Another trip to the mailbox and I come up with a flyer for a local gospel meeting (the church of Christ term for 'revival') at a church three towns over. I usually put these up, though I don't expect anybody to go. This one, though, I decided not to put up.
I was baptized at a fall gospel meeting 35 years ago. I don't remember the details of the sermon, but I knew after hearing it that I needed to be baptized, that I needed to be saved or I was going to hell. While the gospel, I have thankfully learned over the years, is much more than hellfire and brimstone, it's important to hold out the truth that we preach Christ and him crucified and how he is the only way to salvation. To preach the gospel should impact the church now, but also expand the gospel to those who do not know it.
And so I got this flyer about a gospel meeting, and the theme, in large ALL CAPS, was 'The God of Order'. Go down to see what is being preached each service: 'The Origin of Civil Government'; 'The Christian and Civil Government'; 'Is God Blessing America'; 'The Christian and the World'; and finally 'Freedom is a Privilege, Not a Right'.
I looked this flyer for a stated gospel meeting and I asked, 'where is the gospel in this'? Now, I did not go and hear these sermons, but I am guessing (based on who is speaking and the church holding the meeting) that it is heavily tied to a politically right wing message of law and order. In these days of Black Lives Matter vs. Blue Lives Matter, this message stands only with the latter, not the former. America, in this viewpoint, is the great savior...one could even say that the United States of people's imagination is the One True Hope in this world. Our job is to submit to the Order of this world, salute the flag, put our time in at the nebulous civil religion of American Christianity, and be thankful that we are blessed even as we curse those who point out the unChristian things that even good Christian folk are guilty of.
This is not the gospel. Call it a seminar on Christianity, but don't call it a 'Gospel meeting.' If Jesus is not front and center of all things, don't go and calling something else who has taken his rightful place the gospel. Blasphemy is just around the corner when we do this.
I earnestly hope that I am wrong, and that somebody will come to Jesus through this meeting. But I am afraid that they are drifting further and further away from the gospel and embracing the ideology of America First. The flag is once again trumping the cross...and we are all lesser for it.
Monday, September 26, 2016
A Poor Pool of Potential Presidents
Do you feel qualified to be President? Sure...you may be over 35 and born a citizen. Constitutionally, you are qualified.
But going by more than just a legal definition, I am becoming increasingly convinced that there are not a lot of human beings that are capable of handling this job. How many? In a nation of 300 million, maybe 300.
Think about what it means to be President...you have to have an intimate knowledge of all workings of government, not just the stuff that ends up on the news every night. You have to have a temperament that allows you to multi-task, work hard, not get frustrated, not quit, and again multi-task to the point that you can juggle a hundred balls in the air at once, because, you are the Decider. You have to be relatively free of scandal, both real and perceived. And you have to have the intelligence that only a few people have, tempered by the wisdom of age and experience.
For all the cries that people have that 'I don't want a politician!' to be president, don't we want somebody who knows what is going on? Somebody who has paid their dues? Somebody whose life has not been a celebration of self-interest but public service? I know...it's easy to say we don't want somebody who knows what the job will really involve. But would you want a CEO who has no knowledge of their industry and thus only sees the bottom line, not customers or products or employees? Would you want a major league baseball manager who doesn't know the techniques of bat control or the ins and outs of handling a multi-national clubhouse? Would you want a preacher who just recently started to study Scripture?
Being qualified matters...and likely there are very few who are truly qualified. The biggest mark against Obama was his lack of experience, and while he has done well given his inexperience (remember, he had been a state senator less than 10 seasons before becoming president!), one wonders whether or not he might have been a great president with a little more seasoning. I am thinking that being a Governor, Senator, or Cabinet secretary should be the minimum requirement; more than one of those is likely needed to get both the executive experience and the overall knowledge needed. So how many are left who have done this...300? This doesn't even begin to phase out those who were dunderheads or bad at their job; these usually get sorted out quick enough in the primaries.
And so this leads us to our election...we have two people who have a chance to win. I am voting for neither, instead deciding to vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who was once a governor. I wish he could win, but he can't get above about 12% so he has little or no shot. The other two candidates are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. One has vast experience, as a first lady (don't tell me that doesn't help somebody know what to expect), Senator, and Cabinet secretary. Is she scandal-prone? Absolutely. Do I like her? No. But compared to the alternative, who has no experience, no willingness to learn, and nothing to indicate anything beyond a concern with himself, and I'll take Hillary any day of the week, even when I don't always agree with her policies.
A Hillary presidency will be...not fun. But a Trump presidency? Get the fire extinguishers ready, because the mother of all dumpster fires is coming.
But going by more than just a legal definition, I am becoming increasingly convinced that there are not a lot of human beings that are capable of handling this job. How many? In a nation of 300 million, maybe 300.
Think about what it means to be President...you have to have an intimate knowledge of all workings of government, not just the stuff that ends up on the news every night. You have to have a temperament that allows you to multi-task, work hard, not get frustrated, not quit, and again multi-task to the point that you can juggle a hundred balls in the air at once, because, you are the Decider. You have to be relatively free of scandal, both real and perceived. And you have to have the intelligence that only a few people have, tempered by the wisdom of age and experience.
For all the cries that people have that 'I don't want a politician!' to be president, don't we want somebody who knows what is going on? Somebody who has paid their dues? Somebody whose life has not been a celebration of self-interest but public service? I know...it's easy to say we don't want somebody who knows what the job will really involve. But would you want a CEO who has no knowledge of their industry and thus only sees the bottom line, not customers or products or employees? Would you want a major league baseball manager who doesn't know the techniques of bat control or the ins and outs of handling a multi-national clubhouse? Would you want a preacher who just recently started to study Scripture?
Being qualified matters...and likely there are very few who are truly qualified. The biggest mark against Obama was his lack of experience, and while he has done well given his inexperience (remember, he had been a state senator less than 10 seasons before becoming president!), one wonders whether or not he might have been a great president with a little more seasoning. I am thinking that being a Governor, Senator, or Cabinet secretary should be the minimum requirement; more than one of those is likely needed to get both the executive experience and the overall knowledge needed. So how many are left who have done this...300? This doesn't even begin to phase out those who were dunderheads or bad at their job; these usually get sorted out quick enough in the primaries.
And so this leads us to our election...we have two people who have a chance to win. I am voting for neither, instead deciding to vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who was once a governor. I wish he could win, but he can't get above about 12% so he has little or no shot. The other two candidates are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. One has vast experience, as a first lady (don't tell me that doesn't help somebody know what to expect), Senator, and Cabinet secretary. Is she scandal-prone? Absolutely. Do I like her? No. But compared to the alternative, who has no experience, no willingness to learn, and nothing to indicate anything beyond a concern with himself, and I'll take Hillary any day of the week, even when I don't always agree with her policies.
A Hillary presidency will be...not fun. But a Trump presidency? Get the fire extinguishers ready, because the mother of all dumpster fires is coming.
Monday, September 12, 2016
The Anthem
I will always stand for the national anthem. It's one way I feel I can honor my nation and be thankful for where I live. For me, it's just something that I do.
Yet others may feel differently. Currently we are in a season in which certain athletes are sitting, kneeling, or raising a fist during the playing of the national anthem before their game. Some do it for reasons we may not know about, while others may be explicit in their reasoning. Most who have spoken up have mentioned the 'there is a lot of injustice in America' argument. In doing so they have been applauded by some, but simply been told to shut up and stand by most.
While some of the backing seems trite and simply designed to placate liberal feelings, it's this second attitude that bothers me the most. In telling Colin Kaepernick or Megan Rapinoe that they should not speak, they are committing one of the most unAmerican of sins...telling somebody that they should have no voice. While I and others might wonder whether their action really would make a difference, those who have acted believe that this is the right place to do it, and to simply shout them down or ignore their complaints only adds fuel to their complaints. What are we as a people if we assume that the status quo is the only thing worth standing for?
America is built upon the freedom to protest, even protest against the flag or the national anthem. We are a nation built upon change, upon looking at ourselves honestly and recognizing where we have failed and working towards making it better. In protesting some feel that America is not living up to what it ought to be. And in shouting them down, protesters are being proven correct in their frustrations.
It is ironic that a nation that seems to going down the road towards voting for a presidential candidate that 'says what needs to be said' (gag) at the same time won't allow other forms of uncomfortable truths to be spoken. You can say that they may not be saying it at the right time or in the right way, but we have no right to say that such things cannot or should not be said.
Yet others may feel differently. Currently we are in a season in which certain athletes are sitting, kneeling, or raising a fist during the playing of the national anthem before their game. Some do it for reasons we may not know about, while others may be explicit in their reasoning. Most who have spoken up have mentioned the 'there is a lot of injustice in America' argument. In doing so they have been applauded by some, but simply been told to shut up and stand by most.
While some of the backing seems trite and simply designed to placate liberal feelings, it's this second attitude that bothers me the most. In telling Colin Kaepernick or Megan Rapinoe that they should not speak, they are committing one of the most unAmerican of sins...telling somebody that they should have no voice. While I and others might wonder whether their action really would make a difference, those who have acted believe that this is the right place to do it, and to simply shout them down or ignore their complaints only adds fuel to their complaints. What are we as a people if we assume that the status quo is the only thing worth standing for?
America is built upon the freedom to protest, even protest against the flag or the national anthem. We are a nation built upon change, upon looking at ourselves honestly and recognizing where we have failed and working towards making it better. In protesting some feel that America is not living up to what it ought to be. And in shouting them down, protesters are being proven correct in their frustrations.
It is ironic that a nation that seems to going down the road towards voting for a presidential candidate that 'says what needs to be said' (gag) at the same time won't allow other forms of uncomfortable truths to be spoken. You can say that they may not be saying it at the right time or in the right way, but we have no right to say that such things cannot or should not be said.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Why I Am Tempted To Vote For Trump
I think Donald Trump may be the worst main party presidential candidate in American history. He would make Silvio Berlusconi (former Italian PM) look like a genius by comparison. He's a crude, uneducated, unprepared man who shouldn't be anywhere near political power.
Yet in the back of my mind I am tempted to vote for him. Why? It would be easy to say that Gary Johnson can't win and that Hillary Clinton is not a better option (she is, but not by much). I'm not sure that Donald Trump has the ability to destroy the freight train that is 'Merica, and part of me wonders how long he would stay in the job, that he might do it for a year, get bored or tired of the hatred he has to deal with, and just quit and leave us with Magical Mike Pence.
But let's say Hillary Clinton wins the election. The scandals (real or imagined) keep simmering, but more important is what actually happens in a Clinton administration. Let's say there's another big terrorist attack, or the economy bubble inevitably pops, or some other event that happens that crushes whatever approval rating she has. Trumpites come out and proclaim, 'This wouldn't happen on Trump's watch! We should have let him make America great again!' We draw closer to an election and Trumpism, in the form of Donald Trump or Sarah Palin or some other numbskull, rises above and claims, 'see, I told you so! Vote for us this time to get it right!' And Trumpism is legitimized, claims real power not just in the presidency but in the legislatures and governors and Congress. It's at this point that we'd be really screwed.
Because right now let's say Trump wins. He's already unpopular with a sizable majority of the electorate, and it's unlikely that he's going to bring a lot of Congress along with him, even if they are Republicans. Because, I believe, there are still principled real conservatives who, even though Trump is a Republican, won't support him with legislation. If he wins Trumpism and its emperor with no clothes (I would hope) will be seen for the fraud that it is, even if it really never really takes hold with actual governmental legislation. Giving it a little bit of power now might be enough to show America how worthless and empty is and drive a stake through it before it gets started.
But give it the opportunity to stay outside of power, to let it grow in a land of increasingly entitled idiots who are fueled by hate and rage and evil, and then it might really cause problems down the road. For the long-term health of America, shouldn't we let the cancer take over now for a short time so that we can become immune to it, rather let it simmer and build and come back as a bigger monster later?
I really, really hate these options.
Yet in the back of my mind I am tempted to vote for him. Why? It would be easy to say that Gary Johnson can't win and that Hillary Clinton is not a better option (she is, but not by much). I'm not sure that Donald Trump has the ability to destroy the freight train that is 'Merica, and part of me wonders how long he would stay in the job, that he might do it for a year, get bored or tired of the hatred he has to deal with, and just quit and leave us with Magical Mike Pence.
But let's say Hillary Clinton wins the election. The scandals (real or imagined) keep simmering, but more important is what actually happens in a Clinton administration. Let's say there's another big terrorist attack, or the economy bubble inevitably pops, or some other event that happens that crushes whatever approval rating she has. Trumpites come out and proclaim, 'This wouldn't happen on Trump's watch! We should have let him make America great again!' We draw closer to an election and Trumpism, in the form of Donald Trump or Sarah Palin or some other numbskull, rises above and claims, 'see, I told you so! Vote for us this time to get it right!' And Trumpism is legitimized, claims real power not just in the presidency but in the legislatures and governors and Congress. It's at this point that we'd be really screwed.
Because right now let's say Trump wins. He's already unpopular with a sizable majority of the electorate, and it's unlikely that he's going to bring a lot of Congress along with him, even if they are Republicans. Because, I believe, there are still principled real conservatives who, even though Trump is a Republican, won't support him with legislation. If he wins Trumpism and its emperor with no clothes (I would hope) will be seen for the fraud that it is, even if it really never really takes hold with actual governmental legislation. Giving it a little bit of power now might be enough to show America how worthless and empty is and drive a stake through it before it gets started.
But give it the opportunity to stay outside of power, to let it grow in a land of increasingly entitled idiots who are fueled by hate and rage and evil, and then it might really cause problems down the road. For the long-term health of America, shouldn't we let the cancer take over now for a short time so that we can become immune to it, rather let it simmer and build and come back as a bigger monster later?
I really, really hate these options.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Manufactured Outrage
Working alone in a one-man office, I sometimes whether or not the world is imploding outside, and I'm just watching it through my pane-glad windows. Yes, usually I meet and visit with people several times a day, but there are whole blocks of two or three hours in which I am alone with my thoughts, with prayer, with Scripture. I surf around the internet when I take breaks or listen to some music, but I will go hours at a time having no contact with any other humans.
Recently Colin Kapernick, a not-very-good quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, decided to stage a protest, refusing to stand during the national anthem. Why he did so may or may not be irrelevant...something about the injustice of our world, which seems ironic in that his protest comes from a man in the top .00001% of wage earners in our country for playing a game.
Naturally, of course, the internet has blown up. Most of the people I have seen commenting on this are outraged...how can you not stand? How unpatriotic! How unAmerican! Of course, I have wondered why we are so intent on playing this song before sporting events even as we do not do so before movies or other forms of live entertainment. In truth I feel that playing it as often as we do cheapens its meaning...indeed, I often have been at games in which people stand up reluctantly, hardly paying attention to it, wondering how to hold their drink in one hand and put their hand over their heart with their other for a minute and fifteen seconds even as they keep an eye on four restless kids. We do our patriotic salute and we move on. We hear it so often that it loses its meaning.
Yet I never cease to be amazed at how easy it is to manufacture outrage over something like this. The same people who get so worked up over how this world is becoming so politically correct ("Why are people so mad that I said ______? They [usually a minority or liberal group] need to get over it!") are now acting as if Kapernick has spit on the flag and set it ablaze as he screams Muslim praises.
I could spout the usual liberal response, that freedom means that we listen to what somebody is saying even as we don't like it...but in the end I'm just so tired of it all. Maybe I need to close my blinds a little bit more, stop surfing the internet on my breaks, and just shut out the world. I can't handle any more outrage today, thank you.
Recently Colin Kapernick, a not-very-good quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, decided to stage a protest, refusing to stand during the national anthem. Why he did so may or may not be irrelevant...something about the injustice of our world, which seems ironic in that his protest comes from a man in the top .00001% of wage earners in our country for playing a game.
Naturally, of course, the internet has blown up. Most of the people I have seen commenting on this are outraged...how can you not stand? How unpatriotic! How unAmerican! Of course, I have wondered why we are so intent on playing this song before sporting events even as we do not do so before movies or other forms of live entertainment. In truth I feel that playing it as often as we do cheapens its meaning...indeed, I often have been at games in which people stand up reluctantly, hardly paying attention to it, wondering how to hold their drink in one hand and put their hand over their heart with their other for a minute and fifteen seconds even as they keep an eye on four restless kids. We do our patriotic salute and we move on. We hear it so often that it loses its meaning.
Yet I never cease to be amazed at how easy it is to manufacture outrage over something like this. The same people who get so worked up over how this world is becoming so politically correct ("Why are people so mad that I said ______? They [usually a minority or liberal group] need to get over it!") are now acting as if Kapernick has spit on the flag and set it ablaze as he screams Muslim praises.
I could spout the usual liberal response, that freedom means that we listen to what somebody is saying even as we don't like it...but in the end I'm just so tired of it all. Maybe I need to close my blinds a little bit more, stop surfing the internet on my breaks, and just shut out the world. I can't handle any more outrage today, thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)