Electioneering

Before I begin this discussion, I'd like to say a few things, I believe abortion is the termination of an unborn child's life, but that belief does not exist in a vacuum. The Gospel is a pillar of my identity, and it states pretty plainly that sin is a part of a fallen world, that grace abounds to overcome it, and that as Christians we are to be the imperfect example of Christ's grace to the world. You may have to refer back to this statement while reading along.

The question I've answered for myself (as I've already voted) and which I've continuously considered throughout this entire campaign, is as follows...

What changed between the last time I voted and now, and is my decision to vote for a Democratic candidate a denial of my faith, a sidestepping of it, or a response to newly felt convictions?

In the last election I voted for George W. Bush, I did so mainly because of the moral issue of abortion. I believed that because the Democratic party supported a woman's right to choose over protecting the life of an unborn child I could not vote for a Democratic candidate. I cast my vote for Bush in an action I look back on as being done with almost total disinterest. I think when we make choices, though they may line up with a stock morality, lacking a passion and regeneration of the heart, we're slowly killing our faith.

I didn't want to re-elect Bush, but I didn't know anything about John Kerry, and when you don't know anything about someone, you'll believe anything someone you agree with says about them.
I don't know if I should have voted for Kerry or not, I'd have been in a better position to complain about Bush in the ensuing years.

Fast forward four years, and I'm hearing about this upstart young candidate Barack Obama. His rhetoric about the economy, the last eight years, the war, and a need for personal responsibility in the American individual and the American family all resonated strongly with me.

Was I sucked in by his charisma and slick speech making? Not really, I didn't hear him speak until the Democratic National Convention, everything I learned about him I read online.

As I became more and more interested in him, and the idea of voting for him (early on I was hoping for Rudy Gulianni to win the Republican nomination) I ran into the same issue that pushed me towards Bush in 2004.

Abortion is a sensitive issue, one that, while I line up with the pro-lifers, the way this belief has been brought out of the monastery and into the marketplace has always saddened me.

Christians in America, especially ones who vocalize to the media, seem more like the Pharisees of the early church days than the disciples of Jesus.

Some things I read early on that Obama had said: That He could not support the banning of abortion for religious reasons, as it would conflict with the separation of church and state, that abortion is a moral issue and a choice that no one wants to make, that the family needs to be the primary influence on any decision surrounding abortion instead of the courts.

I believe that you cannot legislate morality and change the hearts of men and women. I believe the instrument of change to impact abortion is the reclamation of the family. That starts with a call to responsibility and accountability, a call that Obama was making.

Book of...FACE!

Yeah, I got one, go add me as your friend, unless, you know, you don't want to. But please, keep that to yourself, I've got a delicate enough ego as it is.

Anyway, I'm working on a piece right now, which is so lengthy it deserves to be called a piece, instead of a post.

Have a post of the piece, it's delicious...

"...It started out with a conversation with my mom about how she could not vote Democrat because of the abortion issue, which got me thinking, how could I?"

That's how the piece, which will be posted posthaste in order to promote peace and prosperity in this land of political parity and parody, gets the ball rolling.

Or should I have said pie rolling? If only to keep the plethora of p-words in play?

I'm sorry, you're getting annoyed while I amuse myself, like some old lady blathering on and on about a kitten and a ball of string, or what some bird did when it visited her feeder.

Anyway, I'm working on it, such a thing can either be balanced and thought provoking, like an Oliver Stone movie, or hastily thrown together and irrelevantly preachy, like an Oliver Stone movie.

It may roll out in segments, or I may just projectile vomit the whole mess at once.

Doing theology Vs. Knowing Theology...

Seeing as how I spent the last 21 years on the knowing theology team, and just recently changed over to the doing theology team, or rather, have been traded between the two teams but am not quite sure how I feel about it yet...

The predominant theme/idea/message at our church is do the theology that you know. And I love that, particularly since I see very clearly how when you don't try to do anything you learn, you just spend more time learning. Very much the pitfall I see a lot of Christians falling into.

Jesus gave a few very simple commands, which despite their simplicity (love your neighbor, honor your father and mother, don't lust or hate in your heart, mind, or body, etc.) have been almost impossible for the majority of Christianity to follow. And by majority I mean the majority of Christianity I have experienced or observed in close proxy.

I'm not attacking the pursuit of knowledge of scripture, the study of fringe theology like eschotology, predestination, or any other church word longer than five letters. All those things can produce vibrant communion with our God, but they do very little for communion with the Body.

D.A. Carson warned in his introduction to the book Exegetical Fallacies that any study that focuses on the negative can be dangerous. It can lead to high minded feelings of superiority, a negative attitude, an overall deadening of the transformative faith.

I would go one step further to say that any study solely for the purpose of knowledge, without application, is very dangerous. Not can be, could be, or is if it's some other denomination with bad theology. It just is.

Knowledge puffs up, inflating the mind (the most impotent of organs when not bent on moving the body) and squashing the heart, you lose empathy, mercy, grace towards those you are supposed to be reaching out to (the lost) and eventually you become so nitpicky that you are even isolated from your brothers and sisters in the faith.

What is the study of theology good for?

A deepening of understanding, but if you just keep deepening your understanding without it affecting your life you're only digging yourself a theological bomb shelter.

And like my man Matt Chandler said, "You are the salt of the earth, so get in the cupboard."

We don't need bulletproof theology, we need humble, broken bleeding theology. A test of whether or not your study is beneficial would be just that. Do you feel better capable of shooting down bad thought processes, or do you feel pulled to the weak, the hungry, the abandoned, the abused and lost?

So I guess, if you're like me, wanting to climb out of your bomb shelter and interact with humanity, you're probably asking something like "Help me know how to stop being obsessed with just knowing and get out and do it."

You're just going to have to start listening to those nudges the Spirit gives you, that guy you should have encouraged? Say something. The shady looking guy wanting you to put some gas in his car so he can get across town to help his sick daughter? Give him some gas despite the fact that he's probably just a bum.

You won't ease your guilt of not helping out people by trying to learn more about God.

Instead, listen to what God tells you to help people, obey Him.

In Response to Bryan...

I was commenting on a friend's blog about bonhoeffer's idea of cheap vs. costly grace, his original post can be read here, but I put so much effort into my reply, I decided to just post it.

Cheap grace sounds like an interesting concept, except that even the grace described as cheap is costing something, credibility, accountability, relevance...we've been paying for cheap grace for a long time, and in the end, I think we'll find it to be more costly than the other kind.

I think the point of Atonement is simple, the injustice of man cannot be atoned for by an unjust man (I know, a staggeringly original idea, quote me if you want).Is becoming a nurse going to turn things around? No, will years, or even decades, of selfless servitude affect the lives she destroyed? Hardly, and she may not know it yet, but she will realize it at some point, when all the weight of her guilt will return, unlightened by time or service.We can fight with all we have, giving everything, and we still won't be able to turn back the tidal wave of destruction caused by even one small lie, or seemingly insignificant selfish act.

It's like Joker said, "When the chips are down, these people will eat each other."

What he should have said afterwards is,

"Batman, the chips are down, and you won't be able to pull that guy's arm from the grip of that girl's jaws even if you tugged for your entire life"

We aren't just beyond saving, we're consuming each other as we speak. Atonement paints the same picture.

Sorry, I just go done reading World War Z, which is too awesome to even attempt to describe,
Go read it yesterday!

Christendom is Dead...

I'm sure most of you already knew this, since you're reading a blog, and therefore know how to use a computer.

It held on a long time, more than a thousands years, but I think I can say without a doubt, that it is dead.

The vibrant communities of faith that exist in asia and africa do so without any political clout or authority or cultural popularity.

But more relevant to where we are now.

Christianity in America needs to stop acting as if it has some sort of fortress of moral superiority to protect. The castle doesn't exist anymore, the fact that what it was made out to be never existed either is beside the point.



Statistics show no difference in lifestyle between a Christian and the average secular individual. Whatever checks and balances on pop culture that used to exist are either ignored or gone (consider last night's episode of Grey's Anatomy).

I would like to drag this out longer, but I need to get home and get some sleep. I'll close with the punchline,

However long it took for it to die, I'm glad it finally did.

Viscious!!!

I think it (Viscious!!!) could be the new righteous (as in stoner exclamation of praise, not Godlikeness).

I have to clear up the whole viscious moralism thing.

I got sidetracked from my original thesis, which wasn't that the coen bros. have this philosophy called viscious moralism, which is tough to defend I'll concede (though not impossible).

But since that wasn't my original thesis, I'll state it here...

"The Coen's are really viscious moralists."

I think their work is about ethics, and that they promote moralism and do it visciously. No Country fits in with everything that happens to Josh Brolin after the seemingly innocent decision to take the dead drug dealer's money.

Star Wars Mania in the works! (All six episodes back 2 back 2 back 2 back 2 back 2 back)

Brought to you by the Dell Store in Northpark...

And Sun Chips, a healthy alternative to potato chips.

I was asked by a friend from church to comment on my Coen brother's philosophy, particularly in relation to Burn After Reading.

The thesis of the Coen Brother's philosophy is this:

Joel and Ethan Coen are Viscious Moralists...

Viscious Moralism has to be explained (apparently I unwittingly invented it).

I would consider moralism to be the exaltation of doing the right thing, whatever that may be, where the moral action becomes no longer an act of worship, but the deity.

There is no higher reality or aim to moralism. You do what's right, because it's right.

Now, Burn After Reading enforces this (consider everything they've done since Raising Arizona as well).

You have a cast of unlikeable mostly amoral characters whose lives are depressingly moronic and mundane.

And they're all politicans and CIA/FBI spooks.

With the exception of the employees at the gym.

Frank, the manager, is the only remotely likeable character in the entire movie, he's also something of an advice giver/father-figure/almost boyfriend to Frances McDormand's character.

He violates his straight laced, moral nature and what happens?

He ends up being shot and brutally hatcheted to death in one of the Coen's most striking scenes since the woodchipper.

Juxtaposed with how Frances McDormand makes out (she gets what she wants, though her existence is definitely the most depressing of the entire cast) you get Viscious Moralism...

An aimless servile dedication to rightness nets far worse results than narcissistic amoral lunacy.

I've got to wrap this up, the Dell Store guys look like they think I'm using them for their internet...

Talk later...


P.S. Buy one of these XPS laptops, they're awesome!