My son will turn 8 this weekend. He's a good kid; a generation or two ago he would have been called 'well-adjusted'. He's popular with his friends, behaves appropriately but at times is prone to bouts of silliness, gives it a try in sports, is excited about church, and does well in school.
Lately, though, he's had fits of crying and sadness, often minutes after going to bed but also at other times of the day. Most kids in that situation have just awoken from bad dreams, or they remember a bad incident that happened at school. But not Jacob. Jacob is sad because he is growing older. He recalls the joy of being a childhood and doesn't want to leave that behind. For him, childhood has meant bike rides with dad, playing with friends, snuggling with mom, trips to the ocean and Disneyland, and a church family that loves him. And that, he says, is what he doesn't want to give up.
I suppose I've never been like that, or at least that I can recall. I've always responded to the 'next stage' of life as as a given. You get older and that means you start to drive, you go off to college, you start working, you get married, you have kids. I turned 45 a few months ago and don't think obsessively about it. I get nervous about the future at times, but have never lost my mind over such things. I've never worried that I am getting old. What I thought might seem old many years ago simply IS. A few more aches and pains and pounds, a few more responsibilities, a little bit more wisdom (I hope). But I've never spent much time dwelling on getting older any more than trying to look back and be thankful for past and hopeful for the present.
My son, though, is a different animal. He's always been much more deliberate about the world in front of him. He 'sees' in a way that is different. And no, I'm not going down this road of 'MY CHILD IS A GENIUS' because I know that's not the case, because at times common sense and he do not appear to be friends, and because his idea of a good joke still seems to be sitting on my lap and farting and then laughing uproariously.
And so I wonder how to deal with this. I'm not sure it's enough for us to say that it's great to get older, that he has so much to look forward to. For him memories are much more real tangible than the future. I can talk all I want about how he'll have more great things happen or how age isn't just a number, but maybe I need to just be quiet and let him weep a little bit for his childhood. 8 seems early for that, but maybe it's good for him to already be learning some introspection.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Paris, November 2015
A quick note to my fellow Christians:
Since when did fear and loathing become a part of the Christian message? For many this is now the default position of all public words. The things we used to keep to ourselves we can now broadcast instantly on Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr. Maybe it's better to have kept those things to ourselves...but then again, putting them out in open demands a response.
The easy response, of course, is to blast them all to hell. It's what our base instinct tells us to do. They attack us or our friends and we want blood. We demand justice, and we certainly have the power to do something about it. The bad guys are already being bombed and hunted down around the world. Heck, as one friend said, in 1945 we nuked the Japs and we haven't had problems with them since...so why not do the same?
But remember: we do not respond as they do. Why do we find it so easy to explain away Jesus' words about turning the other cheek? Peter told his readers that we are to always regard Christ the Lord as holy, that it is a better thing to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. God spoke through the prophet Isaiah during a time of invasion and said, 'Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.' When did we start letting the fear-mongers and the Lamech disciples tell us what it is that we need to be doing?
I don't have all the answers. Governments will do what they do, for they are earthly kingdoms that fight earthly battles. But for Christians we can never let the terrorists make us live in perpetual terror and to fight their battles for them. God has made us better than that when he transformed us and given us his Spirit and made us citizens of his Kingdom. Remember this as you speak and post.
Since when did fear and loathing become a part of the Christian message? For many this is now the default position of all public words. The things we used to keep to ourselves we can now broadcast instantly on Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr. Maybe it's better to have kept those things to ourselves...but then again, putting them out in open demands a response.
The easy response, of course, is to blast them all to hell. It's what our base instinct tells us to do. They attack us or our friends and we want blood. We demand justice, and we certainly have the power to do something about it. The bad guys are already being bombed and hunted down around the world. Heck, as one friend said, in 1945 we nuked the Japs and we haven't had problems with them since...so why not do the same?
But remember: we do not respond as they do. Why do we find it so easy to explain away Jesus' words about turning the other cheek? Peter told his readers that we are to always regard Christ the Lord as holy, that it is a better thing to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. God spoke through the prophet Isaiah during a time of invasion and said, 'Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.' When did we start letting the fear-mongers and the Lamech disciples tell us what it is that we need to be doing?
I don't have all the answers. Governments will do what they do, for they are earthly kingdoms that fight earthly battles. But for Christians we can never let the terrorists make us live in perpetual terror and to fight their battles for them. God has made us better than that when he transformed us and given us his Spirit and made us citizens of his Kingdom. Remember this as you speak and post.
Monday, November 2, 2015
The Miracle of the Bloop Single
I come from a religious tradition that has generally eschewed miracles. While we can't put an exact Scripture on it (never a good start), we have had this mindset that, ok, God gave 'extra' power to the apostles, who could give it to somebody else, who then couldn't give it to anybody else, and so miracle power died out in the first century. I know, it's a rather lame piece of reasoning, but many of the frauds and charlatans of our world have driven us to a point that we think that God won't (can't?) do miracles today.
Even as this was how I was raised, I was never fully comfortable with this line of thinking. Why do we pray? And even if God chooses not to act in a certain way, does that really mean that this is always and forever the case? And why do we even bother preaching from the gospels when Jesus (or elsewhere when somebody else) does something miraculous, if those stories have absolutely nothing to say to us today? Miracles may not happen as we imagine that they will, but surely God can do whatever he chooses, right?
I say all these very serious things to lead up to something that, in the grand scheme of things, really isn't that important. Last night, the Kansas City Royals won the World Series. The Royals had endured almost a quarter century of mismanagement, bad luck, lack of money, and simply bad ballplayers to come back and win it all. Since they had won 30 years ago I had come to believe that likely they would never do this again in my lifetime. I wanted to believe, but so many years of watching some really bad baseball teams had sapped most of my belief. Decent prospects like Angel Berroa and Carlos Febles turning to stone overnight. Better-than-average players like Johnny Damon and Zack Grienke fleeing to greener pastures. And lots and lots of Jimmy Gobble, Mark Redman, and Runelvys Hernandez blowing leads and causing us to hide between our fingers.
Even as the team got better in recent years I never fully could buy into it, never truly believe that this was actually happening. Surely, I thought, they'd find a way to blow apart. This season in September they were something like 12 games ahead in the division and I kept thinking, yeah, we might find a way to totally collapse and miss the playoffs. A near-lifetime of horrors had convinced me that something bad was going to happen. The team played poorly throughout most of September, though luckily the rest of the division was horrible. We made the playoffs, then almost gagged it away against the Astros.
It's here that I need to stop and say that miracles (of a sort) made this team win a championship. They won 11 games in the postseason, 8 of them in comebacks. Several of those comebacks came against really good pitchers and involved really bad errors by the other team. You can say all you want about how 'they kept pressing and pressing' or how 'they would never, ever give in', but seriously, watch these games. A ball sneaks under the glove of the NLCS hero. A lazy fly ball falls between Goins and Bautista. Multiple huge-run innings late in games in which not a single ball was hit hard. How else can you explain this but to think that the natural order of things has somehow been fiddled with?
The skeptic in me is already thinking about how this won't last. People still died and were suffering in the 'age of miracles', and I'm guessing it will be sooner rather than later that the Royals will stink again. Players will leave, new players won't be as good, and the natural order of things will make it where balls don't slide under gloves or fall between three fielders.
I get it. But for one month miracles were real again.
Even as this was how I was raised, I was never fully comfortable with this line of thinking. Why do we pray? And even if God chooses not to act in a certain way, does that really mean that this is always and forever the case? And why do we even bother preaching from the gospels when Jesus (or elsewhere when somebody else) does something miraculous, if those stories have absolutely nothing to say to us today? Miracles may not happen as we imagine that they will, but surely God can do whatever he chooses, right?
I say all these very serious things to lead up to something that, in the grand scheme of things, really isn't that important. Last night, the Kansas City Royals won the World Series. The Royals had endured almost a quarter century of mismanagement, bad luck, lack of money, and simply bad ballplayers to come back and win it all. Since they had won 30 years ago I had come to believe that likely they would never do this again in my lifetime. I wanted to believe, but so many years of watching some really bad baseball teams had sapped most of my belief. Decent prospects like Angel Berroa and Carlos Febles turning to stone overnight. Better-than-average players like Johnny Damon and Zack Grienke fleeing to greener pastures. And lots and lots of Jimmy Gobble, Mark Redman, and Runelvys Hernandez blowing leads and causing us to hide between our fingers.
Even as the team got better in recent years I never fully could buy into it, never truly believe that this was actually happening. Surely, I thought, they'd find a way to blow apart. This season in September they were something like 12 games ahead in the division and I kept thinking, yeah, we might find a way to totally collapse and miss the playoffs. A near-lifetime of horrors had convinced me that something bad was going to happen. The team played poorly throughout most of September, though luckily the rest of the division was horrible. We made the playoffs, then almost gagged it away against the Astros.
It's here that I need to stop and say that miracles (of a sort) made this team win a championship. They won 11 games in the postseason, 8 of them in comebacks. Several of those comebacks came against really good pitchers and involved really bad errors by the other team. You can say all you want about how 'they kept pressing and pressing' or how 'they would never, ever give in', but seriously, watch these games. A ball sneaks under the glove of the NLCS hero. A lazy fly ball falls between Goins and Bautista. Multiple huge-run innings late in games in which not a single ball was hit hard. How else can you explain this but to think that the natural order of things has somehow been fiddled with?
The skeptic in me is already thinking about how this won't last. People still died and were suffering in the 'age of miracles', and I'm guessing it will be sooner rather than later that the Royals will stink again. Players will leave, new players won't be as good, and the natural order of things will make it where balls don't slide under gloves or fall between three fielders.
I get it. But for one month miracles were real again.
Friday, September 11, 2015
ALL Lives Matter
While I was walking my son to school this morning we passed by a garbage truck making his morning rounds. Jacob wanted to stop and watch as the truck picked up the trash bin and dumped it into the truck. He thought it was way cool, like all little boys think, and like many he expressed a thought that maybe it would be fun to drive a trash truck.
Most parents probably do not want their kids to grow up to be trash haulers, fast food fry cooks, or custodians. We hope that our children will rise to something more 'substantial' (code: better paying), and it would be easy to try and dismiss those hopes by running down what some people do.
But I thought that this gave me an opportunity for a different kind of conversation on the rest of our walk. Yes, trash trucks are cool, but they also are a bit smelly, and there are other things I hope you will do someday. He seemed to accept that, but I decided to press on a bit further. I told him that I hoped he would do other things, but I also told him that picking up the trash is an important job. Who really wants to have trash sitting out in the streets for a long period of time? I also told him that people who work in restaurants are important, and if I had more time before I turned loose of him, I would have told him that we should also honor people who cut grass, clean school buildings, and make up hotel rooms.
Because all lives matter. All jobs are important. While as parents we hope for our children to do some things and not others, we must make sure they learn to respect people who do jobs that we ourselves do not want to do.
Recently I have seen a trend to 'elevate' some kind of jobs. Facebook posts reminding us that 'Police Lives Matter' (in response to some officer shootings). Yes, they do...but so do the people who a few bad police threaten, intimidate, injure, or kill because of an over-glorified view of their position. Then there are other posts griping about how fast food workers demand $15/hour while soldiers live in virtual poverty. Rather than take time to think that both have difficult and often undesirable jobs, we put the two 'classes' in conflict with one another instead of looking up at those who make millions pushing papers.
Maybe we need to recognize and affirm that all kinds of people matter, all kinds of job matter. Paul talked about the nature of the church in 1 Corinthians 12, how different kinds of giftedness does not give us an excuse to despise or cast off some we think are less important. It's the same way in society. We certainly don't pay him as much, but my garbageman matters just as much as the school superintendent. We might not want him making important decisions, but the guy who cleans my kids' school matters as much as the city manager. Because all lives matter.
Most parents probably do not want their kids to grow up to be trash haulers, fast food fry cooks, or custodians. We hope that our children will rise to something more 'substantial' (code: better paying), and it would be easy to try and dismiss those hopes by running down what some people do.
But I thought that this gave me an opportunity for a different kind of conversation on the rest of our walk. Yes, trash trucks are cool, but they also are a bit smelly, and there are other things I hope you will do someday. He seemed to accept that, but I decided to press on a bit further. I told him that I hoped he would do other things, but I also told him that picking up the trash is an important job. Who really wants to have trash sitting out in the streets for a long period of time? I also told him that people who work in restaurants are important, and if I had more time before I turned loose of him, I would have told him that we should also honor people who cut grass, clean school buildings, and make up hotel rooms.
Because all lives matter. All jobs are important. While as parents we hope for our children to do some things and not others, we must make sure they learn to respect people who do jobs that we ourselves do not want to do.
Recently I have seen a trend to 'elevate' some kind of jobs. Facebook posts reminding us that 'Police Lives Matter' (in response to some officer shootings). Yes, they do...but so do the people who a few bad police threaten, intimidate, injure, or kill because of an over-glorified view of their position. Then there are other posts griping about how fast food workers demand $15/hour while soldiers live in virtual poverty. Rather than take time to think that both have difficult and often undesirable jobs, we put the two 'classes' in conflict with one another instead of looking up at those who make millions pushing papers.
Maybe we need to recognize and affirm that all kinds of people matter, all kinds of job matter. Paul talked about the nature of the church in 1 Corinthians 12, how different kinds of giftedness does not give us an excuse to despise or cast off some we think are less important. It's the same way in society. We certainly don't pay him as much, but my garbageman matters just as much as the school superintendent. We might not want him making important decisions, but the guy who cleans my kids' school matters as much as the city manager. Because all lives matter.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
The Kentucky County Clerk
The gay marriage fight continues on. I've posted on this before, and really don't have much else to say, but I am interested in the ongoing drama going on in Kentucky. An elected clerk in the courthouse has decided that she cannot issue marriage licenses to gays because of her faith, and even as the courts have ruled against her, she continues to resist. Now she says that she will not issues licenses to anybody.
The question of conscience has now become the new battleground in the fight over homosexual rights. Should those who sincerely feel that homosexuality is sin (I am one of them) have to do things that go against their conscience? Should bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? Must Christian adoption agencies have to place children with gay couples? It's a hard question: on the one hand, it does seem 'hateful' to deny somebody a service that would be offered to other couples. But on the other hand, are we 'blessing' a sin by helping somebody carry out that sin, no matter how small?
As a preacher I would feel compelled to say no to any gay couple that asks me to do their wedding. I cannot think that it is right to take part something that I feel to be sin. Maybe it will come to a point that I cannot do any weddings so as to be 'non-discriminatory', but I do know that people will always be able to be legally married, whether in a church or in a courthouse. Life and marriage will go on without me.
But as I have said before, because the legalities of marriage are dependent upon the state (e.g. inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospitals, custody rights for children), I do believe that gay people should have a legal right to be married and have that marriage recognized by the state. To deny them the same rights as straight couples seems to be an unlawful form of discrimination. I may not like or approve of what it is that they are doing, but as one who still has a libertarian bias, it is not in my power to say whether or not they can be married. I know of many straight couples that I think should not have been married (for various reasons)...but that's not in my power to contest from a legal point of view.
And so when it comes to the Kentucky clerk who will not issue licenses, here's my belief: she should either resign or be removed from her position. She does not have to like the law, but if she is an officer of the state, she has to carry out its policies or resign. If her conscience cannot allow her to do what the law requires, then she should step aside and let somebody else should do the job. Imagine a police officer who is Rastafarian: his religion tells him that drug enforcement of cannabis users is wrong. Should we keep him in his job? Or imagine a soldier who decides that he cannot kill for any reason based upon his understanding of Scripture. Should he continue to be a soldier?
Perhaps the laws were different when she was elected; too bad. Laws change, and even if as Christians we do not like the change, it is our duty to accept it in society, and officers of the law are compelled to carry out that law. If they cannot carry it out, then resign your post. When it comes to a law we do not have to like it, promote it, or affirm it. In our democratic form of government we might even work to change it. But accept it as law of the land we must.
Here's the thing about this story that most amazes me, though. The woman who will not allow gays to marry has been divorced and remarried three times. From a very literal understanding of what I read about divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, then she should not have been allowed a marriage license, either, for her current marriage! But the law of the state seems to be that somebody can be divorced and remarried as many times as possible; what of a clerk who held that she could not issue licenses to anybody with a previous marriage on their record? We would not tolerate that, would we?
The question of conscience has now become the new battleground in the fight over homosexual rights. Should those who sincerely feel that homosexuality is sin (I am one of them) have to do things that go against their conscience? Should bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? Must Christian adoption agencies have to place children with gay couples? It's a hard question: on the one hand, it does seem 'hateful' to deny somebody a service that would be offered to other couples. But on the other hand, are we 'blessing' a sin by helping somebody carry out that sin, no matter how small?
As a preacher I would feel compelled to say no to any gay couple that asks me to do their wedding. I cannot think that it is right to take part something that I feel to be sin. Maybe it will come to a point that I cannot do any weddings so as to be 'non-discriminatory', but I do know that people will always be able to be legally married, whether in a church or in a courthouse. Life and marriage will go on without me.
But as I have said before, because the legalities of marriage are dependent upon the state (e.g. inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospitals, custody rights for children), I do believe that gay people should have a legal right to be married and have that marriage recognized by the state. To deny them the same rights as straight couples seems to be an unlawful form of discrimination. I may not like or approve of what it is that they are doing, but as one who still has a libertarian bias, it is not in my power to say whether or not they can be married. I know of many straight couples that I think should not have been married (for various reasons)...but that's not in my power to contest from a legal point of view.
And so when it comes to the Kentucky clerk who will not issue licenses, here's my belief: she should either resign or be removed from her position. She does not have to like the law, but if she is an officer of the state, she has to carry out its policies or resign. If her conscience cannot allow her to do what the law requires, then she should step aside and let somebody else should do the job. Imagine a police officer who is Rastafarian: his religion tells him that drug enforcement of cannabis users is wrong. Should we keep him in his job? Or imagine a soldier who decides that he cannot kill for any reason based upon his understanding of Scripture. Should he continue to be a soldier?
Perhaps the laws were different when she was elected; too bad. Laws change, and even if as Christians we do not like the change, it is our duty to accept it in society, and officers of the law are compelled to carry out that law. If they cannot carry it out, then resign your post. When it comes to a law we do not have to like it, promote it, or affirm it. In our democratic form of government we might even work to change it. But accept it as law of the land we must.
Here's the thing about this story that most amazes me, though. The woman who will not allow gays to marry has been divorced and remarried three times. From a very literal understanding of what I read about divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, then she should not have been allowed a marriage license, either, for her current marriage! But the law of the state seems to be that somebody can be divorced and remarried as many times as possible; what of a clerk who held that she could not issue licenses to anybody with a previous marriage on their record? We would not tolerate that, would we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)