I never set out to do social work. I never set out to teach. In fact, 2 years ago I probably would not have believed that I would be doing either. My heart was quite set on doing ministry in the church and through parachurch organizations. Now that I have found myself both working for a social organization as well as teaching, I want to share why the church needs to know about social services, and how social services need the church.
Social Services are not, and should not be, fully government-run organizations. In fact, the less the government has to do with social services, the better. People should be helping people, not the government. The fact remains, however, that many social services can neither start nor survive on donations. There are too many "causes" and various groups of people looking for money. People will give to cancer research before they will give to an organization helping the homeless. Don't get me wrong: cancer research is important, too. I am just saying that people seem less likely to give to help others in need.
As donations are in short supply, these organizations must apply for government grants. This is by no means ideal. Fortunately some organizations are able to remain somewhat independent (so long as they are not doing anything directly opposed to the government's interests) while still receiving some of these grants.
So why social services if it is so much trouble? Why not simply use existing independent organizations such as churches and community centers? I would aver that there is such a diverse range of needs, some of them requiring people who have been specifically trained in dealing with such social problems.
Let me give an example. On a trip to NYC in college I was able to learn about churches who gave meals to homeless people on the street, as well as investigate a facility for homeless Veterans who were dealing with PTSD and other problems from serving. While the churches had their heart in the right place by caring for the homeless, they were only able to provide these people with meals. They could not help them get jobs, apartments, etc. The social service organization for the Veterans, however, had a special program whereby Veterans had a number of meetings and tasks to accomplish which they would be rewarded for. They were given housing for a period of time and were provided with counselors, skills for getting and holding a job, etc.
What I am saying is that the church can work in small ways to lessen the hardships of others, but social services is a way to provide holistically for individuals in a way that demonstrates Christ-like love and is much more relationship-oriented than helping someone in passing.
The organization I currently work for has an open door to the Chinese community in Boston and cares for adults by teaching them both English and life skills. It provides a children's program and ministers to families alongside a Chinese church. The programs are offered at an affordable rate only because it is government subsidized. It would be ideal to be run on donations, but like I said, the money is hardly flowing in.
Social services are needed. There are many social problems that need to be addressed in practical ways. This is beginning to sound a little humanitarian...
I used to be somewhat of a humanitarian. Then I decided humans don't taste very good. But I digress. The problem with humanitarianism is that, at the end of the day, why should people care about helping other people? I get much more done by serving my own interests. Sometimes people don't even care if you are helping them. Sometimes you really don't get that warm and fuzzy feeling from helping others. Sometimes you just wish everyone you are trying to help would go away. I'm just being honest.
Social Services needs a higher purpose than simply helping other human beings and bettering society. Either wise, what are people draining themselves for, sacrificing higher-paying jobs for, etc.? The church provides a reason to help other people. God created and loves people. God wants people to love one another. This includes helping those who cannot help themselves, such as the poor, sick, those without familial support, etc. Jesus phrased this in a striking parable contrasting those who care for others and those who do not. He professed, "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (NIV Holy Bible, Matthew 25:40).
Likewise, He said that those who did not "do" what they should have for "the least" did not do anything for him and face eternal punishment. This is something no one wants to hear. I realize this. But the point of what Jesus was saying was that it is not just good to help people, but it is eternally necessary, even when we don't feel like it. The challenge of the Christian life is to leave living a self-centered life behind. This does not mean all have to take part in social services. It does mean that the church needs to be aware of the needs in the surrounding communities and the world. It does mean that some social services should be getting more of the church's attention and financial backing. It means Christians should be proactive in seeking where God wants us to invest, instead of giving without discernment or not at all.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Zimmerman Not a Case of Institutional Racism
Discussions around the Zimmerman case appear to be thus: Zimmerman is racist against African Americans and this is yet another case of racial profiling, Zimmerman was simply an overly zealous wannabe cop who got carried away with the idea of carrying out justice, or Zimmerman was just waiting to attack someone and Trayvon happened to be in the vicinity. Some conclusions are more erroneous than others, but the overall reaction of the public seems to agree that Zimmerman should not have "got off."
In an effort to keep race out of the courtroom, the case was repeatedly brought back to the facts. A person is hard-put to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the incident occurred merely because of Trayvon's race. Racial profiling is an issue, don't get me wrong, and one that needs to be dealt with, but when dealing with a case such as this, which involves a civilian taking the law into his own hands, it is difficult to argue that the system is at fault. This seems to be a case of an individual's lapse in judgment.
Individual racism is a different thing from institutional racism. Both exist. Both are atrocious. Both are natural human tendencies. But individual racism is between two parties, and needs to be dealt with on that level. You can try to change the individual's mind with persuasive, anti-racist arguments, but you cannot force them not to be racist. Socially, you can discourage racist actions by punishing ones of a criminal nature, but as I said before, you may still be hard-put to prove that someone acted from racist motives unless the individual professed that he did.
Institutional racism, on the other hand, has to do not with individuals but with a system in which a person is living.
Imagine there were some ponies and horses living together in a pen. Imagine the owner started feeding the ponies better food, and occasionally letting them graze in a nicer part of the farm. Further imagine that because the ponies were getting a better brand of food (Pony-Delight instead of Pony-Feed, if you will), the horses were now given less food (of the same Horse-Sense Feed). Then the owner said he would give better food to all the ponies and horses who ran the fastest and learned all the ricks he wanted them to. What follows is that the ponies have an unfair advantage of having better food and can now run faster than the horses, who have been weakened by their slim diet. That is institutional racism, Charlie Brown. That is to say, so far as my understanding of it goes.
As a Christian, I am convicted that institutional racism is an injustice that needs to be addressed. Throughout the Old Testament God demonstrates He wants those who follow Him to look after those who could be neglected in society, such as widows and aliens. Jesus advocated caring for the poor, and not discriminating against those who were from other races (such as Samaritans). Not just to be nice, because Jesus wasn't just a "nice guy." It was to carry out the second greatest commandment he gave, to love others as ourselves.
Sooo, back to racism. I honestly don't think individual racism can be eliminated. Ever. Because I believe human beings are naturally sinful, and historically racism is a sin that has continued to recur- whether between Eastern and Western societies, between Native Americans and settlers, and between African Americans and Caucasians. I say "between," because a racist mindset is often present in those being oppressed as well. The real problem lies in the system. We need to stop focusing on cases like that of Zimmerman and Trayvon, and instead think about why institutional racism exists. When we get to the why (who the horse owner is and what his motivation is), only then will we be able to move forward.
As a side note, I am not condoning Zimmerman's actions. But there were so many disparities in the accounts of the witnesses and not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense. I would not want anyone to be locked away on only what seems to be true from an outside perspective.
In an effort to keep race out of the courtroom, the case was repeatedly brought back to the facts. A person is hard-put to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the incident occurred merely because of Trayvon's race. Racial profiling is an issue, don't get me wrong, and one that needs to be dealt with, but when dealing with a case such as this, which involves a civilian taking the law into his own hands, it is difficult to argue that the system is at fault. This seems to be a case of an individual's lapse in judgment.
Individual racism is a different thing from institutional racism. Both exist. Both are atrocious. Both are natural human tendencies. But individual racism is between two parties, and needs to be dealt with on that level. You can try to change the individual's mind with persuasive, anti-racist arguments, but you cannot force them not to be racist. Socially, you can discourage racist actions by punishing ones of a criminal nature, but as I said before, you may still be hard-put to prove that someone acted from racist motives unless the individual professed that he did.
Institutional racism, on the other hand, has to do not with individuals but with a system in which a person is living.
Imagine there were some ponies and horses living together in a pen. Imagine the owner started feeding the ponies better food, and occasionally letting them graze in a nicer part of the farm. Further imagine that because the ponies were getting a better brand of food (Pony-Delight instead of Pony-Feed, if you will), the horses were now given less food (of the same Horse-Sense Feed). Then the owner said he would give better food to all the ponies and horses who ran the fastest and learned all the ricks he wanted them to. What follows is that the ponies have an unfair advantage of having better food and can now run faster than the horses, who have been weakened by their slim diet. That is institutional racism, Charlie Brown. That is to say, so far as my understanding of it goes.
As a Christian, I am convicted that institutional racism is an injustice that needs to be addressed. Throughout the Old Testament God demonstrates He wants those who follow Him to look after those who could be neglected in society, such as widows and aliens. Jesus advocated caring for the poor, and not discriminating against those who were from other races (such as Samaritans). Not just to be nice, because Jesus wasn't just a "nice guy." It was to carry out the second greatest commandment he gave, to love others as ourselves.
Sooo, back to racism. I honestly don't think individual racism can be eliminated. Ever. Because I believe human beings are naturally sinful, and historically racism is a sin that has continued to recur- whether between Eastern and Western societies, between Native Americans and settlers, and between African Americans and Caucasians. I say "between," because a racist mindset is often present in those being oppressed as well. The real problem lies in the system. We need to stop focusing on cases like that of Zimmerman and Trayvon, and instead think about why institutional racism exists. When we get to the why (who the horse owner is and what his motivation is), only then will we be able to move forward.
As a side note, I am not condoning Zimmerman's actions. But there were so many disparities in the accounts of the witnesses and not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense. I would not want anyone to be locked away on only what seems to be true from an outside perspective.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Hernandez Case a Symptom of a Bigger Problem
I don't really follow sports. At all. Recently, however, the case of Aaron Hernandez, formerly of the New England Patriots, has been a hard story to miss. Some have claimed it was an example of a pro football player gone wrong. Some have claimed it just goes to show what money and fame can do to a person.
Fans have flocked to buy jerseys and sports' gear, which will soon be discontinued. This case has been likened to the OJ Simpson trial in the reactions of the public.
As I am not a sports fan, why should I be interested in this case? Good question. I wasn't really, not until someone on NPR this morning brought up one word: character. This person made the argument that these sports players are given three things: lots of money, free time, and (they phrased it differently, but) fame. In of themselves, these things are not corrupting. But the combination, perhaps, provides room for the foulest aspects of a person's character to be amplified.
Working together, these three can have the same effect as spoiling a child. A person may believe one can get whatever one wants, do what one pleases, and not have to deal with the consequences. This feeling of self-centered immunity can carry with it deadly consequences.
Good character is often formed in the face of opposition, in a human struggle against the odds. When the struggle is taken away, or a person is not allowed to struggle, that person may fail to develop proper human empathy for others, may not be able to emotionally handle opposition, etc. All of these could be contributing factors in this case.
I recognize that this is only a surface-level analysis, as I do not really understand the inner-workings of the NFL. Admittedly I have only been to a single Pre-Season Pats game at Gilette Stadium, and have a limited view of the sports world. But I do think players need to be challenged, not just rewarded. Who is keeping these players in check? Who is making sure that this case is not repeated? I don't have any solutions, just thoughts...
In conclusion, one may recall the Biblical account of Cain and Able. Cain presented perhaps a half-hearted offering to God, but Able presented one that God found pleasing. In anger, Cain plotted and murdered his brother out in a field. His motivation was not to earn God's favor anymore---he was reacting in anger to not getting what he wanted. His character had not been developed.
Still- he had a choice, as we always do. Character can also be formed in the decision-making process, if we will stop and contemplate before resorting to rash action. We can train ourselves, by the grace of God, to make decisions which we know to be the right thing to do (this, according to God's word, written in our human conscience).
Hernandez, if he has committed these murders, could have chosen, despite the above 3 influences, to decide to be a man of character. But--we still have a responsibility as a society to try to create better environments or checks for those we are expecting exemplary moral character from as role models.
Fans have flocked to buy jerseys and sports' gear, which will soon be discontinued. This case has been likened to the OJ Simpson trial in the reactions of the public.
As I am not a sports fan, why should I be interested in this case? Good question. I wasn't really, not until someone on NPR this morning brought up one word: character. This person made the argument that these sports players are given three things: lots of money, free time, and (they phrased it differently, but) fame. In of themselves, these things are not corrupting. But the combination, perhaps, provides room for the foulest aspects of a person's character to be amplified.
Working together, these three can have the same effect as spoiling a child. A person may believe one can get whatever one wants, do what one pleases, and not have to deal with the consequences. This feeling of self-centered immunity can carry with it deadly consequences.
Good character is often formed in the face of opposition, in a human struggle against the odds. When the struggle is taken away, or a person is not allowed to struggle, that person may fail to develop proper human empathy for others, may not be able to emotionally handle opposition, etc. All of these could be contributing factors in this case.
I recognize that this is only a surface-level analysis, as I do not really understand the inner-workings of the NFL. Admittedly I have only been to a single Pre-Season Pats game at Gilette Stadium, and have a limited view of the sports world. But I do think players need to be challenged, not just rewarded. Who is keeping these players in check? Who is making sure that this case is not repeated? I don't have any solutions, just thoughts...
In conclusion, one may recall the Biblical account of Cain and Able. Cain presented perhaps a half-hearted offering to God, but Able presented one that God found pleasing. In anger, Cain plotted and murdered his brother out in a field. His motivation was not to earn God's favor anymore---he was reacting in anger to not getting what he wanted. His character had not been developed.
Still- he had a choice, as we always do. Character can also be formed in the decision-making process, if we will stop and contemplate before resorting to rash action. We can train ourselves, by the grace of God, to make decisions which we know to be the right thing to do (this, according to God's word, written in our human conscience).
Hernandez, if he has committed these murders, could have chosen, despite the above 3 influences, to decide to be a man of character. But--we still have a responsibility as a society to try to create better environments or checks for those we are expecting exemplary moral character from as role models.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Are the "Thought Police" Here?
As the world has followed the escape of one Edward Snowden, who revealed some of the underworkings of a government agency called Prism, many have wondered if this is the beginning of the end of true liberty of thought and speech. In fact, sales of George Orwell's 1984 have risen, supposedly, a surprising 6000%.
The link between these two items is that, just as the US government has been designing systems to monitor telephone and internet communication, so in Orwell's novel the "Thought Police" watch all citizens, intervening whenever any "thought crime" is committed. Thought crime, in the novel, is individual thinking which is not in line with what the government wants people to think.
Is Snowden guilty of leaking classified information? Undoubtedly. But the bigger question is: why would someone put his own freedom at risk to reveal information about the government? If he was trying to alert terrorists, wouldn't he have chosen a more covert method? His motives appear to be a genuine attempt to preserve human rights insomuch as he has revealed information to multiple interested parties, including US, Chinese, and Russian citizens.
The United States government is responding by charging him with theft, converging of government property, and espionage.Other countries such as China, Russia, and apparently Iceland (?) are granting him partial or full asylum (partial being not surrendering him, but also not saying they are granting him asylum).
Besides the fact that world wars have begun over seemingly small matters such as this, why should we be concerned?
Why should I, as a citizen of the United States be concerned? If the US government is monitoring communication so closely, there is more room for manipulation and control. The more information a party has about a group of people, the more power that party has to control the thinking of said party. They could, like Orwell's thought police, get to the point where they decide who the enemies of the state are and order assassinations which are not legal, but cannot be traced back to them...this is also sounding like the Bourne series (excellent films, but once you've seen 1 you've seen them all...). So you decide. How much do you really want the government to know about you?
Okay, okay. So this is all just a little bit conspiracy theory sounding...but here is the connection to faith, as I set out to do this all through this blog:
Should I, as a Christian, be concerned? Well, we are admonished to fight for the freedom we have in Christ. Freedom from sin, first of all, in Jesus Christ. This means we are free to love and serve God.
Freedom from the Old Testament law, secondly, not as an excuse to sin but rather a freedom to be defined by the grace of Christ instead of a bunch of rules we follow out of obligation (Romans 6). We are to use our freedom to please God, not Man.
With this kind of freedom in mind, it cannot truly ever be stripped from us so long as we cling to the truth and refuse to yield to worldly pressures of conformity. But...it does make our job much harder when outside forces are waging war against us psychologically. I might argue that our government is already doing this, making people associate the "Right" with evangelical Christianity and the "Left" with liberal immorality. Beware how you are being influenced! We are called to be as "wise as serpents, and as innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16). Just something to think about...I know many of my brothers and sisters are wise to what is happening.
But back to Snowden...I am thankful for what he divulged. It is not very surprising, but the way that the situation is now being dealt with is very telling in what may be some underlying secrets our government does not want us to know. So be careful..."Big Brother is Watching You."
***A footnote: if you do not know me well, please understand that about 1/2 of what I say is tongue-in-cheek. I can't help it. It is very droll to be serious all the time...So please take this blog as such.
The link between these two items is that, just as the US government has been designing systems to monitor telephone and internet communication, so in Orwell's novel the "Thought Police" watch all citizens, intervening whenever any "thought crime" is committed. Thought crime, in the novel, is individual thinking which is not in line with what the government wants people to think.
Is Snowden guilty of leaking classified information? Undoubtedly. But the bigger question is: why would someone put his own freedom at risk to reveal information about the government? If he was trying to alert terrorists, wouldn't he have chosen a more covert method? His motives appear to be a genuine attempt to preserve human rights insomuch as he has revealed information to multiple interested parties, including US, Chinese, and Russian citizens.
The United States government is responding by charging him with theft, converging of government property, and espionage.Other countries such as China, Russia, and apparently Iceland (?) are granting him partial or full asylum (partial being not surrendering him, but also not saying they are granting him asylum).
Besides the fact that world wars have begun over seemingly small matters such as this, why should we be concerned?
Why should I, as a citizen of the United States be concerned? If the US government is monitoring communication so closely, there is more room for manipulation and control. The more information a party has about a group of people, the more power that party has to control the thinking of said party. They could, like Orwell's thought police, get to the point where they decide who the enemies of the state are and order assassinations which are not legal, but cannot be traced back to them...this is also sounding like the Bourne series (excellent films, but once you've seen 1 you've seen them all...). So you decide. How much do you really want the government to know about you?
Okay, okay. So this is all just a little bit conspiracy theory sounding...but here is the connection to faith, as I set out to do this all through this blog:
Should I, as a Christian, be concerned? Well, we are admonished to fight for the freedom we have in Christ. Freedom from sin, first of all, in Jesus Christ. This means we are free to love and serve God.
Freedom from the Old Testament law, secondly, not as an excuse to sin but rather a freedom to be defined by the grace of Christ instead of a bunch of rules we follow out of obligation (Romans 6). We are to use our freedom to please God, not Man.
With this kind of freedom in mind, it cannot truly ever be stripped from us so long as we cling to the truth and refuse to yield to worldly pressures of conformity. But...it does make our job much harder when outside forces are waging war against us psychologically. I might argue that our government is already doing this, making people associate the "Right" with evangelical Christianity and the "Left" with liberal immorality. Beware how you are being influenced! We are called to be as "wise as serpents, and as innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16). Just something to think about...I know many of my brothers and sisters are wise to what is happening.
But back to Snowden...I am thankful for what he divulged. It is not very surprising, but the way that the situation is now being dealt with is very telling in what may be some underlying secrets our government does not want us to know. So be careful..."Big Brother is Watching You."
***A footnote: if you do not know me well, please understand that about 1/2 of what I say is tongue-in-cheek. I can't help it. It is very droll to be serious all the time...So please take this blog as such.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Can Gays Change? Macklemore and Lambert Say "No"
There's this catchy new song on the radio. I'm not gonna lie; I kind of like the rhythm, the flow, and the melody. I really respect that Macklemore and Lambert stand up for what they believe. The message throughout "Same Love" is that those of homosexual orientation were born that way, cannot change, and should therefore be granted the same marital rights as those of heterosexual orientation.
I must sympathize with homosexuals who, as is pointed out in the song, have felt discriminated against or judged, especially by the church. If I was a homosexual today, I am sure the church is not the place I would be looking for love or acceptance. But this is not the purpose of the church.
The church was created for God's glory, as a fellowship of believers who are united by their faith in Christ. It is the hands and feet of Christ...so yes it needs to be seeking to care for those society rejects.
Oh, but...yes, there is always a but. But...I cannot fully agree with them. The artists build their case on a few foundational points that are questionable. The first is in the refrain, "I can't change/ even if I tried/ even if I wanted to." Aside from the fact that this seems contradictory, as if someone admits they have not tried something because they haven't wanted to, then they don't actually know if it will work or not, this also has not been scientifically proven.
The question has often been raised: is homosexuality hereditary? If one is talking strictly about genetic predisposition or a "gay-gene," the answer is no. However, in the nature-nurture arguments, a person is not determined merely by one's genetic make-up. Rather, there are limitless possible stimuli in a person's environment that can have an impact on who someone becomes. An interesting assessment of some inconclusive genetic studies can be found here.
In John White's Eros Defiled: the Christian and Sexual Sin, he notes a few patterns among those who have chosen a homosexual lifestyle. All those he counseled either had absent father-figures or some sort of inappropriate sexual encounter at a young age. This is not a scientific study, but the above mentioned are psychological stimuli that could make one more inclined to have sexual identity confusion.
All this being said, I firmly believe we always have a choice, and are not merely defined by our genetic make-up and environment. The nature-nurture argument does not take into account the fullness of the human consciousness, which God created distinct above all other living things. I cannot agree that a person cannot change their choices.
I, of course, like every other human being, am guilty of judging others based on the choices they make. As a Christian I am called to love, not to judge. That's God's job. So I ask Him for forgiveness, and do the best I can to love instead.
But loving does not mean I have to agree with and fight for the things that someone else stands for. As homosexuality is a choice, I must admit it is one I do not agree with as a Christian. Please believe I have wrestled with Biblical passages on this and I have not simply accepted second-hand dogma. Furthermore, our identities are far more complex than simply a matter of sexual orientation. The biggest part of our identity should come from being human: made in the image of God. That gives us value that no one can touch.When I say I cannot agree with a person's lifestyle choice, I am not rejecting the whole person. Parents constantly have this complexity in relating to teens: I love you, but I don't have to like all the things you do.
God did create and loves persons of homosexual orientation. I do not believe He created them to be homosexuals- rather, He created them to be in a loving relationship with Himself first, and in human relationships He has purposed and blessed. We live in an imperfect world, so both these relationships are tainted. Still, God is at work making bad things good and ugly things into things of beauty. That includes relationships. I want to offer to anyone of homosexual orientation these words: God loves you. I want to love you. I am sorry for how society and the church has often treated you. I sincerely hope if you are seeking after God that you will not be deterred by those who, unfortunately, will judge you.
I must sympathize with homosexuals who, as is pointed out in the song, have felt discriminated against or judged, especially by the church. If I was a homosexual today, I am sure the church is not the place I would be looking for love or acceptance. But this is not the purpose of the church.
The church was created for God's glory, as a fellowship of believers who are united by their faith in Christ. It is the hands and feet of Christ...so yes it needs to be seeking to care for those society rejects.
Oh, but...yes, there is always a but. But...I cannot fully agree with them. The artists build their case on a few foundational points that are questionable. The first is in the refrain, "I can't change/ even if I tried/ even if I wanted to." Aside from the fact that this seems contradictory, as if someone admits they have not tried something because they haven't wanted to, then they don't actually know if it will work or not, this also has not been scientifically proven.
The question has often been raised: is homosexuality hereditary? If one is talking strictly about genetic predisposition or a "gay-gene," the answer is no. However, in the nature-nurture arguments, a person is not determined merely by one's genetic make-up. Rather, there are limitless possible stimuli in a person's environment that can have an impact on who someone becomes. An interesting assessment of some inconclusive genetic studies can be found here.
In John White's Eros Defiled: the Christian and Sexual Sin, he notes a few patterns among those who have chosen a homosexual lifestyle. All those he counseled either had absent father-figures or some sort of inappropriate sexual encounter at a young age. This is not a scientific study, but the above mentioned are psychological stimuli that could make one more inclined to have sexual identity confusion.
All this being said, I firmly believe we always have a choice, and are not merely defined by our genetic make-up and environment. The nature-nurture argument does not take into account the fullness of the human consciousness, which God created distinct above all other living things. I cannot agree that a person cannot change their choices.
I, of course, like every other human being, am guilty of judging others based on the choices they make. As a Christian I am called to love, not to judge. That's God's job. So I ask Him for forgiveness, and do the best I can to love instead.
But loving does not mean I have to agree with and fight for the things that someone else stands for. As homosexuality is a choice, I must admit it is one I do not agree with as a Christian. Please believe I have wrestled with Biblical passages on this and I have not simply accepted second-hand dogma. Furthermore, our identities are far more complex than simply a matter of sexual orientation. The biggest part of our identity should come from being human: made in the image of God. That gives us value that no one can touch.When I say I cannot agree with a person's lifestyle choice, I am not rejecting the whole person. Parents constantly have this complexity in relating to teens: I love you, but I don't have to like all the things you do.
God did create and loves persons of homosexual orientation. I do not believe He created them to be homosexuals- rather, He created them to be in a loving relationship with Himself first, and in human relationships He has purposed and blessed. We live in an imperfect world, so both these relationships are tainted. Still, God is at work making bad things good and ugly things into things of beauty. That includes relationships. I want to offer to anyone of homosexual orientation these words: God loves you. I want to love you. I am sorry for how society and the church has often treated you. I sincerely hope if you are seeking after God that you will not be deterred by those who, unfortunately, will judge you.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Racism and the Problem with White People...
I am not a sociologist. I don't actually know the depth to which racism is part of American society, but I do know it is a present reality, not simply something corrected by the Civil Rights' Movement in the 1960s. How do I know this? I see it. I am part of it. Every day.
Dave Chapelle has unabashedly revealed the negative attitudes of Caucasians towards African Americans, which are often not perceived as being racist. Though his humor crosses the line into crassness, he uses it to shed light on some of the struggles of African Americans that "white people" would like to avoid discussing. This includes current segregationist attitudes that reflect the 1950s (i.e. no inter-racial dating), or generic criminal profiling by cops of those with a darker skin color. Sometimes it seems the person's only crime was that they were, "driving while being black."
No one likes to believe one is racist. And I am not singling out Caucasians as the only culprits. But the reality is that in a predominantly "white" society, African Americans often get the short end of the stick.
This message is concurrent in The Autobiography of Malcolm X (Alex Haley, 1965), in films such as "Hairspray," and now in Kanye West's soon-to-be mainstream song, "New Slaves." These don't simply address day to day interactions between Caucasians and African Americans. Instead, they argue there are flaws in the system.
Take, for example, the recent promotional events in Texas for Kanye West's new album featuring the song, "New Slaves." The song is quite vulgar in much of its language and imagery. I am not an advocate for how Kanye West chooses to express his message. But it is worthwhile to listen to what he has to say, as he is representing a message that is, in itself, more vulgar than one might like to admit. He differentiates in the song between African Americans who are simply passed through the system and those who prey on other African Americans to get ahead. He doesn't offer solutions. His point is that there are many guilty parties, but it is ultimately "the Man" that is at fault.
I could give you a million experiential accounts, but the evidence of such corruption in the system which turned my head was in reading about the financial status of African Americans. In a semi-informal survey, Michael O. Emerson and others present in Divided By Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America an overview of the economic discrepancy between African Americans and Caucasians. The conclusions of their studies is that, even when African Americans are working in the same jobs as Caucasians, they tend to have less assets and more difficulty getting loans.
I probably don't need to tell you that many African American communities in the US are very poor, have higher crime rates, etc. than areas that are predominantly Caucasian. The question is: why?
The answer posed from a geographical standpoint is that there is no easy way out. Low testing scores lead to less funding for schools, which means the teachers will most likely be less educated or experienced, having little to work with. A case study of this type of scenario is contained in the non-fiction, The Freedom Writers. Erin Gruwell was a unique educator who chose to go to a school that paid less and fight for her predominantly African American students to get a better education.
Back to my stream of logic: By the time a student who has gone through such a school system gets to high school, they may need to get a job to support their family, they may have been roped into a gang in an effort to fit in or to simply survive in their neighborhood. They would be exceptional to be able to get a college education. One of the things colleges look at is the school someone graduated from. Now, it is possible for someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps the old-fashioned American way, but my point is that they are at a seriously unfair disadvantage from the start. Most will stay because they have no way out.
To conclude my ramblings, I offer only what solutions my small mind can contrive: this would include social programs. It would be quite excellent if the church was able to step up to the plate, pitch in, and run these. Sadly, the evangelical churches spend more time getting more church members, creating more spiritual programs, or installing coffee bars than caring for the desperate in society. I love the church, don't get me wrong: it is the body of Christ! But we need to have deeds as well as faith (read the book of James!).
I would propose the church should be running organizations that would reach the youth in these areas in particular, offering tutoring services, helping to raise funds for better education, giving skills training, providing healthy adult role models, etc. Ideally this would be churches of various denominations and ethnicities, working together. The church also needs to model integration in a healthy way.
The more I think about these issues raised in our culture, the more I am in earnest that the church would be a light to the world. Not a self-righteous, solitary candle, but a blazing white light that comes from modeling the kind of love Jesus Christ stood for in all His actions on earth. This includes finding ways to overcome racial discrimination both in the church and in society.
Dave Chapelle has unabashedly revealed the negative attitudes of Caucasians towards African Americans, which are often not perceived as being racist. Though his humor crosses the line into crassness, he uses it to shed light on some of the struggles of African Americans that "white people" would like to avoid discussing. This includes current segregationist attitudes that reflect the 1950s (i.e. no inter-racial dating), or generic criminal profiling by cops of those with a darker skin color. Sometimes it seems the person's only crime was that they were, "driving while being black."
No one likes to believe one is racist. And I am not singling out Caucasians as the only culprits. But the reality is that in a predominantly "white" society, African Americans often get the short end of the stick.
This message is concurrent in The Autobiography of Malcolm X (Alex Haley, 1965), in films such as "Hairspray," and now in Kanye West's soon-to-be mainstream song, "New Slaves." These don't simply address day to day interactions between Caucasians and African Americans. Instead, they argue there are flaws in the system.
Take, for example, the recent promotional events in Texas for Kanye West's new album featuring the song, "New Slaves." The song is quite vulgar in much of its language and imagery. I am not an advocate for how Kanye West chooses to express his message. But it is worthwhile to listen to what he has to say, as he is representing a message that is, in itself, more vulgar than one might like to admit. He differentiates in the song between African Americans who are simply passed through the system and those who prey on other African Americans to get ahead. He doesn't offer solutions. His point is that there are many guilty parties, but it is ultimately "the Man" that is at fault.
I could give you a million experiential accounts, but the evidence of such corruption in the system which turned my head was in reading about the financial status of African Americans. In a semi-informal survey, Michael O. Emerson and others present in Divided By Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America an overview of the economic discrepancy between African Americans and Caucasians. The conclusions of their studies is that, even when African Americans are working in the same jobs as Caucasians, they tend to have less assets and more difficulty getting loans.
I probably don't need to tell you that many African American communities in the US are very poor, have higher crime rates, etc. than areas that are predominantly Caucasian. The question is: why?
The answer posed from a geographical standpoint is that there is no easy way out. Low testing scores lead to less funding for schools, which means the teachers will most likely be less educated or experienced, having little to work with. A case study of this type of scenario is contained in the non-fiction, The Freedom Writers. Erin Gruwell was a unique educator who chose to go to a school that paid less and fight for her predominantly African American students to get a better education.
Back to my stream of logic: By the time a student who has gone through such a school system gets to high school, they may need to get a job to support their family, they may have been roped into a gang in an effort to fit in or to simply survive in their neighborhood. They would be exceptional to be able to get a college education. One of the things colleges look at is the school someone graduated from. Now, it is possible for someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps the old-fashioned American way, but my point is that they are at a seriously unfair disadvantage from the start. Most will stay because they have no way out.
To conclude my ramblings, I offer only what solutions my small mind can contrive: this would include social programs. It would be quite excellent if the church was able to step up to the plate, pitch in, and run these. Sadly, the evangelical churches spend more time getting more church members, creating more spiritual programs, or installing coffee bars than caring for the desperate in society. I love the church, don't get me wrong: it is the body of Christ! But we need to have deeds as well as faith (read the book of James!).
I would propose the church should be running organizations that would reach the youth in these areas in particular, offering tutoring services, helping to raise funds for better education, giving skills training, providing healthy adult role models, etc. Ideally this would be churches of various denominations and ethnicities, working together. The church also needs to model integration in a healthy way.
The more I think about these issues raised in our culture, the more I am in earnest that the church would be a light to the world. Not a self-righteous, solitary candle, but a blazing white light that comes from modeling the kind of love Jesus Christ stood for in all His actions on earth. This includes finding ways to overcome racial discrimination both in the church and in society.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
What Does Separation of Church and State Really Mean?
I stumbled upon an intriguing program called, "Constitution USA," recently, with Peter Sagal. One part of the program focuses on the separation of church and state. Sagal supposedly presents "both sides," showing a man who put a prayer on the wall of a school in the 70s and a young atheist student who fought to have it removed. She won. She based her claim on her freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. The man who had originally posted the prayer avowed that the majority of the students were Christians, and thus the prayer should have stayed. He was not in favor of catering to the minority.
An article in the past month that was brought to my attention on forbidding Christians to share their faith in the military demonstrates an increasingly negative view of fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist meaning Bible-believing and evangelistic.
At the same time, articles on Bigotry towards Jews and Muslims are in circulation, arguing that these groups need their religious freedom protected. I would tend to agree.
I would also say, however, that the best way to protect people's religious rights is not to try to silence the majority. Give the minority a voice, by all means, but just as it is unwise to let the youngest child in a family rule the household, so the interests of the religious minorities should not be given precedence over the majority.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. wrote an excellent short story, "Harrison Bergeron," which portrays the foolishness of trying to create a completely equal society. It becomes ridiculous to handicap the majority, in the USA this means Christians, in preference for those of other faiths (an Atheist, in his or her way, is demonstrating a type of faith).
The solution is not to rid schools and the military and every other public institution of anything Christian. This does not empower anyone. It could even be considered bigotry against Christians. Rather, I think those in these institutions need to be sensitive and aware of the religious beliefs of others, and allow them a chance to share what they believe. As put by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the late 1800s, "The cure for bad speech is more speech." If we don't believe what someone else is saying, we should disagree by voicing our own beliefs, not putting a gag over their mouth.
That being said, I do need to apologize for my own indiscretion, as well as that of those who claim the title, "Christian," and often forget to listen. I do believe Christians need to get better at this. Historically, there have been hate groups who have claimed to be Christians and have acted in hateful violence against those of other groups in American society. It really grieves me. That is not what Jesus Christ wants His followers to stand for.
Instead, Christians are called to "act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with [their] God" (Micah 6:8). Christians do need a social make-over so that we are walking more in accordance with the true heart of Christianity. But while we are still in this learning process, I plead the 1st for all my brothers and sisters.
An article in the past month that was brought to my attention on forbidding Christians to share their faith in the military demonstrates an increasingly negative view of fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist meaning Bible-believing and evangelistic.
At the same time, articles on Bigotry towards Jews and Muslims are in circulation, arguing that these groups need their religious freedom protected. I would tend to agree.
I would also say, however, that the best way to protect people's religious rights is not to try to silence the majority. Give the minority a voice, by all means, but just as it is unwise to let the youngest child in a family rule the household, so the interests of the religious minorities should not be given precedence over the majority.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. wrote an excellent short story, "Harrison Bergeron," which portrays the foolishness of trying to create a completely equal society. It becomes ridiculous to handicap the majority, in the USA this means Christians, in preference for those of other faiths (an Atheist, in his or her way, is demonstrating a type of faith).
The solution is not to rid schools and the military and every other public institution of anything Christian. This does not empower anyone. It could even be considered bigotry against Christians. Rather, I think those in these institutions need to be sensitive and aware of the religious beliefs of others, and allow them a chance to share what they believe. As put by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the late 1800s, "The cure for bad speech is more speech." If we don't believe what someone else is saying, we should disagree by voicing our own beliefs, not putting a gag over their mouth.
That being said, I do need to apologize for my own indiscretion, as well as that of those who claim the title, "Christian," and often forget to listen. I do believe Christians need to get better at this. Historically, there have been hate groups who have claimed to be Christians and have acted in hateful violence against those of other groups in American society. It really grieves me. That is not what Jesus Christ wants His followers to stand for.
Instead, Christians are called to "act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with [their] God" (Micah 6:8). Christians do need a social make-over so that we are walking more in accordance with the true heart of Christianity. But while we are still in this learning process, I plead the 1st for all my brothers and sisters.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
What's So Fascinating About Lincoln?
Having recently seen the movie "Lincoln" (I know, I'm a little behind the times...), I found myself reflecting on the film many times in the past week. I was wondering why Americans are so enamored with him, and why he was portrayed in the film as such a tortured, strange, yet somehow endearing soul. For example, when asked to name a famous person, why is Abraham Lincoln the first name that comes to everyone's mind?
Perhaps it is, as the film posits, because he was a man determined to do what was right no matter what anyone else thought. Daniel-Day Lewis chooses to portray him as a rugged, introverted individualist caught in a moral quandary: he must decide if his purpose in freeing African American slaves is worth the cost of more American lives on the battlefield.
At one point in the movie, he receives information that the South is seeking a meeting to discuss terms of peace. At the same time, he is trying to get the 13th Amendment passed in the House. It will not be passed if the war ends first. Thus Lincoln delays his response to those seeking a peaceful settlement.
From his speeches, his correspondence with others, and accounts given of Lincoln, he proves to be a particular, yet mysterious character. He holds his own morals, yet recognizes that others must hold theirs. But he is not swayed by theirs. There is a constancy in his character, and in a determination to do what he feels called to do by God, which gives people a moment's pause.
His steadfastness in wrestling with what is right comes from a source that is absent from the film: his faith. He reveals how he truly weighed his decisions (the man, not the movie character!) when he offered, “In regards to this great Book [the Bible], I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.”
Abraham Lincoln was an imperfect man, giving orders that sometimes seemed self-contradictory or ambiguous, but in the end, he was able to change history by listening to the ways of his Maker and taking action on behalf of his fellow men. He was not merely a humanitarian or a good person. He was a servant of God. And that made all the difference.
Perhaps it is, as the film posits, because he was a man determined to do what was right no matter what anyone else thought. Daniel-Day Lewis chooses to portray him as a rugged, introverted individualist caught in a moral quandary: he must decide if his purpose in freeing African American slaves is worth the cost of more American lives on the battlefield.
At one point in the movie, he receives information that the South is seeking a meeting to discuss terms of peace. At the same time, he is trying to get the 13th Amendment passed in the House. It will not be passed if the war ends first. Thus Lincoln delays his response to those seeking a peaceful settlement.
From his speeches, his correspondence with others, and accounts given of Lincoln, he proves to be a particular, yet mysterious character. He holds his own morals, yet recognizes that others must hold theirs. But he is not swayed by theirs. There is a constancy in his character, and in a determination to do what he feels called to do by God, which gives people a moment's pause.
His steadfastness in wrestling with what is right comes from a source that is absent from the film: his faith. He reveals how he truly weighed his decisions (the man, not the movie character!) when he offered, “In regards to this great Book [the Bible], I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.”
Abraham Lincoln was an imperfect man, giving orders that sometimes seemed self-contradictory or ambiguous, but in the end, he was able to change history by listening to the ways of his Maker and taking action on behalf of his fellow men. He was not merely a humanitarian or a good person. He was a servant of God. And that made all the difference.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
God is Not a Mother
I have long wrestled with my femininity in society, in the church, and before God. Femaleness often denotes weakness, inaccuracy, foolishness, being overly emotional, and having a specific role to fulfill (Get back in the kitchen, woman!). Many feminist Biblical scholars will point to the use of "he" and "man," even the idea that God is presented as a Father, as being contributing factors to this identity crisis.
As it is Mother's Day, Time produced an article on Why God is a Mother Too. The author, Yolanda Pierce, argues that because of the ability of women to act in a godly manner, God must be, in some way, feminine. I cannot completely discount this claim, as God created "Mankind" in his image, "male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27). God creates both genders in His own image. It would follow that women would have attributes, then, that reflect their creator.
However, the problem with Pierce's argument is that she is looking at the situation backwards. She is looking at human nature to tell her what God is like. The truth is that sometimes humans do reflect their Creator, but often we do not because we want to act independent of our Creator (sin).
We cannot use a human standard, then, to understand God. We need a testimony of who God is from a source we can trust. This is the Bible: a group of historically verified documents working together to tell the story of God, dictated by God and written by human hands.
To return to the issue at hand, the Bible does often refer to God in a Fatherly sense, and Jesus even taught His disciples to pray "Our Father, which art in Heaven..." But as I said before, we needn't read the human nature of fathers back onto God. Rather, this is to be read not as God's maleness, but as an analogy to be understood as a comparison to the role a father is supposed to have according to God's word.
The role of the father is to be the spiritual leader of his household. "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). God is always the spiritual leader, training and instructing us in His ways. Thus he appears to have a role like the one he assigned to fathers.
This does not discount the role of mothers, however, as they are to partner with their husbands in running the household and teaching the children godly character. Proverbs 31 exemplifies ways in which a godly mother is to be praised, including having strength, dignity (v.25), and teaching in wisdom and kindness (v.26).
God is not excluding or demeaning women by calling Himself "Father," nor is He doing so by using words such as "man" or "he" in the Bible. The latter are generic terms, which is only a problem in languages that differentiate genders. For example, in Chinese "ta" means he or she. I would suggest that this is a "lost in translation which leads to misinterpretation" sort of case.
God loves and values mothers. But he never invites us to view Him as a mother.
As it is Mother's Day, Time produced an article on Why God is a Mother Too. The author, Yolanda Pierce, argues that because of the ability of women to act in a godly manner, God must be, in some way, feminine. I cannot completely discount this claim, as God created "Mankind" in his image, "male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27). God creates both genders in His own image. It would follow that women would have attributes, then, that reflect their creator.
However, the problem with Pierce's argument is that she is looking at the situation backwards. She is looking at human nature to tell her what God is like. The truth is that sometimes humans do reflect their Creator, but often we do not because we want to act independent of our Creator (sin).
We cannot use a human standard, then, to understand God. We need a testimony of who God is from a source we can trust. This is the Bible: a group of historically verified documents working together to tell the story of God, dictated by God and written by human hands.
To return to the issue at hand, the Bible does often refer to God in a Fatherly sense, and Jesus even taught His disciples to pray "Our Father, which art in Heaven..." But as I said before, we needn't read the human nature of fathers back onto God. Rather, this is to be read not as God's maleness, but as an analogy to be understood as a comparison to the role a father is supposed to have according to God's word.
The role of the father is to be the spiritual leader of his household. "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). God is always the spiritual leader, training and instructing us in His ways. Thus he appears to have a role like the one he assigned to fathers.
This does not discount the role of mothers, however, as they are to partner with their husbands in running the household and teaching the children godly character. Proverbs 31 exemplifies ways in which a godly mother is to be praised, including having strength, dignity (v.25), and teaching in wisdom and kindness (v.26).
God is not excluding or demeaning women by calling Himself "Father," nor is He doing so by using words such as "man" or "he" in the Bible. The latter are generic terms, which is only a problem in languages that differentiate genders. For example, in Chinese "ta" means he or she. I would suggest that this is a "lost in translation which leads to misinterpretation" sort of case.
God loves and values mothers. But he never invites us to view Him as a mother.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Can There Be Peace in the Syrian Conflict?
In reading about conflicts in the Middle East, particularly in Syria right now, I can't help but think how this world needs more ambassadors. Peacemakers, if you will. In His sermon on the mount, Jesus said, "blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9). Those who seek to make peace are blessed by God and called His children!
I wish more people would seek to be peacemakers instead of seeking to be right. I wish peace would be made in a way that takes into account the needs of everyone, showing special mercy towards those who cannot speak for or defend themselves against those more powerful.
Perhaps this seems a simple, childish wish. But what if...
What if the United States was a nation that really cared about making peace instead of getting involved only when it have a personal interest in the matter? In the modern age, the United States steps in when it is threatened or its economy is at stake. This is not always true, but it does seem to be a theme.
It comes down to this: does the United States really believe that every individual has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Does that include the rest of the world? Are we the world's "police," or are we the world's peacemakers?
It has been argued that the United States should mind it's own affairs. I find this argument to be lacking, however, as it is comparable to the child or teenager who sees someone else on the playground being bullied or in danger and does...nothing. I would love to see my country fight for true justice. Not necessarily with guns (though that does help sometimes), but with peacemaking diplomacy such as was achieved at Camp David in the Camp David Accords. These efforts, headed by President Jimmy Carter, took 14 months but resulted in a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
I recognize that I am an idealist. But surely it is wiser to put out fires before they spread and intervene in foreign affairs which could easily reach our homefront. Even if they do not reach us, are we not obligated by a prick of our conscience to at least work for world peace (in a very non-Miss-America sort of way)?
So back to Syria: perhaps it is a religious conflict we cannot really understand, growing up in a nation where people are not martyred for their faith. But we should pray about what we do understand: pray for peace. Pray for those whose lives and families are being torn apart by a conflict they may not even understand. And pray that the United States would get a conscience and attempt to enact peaceful resolutions in the larger world.
I wish more people would seek to be peacemakers instead of seeking to be right. I wish peace would be made in a way that takes into account the needs of everyone, showing special mercy towards those who cannot speak for or defend themselves against those more powerful.
Perhaps this seems a simple, childish wish. But what if...
What if the United States was a nation that really cared about making peace instead of getting involved only when it have a personal interest in the matter? In the modern age, the United States steps in when it is threatened or its economy is at stake. This is not always true, but it does seem to be a theme.
It comes down to this: does the United States really believe that every individual has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Does that include the rest of the world? Are we the world's "police," or are we the world's peacemakers?
It has been argued that the United States should mind it's own affairs. I find this argument to be lacking, however, as it is comparable to the child or teenager who sees someone else on the playground being bullied or in danger and does...nothing. I would love to see my country fight for true justice. Not necessarily with guns (though that does help sometimes), but with peacemaking diplomacy such as was achieved at Camp David in the Camp David Accords. These efforts, headed by President Jimmy Carter, took 14 months but resulted in a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
I recognize that I am an idealist. But surely it is wiser to put out fires before they spread and intervene in foreign affairs which could easily reach our homefront. Even if they do not reach us, are we not obligated by a prick of our conscience to at least work for world peace (in a very non-Miss-America sort of way)?
So back to Syria: perhaps it is a religious conflict we cannot really understand, growing up in a nation where people are not martyred for their faith. But we should pray about what we do understand: pray for peace. Pray for those whose lives and families are being torn apart by a conflict they may not even understand. And pray that the United States would get a conscience and attempt to enact peaceful resolutions in the larger world.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Gosnell Trial- A Rogue Case?
Upon further investigation into this case, which is not only morally disturbing but very emotionally traumatic, I can't help but think: how can this happen?
In my previous blog I mentioned that human life, at any stage of development, is still life. Whether he injected these babies before they were born or whether they were born live and he killed them, it still amounts to the same thing.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge that there are those who are pro-choice who would deem this horrific as well. They would say that this is a rogue case, and that this is not what abortion normally looks like. They would say that making abortion illegal will make this sort of thing more common.
But here's the thing: it's legal right now, which does not exactly discourage persons from making money off this type of business. Not only this, but abortion is being waved about soon after this case as if it is a right (where is that in the constitution?). If it is a human right, as I said before, then there are arguably 2 human parties' rights to consider.
Several states have successfully passed laws against abortion, and are now under fire from the President, who is an advocate of Planned Parenthood. I am not about to demonize either of those parties right now...because that is unhelpful in discussing the matter at hand.
The laws passed, might I add, have to do with banning abortions after 6 weeks, when a heartbeat can be detected. So when Obama is arguing that these laws are outdated and restrictive to women, he is arguing that it should be legal to abort babies after 6 weeks. If we look at this argument, it seems to have less concern for women than for this floating American concept of unbounded freedom.
Freedom, in itself, is not evil, but as I stated on a previous blog, human beings have a sinful nature. We do bad stuff. There need to be laws to protect citizens from one another, eitherwise one person's freedom may infringe on another's. So yes, that means we cannot just do whatever we feel like. The choices of an individual impact others in society. Choosing to have an abortion does not just impact the mother, but all involved, especially the human being that has been growing inside her.
In my previous blog I mentioned that human life, at any stage of development, is still life. Whether he injected these babies before they were born or whether they were born live and he killed them, it still amounts to the same thing.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge that there are those who are pro-choice who would deem this horrific as well. They would say that this is a rogue case, and that this is not what abortion normally looks like. They would say that making abortion illegal will make this sort of thing more common.
But here's the thing: it's legal right now, which does not exactly discourage persons from making money off this type of business. Not only this, but abortion is being waved about soon after this case as if it is a right (where is that in the constitution?). If it is a human right, as I said before, then there are arguably 2 human parties' rights to consider.
Several states have successfully passed laws against abortion, and are now under fire from the President, who is an advocate of Planned Parenthood. I am not about to demonize either of those parties right now...because that is unhelpful in discussing the matter at hand.
The laws passed, might I add, have to do with banning abortions after 6 weeks, when a heartbeat can be detected. So when Obama is arguing that these laws are outdated and restrictive to women, he is arguing that it should be legal to abort babies after 6 weeks. If we look at this argument, it seems to have less concern for women than for this floating American concept of unbounded freedom.
Freedom, in itself, is not evil, but as I stated on a previous blog, human beings have a sinful nature. We do bad stuff. There need to be laws to protect citizens from one another, eitherwise one person's freedom may infringe on another's. So yes, that means we cannot just do whatever we feel like. The choices of an individual impact others in society. Choosing to have an abortion does not just impact the mother, but all involved, especially the human being that has been growing inside her.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?
In a recent case, a Doctor Kermit Gosnell has stood trial, and been cleared, for first degree murder of seven patients, 4 of these being infants. My opinion on this case is that he is probably guilty, though certainly that has to be legally proven in court. Most human beings would agree with me, I assume, that killing infants is one of the most hideous evils.
However, when it comes to that, why is it evil to kill an infant? An infant is a helpless human being. Furthermore, it has done nothing to deserve death. It is written in human DNA and in most systems of justice worldwide that there should be dire consequences for intentionally spilling human blood. Murder is wrong.
The age-old pro-choice argument goes something like this: a woman has rights. A woman has a right over her own body. She can choose what she does with it. Therefore an abortion is her business.
The age-old pro-life argument, on the other hand, argues: life is precious and sacred. An abortion destroys life. Abortion is morally wrong, and all persons should be banned from such action by law.
If I stand in the line of reasoning of the pro-choice arguments, I would agree that a woman has a right over her own body. She can pierce it, tattoo it, do drugs, whatever. It is her choice. When it comes to abortion, however, this line of reasoning needs to be replaced because now another human being is involved. Scientifically, once a sperm joins an egg a human being is created. So the question for those who are pro-choice is, does the 2nd human being get any rights?
If I stand in the line of reasoning of the pro-life arguments, I would agree that life is sacred and precious. I believe God created human life, and is the only one who can rightfully take it away (which I cannot deny He has done at times through other human beings). I disagree with the line of reasoning that society needs to work to pass laws which adhere to my own value system. As a Christian, in a country that is increasingly arguably "post-Christianity," I would expect it to further deviate from my own value system.
My stance on abortion, then, must be Pro-Life in a different sense. The infant, no matter what stage of development, is a human being. All human beings were created in God's image and no one has the right, therefore, to destroy them. By our own legal system, there must be consequences for murder. So this leaves me here: abortion should be termed illegal in all states.
Allow me to conclude on a personal note: I know those who have gotten abortions, and I am not condemning those who have made this decision. I understand that women do this for a number of reasons, and it is also not always their choice to do so. I must hold my position, however, because I believe that the lives of human beings are worth fighting for.
However, when it comes to that, why is it evil to kill an infant? An infant is a helpless human being. Furthermore, it has done nothing to deserve death. It is written in human DNA and in most systems of justice worldwide that there should be dire consequences for intentionally spilling human blood. Murder is wrong.
The age-old pro-choice argument goes something like this: a woman has rights. A woman has a right over her own body. She can choose what she does with it. Therefore an abortion is her business.
The age-old pro-life argument, on the other hand, argues: life is precious and sacred. An abortion destroys life. Abortion is morally wrong, and all persons should be banned from such action by law.
If I stand in the line of reasoning of the pro-choice arguments, I would agree that a woman has a right over her own body. She can pierce it, tattoo it, do drugs, whatever. It is her choice. When it comes to abortion, however, this line of reasoning needs to be replaced because now another human being is involved. Scientifically, once a sperm joins an egg a human being is created. So the question for those who are pro-choice is, does the 2nd human being get any rights?
If I stand in the line of reasoning of the pro-life arguments, I would agree that life is sacred and precious. I believe God created human life, and is the only one who can rightfully take it away (which I cannot deny He has done at times through other human beings). I disagree with the line of reasoning that society needs to work to pass laws which adhere to my own value system. As a Christian, in a country that is increasingly arguably "post-Christianity," I would expect it to further deviate from my own value system.
My stance on abortion, then, must be Pro-Life in a different sense. The infant, no matter what stage of development, is a human being. All human beings were created in God's image and no one has the right, therefore, to destroy them. By our own legal system, there must be consequences for murder. So this leaves me here: abortion should be termed illegal in all states.
Allow me to conclude on a personal note: I know those who have gotten abortions, and I am not condemning those who have made this decision. I understand that women do this for a number of reasons, and it is also not always their choice to do so. I must hold my position, however, because I believe that the lives of human beings are worth fighting for.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Government, Society, and Religion
I have wrestled much with the purpose of this blog. I want to address current issues in the world. I want to speak to what is really on people's hearts and minds (or bring up things which should be!). The way in which I intend to engage with arguments about government, society, and religion are through a Christian lens. It will also be though the lens of an English major, as much of old literature, what C.S. Lewis calls "the good books," has shaped my thinking.
My first point is this: There can be no Utopia. Read Thomas More's Utopia. Read George Orwell's 1984. Read Lois Lowry's The Giver. These may be fictions, but there is always some truth to every fiction and the truth presented in these is that the more humans try to create a perfect society, the more corrupt they become. Only, they are corrupted, rule-abiding citizens. Even in works such as I, Robot, by Isaac Asimov, laws given to robots on ethics seem to fail.
The point in being so cynical is to suggest that the solutions to issues in government, society, and religion which I will present are not to create a whole new society, but rather to try to change or fix the one we already have. This seems a far more practical application of ideas.
From the ground up, I fundamentally believe that
- humans are sinful in nature, incapable of being redeemed except by the grace of God.
- a society built by such imperfect beings will be imperfect.
-human beings have a God-given responsibility to try to redeem society as they themselves are being redeemed.
- human beings should seek to redeem society through what is both just and merciful in the eyes of God.
**there are many I could add to this list, but these seem particularly relevant at this point.
I might also say that, I believe my own ideas to be imperfect and am therefore open to the ideas/ comments/ critiques of others, so long as it is done so with civility.
My first point is this: There can be no Utopia. Read Thomas More's Utopia. Read George Orwell's 1984. Read Lois Lowry's The Giver. These may be fictions, but there is always some truth to every fiction and the truth presented in these is that the more humans try to create a perfect society, the more corrupt they become. Only, they are corrupted, rule-abiding citizens. Even in works such as I, Robot, by Isaac Asimov, laws given to robots on ethics seem to fail.
The point in being so cynical is to suggest that the solutions to issues in government, society, and religion which I will present are not to create a whole new society, but rather to try to change or fix the one we already have. This seems a far more practical application of ideas.
From the ground up, I fundamentally believe that
- humans are sinful in nature, incapable of being redeemed except by the grace of God.
- a society built by such imperfect beings will be imperfect.
-human beings have a God-given responsibility to try to redeem society as they themselves are being redeemed.
- human beings should seek to redeem society through what is both just and merciful in the eyes of God.
**there are many I could add to this list, but these seem particularly relevant at this point.
I might also say that, I believe my own ideas to be imperfect and am therefore open to the ideas/ comments/ critiques of others, so long as it is done so with civility.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Women Under Pressure: Beauty
I probably don't need to tell you this, but I will state the obvious anyways: women often suffer from low self-esteem because of the way they look. Surveys conducted by Dove indicate only 2% of women would consider themselves beautiful. The standards of beauty in society, from billboards to Hollywood films where women are overly made up, have gotten plastic surgery, and are then airbrushed or photo-shopped, one message is forced onto human consciousness: this is what real beauty is. The only problem is, it is not real.
The problem is further exacerbated by those who consume such products: which includes both men and women. Men, because of the visual stimulation, and women, because of their desire to know how to please men.
I have known women who spend hours trying to make themselves resemble this idealized type of beauty, and at the end of the day they are anxious, insecure, and unfulfilled.So what? Who cares about such vain women as these? you may say. Allow me to suggest that God does.
In Song of Solomon, the Lover describes a certain kind of beauty his Beloved has: including her body, her hair, her eyes, her adornments, and even her skills. But throughout this book, beauty is appreciated in its appropriate context: between a Lover and his Beloved. He has singled her out as, "Like a lily among thorns is my darling among the young women"(2:2). He is not appreciating the beauty of every woman that he sees and comparing them all, nor is he comparing her to the famous supermodels in his day. His love for her causes him to see the fullness of the beauty God has divinely created in her (as she, too, is made in His image).
All this to say, an unnatural type of beauty has become a cultural expectation for women, and it needs to end somewhere. I would suggest that men and women alike need to rewire their minds to see others' inner beauty, and remember that each person is made in the image of God. When exposed to such media as above mentioned, remember that what you are looking at is not entirely human. It is somewhat graphically distorted or mutated, and repeated exposure to such material develops an appetite for more of the same. Men, please change the way you think about women. Women, please stop trying to live up to such ridiculous expectations that will not fulfill.
To clarify: I am not advocating that a woman cannot make herself beautiful, but rather that she needs to do so in a healthy way, and in the right context.
The problem is further exacerbated by those who consume such products: which includes both men and women. Men, because of the visual stimulation, and women, because of their desire to know how to please men.
I have known women who spend hours trying to make themselves resemble this idealized type of beauty, and at the end of the day they are anxious, insecure, and unfulfilled.So what? Who cares about such vain women as these? you may say. Allow me to suggest that God does.
In Song of Solomon, the Lover describes a certain kind of beauty his Beloved has: including her body, her hair, her eyes, her adornments, and even her skills. But throughout this book, beauty is appreciated in its appropriate context: between a Lover and his Beloved. He has singled her out as, "Like a lily among thorns is my darling among the young women"(2:2). He is not appreciating the beauty of every woman that he sees and comparing them all, nor is he comparing her to the famous supermodels in his day. His love for her causes him to see the fullness of the beauty God has divinely created in her (as she, too, is made in His image).
All this to say, an unnatural type of beauty has become a cultural expectation for women, and it needs to end somewhere. I would suggest that men and women alike need to rewire their minds to see others' inner beauty, and remember that each person is made in the image of God. When exposed to such media as above mentioned, remember that what you are looking at is not entirely human. It is somewhat graphically distorted or mutated, and repeated exposure to such material develops an appetite for more of the same. Men, please change the way you think about women. Women, please stop trying to live up to such ridiculous expectations that will not fulfill.
To clarify: I am not advocating that a woman cannot make herself beautiful, but rather that she needs to do so in a healthy way, and in the right context.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)