I am sitting in a hotel room in the town of my college alma mater, 26 1/2 years after graduating, for a few days of a ministry seminar. I have been back a handful of times over the years, but walking around campus today I found almost nothing familiar. The favorite places to hang out with my friends, the intramural sports fields, are now parking lots. Most of my old professors have died or retired. Current students look at me as something of a relic, like their dad has come for a weekend visit. Almost every building has been remodeled, and from a completely neutral perspective the campus is far, far better than it was when I was a student. I have found few people that I know this week, and the town feels as forgettable as my wholly forgettable chain hotel room.
Tonight while figuring out what to do my last night here I noticed that Grosse Pointe Blank was on TV. It's a movie about a 10 year homecoming that came out about 10 years after my high school graduation. In it a contract killer returns home for the first time in what seems like forever, finds his true love, and kills a bunch of other psychopaths along the way. He's actually more nervous about meeting the ghosts of his past than he is about killing people.
It brings to mind another movie about a 10-year homecoming that came out about 10 years after my high school days, Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion. There two outsiders return back to their high school were they were regularly ostracized while the people who were popular flamed out over the next few years.
These movies spoke to me now just as they did then, though I have never returned back for high school reunions, nor ever felt the need to. I went to my wife's, that was enough. While I never had the alienation or ostracization that others had in high school (and in the movies feel the need to correct), high school never felt like anything more than a place where I had a few friends and learned a lot of things. I wonder if something is wrong with me...is my social anxiety something that is not only about what happens in the current time, but also something that continues over time?
I think about so many people whose entire sense of worth comes because of an event or a place from their past...the glory days of high school, college, the military, a perfect road trip with friends...and they live the rest of their days never happy for never having really moved past that time in their lives. I feel so strange when I see people like that, as I don't think I've really hit my peak. I've had perfect days, of course, but there's no point in my life where I look back and think, it will never be better than this. And conversely, I don't look back with a sense of bitterness and remember a time where I thought (like many with the awkwardness of high school) it will never be worse than this.
It's all just history to me. Maybe I'm just far too content with my current life of two jobs, a wife, two kids, and a mortgage. Our histories are important, I know...but sometimes history seems so far away that it feels like a black and white silent movie.
I'm not sure why I come back for these things. I like hearing some of the speakers, though I'm at a point in life that really bad presentations will make me get up and leave with no sense of propriety. One seminar yesterday gave me the impression that the teacher learned he had a Sunday school class to give 10 minutes before it started and he thought that it went well then, so why not now? Today the speaker (a highly respected Brother) packed the room in order to proclaim the glories of western civilization and belittle the worst of anything else...I walked out then, too.
But I could listen to these classes on my own time. Why drive seven hours and spend hundreds of dollars to be around a group of strangers, many of whom I don't really have any interest in knowing? Why not just listen to them online?
Still I come back. Perhaps there is a sense that something magical will appear, that I yearn to be like the others I know that live in the past and so return to perhaps capture it again. Perhaps I will find those old friends and we'll stand out on the parking lot and set tennis balls on fire and smash them with bats. Perhaps I'll finally venture out towards the other end of town where all the townies live their lives and look forward to going to other places to sit in their own hotel rooms and write nonsense on a blog.
Still I come back.
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Saturday, August 4, 2018
The New Liberal Scam...
I grew up in the dying days of the American liberal state. In the 1970s and 1980s the welfare state of FDR and LBJ was now giving way to the stark reality that many of the people it sought to lift up were in fact become wards of the state. A legacy of spending other people's money at an exorbitant rate, without any consequences for the failure of these programs, was finally giving way to some common sense: the Reagan revolution that rightly lowered taxes, sought to make people become responsible for their own lives again, and recognized that government was often the problem and not the solution became the majority opinion that has held for over a generation.
It's ironic, however, that a new 'liberal' scam has arisen. But this scam is being perpetrated by a form of government that has shifted continually to the right, and as such government control has increased exponentially in the name of freedom. Consider three examples:
1. Here in my home state of Kansas our secretary of state Kris Kobach has made it his signature issue that thousands of illegal aliens are voting and distorting our democracy. As such, then, measures must be taken to ensure that everybody voting is identified to be eligible to vote. Kobach has become something of a celebrity within far-right circles for his crusades and has reportedly earned close to a million dollars (much of it while in public office) by selling his services to anybody who wants to shut questionable voters out of the voting booth, even as his plans are often thrown out or are recognized to be ineffective and the problem is in fact not a real problem. In truth, I think it makes common sense to ensure that only citizens can vote and IDs ensure that we are who we say we are. In this day and age in which the viability of our electoral process is undergoing multiple attacks, shouldn't we know who is voting, just as we are questioning who is putting money into our campaigning and we are questioning how those votes are being counted?
But here's the scam...who gets to decide who is voting? The government. Only by going through a long and sometimes laborious process, all determined by the state, can we then have the right to vote. Some who do not have government-issued IDs (usually the poor or minorities) are excluded, even if they actually are citizens. People are not assumed to have a right to vote; only by proving their worthiness to the state are they enabled to vote. It's like assuming that people are guilty rather than making state in a trial have a burden of proof of guilt. We decry this in totalitarian dictatorships, but a form of it has crept into our own thinking here in the United States.
2. The expansion of rights to abortion and same-sex marriage and other issues is likewise another area in which government control is or will be restricting these things in the name of 'conservatism'. As a Christian I believe abortion to be wrong...but who decides whether something or not is illegal? Conservatives want to restrict freedom to choose, and must necessarily use the compelling power of the state to make their position felt, even as in many other areas (gun control) they vehemently say that the government has no right to interfere. And as a Christian I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin...but who gets to decide who others should sleep with? Must the state get to decide who others can and cannot marry? It seems strange that conservatives never say that multiple marriages (which Jesus called adultery) should not be illegal (and are supporting a man on his third!), even as they forbid same sex marriage. But marriage between two people whom the state says are incompatible to marry one another? Let the state ban it in the name of conservative freedom.
3. Then finally there's Mr. Trump's wall, which is perhaps symbolic of the modern conservative boondoggle of government waste. For years conservatives would wail about how the state would spend endless amounts of other people's money trying to fix social problems. Continually governmental social services failed to fix the problems they were claiming to solve, but yet the programs continued, and the only people to benefit from them were the legions of social workers who got their steady paychecks from the state in an industry that could never die.
Now Mr. Trump seeks to build a wall costing something in the neighborhood of $20 billion. Will it work? No, of course not. People will always find other ways to enter into the country. Ladders, tunnels, the trunks of cars, and the Canadian border will make this wall look like a laughable inconvenience the day it is finished. Mr. Trump proclaimed throughout his campaign that Mexico (the modern conservative movement's 'other people') would pay for it, but in fact they are not going to all; the shrinking amount of revenue in the governmental pie will have one more giant fork put into it. And the people who will be helped the most? The contractors who build these wall, raking in millions in profit by demanding more and more to make things work, just like social programs during the days of LBJ. The liberal mantra of the need for governmental control continues on.
At least the old liberals were honest about this. They knew they had to bring money in via taxes in order to create their programs, and at least they tried making people's lives better, even if they failed. But these new liberals? They are only concerned about the few at the expense of the many, even as they increase governmental control in many aspects of lives and spend billions to get their way.
It's ironic, however, that a new 'liberal' scam has arisen. But this scam is being perpetrated by a form of government that has shifted continually to the right, and as such government control has increased exponentially in the name of freedom. Consider three examples:
1. Here in my home state of Kansas our secretary of state Kris Kobach has made it his signature issue that thousands of illegal aliens are voting and distorting our democracy. As such, then, measures must be taken to ensure that everybody voting is identified to be eligible to vote. Kobach has become something of a celebrity within far-right circles for his crusades and has reportedly earned close to a million dollars (much of it while in public office) by selling his services to anybody who wants to shut questionable voters out of the voting booth, even as his plans are often thrown out or are recognized to be ineffective and the problem is in fact not a real problem. In truth, I think it makes common sense to ensure that only citizens can vote and IDs ensure that we are who we say we are. In this day and age in which the viability of our electoral process is undergoing multiple attacks, shouldn't we know who is voting, just as we are questioning who is putting money into our campaigning and we are questioning how those votes are being counted?
But here's the scam...who gets to decide who is voting? The government. Only by going through a long and sometimes laborious process, all determined by the state, can we then have the right to vote. Some who do not have government-issued IDs (usually the poor or minorities) are excluded, even if they actually are citizens. People are not assumed to have a right to vote; only by proving their worthiness to the state are they enabled to vote. It's like assuming that people are guilty rather than making state in a trial have a burden of proof of guilt. We decry this in totalitarian dictatorships, but a form of it has crept into our own thinking here in the United States.
2. The expansion of rights to abortion and same-sex marriage and other issues is likewise another area in which government control is or will be restricting these things in the name of 'conservatism'. As a Christian I believe abortion to be wrong...but who decides whether something or not is illegal? Conservatives want to restrict freedom to choose, and must necessarily use the compelling power of the state to make their position felt, even as in many other areas (gun control) they vehemently say that the government has no right to interfere. And as a Christian I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin...but who gets to decide who others should sleep with? Must the state get to decide who others can and cannot marry? It seems strange that conservatives never say that multiple marriages (which Jesus called adultery) should not be illegal (and are supporting a man on his third!), even as they forbid same sex marriage. But marriage between two people whom the state says are incompatible to marry one another? Let the state ban it in the name of conservative freedom.
3. Then finally there's Mr. Trump's wall, which is perhaps symbolic of the modern conservative boondoggle of government waste. For years conservatives would wail about how the state would spend endless amounts of other people's money trying to fix social problems. Continually governmental social services failed to fix the problems they were claiming to solve, but yet the programs continued, and the only people to benefit from them were the legions of social workers who got their steady paychecks from the state in an industry that could never die.
Now Mr. Trump seeks to build a wall costing something in the neighborhood of $20 billion. Will it work? No, of course not. People will always find other ways to enter into the country. Ladders, tunnels, the trunks of cars, and the Canadian border will make this wall look like a laughable inconvenience the day it is finished. Mr. Trump proclaimed throughout his campaign that Mexico (the modern conservative movement's 'other people') would pay for it, but in fact they are not going to all; the shrinking amount of revenue in the governmental pie will have one more giant fork put into it. And the people who will be helped the most? The contractors who build these wall, raking in millions in profit by demanding more and more to make things work, just like social programs during the days of LBJ. The liberal mantra of the need for governmental control continues on.
At least the old liberals were honest about this. They knew they had to bring money in via taxes in order to create their programs, and at least they tried making people's lives better, even if they failed. But these new liberals? They are only concerned about the few at the expense of the many, even as they increase governmental control in many aspects of lives and spend billions to get their way.
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Thoughts About Gilead
I really am fascinated by the Handmaid's Tale and watching this show is the highlight of my week when it comes to entertainment. I liked the book, but I think making this show into the dystopian hellhole that the book only hints at is fascinating. At first I thought the show pulled more punches than the book, but as it goes along it's making the universe of Gilead a lot bigger. I've upped my rating as this show has gone on from a solid 8 to probably an 8.5, but even when I thought it lesser I wrote about this show before concerning the questions of Biblical literacy and to a lesser extent the problem with every bad guy show, where do they find so many henchmen?
1. But this season has brought up another question, that of the economy. It appears that all of the old decadent American consumer economy has been wiped away in this show. No McDonald's, no Starbucks, no Wal-Marts. There doesn't seem to be any more television, but at least there's good wi-fi in most of the houses. The Boston newspapers are abandoned, Fenway Park is now a place for gallows, and the only kind of shopping seems to be done at the equivalent of small corner markets in which basic meats and grains and produce are offered (no advertising, only pictures), and then only to those who are privileged enough to be positions of leadership.
So has so much of population been liquidated that there really does not exist a need for most of the old economy? Since there now only seem to be four kinds of people (Gilead leadership and their houses, henchmen, villagers in small towns who go to church all the time, and the outcasts in the 'colonies'), how does whatever food that is being grown get to where it is? Outside of Boston, are there enough people left that they are either starving or rioting?
It seems like black GMC suburbans are everywhere, so is the economy of Detroit booming? As a non-expert in guns, are the factories building the semi-automatic weapons that every henchman has operating at full capacity? And has the manufacture of black stocking caps become a significant part of the American economy, or are those all imported?
2. So that leads to the question of foreign policy. Gilead seems to have taken over much of American foreign policy apparatus, but why would others put up with this? Would the remnants of NATO under pressure from the European Union come in and try to restore order for their own economic stability? Where's China in all this? Russia? If the American economy has now fallen off a cliff, presumably taking much of the world economy with it, what does that mean for foreign trade? Have all old trade agreements gone away? Does Gilead still hold hegemony over the world because they now have nuclear missiles? Is that they get their black stocking caps?
We all know that the military is a mostly conservative American institution, but was its undermining the reason that this overthrow was possible? Are American soldiers now all swearing allegiance to the Gilead republic? How much of a civil war was there because of this? What of American military bases elsewhere? Are they a rogue military force that stands in opposition much like 'Little America' in Toronto acts as something of an American government in exile?
3. And in recent episodes there's the question of 'heresy'. One of the bad guys got offed by being accused of heresy. This is not surprising, since the people who have established Gilead see it as something of a theocratic republic with the ways of God being given as the reason for the overthrow and radical social shakeup. But while we've seen the villagers that helped shelter go to church earlier in season 2, what kind of practical religion are they proclaiming? As I mentioned in my earlier post, it would take some seriously bad interpretation of the Bible to wipe the mainstream churches out and make way for a form of religion like this, but what is the substance of the new faith beyond a glorification of child-bearing that overlooks the murders of others?
And where does orthodox, Jesus-centered Christianity fit into all this? When people go to church, is it simply a narrow faith that celebrates the glory of giving birth to children and women Knowing Their Place? What do people sing about? Are there pastors and preachers in the traditional sense who give comfort to the flock and point people to the Jesus of the Bible? Do evangelical or mainline churches still exist, or have they been co-opted in the same manner that most of the German church was overtaken by Nazi ideology in the 1930s? And if that's the case, is there now a Confessing church that stands in opposition with its Bonhoeffers who seek to stay faithful?
Oh, there are so many questions I want answered. I remember seeing somewhere that the creators think they may get 10 seasons out of this show...if so, count me in. But there's so much backstory and world-building that needs to be done before I will be truly happy.
Monday, February 19, 2018
President's Day
Today is President's Day. Once upon a time this day was actually two holidays, Jefferson's Birthday and Washington's Birthday, but when Congress decided to create a holiday for Martin Luther King they didn't want to create one more holiday, so they consolidated those two birthdates (conveniently both in February) into one holiday, President's Day.
And a stupid holiday it is, because while we may honor founding fathers like Washington and Jefferson, we also have lumped into this holiday the Warren G Hardings and the William Henry Harrisons of our national history. And one day, good grief, Donald Trump will be in the past and this holiday will then be 1/45th of his by default. 😖
Of course, this isn't the dumbest holiday in our country...tied with it likely is Columbus Day, which in recent years has come under fire for a)honoring a man who never came to this country, actually, b)wasn't the first (there were Indians here, not to mention the Vikings and likely others who found there way here) and c)was only one of many who went west at the end of the 15th century. Why we honor Columbus alone I don't really know. But it's a holiday, the dumbest holiday of all.
Every other holiday has a purpose...Veteran's Day honors veterans, Labor Day honors organized labor, etc. Our problem is not in the idea of these holidays, but rather in our execution of it...it makes no sense to me that we close schools and libraries on many of these days rather than use this time to educate as to what our nation is about. Our holidays have lost meaning because we forget to educate. And as we are educated, then we begin to look at some of these holidays in a brand new light: consider how Columbus Day is sometimes re-labeled indigenous people's day, in honor of those who were already here...yet this hasn't really caught on. So what should we do?
For President's Day, let's re-label this day Founder's Day. In doing this we honor not Presidents (nor have to make other honors for Congress, the Supreme Court, or the Bureaucracy), but rather the founding principles of this country. We already have Independence Day to be sure, but that looks back to 1776, while in fact 1789 and the creation of the Constitution might be a better marker for us. On this day we honor the hard work of all those who have come before us, to honor that we stand on the shoulder of giants who gave us not only independence, but the life that follows.
And for Columbus Day? Let's now call it Immigrant's Day. Columbus, if nothing else, helped pave the way for many people to come to America during the following decades. Yes, the indigenous people suffered...but many of us owe our life to those brave men and women who pulled up stakes in their home country and decided to come to a land of new opportunity. My ancestors have likely been here for well over 200 years; others haven't been here nearly this long. But together, by the grace of God, we all make this country what it is. Trumpites are wrong for not being able to see this, that the strength of this country comes because it is continually infused with new blood. We need immigrants in this country, and having a day to honor them might well go against the increasingly nativism that Trump and his cronies cook up in order to make people afraid.
And a stupid holiday it is, because while we may honor founding fathers like Washington and Jefferson, we also have lumped into this holiday the Warren G Hardings and the William Henry Harrisons of our national history. And one day, good grief, Donald Trump will be in the past and this holiday will then be 1/45th of his by default. 😖
Of course, this isn't the dumbest holiday in our country...tied with it likely is Columbus Day, which in recent years has come under fire for a)honoring a man who never came to this country, actually, b)wasn't the first (there were Indians here, not to mention the Vikings and likely others who found there way here) and c)was only one of many who went west at the end of the 15th century. Why we honor Columbus alone I don't really know. But it's a holiday, the dumbest holiday of all.
Every other holiday has a purpose...Veteran's Day honors veterans, Labor Day honors organized labor, etc. Our problem is not in the idea of these holidays, but rather in our execution of it...it makes no sense to me that we close schools and libraries on many of these days rather than use this time to educate as to what our nation is about. Our holidays have lost meaning because we forget to educate. And as we are educated, then we begin to look at some of these holidays in a brand new light: consider how Columbus Day is sometimes re-labeled indigenous people's day, in honor of those who were already here...yet this hasn't really caught on. So what should we do?
For President's Day, let's re-label this day Founder's Day. In doing this we honor not Presidents (nor have to make other honors for Congress, the Supreme Court, or the Bureaucracy), but rather the founding principles of this country. We already have Independence Day to be sure, but that looks back to 1776, while in fact 1789 and the creation of the Constitution might be a better marker for us. On this day we honor the hard work of all those who have come before us, to honor that we stand on the shoulder of giants who gave us not only independence, but the life that follows.
And for Columbus Day? Let's now call it Immigrant's Day. Columbus, if nothing else, helped pave the way for many people to come to America during the following decades. Yes, the indigenous people suffered...but many of us owe our life to those brave men and women who pulled up stakes in their home country and decided to come to a land of new opportunity. My ancestors have likely been here for well over 200 years; others haven't been here nearly this long. But together, by the grace of God, we all make this country what it is. Trumpites are wrong for not being able to see this, that the strength of this country comes because it is continually infused with new blood. We need immigrants in this country, and having a day to honor them might well go against the increasingly nativism that Trump and his cronies cook up in order to make people afraid.
Friday, February 16, 2018
Another Shooting
It could be just about any day when I sadly announce, 'There's been another mass shooting'. It doesn't matter when, it doesn't matter where, it doesn't matter that it happened in a red state at a school where there were armed officers. We live in a nation that loves our guns perhaps more than anything else. I confess that I'm almost numb to it, and can only pray that it doesn't happen here. I'm sick of all the rationalizations that come from the gun lobby as to why we shouldn't do anything about this, from 'well, abortion kills far more people!' to 'We need guns to the good guys safe!' to 'I can't think for myself so I have to let the NRA think for me!' to 'We've got to have a well armed citizenry so that we can be free from government tyrany!' Only three of those four have been spoken, but they are all real.
Once again, we have thoughts and prayers for the victims of the families, we put our flags at half-staff, and we engage for a day or two in an endless debate about what to do that will change nothing. It's easy to put all the blame on guns and their supporters for this, but in fact both extremes are wrong.
The liberals are forever going to be ineffective in fixing this because they are unrealistic in their hysteria. "We need new laws to stop this NOW." New laws won't change the fact that there are already 300,000,000 guns out there...even if no guns were sold in the next twenty years, there's still going to be plenty of weaponry out there to keep up with these shootings. New laws won't change the fact that some people DO need guns...if you live in rural areas, one needs them for protection, and hunting is a noble task that should not be eliminated. New laws won't stop the hysteria that will happen if government agents come to confiscate guns...'See, we told you this would happen!' New laws won't change the hearts and minds of the 38% of people who own guns (ironically, the same amount of people who think Trainwreck Trump is doing a heckuva job) and have been fed a diet of fear from the NRA and their willing publicists Faux News.
But ultimately, it's the gun lobby that's more in the wrong because they have lost all common sense. Because they have completely misread the 2nd amendment to be absolutist (amazingly, few of them see that the point of it was to keep a well-regulated militia ready against foreign intrusion) and individualistic (note that it speaks to the people, plural), they resist almost any common sense ideas to regulate the abuses of gun ownership. We regulate the building of cars to take out the most dangerous aspects of them (hello, Pinto's exploding gas tanks), we regulate the safety of new structures built to ensure they can withstand earthquakes and won't poison those who live there, we ensure that chemical plants no longer can dump toxins in rivers (well, until recently, thanks to the impending demise of the EPA under TT). Why can't we have some common sense about guns? 1)If you own guns, you have to own a gun safe. 2)Guns have to be registered at the point of sale. 3)Every gun must be trackable not just in ownership but in ballistic markings...that way we know whose gun was responsible. 4)Let's come to a recognition that the general public does not need to own certain types of high volume, high capacity guns. We don't let people own shoulder missile launchers or tanks...why should anybody be able to own an AK-47? 5)Limit ownership only to those who can pass strict background and safety checks. In the time it took me to get licensed to drive a school bus, I could have bought several guns and gone on multiple rampages...this is wrong. 6)Tax the crap out of ammunition. You you want a trophy to put up on your wall? Fine. But tax ammunition like we tax cigarettes. Make it unappealing to buy. And the money that is collected in this taxation, put aside for victims of gun violence.
In this day and age mass violence would still happen even if all guns were taken away...as long as there are knives, crowbars, and rocks, people will find something to kill other people with. But can't we ate least stop the most egregious examples? Law-abiding people can still own guns...but we have to start changing the tone of the conversation in which hysteria on both left and right take over. Until this happens, the shootings will not stop.
Once again, we have thoughts and prayers for the victims of the families, we put our flags at half-staff, and we engage for a day or two in an endless debate about what to do that will change nothing. It's easy to put all the blame on guns and their supporters for this, but in fact both extremes are wrong.
The liberals are forever going to be ineffective in fixing this because they are unrealistic in their hysteria. "We need new laws to stop this NOW." New laws won't change the fact that there are already 300,000,000 guns out there...even if no guns were sold in the next twenty years, there's still going to be plenty of weaponry out there to keep up with these shootings. New laws won't change the fact that some people DO need guns...if you live in rural areas, one needs them for protection, and hunting is a noble task that should not be eliminated. New laws won't stop the hysteria that will happen if government agents come to confiscate guns...'See, we told you this would happen!' New laws won't change the hearts and minds of the 38% of people who own guns (ironically, the same amount of people who think Trainwreck Trump is doing a heckuva job) and have been fed a diet of fear from the NRA and their willing publicists Faux News.
But ultimately, it's the gun lobby that's more in the wrong because they have lost all common sense. Because they have completely misread the 2nd amendment to be absolutist (amazingly, few of them see that the point of it was to keep a well-regulated militia ready against foreign intrusion) and individualistic (note that it speaks to the people, plural), they resist almost any common sense ideas to regulate the abuses of gun ownership. We regulate the building of cars to take out the most dangerous aspects of them (hello, Pinto's exploding gas tanks), we regulate the safety of new structures built to ensure they can withstand earthquakes and won't poison those who live there, we ensure that chemical plants no longer can dump toxins in rivers (well, until recently, thanks to the impending demise of the EPA under TT). Why can't we have some common sense about guns? 1)If you own guns, you have to own a gun safe. 2)Guns have to be registered at the point of sale. 3)Every gun must be trackable not just in ownership but in ballistic markings...that way we know whose gun was responsible. 4)Let's come to a recognition that the general public does not need to own certain types of high volume, high capacity guns. We don't let people own shoulder missile launchers or tanks...why should anybody be able to own an AK-47? 5)Limit ownership only to those who can pass strict background and safety checks. In the time it took me to get licensed to drive a school bus, I could have bought several guns and gone on multiple rampages...this is wrong. 6)Tax the crap out of ammunition. You you want a trophy to put up on your wall? Fine. But tax ammunition like we tax cigarettes. Make it unappealing to buy. And the money that is collected in this taxation, put aside for victims of gun violence.
In this day and age mass violence would still happen even if all guns were taken away...as long as there are knives, crowbars, and rocks, people will find something to kill other people with. But can't we ate least stop the most egregious examples? Law-abiding people can still own guns...but we have to start changing the tone of the conversation in which hysteria on both left and right take over. Until this happens, the shootings will not stop.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
A Ridiculous Gripe From A 47-Year Old Man
I play video games once in awhile. And since nobody in my house likes to play Rocket League with me, I play online against people. The truth is, I'm not very good. Video games, I think, are like real sports in only one way, that younger people are better than old people. I don't have the reaction time or the vision or simply the ability to put in the hours necessary in order to be good. But I like to play.
So the other night I go online for a one-on-one dual. I don't do this often, because I'm not very good. But surprisingly, in the 5-minute match I got out to a quick 2-0 lead, and I was in control of the ball and maybe was going to score again Yeah! That does not happen very often, so I got excited...until whoever I was playing dropped off and I won by forfeit. WHAT? Yes, it goes into the ranking system as a win for me (one of few), and I am assuming a loss for the other person, but still...that's just bad sportsmanship.
I go back out into the game matchup, sign up for another game, and whaddaya know...they match me up with the Exact Same Player. That's actually hard to do...at any given time there are tens of thousands of people playing online. But we start again, and sure enough, I get a quick goal. And again, this person forfeits, like a chump. I'm really ticked off this time, so I do what I had never done before and reported the person as having unsportsmanlike behavior. Hopefully he gets kicked off for awhile, because that's just bad.
Now, maybe his internet connection was bad. Or maybe it was a really small kid who genuinely had never played before and didn't know what he was in for (of course, he still might beat me, because I'm not very good). But I would guess that the person I beat was likely some kid who thinks he is entitled to quit the moment he got down. I watch enough youth sports with my kids to know that this is a very real thing...yesterday my son played a team in which a kid on the other team cried every time he got a foul. But quitting entirely? I've done that against the computer before...but against a real person on the other end of the internet? It's the equivalent of playing basketball against somebody to 21 and you get two quick buckets on them and the other player decides to quit. C'mon, man. Toughen up. Sometimes you lose, and being an adult is about learning to take your beating. Trust me, I know...there have been times I have been completely embarrassed on that game...only recently I lost to somebody something like 15-1. I really wanted to quit, but I didn't...that would not be fair to the person I played against. And hopefully it made me a little bit better player in the end, because I don't want to get beaten that badly again. Finish the game. Be a good sport, whether you win or lose. Don't refuse to play just because you get your butt kicked. Man up.
(And yes, I know complaining about video games is the stupidest rant ever.)
So the other night I go online for a one-on-one dual. I don't do this often, because I'm not very good. But surprisingly, in the 5-minute match I got out to a quick 2-0 lead, and I was in control of the ball and maybe was going to score again Yeah! That does not happen very often, so I got excited...until whoever I was playing dropped off and I won by forfeit. WHAT? Yes, it goes into the ranking system as a win for me (one of few), and I am assuming a loss for the other person, but still...that's just bad sportsmanship.
I go back out into the game matchup, sign up for another game, and whaddaya know...they match me up with the Exact Same Player. That's actually hard to do...at any given time there are tens of thousands of people playing online. But we start again, and sure enough, I get a quick goal. And again, this person forfeits, like a chump. I'm really ticked off this time, so I do what I had never done before and reported the person as having unsportsmanlike behavior. Hopefully he gets kicked off for awhile, because that's just bad.
Now, maybe his internet connection was bad. Or maybe it was a really small kid who genuinely had never played before and didn't know what he was in for (of course, he still might beat me, because I'm not very good). But I would guess that the person I beat was likely some kid who thinks he is entitled to quit the moment he got down. I watch enough youth sports with my kids to know that this is a very real thing...yesterday my son played a team in which a kid on the other team cried every time he got a foul. But quitting entirely? I've done that against the computer before...but against a real person on the other end of the internet? It's the equivalent of playing basketball against somebody to 21 and you get two quick buckets on them and the other player decides to quit. C'mon, man. Toughen up. Sometimes you lose, and being an adult is about learning to take your beating. Trust me, I know...there have been times I have been completely embarrassed on that game...only recently I lost to somebody something like 15-1. I really wanted to quit, but I didn't...that would not be fair to the person I played against. And hopefully it made me a little bit better player in the end, because I don't want to get beaten that badly again. Finish the game. Be a good sport, whether you win or lose. Don't refuse to play just because you get your butt kicked. Man up.
(And yes, I know complaining about video games is the stupidest rant ever.)
Saying No
There is a man in our community who I try to avoid running into, but often between my walks and his runs that is not possible. He's a good man, but he's always trying to get me to commit to things that I do not want to do. He's not a member of our congregation, but he has been trying to spearhead community prayer meetings and preacher get-togethers and other good works, and I continually tell him no, I'm sorry, I can't be a part of it.
At this point you think I'm just a bad person, not wanting to do God's work. And maybe I am. But I have been to his gatherings several times...and usually they have been something far different than I was told that they would be. Prayer gatherings turn into testimonials or worship services. Times to pray have involved anything but prayer. And again, the things they may be are good...but over the past few years I've simply tried to avoid going. Whether I say NO, or make excuses, or legitimately have other things going on, my answer to him should be obvious, but he keeps asking.
I struggle with this, really, because I know that in his mind he is pushing for good, and maybe I do need to get out of my comfort zone. But yet I learned a long time ago certain things about myself, that I only have so much time in the day and I have to learn to say NO to things that are not in keeping with what I need to do. I have two jobs, a wife, and two kids. As an introvert, I have a genuine need for alone time, and as a preacher and teacher, I have a genuine need for a lot of quiet time in study and prayer. I really am exceedingly busy at this point in my life with these very good things, and sometimes I wonder if I'm letting my jobs even get in the way with my family and other important relationships. Where can I cut back? is always a question I need to be answering, rather than what can I keep adding to my to-do list?
I've been in full-time ministry now almost 23 years, and I have never gone through the depths of burnout like many of my colleagues. Some might think I am lazy and don't commit myself enough. But watching others fail in their ability to set proper boundaries, and seeing the fallout from broken marriages and estrangement from children and implosion in their ministry, I think I best know the limits that God has set for me. And that means saying NO to some very good things. And if I disappoint a few peripheral people along the way, then so be it.
At this point you think I'm just a bad person, not wanting to do God's work. And maybe I am. But I have been to his gatherings several times...and usually they have been something far different than I was told that they would be. Prayer gatherings turn into testimonials or worship services. Times to pray have involved anything but prayer. And again, the things they may be are good...but over the past few years I've simply tried to avoid going. Whether I say NO, or make excuses, or legitimately have other things going on, my answer to him should be obvious, but he keeps asking.
I struggle with this, really, because I know that in his mind he is pushing for good, and maybe I do need to get out of my comfort zone. But yet I learned a long time ago certain things about myself, that I only have so much time in the day and I have to learn to say NO to things that are not in keeping with what I need to do. I have two jobs, a wife, and two kids. As an introvert, I have a genuine need for alone time, and as a preacher and teacher, I have a genuine need for a lot of quiet time in study and prayer. I really am exceedingly busy at this point in my life with these very good things, and sometimes I wonder if I'm letting my jobs even get in the way with my family and other important relationships. Where can I cut back? is always a question I need to be answering, rather than what can I keep adding to my to-do list?
I've been in full-time ministry now almost 23 years, and I have never gone through the depths of burnout like many of my colleagues. Some might think I am lazy and don't commit myself enough. But watching others fail in their ability to set proper boundaries, and seeing the fallout from broken marriages and estrangement from children and implosion in their ministry, I think I best know the limits that God has set for me. And that means saying NO to some very good things. And if I disappoint a few peripheral people along the way, then so be it.
Friday, January 5, 2018
On Christian Universities...
Very interesting article in the January 2018 Christian Chronicle about how less of 'our' universities have students that self-identify with Churches of Christ. Here is my letter in response...
https://christianchronicle.org/christian-universities-feeling-the-pinch-as-churches-of-christ-shrink/
To The Christian Chronicle:
I read with great interest your January article about the decline at Church of Christ affiliated universities of students who self-identify as members of Churches of Christ. I appreciate this article and the reporting that went into it, but I have a few comments and questions.
First, I do feel more should have been mentioned about the actual financial costs of Christian colleges and universities. I would like to have seen in a chart or within the article what are some of the costs of these universities. I was fortunate to graduate from Harding with both a bachelors and a masters in the early 1990s, and fortunately through scholarships and parental help incurred little debt. But I had many friends who spent almost two decades paying off their student loans. I would suspect that in recent years the problem has only gotten worse. As a parent of two children who will be attending college within a few years, I am already discouraged by the reports I am hearing of how much these colleges cost. We have worked hard to save money for college, but likely have only saved enough for them to attend for a year or two. Here are my questions: Why have these colleges gotten so expensive? Have they moved so far from their humble origins that they are now inaccessible to the ‘have-nots’? Have they so invested in collegiate sports, luxurious buildings, and other ‘necessities’ that they have forgotten their purpose in the kingdom? Where is the critical analysis of past decisions and future plans that university administrations have made that have kept some of ‘our’ people away? And is this part of a larger national trend in which the rich are not affected by the exploding costs of college, while the more low-income and middle-class are being priced out of the opportunities that previous generations took for granted? Is the growing gap between rich and poor within our country to blame, in that it has made our institutional leaders unaware of how difficult it is for some to afford higher education?
Second, I find it interesting that many in a movement that has called for our religious neighbors to become ‘Christians only’ see that when this actually happens it is a cause for alarm. We should be giving praise to God that some are identifying only as 'Christian!' Though I am thankful that this was not overtly stated in the article, I do know many who will read the article with concern that ‘we’ are losing our identity. All around us churches that are growing usually have a non-denominational aspect to them and seek the name of Christian and wear it proudly. Do they always understand Scripture exactly as Churches of Christ historically have? No. But rather than see this as an opportunity to have conversations with those who might look at Scripture and faith with fresh eyes, many feel threatened because they are not ‘of us’. Have we in Churches of Christ become so stagnant in our pursuit of restoration that any kind of correction we might encounter or other form being ‘Christians only’ might take is considered dangerous?
Third, if more of ‘our’ students are choosing not to attend ‘our’ schools, what effect is this having on campus ministries affiliated with Churches of Christ? Is there a marked increase in their number? Are more churches seeking to find ways to support outreach onto state or other private university campuses? Having been both a student at a Christian university and a campus minister at a state university, I found that genuine Christian faith and growth was not necessarily dependent upon being within the ‘bubble’ of a Christian university. Indeed, I knew many of my fellow students at Harding who had grown up in church but had little to no interest in matters of faith; I can vividly remember how many would complain about daily chapel and how few actually attended Sunday services. Conversely, in campus work on a state university campus I also found a genuine Christian hunger on the part of many who could not or chose not to attend Christian schools. Campus ministries and outreaches, if we consider the implications of your story, will have an increasingly vital part to play in the future of the church...so how will we support them?
Finally, one must also consider a growing reluctance for some churches to promote Christian universities, seeing that it might not be in their best interest long-term. While some have always been suspicious of the ‘progressive’ elements that seem inherent to a college education, I wonder if practically churches outside the Bible belt or even within smaller, isolated towns have felt burned by sending students to Christian universities. Why? Because after they finish their education, how many of these students return home to be a blessing to the church in the small town or to a place outside the traditional strongholds of our fellowship? Having spent most of my adult life now in smaller towns outside or on the edge of the ‘Bible Belt’, I have seen what happens when students go away to college...rarely do they come back. Many stay and seek jobs and families in the areas around Oklahoma City, Dallas, Nashville, Little Rock, and Atlanta and join large churches, rather than returning home where they could serve churches and communities that desperately need the insights and education that they learned. Yes, this is part of a national trend, and many students would do the same having attended non-Christian universities...but at least for those far from Christian schools, this would mean they stayed closer to home. Several times I have wondered how genuinely our Christian universities have promoted the idea of ‘home-mission’ to their students...how many chapel programs encourage them to return back to where they came from and make a difference? How many of them encourage them to move to a place where the church is not strong or numerous and do the hard work of building it up? For many churches who have watched with hope their young people go away but disappointingly learned that they were not returning, there is a feeling that perhaps Christian colleges are not worth it for them.
Again, thank you for this article, and for all the good you do. May God continue to bless your work.
For Christ and the Church,
David Blankenship
Mulvane, Kansas
https://christianchronicle.org/christian-universities-feeling-the-pinch-as-churches-of-christ-shrink/
To The Christian Chronicle:
I read with great interest your January article about the decline at Church of Christ affiliated universities of students who self-identify as members of Churches of Christ. I appreciate this article and the reporting that went into it, but I have a few comments and questions.
First, I do feel more should have been mentioned about the actual financial costs of Christian colleges and universities. I would like to have seen in a chart or within the article what are some of the costs of these universities. I was fortunate to graduate from Harding with both a bachelors and a masters in the early 1990s, and fortunately through scholarships and parental help incurred little debt. But I had many friends who spent almost two decades paying off their student loans. I would suspect that in recent years the problem has only gotten worse. As a parent of two children who will be attending college within a few years, I am already discouraged by the reports I am hearing of how much these colleges cost. We have worked hard to save money for college, but likely have only saved enough for them to attend for a year or two. Here are my questions: Why have these colleges gotten so expensive? Have they moved so far from their humble origins that they are now inaccessible to the ‘have-nots’? Have they so invested in collegiate sports, luxurious buildings, and other ‘necessities’ that they have forgotten their purpose in the kingdom? Where is the critical analysis of past decisions and future plans that university administrations have made that have kept some of ‘our’ people away? And is this part of a larger national trend in which the rich are not affected by the exploding costs of college, while the more low-income and middle-class are being priced out of the opportunities that previous generations took for granted? Is the growing gap between rich and poor within our country to blame, in that it has made our institutional leaders unaware of how difficult it is for some to afford higher education?
Second, I find it interesting that many in a movement that has called for our religious neighbors to become ‘Christians only’ see that when this actually happens it is a cause for alarm. We should be giving praise to God that some are identifying only as 'Christian!' Though I am thankful that this was not overtly stated in the article, I do know many who will read the article with concern that ‘we’ are losing our identity. All around us churches that are growing usually have a non-denominational aspect to them and seek the name of Christian and wear it proudly. Do they always understand Scripture exactly as Churches of Christ historically have? No. But rather than see this as an opportunity to have conversations with those who might look at Scripture and faith with fresh eyes, many feel threatened because they are not ‘of us’. Have we in Churches of Christ become so stagnant in our pursuit of restoration that any kind of correction we might encounter or other form being ‘Christians only’ might take is considered dangerous?
Third, if more of ‘our’ students are choosing not to attend ‘our’ schools, what effect is this having on campus ministries affiliated with Churches of Christ? Is there a marked increase in their number? Are more churches seeking to find ways to support outreach onto state or other private university campuses? Having been both a student at a Christian university and a campus minister at a state university, I found that genuine Christian faith and growth was not necessarily dependent upon being within the ‘bubble’ of a Christian university. Indeed, I knew many of my fellow students at Harding who had grown up in church but had little to no interest in matters of faith; I can vividly remember how many would complain about daily chapel and how few actually attended Sunday services. Conversely, in campus work on a state university campus I also found a genuine Christian hunger on the part of many who could not or chose not to attend Christian schools. Campus ministries and outreaches, if we consider the implications of your story, will have an increasingly vital part to play in the future of the church...so how will we support them?
Finally, one must also consider a growing reluctance for some churches to promote Christian universities, seeing that it might not be in their best interest long-term. While some have always been suspicious of the ‘progressive’ elements that seem inherent to a college education, I wonder if practically churches outside the Bible belt or even within smaller, isolated towns have felt burned by sending students to Christian universities. Why? Because after they finish their education, how many of these students return home to be a blessing to the church in the small town or to a place outside the traditional strongholds of our fellowship? Having spent most of my adult life now in smaller towns outside or on the edge of the ‘Bible Belt’, I have seen what happens when students go away to college...rarely do they come back. Many stay and seek jobs and families in the areas around Oklahoma City, Dallas, Nashville, Little Rock, and Atlanta and join large churches, rather than returning home where they could serve churches and communities that desperately need the insights and education that they learned. Yes, this is part of a national trend, and many students would do the same having attended non-Christian universities...but at least for those far from Christian schools, this would mean they stayed closer to home. Several times I have wondered how genuinely our Christian universities have promoted the idea of ‘home-mission’ to their students...how many chapel programs encourage them to return back to where they came from and make a difference? How many of them encourage them to move to a place where the church is not strong or numerous and do the hard work of building it up? For many churches who have watched with hope their young people go away but disappointingly learned that they were not returning, there is a feeling that perhaps Christian colleges are not worth it for them.
Again, thank you for this article, and for all the good you do. May God continue to bless your work.
For Christ and the Church,
David Blankenship
Mulvane, Kansas
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Trump's Defenders
A new year, but the same terrible President. Anybody who hoped that this year he would turn over a new leaf and be Decent Don rather than Trumpy the firebomber are to be greatly saddened. After all, a 12 year old in an old man's body doesn't cotton to change very easily, does he?
But I'm still amazed that his support continues to hold steady at around 38%. I'd ask incredulously 'Who are these people?' but they are my family, my neighbors, my co-workers, and my friends in Christ. They are living in a different world, perhaps, but I am still caused to tolerate them in love.
Yet I'm amazed at the defenses these apologists give them. There are 3, I think:
1)"Look at what he's done! He gave us the Supreme Court!" Yes, I'm certainly glad that the conservatives now look at the courts as nothing more than a political football to be won. Any Republican president would have done this, but his supporters act as if he's saved the nation. Gorsuch might well be a good justice, but some of his lower-court appointments...yeesh. Thankfully a few of them have withdrawn after being shown to be incompetent or corrupt. But more worringly are the many foreign service and other national security appointments going unfilled after he has ridiculed their work and driven many out. The real work is done by people who do the work that leaders of both parties take credit for...but if there are not these people doing the work that goes unnoticed, how is Trumpy going to claim victories? Good thing he has the Giant Button on his desk.
2)"But...Hillary!" I did not vote for Hillary...but playing the deflection game gets old and proves nothing. If while growing up my brother had come home drunk, injured after a fight, and having wrecked the car, his defense of "But look at David! He didn't make his bed!" would not have sufficed. It's time for people to stop showing relief at what is not and face up to the reality of what is. And what is, sucks.
3)"I like Trump. He's tough and doesn't apologize and makes us strong. 'Mercia!" What saddens me about this excuse is that it is often up by many of the same Christian people who preach Godliness in so man aspects of life look at the bullying and hatred that is this man's language and then praise it. It's as if people turn their brains off when it comes to this guy, accepting as good and righteous what in any other situation would be wholly unacceptable. Taunting a nuclear rogue state? Undermining the relationships that America has developed over decades of leadership by both parties? Part of being President is about learning how to play nice with others.
I suppose I can take solace in the fact that if the Democrats run somebody besides a convicted felon who has a dead hooker in the trunk of her car, they surely will oust Trump in three years. But man, that seems like a long time.
But I'm still amazed that his support continues to hold steady at around 38%. I'd ask incredulously 'Who are these people?' but they are my family, my neighbors, my co-workers, and my friends in Christ. They are living in a different world, perhaps, but I am still caused to tolerate them in love.
Yet I'm amazed at the defenses these apologists give them. There are 3, I think:
1)"Look at what he's done! He gave us the Supreme Court!" Yes, I'm certainly glad that the conservatives now look at the courts as nothing more than a political football to be won. Any Republican president would have done this, but his supporters act as if he's saved the nation. Gorsuch might well be a good justice, but some of his lower-court appointments...yeesh. Thankfully a few of them have withdrawn after being shown to be incompetent or corrupt. But more worringly are the many foreign service and other national security appointments going unfilled after he has ridiculed their work and driven many out. The real work is done by people who do the work that leaders of both parties take credit for...but if there are not these people doing the work that goes unnoticed, how is Trumpy going to claim victories? Good thing he has the Giant Button on his desk.
2)"But...Hillary!" I did not vote for Hillary...but playing the deflection game gets old and proves nothing. If while growing up my brother had come home drunk, injured after a fight, and having wrecked the car, his defense of "But look at David! He didn't make his bed!" would not have sufficed. It's time for people to stop showing relief at what is not and face up to the reality of what is. And what is, sucks.
3)"I like Trump. He's tough and doesn't apologize and makes us strong. 'Mercia!" What saddens me about this excuse is that it is often up by many of the same Christian people who preach Godliness in so man aspects of life look at the bullying and hatred that is this man's language and then praise it. It's as if people turn their brains off when it comes to this guy, accepting as good and righteous what in any other situation would be wholly unacceptable. Taunting a nuclear rogue state? Undermining the relationships that America has developed over decades of leadership by both parties? Part of being President is about learning how to play nice with others.
I suppose I can take solace in the fact that if the Democrats run somebody besides a convicted felon who has a dead hooker in the trunk of her car, they surely will oust Trump in three years. But man, that seems like a long time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)