a ball field, in an office, etc. Two, if his team felt he was letting them down by attending the birth of his child, then they should be ashamed of themselves. I've already shown above the relative importance of any game in baseball, but an additional consideration is that no one person on a baseball team in indispensable or irreplaceable. Sure, you may lose some defensive or offensive production based on an individual player, but over a 162 game season, you expect to lose almost every player on the team for at least 2-5 games due to various reasons, including nothing more nefarious than the coach deciding someone needs a day off.
Finally, these guys need to get a life. They are New York radio show hosts who have a New York audience and they are talking about a New York team and player. There's a reason the rest of the baseball world doesn't care for the New York teams and perhaps the lack of simple honor and class on display by these three radio hosts is one of the reasons. In essence, they are saying that every baseball game is so important that no player should miss one for any reason. In the end, they aren't really complaining about him going to be there for the birth of his child. They are complaining that they lost the first two games and using this guy as a scapegoat to explain why. It really is that simple. When did sportscasters become as bad as shock media to pick on someone's personal life and drag their family into the equation simply because they're upset they lost a couple of games. Here's a hint. The Mets are awful and will remain awful whether Murphy is out there or not. Focus on that rather than picking on a man for making the correct and responsible decision to be with his wife for the birth of their child and sticking around to be with her for several days after. I don't know when she was released from the hospital with the child, but I believe he should have stayed with her until she was, regardless of what these idiots might think. We have enough trouble with men being responsible and taking on the role of father as it is, we don't need stupidity from the media continuing to foster an irresponsible image of manhood and fatherhood.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Thinking about Christians and sin
I have been thinking about something for a while now. It seems to me that a LOT of Christians have missed the point of something. I see how Christians respond to sinners (and by sinners I really mean everyone) and a lot of the time they do so with the best of intentions. In fact, I typically see four types of responses to sinners. There are the two extremes and then there are the sort of middle of the road responses. Are any of these the way God wants us to respond? So often, people justify their positions with certain stories or verses. How do they play a role in helping to determine how Christians should respond to sinners?
So, the four ways I've commonly seen demonstrated are listed below from one extreme to the other. I will examine each of them to consider whether they are appropriate responses.
1. The love at any cost response: I call this the love at any cost response because it always errs on the side of love, at least that is what it claims to do. Let's take a closer look. These are the people you tend to say we must love the sinner no matter what. They are afraid of upsetting or offending people and frankly they don't believe they should. They believe that to offend someone might might drive them away from God. They make excuses for sin to the point of accepting it as a fine and correct choice in people's lives. They often point to stories like the woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery to justify accepting sin into their midst. They know that only Jesus changes hearts and minds and so they choose to let Him do all the work, refusing to say that sin is wrong in order to avoid offense, but believing God will help people see the truth anyway. In extreme cases, they make so many excuses for sin that they no longer believe sinful things to be sinful. This is a destructive attitude, in my opinion, which I'll explain below.
2. The love and truth response: I call this the love and truth response because this method is similar to the love at any cost response except that it adds in a factor of truth telling. These people also believe that only Jesus changes hearts and they also believe that Christians need to come alongside sinners and love them. However, they don't make excuses for sin, but rather speak the truth in love. What this really means is that Christians who go out into the community or witness to non-believers never really talk about sin other than to express how their life of sin has been changed by Christ. However, when asked or pushed to respond, they do believe in absolutes and do not excuse sin, but rather will clearly state what they believe God has declared sin and why. They know that we must love all people just as God loves them. This includes welcoming them into the church just as Jesus welcomed sinners. However, they believe it must also include a willingness to speak the truth. In other words, you will hear the Bible preached from the pulpits without apology or excuses but it is never done in the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" way.
3. The fear response: This response is probably the most common, in my opinion. These are the people who really believe in the adage of love the sinner and hate the sin. However, they are often confused and fearful of accepting sinners because they are afraid themselves. It is easy to fear what you don't understand, but it is also easy to fear that which tempts you. An addict may choose to cut family and friends who are users and addicts out of their lives because it is a source of temptation to them and they are afraid that the influence of those could cause them to stumble in their recovery. This is where many of these people fall. They are sinners themselves and they recognize that, but they fear sin as a source of temptation and so they fail to properly love other sinners and often drive sinners away without intending to do so. They may be right when it comes to the truth, but they have a hard time with the love, at least when it comes to their church. They are comfortable and don't want to upset the cart, so to speak. They may choose to love by going out into the community and serving, but they fail to welcome those they serve into their congregation.
4. The hate response: This should speak for itself, but it is born out of misunderstanding and misinterpreting the scriptures. They clearly have confused the concept of love the sinner and hate the sin to an abhorrent degree. This is so true that the love the sinner part drops off entirely and you basically end up intermingling the hate the sin with the sinner themselves. Therefore, since God said there are things He hates, if your sin is of that variety, you are condemned and unloved. This viewpoint is destructive and damaging to sinners, Christians, and Christianity.
How do we reconcile which of these is right or if any of these are right? I mention these four because they are what I've observed in my over 4 decades of churchgoing. I think they are an accurate representation of what is out there, but I concede there may be other examples not listed. At any rate, I believe one of the best ways to understand how God wants Christians to respond to sinners is to look at how Christ responded to them. This also requires me to think like a parent. Why is that? Well, the relationship that humans have with God is often described as one that is similar to the relationship that children have with their parents. It is an appropriate way to look at things and is extremely useful for understanding how Christians should interact with the world. Parents should be particularly adept at gaining this understanding.
At any rate, 1 and 4 (to me) are the extremes. These are models that just shouldn't be followed or accepted, in my opinion.
No. 1 is the first extreme and they shout love your neighbor, but completely ignore biblical truth, even to the point of saying that people can just do whatever they want. Well, people can do whatever they want. Christians can't. By choosing Christ, we choose to be like Christ and He said to love your neighbor as yourself. However, this group tells stories like the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery and leave off the end. "Go and sin no more", Christ said. He did not condemn them, but he also spoke the truth to them. He is saying that He loves them no matter what, but that they also should strive to change their lives.
Now, looking at this from the parent/child relationship, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Parents love their children. Proper parental love requires discipline and rules. Without discipline and rules, children do not learn how to be good adults and good members of society. Without discipline and rules, you raise entitled spoiled brats. That is what the church is when no. 1 is followed. A parent who doesn't discipline their child and doesn't maintain clear boundaries through rules is not doing their child any favors, but instead is ultimately harming their child's ability to interact in the world around them. Is the church doing anyone any favors by saying: "come in, we're glad you're here, but you don't have to follow any of those rules because we want to make you feel welcome"? I don't believe it is. I believe this is a very dangerous way of responding to sinners. It teaches them that they can do whatever they want, that God does not hold them responsible and it increases the sin they commit. Why would it do that you ask? Well, God, through Paul, specifically states that if you lead your brother into sin, then you too are guilty of it. By never telling the truth, never stating that there are in fact absolutes and rules to be followed, we tell sinners, not that God loves them despite their sin, but rather that sin is okay. It isn't and that attitude will inevitably lead Christians who hold it to lead their brothers and sisters into sin, thus making them equally guilty and increasing their sin.
No. 4 is at the other end of the spectrum and, to me, is the worst and most extreme. These are people like the Westboro Baptist Church folks and they, fortunately, are the exception. I think they don't know what love is at all and so I question whether they have love in their hearts. However, that isn't for me to decide because God knows their hearts and He is the judge. This group often spouts 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 out of context and bang the rest of us over the heads with it. It goes like this: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I get it, these are all clearly stated sins. We are all also guilty of at least one of them, if not more. So how can any of us get to God under the legalistic interpretations of these folks? The answer is that we can't. Fortunately, Christ died on the cross for our sins. What this group constantly leaves out is the end of this verse. It is verge 11: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." This is the most important part of this passage and shows sinners that God loved them so much that he sent Christ through whom we are justified. Without Christ there is no salvation. Without Christ, these people would be correct. Fortunately, we have Christ.
From the parent/child relationship standpoint, this is the abusive parent, who raises their child to hate their parents and the world around them.
Next is no. 3, the fear response. These people want to do the right thing, but they are stuck in the rules. They are not so legalistic that they've turned to hate, but they are stuck in legalism and tradition to the point where things that don't fit their expectations are outside what they want to be exposed to. They are fearful of that which is different and afraid that they might be tainted by those differences. I don't think they are malicious, although they come off that way sometimes. I think they epitomize the adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions in many ways. They reach out to their communities, they give to charities, but these are all things they can do without ever getting their hands dirty. When it comes to welcoming "those people" into their church, they fail miserably. They have rules for appropriate attire, etc. that are very off putting and aren't really biblical. Christ didn't tell the lepers he healed to go change into more appropriate robes before he'd heal them. That isn't how he responded to sinners. The fear response is driven by fear. I think these people are largely afraid of the temptations they fear they may surround themselves with if they got their hands dirty or went into the trenches. They are comfortable where they are and with who they are and fear prevents them from moving beyond that comfort zone. They are the disciples who stayed in the boat, afraid of the storm while Peter jumped out to walk on water. Sure, fear overcame Peter as well, but he was the only one who made the effort, the others just cowed in the comfort of the boat while the storm raged around them.
In terms of the parent/child relationship, this is not as bad as the hateful parent but it can still be destructive. These parents are the overprotective type who never allow their children to experience the world around them as it truly is. They are so afraid that something might happen, that they forget that children need to learn and need to learn to take care of themselves. These children grow up, not knowing how to take care of themselves and end up dependent on others, perhaps even in destructive relationships because they lack the ability to distinguish clear boundaries.
Finally, we come to No. 2. To me, this is the most balanced approach to sinners. We are to take care of the orphans and widows, feed the hungry, care for the sick, etc. etc. These people do this as much as the other groups do. However, they don't sugar coat things like the first group and they step out in faith like Peter rather than cowering in the boat like the others. There is no comparison between these folks and no. 4. This is the group that often finds itself caught in the middle. They believe there must be some standards and they preach that in their churches, but they also believe that God accepts people where they are, that he loves them for who they are. This is the most difficult way to react because it requires both loving people and speaking what you believe to be true. This balancing act most exemplifies Christ, in my opinion. It attempts to show the woman caught in adultery the same love Christ did while also expressing the wrongness of adultery. It is tough to do and is even tougher to do consistently. Often times, these people strive to follow this response, but end up in no. 1 or no. 3 simply because the balancing act required is so hard.
In terms of the parent/child relationship, this represents parents who understand that their children need discipline and rules, but also know that children need to learn through making mistakes. They aren't helicopter parents who hover over like no. 3, but they don't make so few rules that the children have no structure and guidance like no. 1. This kind of parenting is also a balancing act and is very hard to maintain consistency. If a child breaks something after being told that breaking it might be a result if they continue to act that way, then it is very hard to allow the breaking of the object to teach the lesson and not say I told you so.
In the end, Christ changes hearts. The church needs to respond to sinners by coming alongside them and loving them. Providing for them, taking care of them, loving them, sheltering them, etc. However, the church also needs to respond by never sugarcoating the truth of the Bible. Paul states that we have freedom in Christ and so we do. He also states that we need to choose to refrain from behaviors that might cause our brothers and sisters in Christ or even non-believers to stumble. Therefore, we must follow the set of rules spelled out for us because we do not know what consequences our actions might have on those around us. The rules aren't for non-Christians, but they are there for us to know how God intends His followers to live. This is the conundrum. We have to balance what we know to be true with the love we are called to show through Christ with the sacrifice that Christ made for us all. I believe responding to sinners in a manner consistent with no. 2 is the best way to achieve this. Any ideas on another alternative?
So, the four ways I've commonly seen demonstrated are listed below from one extreme to the other. I will examine each of them to consider whether they are appropriate responses.
1. The love at any cost response: I call this the love at any cost response because it always errs on the side of love, at least that is what it claims to do. Let's take a closer look. These are the people you tend to say we must love the sinner no matter what. They are afraid of upsetting or offending people and frankly they don't believe they should. They believe that to offend someone might might drive them away from God. They make excuses for sin to the point of accepting it as a fine and correct choice in people's lives. They often point to stories like the woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery to justify accepting sin into their midst. They know that only Jesus changes hearts and minds and so they choose to let Him do all the work, refusing to say that sin is wrong in order to avoid offense, but believing God will help people see the truth anyway. In extreme cases, they make so many excuses for sin that they no longer believe sinful things to be sinful. This is a destructive attitude, in my opinion, which I'll explain below.
2. The love and truth response: I call this the love and truth response because this method is similar to the love at any cost response except that it adds in a factor of truth telling. These people also believe that only Jesus changes hearts and they also believe that Christians need to come alongside sinners and love them. However, they don't make excuses for sin, but rather speak the truth in love. What this really means is that Christians who go out into the community or witness to non-believers never really talk about sin other than to express how their life of sin has been changed by Christ. However, when asked or pushed to respond, they do believe in absolutes and do not excuse sin, but rather will clearly state what they believe God has declared sin and why. They know that we must love all people just as God loves them. This includes welcoming them into the church just as Jesus welcomed sinners. However, they believe it must also include a willingness to speak the truth. In other words, you will hear the Bible preached from the pulpits without apology or excuses but it is never done in the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" way.
3. The fear response: This response is probably the most common, in my opinion. These are the people who really believe in the adage of love the sinner and hate the sin. However, they are often confused and fearful of accepting sinners because they are afraid themselves. It is easy to fear what you don't understand, but it is also easy to fear that which tempts you. An addict may choose to cut family and friends who are users and addicts out of their lives because it is a source of temptation to them and they are afraid that the influence of those could cause them to stumble in their recovery. This is where many of these people fall. They are sinners themselves and they recognize that, but they fear sin as a source of temptation and so they fail to properly love other sinners and often drive sinners away without intending to do so. They may be right when it comes to the truth, but they have a hard time with the love, at least when it comes to their church. They are comfortable and don't want to upset the cart, so to speak. They may choose to love by going out into the community and serving, but they fail to welcome those they serve into their congregation.
4. The hate response: This should speak for itself, but it is born out of misunderstanding and misinterpreting the scriptures. They clearly have confused the concept of love the sinner and hate the sin to an abhorrent degree. This is so true that the love the sinner part drops off entirely and you basically end up intermingling the hate the sin with the sinner themselves. Therefore, since God said there are things He hates, if your sin is of that variety, you are condemned and unloved. This viewpoint is destructive and damaging to sinners, Christians, and Christianity.
How do we reconcile which of these is right or if any of these are right? I mention these four because they are what I've observed in my over 4 decades of churchgoing. I think they are an accurate representation of what is out there, but I concede there may be other examples not listed. At any rate, I believe one of the best ways to understand how God wants Christians to respond to sinners is to look at how Christ responded to them. This also requires me to think like a parent. Why is that? Well, the relationship that humans have with God is often described as one that is similar to the relationship that children have with their parents. It is an appropriate way to look at things and is extremely useful for understanding how Christians should interact with the world. Parents should be particularly adept at gaining this understanding.
At any rate, 1 and 4 (to me) are the extremes. These are models that just shouldn't be followed or accepted, in my opinion.
No. 1 is the first extreme and they shout love your neighbor, but completely ignore biblical truth, even to the point of saying that people can just do whatever they want. Well, people can do whatever they want. Christians can't. By choosing Christ, we choose to be like Christ and He said to love your neighbor as yourself. However, this group tells stories like the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery and leave off the end. "Go and sin no more", Christ said. He did not condemn them, but he also spoke the truth to them. He is saying that He loves them no matter what, but that they also should strive to change their lives.
Now, looking at this from the parent/child relationship, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Parents love their children. Proper parental love requires discipline and rules. Without discipline and rules, children do not learn how to be good adults and good members of society. Without discipline and rules, you raise entitled spoiled brats. That is what the church is when no. 1 is followed. A parent who doesn't discipline their child and doesn't maintain clear boundaries through rules is not doing their child any favors, but instead is ultimately harming their child's ability to interact in the world around them. Is the church doing anyone any favors by saying: "come in, we're glad you're here, but you don't have to follow any of those rules because we want to make you feel welcome"? I don't believe it is. I believe this is a very dangerous way of responding to sinners. It teaches them that they can do whatever they want, that God does not hold them responsible and it increases the sin they commit. Why would it do that you ask? Well, God, through Paul, specifically states that if you lead your brother into sin, then you too are guilty of it. By never telling the truth, never stating that there are in fact absolutes and rules to be followed, we tell sinners, not that God loves them despite their sin, but rather that sin is okay. It isn't and that attitude will inevitably lead Christians who hold it to lead their brothers and sisters into sin, thus making them equally guilty and increasing their sin.
No. 4 is at the other end of the spectrum and, to me, is the worst and most extreme. These are people like the Westboro Baptist Church folks and they, fortunately, are the exception. I think they don't know what love is at all and so I question whether they have love in their hearts. However, that isn't for me to decide because God knows their hearts and He is the judge. This group often spouts 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 out of context and bang the rest of us over the heads with it. It goes like this: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I get it, these are all clearly stated sins. We are all also guilty of at least one of them, if not more. So how can any of us get to God under the legalistic interpretations of these folks? The answer is that we can't. Fortunately, Christ died on the cross for our sins. What this group constantly leaves out is the end of this verse. It is verge 11: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." This is the most important part of this passage and shows sinners that God loved them so much that he sent Christ through whom we are justified. Without Christ there is no salvation. Without Christ, these people would be correct. Fortunately, we have Christ.
From the parent/child relationship standpoint, this is the abusive parent, who raises their child to hate their parents and the world around them.
Next is no. 3, the fear response. These people want to do the right thing, but they are stuck in the rules. They are not so legalistic that they've turned to hate, but they are stuck in legalism and tradition to the point where things that don't fit their expectations are outside what they want to be exposed to. They are fearful of that which is different and afraid that they might be tainted by those differences. I don't think they are malicious, although they come off that way sometimes. I think they epitomize the adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions in many ways. They reach out to their communities, they give to charities, but these are all things they can do without ever getting their hands dirty. When it comes to welcoming "those people" into their church, they fail miserably. They have rules for appropriate attire, etc. that are very off putting and aren't really biblical. Christ didn't tell the lepers he healed to go change into more appropriate robes before he'd heal them. That isn't how he responded to sinners. The fear response is driven by fear. I think these people are largely afraid of the temptations they fear they may surround themselves with if they got their hands dirty or went into the trenches. They are comfortable where they are and with who they are and fear prevents them from moving beyond that comfort zone. They are the disciples who stayed in the boat, afraid of the storm while Peter jumped out to walk on water. Sure, fear overcame Peter as well, but he was the only one who made the effort, the others just cowed in the comfort of the boat while the storm raged around them.
In terms of the parent/child relationship, this is not as bad as the hateful parent but it can still be destructive. These parents are the overprotective type who never allow their children to experience the world around them as it truly is. They are so afraid that something might happen, that they forget that children need to learn and need to learn to take care of themselves. These children grow up, not knowing how to take care of themselves and end up dependent on others, perhaps even in destructive relationships because they lack the ability to distinguish clear boundaries.
Finally, we come to No. 2. To me, this is the most balanced approach to sinners. We are to take care of the orphans and widows, feed the hungry, care for the sick, etc. etc. These people do this as much as the other groups do. However, they don't sugar coat things like the first group and they step out in faith like Peter rather than cowering in the boat like the others. There is no comparison between these folks and no. 4. This is the group that often finds itself caught in the middle. They believe there must be some standards and they preach that in their churches, but they also believe that God accepts people where they are, that he loves them for who they are. This is the most difficult way to react because it requires both loving people and speaking what you believe to be true. This balancing act most exemplifies Christ, in my opinion. It attempts to show the woman caught in adultery the same love Christ did while also expressing the wrongness of adultery. It is tough to do and is even tougher to do consistently. Often times, these people strive to follow this response, but end up in no. 1 or no. 3 simply because the balancing act required is so hard.
In terms of the parent/child relationship, this represents parents who understand that their children need discipline and rules, but also know that children need to learn through making mistakes. They aren't helicopter parents who hover over like no. 3, but they don't make so few rules that the children have no structure and guidance like no. 1. This kind of parenting is also a balancing act and is very hard to maintain consistency. If a child breaks something after being told that breaking it might be a result if they continue to act that way, then it is very hard to allow the breaking of the object to teach the lesson and not say I told you so.
In the end, Christ changes hearts. The church needs to respond to sinners by coming alongside them and loving them. Providing for them, taking care of them, loving them, sheltering them, etc. However, the church also needs to respond by never sugarcoating the truth of the Bible. Paul states that we have freedom in Christ and so we do. He also states that we need to choose to refrain from behaviors that might cause our brothers and sisters in Christ or even non-believers to stumble. Therefore, we must follow the set of rules spelled out for us because we do not know what consequences our actions might have on those around us. The rules aren't for non-Christians, but they are there for us to know how God intends His followers to live. This is the conundrum. We have to balance what we know to be true with the love we are called to show through Christ with the sacrifice that Christ made for us all. I believe responding to sinners in a manner consistent with no. 2 is the best way to achieve this. Any ideas on another alternative?
Is Hobby Lobby attacking women?
One would think, based on the media coverage and the signs of protestors and the statements of "those in the know" that Hobby Lobby was some kind of awful company hell bent on destroying the rights of women. I was just wondering if that were true, so I actually bothered to look into it. What would it take for Hobby Lobby to be attacking the rights of women? Would it take them not providing birth control to their female employees? How about not providing health insurance? What about telling their employees how to live their lives. Okay, well, if they did all three of these things, then I'd agree they are violating the rights of their female employees. So...
Are they denying their employees health insurance? Nope
Are they denying their employees birth control through that insurance? Nope...they just aren't providing abortifacient forms...but ALL other forms are provided.
Are they telling their female employees how to live their lives? Outside of work, they have no right to do this and clearly are not doing this.
So what are they doing? Well, they are a privately owned company founded with a basis in the Christian faith who do not believe in providing funding for certain forms of birth control because the owners believe those forms cause abortions and therefore end life. This is actually not an uncommon belief in society, and it is the whole reason for this case.
I won't get into the merits of whether a corporation has religious freedom per se. However, the administration has chosen to arbitrarily hand out exemptions to this rule as political favors, but can't see fit to do so for religious liberty reasons? That seems odd. Over religious liberty, they'll take it to court. All right. What else? Right, this is not a publicly traded company that sells stock, etc. It is a privately held corporation. That means that there is one owner, not a bunch of stock holders. One might not find this to be a huge difference, but I do. Corporate personhood is an arguable legal concept, but there is a huge difference to me between a corporation that sells stock and is publicly traded and is therefore clearly not
operating under anything other than secular rules and a company that is privately owned and those owners believe the company they own and run should be operating under certain guiding principles. In other words, one is clearly a property right for the private owners and the other is not. Therefore, I'd lean in the direction of erring on the side of the property rights of the owners of a privately held company who are claiming a religious freedom exemption.
So, to be clear...Hobby Lobby has provided many forms of birth control through their insurance policy for a long time. Obamacare is forcing it to provide abortifacient forms of birth control for the first time. Abortifacients aren't birth control (preventing fertilization) but rather end the pregnancy (abortion). Hobby Lobby has not provided this one type of birth control option in the past because it is against the moral standard of the private owners (this is not a publicly owned company). Hobby Lobby in no way says their employees can't have an abortion or use an abortifacient, they just won't pay for it. The government wants to force them to provide this option which potentially would mean that they would have to participate in an activity that they consider, based on religious grounds, to be morally repugnant.
Okay, so, according to the left, because they only provide non abortifacient forms of birth control, this makes Hobby Lobby an abhorrent company hell bent on attacking women? This is the same kind of logic that lets the left pat themselves on the back for forcing hundreds of thousands of people who were happy with their insurance into being forced to purchase insurance they didn't want and that was more expensive. Regardless of your feelings about abortion or whether owners of private companies have religious freedom rights, the protestors and left wing policy spinners aren't defending women or women's rights. Sounds to me like this isn't about women at all! Rather, it is about some people's irrational belief that all forms of birth control and abortion should be freely available.
Are they denying their employees health insurance? Nope
Are they denying their employees birth control through that insurance? Nope...they just aren't providing abortifacient forms...but ALL other forms are provided.
Are they telling their female employees how to live their lives? Outside of work, they have no right to do this and clearly are not doing this.
So what are they doing? Well, they are a privately owned company founded with a basis in the Christian faith who do not believe in providing funding for certain forms of birth control because the owners believe those forms cause abortions and therefore end life. This is actually not an uncommon belief in society, and it is the whole reason for this case.
I won't get into the merits of whether a corporation has religious freedom per se. However, the administration has chosen to arbitrarily hand out exemptions to this rule as political favors, but can't see fit to do so for religious liberty reasons? That seems odd. Over religious liberty, they'll take it to court. All right. What else? Right, this is not a publicly traded company that sells stock, etc. It is a privately held corporation. That means that there is one owner, not a bunch of stock holders. One might not find this to be a huge difference, but I do. Corporate personhood is an arguable legal concept, but there is a huge difference to me between a corporation that sells stock and is publicly traded and is therefore clearly not
operating under anything other than secular rules and a company that is privately owned and those owners believe the company they own and run should be operating under certain guiding principles. In other words, one is clearly a property right for the private owners and the other is not. Therefore, I'd lean in the direction of erring on the side of the property rights of the owners of a privately held company who are claiming a religious freedom exemption.
So, to be clear...Hobby Lobby has provided many forms of birth control through their insurance policy for a long time. Obamacare is forcing it to provide abortifacient forms of birth control for the first time. Abortifacients aren't birth control (preventing fertilization) but rather end the pregnancy (abortion). Hobby Lobby has not provided this one type of birth control option in the past because it is against the moral standard of the private owners (this is not a publicly owned company). Hobby Lobby in no way says their employees can't have an abortion or use an abortifacient, they just won't pay for it. The government wants to force them to provide this option which potentially would mean that they would have to participate in an activity that they consider, based on religious grounds, to be morally repugnant.
Okay, so, according to the left, because they only provide non abortifacient forms of birth control, this makes Hobby Lobby an abhorrent company hell bent on attacking women? This is the same kind of logic that lets the left pat themselves on the back for forcing hundreds of thousands of people who were happy with their insurance into being forced to purchase insurance they didn't want and that was more expensive. Regardless of your feelings about abortion or whether owners of private companies have religious freedom rights, the protestors and left wing policy spinners aren't defending women or women's rights. Sounds to me like this isn't about women at all! Rather, it is about some people's irrational belief that all forms of birth control and abortion should be freely available.
How to think about legislation...
This
is how I try to think about every piece of legislation, and one of the
reasons I can't stand either party or politicians in general.
Think about that legislation you are so proud of your candidate for championing and getting made into law. Now, think about that legislation in the hands of the other party.
Scared yet?
Think about that legislation you are so proud of your candidate for championing and getting made into law. Now, think about that legislation in the hands of the other party.
Scared yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)