I was listening to the communist manifesto today and it had a line in there about religion being an eternal truth that had survived all kinds of social revolutions. It went on to say that it was one of the things that communism would end though, because communism was supposed to discard all eternal truths. It didn't happen, obviously. The application of communism was pretty much a bust because now matter how you tout morality and the betterment of all, you frequently end up with corrupt people trying to get more out of it than the ideology allows. That's a separate issue. It intrigued me to consider religion an eternal truth.
I can't think of a society that doesn't embrace the idea that there is something more to human existence than this life. Some people say that is just us trying to make our miserable lives have more meaning but I'm more of the opinion that it is likely because there is an afterlife and a reward for virtuous behavior. But there really isn't a reliable communication method between the Earth as we know it and the community of those who have passed on. That makes it difficult for us because we could tolerate our loved ones taking a trip as long as we could call them periodically and have that sense of contact at our command. It's the idea that the person is gone forever that is difficult to take. Hence the afterlife. I think half the appeal of the afterlife is that it is supposed to be this place where all the people you love are waiting to greet you and hang out with you forever, neglecting the key fact that when we're around them here, we frequently erupt into anger if we are together too long. In the moment of loss, however, I think it's understandable that we think we would be changed by death into people who would find joy in eternity with the people we love. If your parents called and said that they were moving to some far-away country where they didn't know if they would have access to telephones, mail, internet, or any other means of communication, and they would be there for 15 years or so, would it be less difficult to deal with? Is it just lack of faith that makes is so? If we had stronger faith in our eventual reunion and in the blissful peace, would we still sorrow so greatly at the loss? Why is the hope and possibility that they will be able to see us on earth again so important? When Paul said, "Oh death, where is thy sting? Oh grave, where is thy victory?" had he developed his faith sufficient to feel the same about someone going on a trip of indeterminate length as about someone dying?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Reverence
We had a lesson on Reverence on Sunday and the general consensus seemed to be that reverence = respect and that kids nowadays have no respect. I think I have problems with both those assertions—with the first because if reverence meant respect, we wouldn’t have two words, and with the second for two reasons (a) our parents all said the same thing and (b) the respect of the children is often an implicit reflection of the respect of the parents.
What is reverence? A couple of dictionaries say that it is profound respect, tinged with awe. In other words, respect that reminds you of your own humility in comparison. What I feel for a judge might be termed respect as I am a law abiding citizen with little to fear from him but I hold in honor the work that he does and understand that I will support his lawful execution of his office as much as I can in reasonableness but when I am introduced to a judge, I am not reminded of my own lowly station in life, nor do I quake with the thought of his awful power (or potential power) over me. So when we talk about reverence, we have to mean more than simple respect, but humble, awed respect. I think that this is the reason they so often use the term “fear” when talking about how we should contemplate our relation to God. The term “God-Fearing” is not so much in vogue now as it has been in times past and I think it is a reflection on our loss of understanding of reverence. People often get so caught up in the notion that God is our father and the fact that he loves us that they forget that he is also an all powerful being, whose ways are not our ways, and whose thoughts are not our thoughts that they forget to consider him with an attitude of humble awe and respect.
In defense of the kids nowadays, our parents all thought we had lost all respect when they were dealing with us and it is certainly true in my particular case that I had little respect for anyone or anything for a few years too many. It wasn’t so much that I had no concept of respect, or didn’t actually feel any respect for anyone, but that I thought a person needed to earn my respect, and I saw so few people doing anything worth respecting that it led me to feel that no one was my equal, much less my superior, and therefore, no one deserved my respect. As I’ve grown, I think I’ve altered my perspective somewhat to believe that people deserve a modicum of respect as common courtesy. This was reinforced as I read some of the concerns that the Chinese government was having about the deportment of the common Chinese that Westerners might find objectionable. They were concerned because it is common practice to spit without concern for whether you hit someone, smoking is ubiquitous, and the concept of queuing is completely incomprehensible to them. To me, these seem like the disrespect of a teenager—that is, a complete lack of concern for the preferences of the person on the receiving end of the action, coupled with the mindset that a person worthy of respect would not be spat upon and if he was, the spitter would surely regret his actions.
But God doesn’t impose respect on us. He doesn’t walk around punishing people for irreverence much. As a society, we are remarkably irreverent. We’ve become so full of our own supremacy that we rarely consider others and almost never consider God. How many times have you been in a church meeting and hear someone’s phone going off? How committed to reverence are we if we tell the outside world how to interrupt our worship with the latest ringtone? And it’s not only irreverent, it’s as bad as spitting on the people who have come to worship for all the respect it shows to them. The fact that they don’t smash our phone does not mean they feel respected. How often do we walk in late, walk out early, talk to someone about another topic while the sermon is being uttered? I often think that the reason our children are irreverent at church is because we are checking our email while our wife is telling us about her day, texting during dinner, cursing while we drive, and staying at work late without calling ahead to our families. Our speech patterns have become commonly full of interruptions, our empathy filled with vague uh-huhs while we type on our laptops, and when we should be listening, we are planning our next witty remark. We’re shopping on our employer’s time, socializing at worship services on the Lord’s time, and absent during family time.
My hope is that we’ll learn to demonstrate respect and reverence, not demand it. Our children are highly influenced by what we say and do and I think the world would be better off with a little more reverence for divinity, respect for humanity, and general courtesy.
What is reverence? A couple of dictionaries say that it is profound respect, tinged with awe. In other words, respect that reminds you of your own humility in comparison. What I feel for a judge might be termed respect as I am a law abiding citizen with little to fear from him but I hold in honor the work that he does and understand that I will support his lawful execution of his office as much as I can in reasonableness but when I am introduced to a judge, I am not reminded of my own lowly station in life, nor do I quake with the thought of his awful power (or potential power) over me. So when we talk about reverence, we have to mean more than simple respect, but humble, awed respect. I think that this is the reason they so often use the term “fear” when talking about how we should contemplate our relation to God. The term “God-Fearing” is not so much in vogue now as it has been in times past and I think it is a reflection on our loss of understanding of reverence. People often get so caught up in the notion that God is our father and the fact that he loves us that they forget that he is also an all powerful being, whose ways are not our ways, and whose thoughts are not our thoughts that they forget to consider him with an attitude of humble awe and respect.
In defense of the kids nowadays, our parents all thought we had lost all respect when they were dealing with us and it is certainly true in my particular case that I had little respect for anyone or anything for a few years too many. It wasn’t so much that I had no concept of respect, or didn’t actually feel any respect for anyone, but that I thought a person needed to earn my respect, and I saw so few people doing anything worth respecting that it led me to feel that no one was my equal, much less my superior, and therefore, no one deserved my respect. As I’ve grown, I think I’ve altered my perspective somewhat to believe that people deserve a modicum of respect as common courtesy. This was reinforced as I read some of the concerns that the Chinese government was having about the deportment of the common Chinese that Westerners might find objectionable. They were concerned because it is common practice to spit without concern for whether you hit someone, smoking is ubiquitous, and the concept of queuing is completely incomprehensible to them. To me, these seem like the disrespect of a teenager—that is, a complete lack of concern for the preferences of the person on the receiving end of the action, coupled with the mindset that a person worthy of respect would not be spat upon and if he was, the spitter would surely regret his actions.
But God doesn’t impose respect on us. He doesn’t walk around punishing people for irreverence much. As a society, we are remarkably irreverent. We’ve become so full of our own supremacy that we rarely consider others and almost never consider God. How many times have you been in a church meeting and hear someone’s phone going off? How committed to reverence are we if we tell the outside world how to interrupt our worship with the latest ringtone? And it’s not only irreverent, it’s as bad as spitting on the people who have come to worship for all the respect it shows to them. The fact that they don’t smash our phone does not mean they feel respected. How often do we walk in late, walk out early, talk to someone about another topic while the sermon is being uttered? I often think that the reason our children are irreverent at church is because we are checking our email while our wife is telling us about her day, texting during dinner, cursing while we drive, and staying at work late without calling ahead to our families. Our speech patterns have become commonly full of interruptions, our empathy filled with vague uh-huhs while we type on our laptops, and when we should be listening, we are planning our next witty remark. We’re shopping on our employer’s time, socializing at worship services on the Lord’s time, and absent during family time.
My hope is that we’ll learn to demonstrate respect and reverence, not demand it. Our children are highly influenced by what we say and do and I think the world would be better off with a little more reverence for divinity, respect for humanity, and general courtesy.
Fire Safety
Just a quick word about Masterguard Fire Protection.
We called on a mailer for a free dinner to learn about fire-safety expecting it to be some sort of sales pitch.
It was.
The guy ran through a litany of scary stories about this person who got burned on 80% of his body, that person's wife died, this lady's kids got killed, your smoke detectors have a 55.8% failure rate but he won't tell you what a "dependable" smoke alarm costs. He said if you want to know costs, he'll drop by your house and walk through it and tell you on an individual basis.
My wife wanted a fire extinguisher and it probably wouldn't hurt to have a better fire alarm or two so we said sure, stop by.
For his recommendation of 12 alarms our total cost was $4,500.
He threw a fit when we said we didn't want it and made some comments that made me think he might be back to light our house on fire to teach us a lesson and stormed out.
Anyway, I googled similar products and found similar smoke alarms for $25-40, Carbon Monoxide alarms for about $40, and a two pack of fire extinguishers at costco for $70. Total cost for the same system: $420.
Fire safety is a good idea but don't get raped on pricing by a company who scares you into making a quick decision.
We called on a mailer for a free dinner to learn about fire-safety expecting it to be some sort of sales pitch.
It was.
The guy ran through a litany of scary stories about this person who got burned on 80% of his body, that person's wife died, this lady's kids got killed, your smoke detectors have a 55.8% failure rate but he won't tell you what a "dependable" smoke alarm costs. He said if you want to know costs, he'll drop by your house and walk through it and tell you on an individual basis.
My wife wanted a fire extinguisher and it probably wouldn't hurt to have a better fire alarm or two so we said sure, stop by.
For his recommendation of 12 alarms our total cost was $4,500.
He threw a fit when we said we didn't want it and made some comments that made me think he might be back to light our house on fire to teach us a lesson and stormed out.
Anyway, I googled similar products and found similar smoke alarms for $25-40, Carbon Monoxide alarms for about $40, and a two pack of fire extinguishers at costco for $70. Total cost for the same system: $420.
Fire safety is a good idea but don't get raped on pricing by a company who scares you into making a quick decision.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Does God Give Us Stumbling Blocks?
A friend of mine recently sat through a Sunday School lesson where the teacher said that the Lord gives us stumbling blocks to overcome and that some are too large. He used the example of his wife, telling how she began progressing in the Gospel as she learned and seemed to be on the path toward light and truth and then the Lord gave her the stumbling block of the church being patriarchal and that stumbling block was too big for her to overcome so she is stuck, the intimation being that her progression was halted in accordance with the will of the Lord, considering he gave her the stumbling block to begin with.
So, does the Lord give us stumbling blocks? Well, in the Lord's Prayer we ask him to, "lead us not into temptation", indicating that he has that capacity. (I've heard people trying to explain that one away as a translation error or similar, wondering how a perfect God could possibly lead someone into temptation when all temptation comes from the devil but I'll take my scripture as it stands.) We also know that "whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth," and of course there's that lovely verse in 1 Corinthians, which I think seals the deal. It says, "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
This one interestingly indicates that God suffers you to be tempted and also that he makes an escape with the temptation. Grammatically, that could mean that me makes both the temptation and the escape. We also know that he has said of us that he will "Tempt them and try them" and that one of the purposes of our life is to learn for ourselves what God in his omniscience already knows: how much we are willing to sacrifice on the altar of obedience to his will. We learn that by doing it, not by thinking we would be willing if called upon. I do not mean to imply that we must face all temptations to understand our commitment to the Lord, I mean that God knows which temptations are necessary for us to come to understand that and he will allow us to be tempted to help us to grow.
But is it ever in God's interest that our progress be halted due to our trials? I do not think so, else Paul would have said, God may be faithful or God may provide escape from the temptation, but he did not, he said God will. In other words, when discussing the trials that God sends us or allows us to bear, there will never be a time where spiritual progression should halt. We should be continually increasing in spiritual capacity and strength as a result of the burdens he allows us to bear.
There are other trials than those God would give us: the trials we bring upon ourselves through our own choices. God said, "thine own wickedness shall correct thee." In cases where we chose to disobey his will, there are naturally consequences and one of the first consequences of disobedience is loss of faith. Obedience is the first law of heaven and a prerequisite for every other Godly attribute we should aspire to. When we disobey God's will, we will definitely find our spiritual progression if not halted, at least impaired. Continued willful disobedience will result in backsliding and the consequences of our decisions will be a portion of the punishment God will mete out. Remember, though, God is merciful and the people of the Old Testament frequently cried out, "Thou hast punished us less than our iniquity deserved." There is great hope in that statement. For indeed, the punishment we earn when we commit sin is to be excluded from the presence of God forever. Christ suffered to allow us to overcome it and it is mercy that makes it possible.
Now we come to the story of Job. In that story, Satan somehow ascends to the presence of God (a place wherein we know that no unclean thing can enter) and they begin discussing their various minions. God points out Job and says, that one will be true through thick and thin, which is why I've blessed him. The devil asks permission to test that theory and God allows Job to be tried. Job whines for a few chapters but remains faithful and we are given a number of Gospel truths, among them, that the Sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundation of the Earth, giving clues to what our pre-mortal existence may have been like; that Job would be resurrected and see God with his own eyes after his death, talking about our post-mortal existence; and that this life is a blessing from into which we bring nothing and out of which we take nothing. In each stage of our existence we learn of our capacity for joy, and whether allegorical or literal, the story teaches us that God may well test us and that those trials are not meant to be an impairment on our spiritual progression but rather to help us to master the inclinations of the flesh and put spiritual goals above earthly aspirations.
In the case of the wife who could not accept a patriarchal church order, I do not think that God created the structure of the church specifically to give her a stumbling block. I think there are issues of humility that are preventing her from seeing that patriarchal or otherwise, she is expressing a lack of faith in God. Anytime we say God has to fit my model of what he should be we are doing Him a disservice. God is not a man that can be contained by our finite interpretations of what he should be and if we limit him to what we think he should be, we are limiting his infinite nature and are creating an idol to worship. I am not trying to discuss the question of whether a church organization should be patriarchal in order or not. I am trying to express that what the teacher or his wife perceive as a stumbling block to her spiritual progression (and they believe it was placed there by God intentionally) is actually a lack of faith and humility on her part to accept that this life and all its trappings are unimportant in the infinite view of our existence. Will God really keep someone out of heaven because they attend a church with a patriarchal structure? No. To believe so is to seriously misunderstand the mercy of God. Would we turn that around and say that a church that has a more egalitarian or matriarchal view of structure and organization has disqualified its members from exaltation? Absolutely not, because to limit God's powers of saving people to hierarchal organizations that fit my preferred model would be to deny his absolute power. But having faith in Him, humility to accept what trials he chooses to allow me to bear, penitence when I bring trials on myself, these are attributes he looks for when opening the gates of heaven and he helps us all the way there.
So, does the Lord give us stumbling blocks? Well, in the Lord's Prayer we ask him to, "lead us not into temptation", indicating that he has that capacity. (I've heard people trying to explain that one away as a translation error or similar, wondering how a perfect God could possibly lead someone into temptation when all temptation comes from the devil but I'll take my scripture as it stands.) We also know that "whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth," and of course there's that lovely verse in 1 Corinthians, which I think seals the deal. It says, "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
This one interestingly indicates that God suffers you to be tempted and also that he makes an escape with the temptation. Grammatically, that could mean that me makes both the temptation and the escape. We also know that he has said of us that he will "Tempt them and try them" and that one of the purposes of our life is to learn for ourselves what God in his omniscience already knows: how much we are willing to sacrifice on the altar of obedience to his will. We learn that by doing it, not by thinking we would be willing if called upon. I do not mean to imply that we must face all temptations to understand our commitment to the Lord, I mean that God knows which temptations are necessary for us to come to understand that and he will allow us to be tempted to help us to grow.
But is it ever in God's interest that our progress be halted due to our trials? I do not think so, else Paul would have said, God may be faithful or God may provide escape from the temptation, but he did not, he said God will. In other words, when discussing the trials that God sends us or allows us to bear, there will never be a time where spiritual progression should halt. We should be continually increasing in spiritual capacity and strength as a result of the burdens he allows us to bear.
There are other trials than those God would give us: the trials we bring upon ourselves through our own choices. God said, "thine own wickedness shall correct thee." In cases where we chose to disobey his will, there are naturally consequences and one of the first consequences of disobedience is loss of faith. Obedience is the first law of heaven and a prerequisite for every other Godly attribute we should aspire to. When we disobey God's will, we will definitely find our spiritual progression if not halted, at least impaired. Continued willful disobedience will result in backsliding and the consequences of our decisions will be a portion of the punishment God will mete out. Remember, though, God is merciful and the people of the Old Testament frequently cried out, "Thou hast punished us less than our iniquity deserved." There is great hope in that statement. For indeed, the punishment we earn when we commit sin is to be excluded from the presence of God forever. Christ suffered to allow us to overcome it and it is mercy that makes it possible.
Now we come to the story of Job. In that story, Satan somehow ascends to the presence of God (a place wherein we know that no unclean thing can enter) and they begin discussing their various minions. God points out Job and says, that one will be true through thick and thin, which is why I've blessed him. The devil asks permission to test that theory and God allows Job to be tried. Job whines for a few chapters but remains faithful and we are given a number of Gospel truths, among them, that the Sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundation of the Earth, giving clues to what our pre-mortal existence may have been like; that Job would be resurrected and see God with his own eyes after his death, talking about our post-mortal existence; and that this life is a blessing from into which we bring nothing and out of which we take nothing. In each stage of our existence we learn of our capacity for joy, and whether allegorical or literal, the story teaches us that God may well test us and that those trials are not meant to be an impairment on our spiritual progression but rather to help us to master the inclinations of the flesh and put spiritual goals above earthly aspirations.
In the case of the wife who could not accept a patriarchal church order, I do not think that God created the structure of the church specifically to give her a stumbling block. I think there are issues of humility that are preventing her from seeing that patriarchal or otherwise, she is expressing a lack of faith in God. Anytime we say God has to fit my model of what he should be we are doing Him a disservice. God is not a man that can be contained by our finite interpretations of what he should be and if we limit him to what we think he should be, we are limiting his infinite nature and are creating an idol to worship. I am not trying to discuss the question of whether a church organization should be patriarchal in order or not. I am trying to express that what the teacher or his wife perceive as a stumbling block to her spiritual progression (and they believe it was placed there by God intentionally) is actually a lack of faith and humility on her part to accept that this life and all its trappings are unimportant in the infinite view of our existence. Will God really keep someone out of heaven because they attend a church with a patriarchal structure? No. To believe so is to seriously misunderstand the mercy of God. Would we turn that around and say that a church that has a more egalitarian or matriarchal view of structure and organization has disqualified its members from exaltation? Absolutely not, because to limit God's powers of saving people to hierarchal organizations that fit my preferred model would be to deny his absolute power. But having faith in Him, humility to accept what trials he chooses to allow me to bear, penitence when I bring trials on myself, these are attributes he looks for when opening the gates of heaven and he helps us all the way there.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Pro-Life
I just read an article by a woman who was formerly the president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. She states in her article,
There are numerous comments on her article from people from both sides of the debate but I wondered about her limited reasoning. She argues that anyone who opposes abortion on the grounds of being "pro-life" is inconsistent if they support for any reason war or the death penalty. She further indicates that it is the tendency of most pro-lifers to feel that murder is justified.
Is it inconsistent to be opposed to abortion and still pro death penalty?
No. There is a significant difference between supporting the right to life for innocent individuals and supporting the right of society to impose consequences on negative behavior. Certain individuals rely on others to protect their rights, and pro-life people include the unborn in this category. I believe in the goodness of humanity and feel confident that most people would agree that children,the elderly, the handicapped, and the disabled fall into this category. They rely on others to safeguard them and the rights society collectively assigns to all people.
In the protection of those rights, societies create laws to regulate the behavior of those members who do not by nature behave in a way that benefits society. The creation of the law requires the imposition of consequences for infractions, generally consistent in severity with the nature of the crime. Some cases are severe enough that societies will make the determination that the perpetrator has no value to society and must be removed for the general welfare of the citizenry.
What about war? War in the best cases is an extension of the individual vs. society discussion of the previous paragraph. In others, it is not. An individual who holds moral values of pro-life could conceivably see a war both ways--as a requirement to safeguard the lives and rights of innocent or helpless individuals, making it consistent with their pro-life belief system or as a political tool without the required justifications, making it inconsistent with a pro-life belief system. In other words, a pro-life individual could easily go either way on a war without losing consistency in his belief system.
The issue I have with Ms. Thislethwaite's article is her assertion that there is no way for someone to claim the Pro-Life label while supporting the death penalty or any war for any reason and yet "have an actual, consistent ethic of life such as the views held by pacifists." That's narrow minded. People can have actual consistent ethics of life and be on both sides of this issue. That's what makes it complicated for us. How do you decide where you fall on the issue when you support freedom of choice and protection of innocent life? Who doesn't support both those things? But to say that someone has to put the socially imposed consequences of murder and violent rape on the same take-it-or-leave-it platter with all types of abortion is illogical. Please, respect reasoning, even if you are looking at the same data and coming to a different conclusion.
The original article is here, if you want to read it.
"Violence is a logical outcome of the extreme self-righteousness of those who claim the "pro-life" label as an absolute and yet who do not have an actual, consistent ethic of life such as the views held by pacifists."
There are numerous comments on her article from people from both sides of the debate but I wondered about her limited reasoning. She argues that anyone who opposes abortion on the grounds of being "pro-life" is inconsistent if they support for any reason war or the death penalty. She further indicates that it is the tendency of most pro-lifers to feel that murder is justified.
Is it inconsistent to be opposed to abortion and still pro death penalty?
No. There is a significant difference between supporting the right to life for innocent individuals and supporting the right of society to impose consequences on negative behavior. Certain individuals rely on others to protect their rights, and pro-life people include the unborn in this category. I believe in the goodness of humanity and feel confident that most people would agree that children,the elderly, the handicapped, and the disabled fall into this category. They rely on others to safeguard them and the rights society collectively assigns to all people.
In the protection of those rights, societies create laws to regulate the behavior of those members who do not by nature behave in a way that benefits society. The creation of the law requires the imposition of consequences for infractions, generally consistent in severity with the nature of the crime. Some cases are severe enough that societies will make the determination that the perpetrator has no value to society and must be removed for the general welfare of the citizenry.
What about war? War in the best cases is an extension of the individual vs. society discussion of the previous paragraph. In others, it is not. An individual who holds moral values of pro-life could conceivably see a war both ways--as a requirement to safeguard the lives and rights of innocent or helpless individuals, making it consistent with their pro-life belief system or as a political tool without the required justifications, making it inconsistent with a pro-life belief system. In other words, a pro-life individual could easily go either way on a war without losing consistency in his belief system.
The issue I have with Ms. Thislethwaite's article is her assertion that there is no way for someone to claim the Pro-Life label while supporting the death penalty or any war for any reason and yet "have an actual, consistent ethic of life such as the views held by pacifists." That's narrow minded. People can have actual consistent ethics of life and be on both sides of this issue. That's what makes it complicated for us. How do you decide where you fall on the issue when you support freedom of choice and protection of innocent life? Who doesn't support both those things? But to say that someone has to put the socially imposed consequences of murder and violent rape on the same take-it-or-leave-it platter with all types of abortion is illogical. Please, respect reasoning, even if you are looking at the same data and coming to a different conclusion.
The original article is here, if you want to read it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)