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.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)