The Faithful Skeptic

Moving!!

2005-07-15T22:06:00.000-07:00

Following Jay's lead, I'm abandoning Blogger and moving to Wordpress with my own url. You can find The Faithful Skeptic from now on at: blog.brianpdx.net.

See you there.

Of mice and men...

2005-06-15T21:51:00.000-07:00

I discovered last Thursday evening that we had a mouse in our garage. I went out to grab a screwdriver and I saw the cutest little mouse sitting on top of a bag of birdseed. We've had cat food and birdseed in the garage for almost a year, but it took almost that long for the critters to find us. Being the humane person I am, I picked up a couple of live traps from Home Depot and so far I've nabbed two of the critters. But this reminds me of our house back in Salem.

Our house in Salem was built in 1916 and the neighborhood was full of wildlife - mice, rats, nutria, felons, etc. Anyway, one day I discovered a gigantic rat on our deck. The rat was living in our basement and traveling through a crack in the foundation. My quest to rid ourselves of the rat evolved into a very Homer Simpson-esque episode. I started by hiding and trying to hit the rat with rocks as it ate our birdseed. No luck. I got bigger rocks. Still no luck. I rigged a contraption that involved a 4" x 6" post, bait, and a rope. My plan was to lure the rat under the post, pull the rope, and splat. No luck. Then I tried an old-fashioned trap. I managed to get my fingers a bunch of times, but no rat. Then I tried poison - the rat just wasn't interested. We finally just moved...

What I've concluded from this is that most rodents are smarter than I am. Bummer for me.

Godless America

2005-06-08T21:11:00.000-07:00

I listened to a great program on NPR tonight - it was "Godless America" from This American Life. Julie Sweeney, who apparently was on SNL, does a bit from her one-woman play called "Letting Go of God." It was great. It felt exactly like where I've been over the last year. Anyway, I highly recommend it.

I found out last week that I've been accepted into a Ph.D. program in Public Administration and Policy. I'm pretty excited about going back to school in the fall, but nervous also. A professor in my master's program gave me some advice about how to approach a Ph.D. program. He said that you need to know exactly what you want to do before you start. That's a problem for me - I have about a million ideas bouncing around in my head. I might try to work through some of them here...

We'll see.

God's Politics??

2005-06-07T21:02:00.000-07:00

I’m almost embarrassed to admit it, but the most exciting thing that happened to me this week was that the world now knows who Deep Throat was! In case you missed it, it was Mark Felt, the number 2 man at the FBI during the Watergate years. I’ve been waiting for this for a long time – when I was a junior in high school we had to pick a book and write a report on it. Being one of the geekiest kids in the world, I picked “All the President’s Men” by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. In my paper, my guess was that L. Patrick Gray was Deep Throat. Gray was the number 1 man at the FBI at the time. Not a bad guess, if I do say so myself.

Where I’m going with this is that you can probably tell that I’m a pretty political person. So when I read the lectionary readings for today I immediately jumped to the political ramifications. Then the part of my brain that reminded me that I’d like to be invited to speak again said, “you can’t talk about that at church.” But then I decided to ignore that part of my brain and so here we are.

The second text that Sarah read this morning refers to God’s promise to Abraham. The beginning of that reading starts “For the promise that he would inherit the world…” Paul here is referring to Genesis 12 – I’m going to read verses 1 – 3.

“Now the Lord said to Abram (later called Abraham), ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Now if you really unpack the text both here and in Romans, there’s some great stuff. Paul is laying out his argument that our salvation is based on faith, not law. The basis of our relationship with God is grace. Great stuff, really. But when I read that passage from Genesis and I hear “I will make of you a great nation” and “make your name great, so that you will be a blessing,” all I can think is this must be in the Republican Party platform somewhere.

And you know, I could talk all about this stuff all day. I could tell you how Bush used Christian imagery in his speeches after 9/11 and how the much of the world sees the war in Iraq as a 21st century crusade. I could tell you about Republicans in West Virginia who sent out campaign flyers telling supporters that Democrats wanted to ban the Bible. I could tell you about evangelical Christian leaders who believe God’s man is in the White House.

But then I’d calm down a little and remember the sticker we have on our refrigerator that says, “God is not a Republican or a Democrat.”

But when I’m honest with myself, I know that most of us who proclaim the loudest that God isn’t a Republican or a Democrat, really secretly believe that God actually is a Democrat. Surely any true God of justice and mercy would align himself with the Democrats who serendipitously happen to be the party of justice and mercy. God couldn’t be on the side of people who care more about tax breaks for the rich than they do for poor, or so at least we tell ourselves.

And I think that’s really the crux of the issue – that we all want to believe on some level that God is on our side and that he will bless us and curse our enemies. When we think about building the kingdom of heaven on earth we spend a lot of time looking in the mirror – we want to see ourselves and what we want reflected in that heaven.

Those of us with strong political opinions want to see our leaders use our faith for justice and mercy – and unfortunately that means wildly different things to Democrats, Republicans, socialists, greens, and libertarians. We all want to think that our vision is what the world needs. Our personal Jesus (who happens to feel the same way about most issues as we do) will truly bring peace on earth. This all makes me think that most of us aren’t very good at knowing what we need.

Jesus is a great example. Jesus was certainly not what many Jews had in mind when they were looking for the savior promised to them. In their messiah they wanted a warrior who would drive the Romans from the Holy Land and make them the great nation as promised to Abraham. Instead they get this guy who bums around in sandals, lives by the grace of others, and tells them that revenge is a bad thing. And really, if anyone deserved the right to bring down some good, old-fashioned revenge, it was probably the Jews at that time.

But Jesus preached a message of peace, compassion and contrition. We see this message in the Hebrew Bible as well – this is from Psalm 51, versus 10-17.

10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your holy spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and sustain in me a willing spirit.
13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you.
14 Deliver me from bloodshed, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your deliverance.
15 O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.
16 For you have no delight in sacrifice; if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased.
17 The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

As much as we hope for a leader who looks like us to come and lead the world to righteousness, I think our homes, our churches, and our political system could benefit from some compassion and contrition. Our call and God’s promise is to follow a radical Jesus that shocks, challenges, and above all loves us as much he loved those Jews and Gentiles in ancient Israel.

But getting back to the scripture that we started with today, we can’t ignore the fact that God promised Abraham that he would make them a great nation. So what does that mean? I think we have to revisit the notion of what it means to be a great nation in light of the New Testament. Jesus was certainly a political figure, but he was counter-cultural or even revolutionary. He was a peacemaker and a prophet – someone who spoke the truth.

I think what this means is that being a great nation and being blessed doesn’t necessarily manifest itself as political power. Our greatness comes not from seeing in how places we can hang the 10 Commandments (which are actually 11, but that’s another story), but rather in how we answer God’s call through Jesus Christ. How are we bringing peace, loving our neighbors, caring for the least of those among us?

But again, I think God’s given us a pretty simple answer. This is from Micah, chapter 6, verse 8:

“He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

Long Time...

2005-06-07T15:36:00.000-07:00

It's been a long time. I've been reading blogs selectively, working a lot, and being a dad and a husband. This might not be a good thing, but I'm pretty good at compartmentalizing my life. I'm still in a spiritual funk, but my home life and professional life are very good. Though there may be some good signs on the spiritual front.

I preached in church on Sunday and got a lot of great complimens. I don't like to admit it, but I really like/need that kind of positive feedback (both personally and professionally). I'll post my sermon later. It probably would have been pretty risky for a full time pastor to say some of the things I did, but since I don't depend on preaching to keep food on the table I did it anyway.

As I was preparing my sermon I got out a book I read about six years ago. It is "Jesus: A New Vision" by Marcus Borg. It was kind of Borg's academic companion to "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time." It was the first theological book I had ever read for my own edification and it had a huge impact on how I thought about Christianity and my own faith. It opened some doors for me in terms of reconciling what it means to have faith but also acknowledge that the Bible may not be literal/factual.

It was a joy to crack it open, and I may just have to read it again. I'm also going to try to post on a more regular basis.

Community & Outreach

2005-03-25T12:03:00.000-08:00

David made some good points about my discussion of community. He pointed out that our connection to community goes beyond just church growth, but also includes social outreach. I totally agree, but I want to explore some other dynamics that go along with that.

One of the other characteristics of our particular "mobile/transient" congregration is that many people are involved in outreach efforts not connected with our church. Some people volunteer through work or other social organizations that they're involved with. Many of the opportunities are also tied to their faith. So I think one of the difficulties we have in getting people to commit is not that they don't recognize the place of social outreach in their christian faith, but that they're already reaching out in ways that fit their particular needs and interests.

So if that's the case, what is our congregational response? Do we just say, "Cool! Let us know if we can help you?" Or, "That's great, but you need to be involved with the particular missions of this church." Or?

What I'm getting at is that I think we need to answer the question of whether church is the primary outlet/mechanism for our social outreach, or is it a place that supports the outreach efforts of our members wherever/whatever they might be?

I'll readily admit that I don't know the answer. I think in the United Methodist tradition we do a decent job of letting people know the proper place of outreach in our faith. But I think as churches become a part of our social networks rather than the locus, things get more complicated. In small churches, particularly, it is difficult to offer a range of outreach opportunities that will meet the needs/desires of all of our members. This is an opportunity for building on our connecting missions with other churches, but it also leads people to pursue their interests with other organizations - and I'm not sure that's all bad.

I think the challenge is probably to find a balance and figure out a way that we can help people meet their needs and do outreach effectively.

Community

2005-03-23T20:49:00.000-08:00

I've had some ideas bouncing around in my head for a couple of days that are finally ready to put down in some semblance of order. At a church meeting a couple of weeks ago we were talking about community - more specifically, what is the role of our church in our local community. Our pastor expressed dismay/frustration (I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing her opinion, but I think this is the general idea) about our lack of engagement with our neighbors (physically proximate). We discussed some ways in which the church could try to reach out to our neighbors and be more connected with our community.

I didn't say anything at the time, but a couple of things struck me. First, I think we have a vision of what it means to be a church that is based on a mid-20th century idea of what church is. What I mean is, 50 years ago the church was the primary focus of people's lives and people tended to live around their church. But now, for most of the people in our congregation, the church is one part of their life. Their life usually includes other social outreach activities, and probably other religious activities. So to expect most parishoners to devote all or even most of their time to their church is probably unrealistic.

Second, most people don't live near their church. Or probably more importantly, we don't choose our churches based primarily on physical proximity. Sarah and I live closer to our church than most of the people we worship with - in fact our pastor lives probably 15 miles away. I don't mean this as criticism - rather, it is indicative of the fact that our community is based on something other than physical proximity.

What I'm wondering is if the future of our churches is based on building relationships with our physical neighbors? Not that we shouldn't try, but if most of our members have chosen to live elsewhere (for all sorts of reasons - work, school, family, etc.) should we instead focus on the things about our church community that have attracted our current members?

I think we need to reimagine a parish/ward/district based church system and instead think about a system based less on place-specific attributes. Why couldn't we have two United Methodist churches right next door to each other if one was a traditional, high-church congregation and the other was a contemporary, alternative-worship style group?

About four years ago I was doing some reading on social network theory. The idea is that people have networks that they maintain/develop to meet their social needs. Before communication (telephones) and travel (cars/airplanes) became cheap and easily available people's networks were limited to those that lived near them. Thus churches were based on parish/ward/district systems because people couldn't afford/couldn't manage to get to places further away. One way of looking at it was that those communities were "accidental." You couldn't choose who lived next door to you, and because of the limitations of travel and communication it was much more difficult to maintain relationships with those who lived farther away.

But now, we're not bound to be friends with our neighbors because we can maintain meaningful relationships with people who don't live in our neighborhood/town/state/country. The consequence is that we can build more intentional networks. Social network theory is much more complicated than this, but my point is that maybe we should think about building our churches as intentional communities, rather than being bound by outdated concepts of church growth based on accidental communities.

Am I nuts?

Blogging Hiatus

2005-03-06T21:40:00.000-08:00

So, I ended up taking most of the month of February off. I didn't mean to, it just happened. I've still been reading some blogs here and there, but my mind has been occupied elsewhere. There's a long list of reasons, but here are some of the main ones:

I love being with my family - I'm constantly amazed by my wife's capacity to love and nurture us, and my daughter just turned one and I love her more every day, though that doesn't seem possible the day before;
My job, while very fulfilling, is taking up an increasing amount of my time;
I feel a spiritual void in my life and I'm unsure as to how to fill it;
I'm finding difficulty finding space in my life for my hobbies - for instance, I haven't read a book in almost two months (virtually unheard of for me).

I also have a tendency to make life complicated for myself. I blogged a while ago about applying to law school. I heard last weekend that I was accepted. But I've come to realize that the schedule required by the law school would be impossible to maintain without devastating my life with my family. Thus I've decided to apply to a Ph.D. program in Public Administration and Policy. That schedule is much more amenable to family life and would probably be more fun, anyway. Rather than staying still, I'm always looking for the next thing. Part of me is inclined to think that's a problem, but the other part of me believes it is an essential part of my character. One of the characteristics that God gifted me is an endless curiosity and a desire to learn.

But I'm going to try to blog more often. I'm hoping that thinking about spirituality and religion in a more focused way might help to get me out of this funk.

The truth about social security!

2005-02-02T21:17:00.000-08:00

As a United Methodist and being part of an aging congregation and denomination, Social Security is a huge issue. I'm sick of all of the misinformation floating around. The debate makes me think of a scenario like this:

A person is building a house and their hammer breaks. A democrat shows up and tells them that their hammer isn't broken. George Bush shows up and offers them a screwdriver.

The Democrats (for the most part) want to ignore that any problem exists and the solution proposed by Republicans doesn't actually fix the problem - it just costs us a ton of money.

Here's the truth - in about 40-50 years, assuming NOTHING in the current social security law changes, Social Security will only be able to pay 70-80% of projected benefits. Clearly a problem, but Bush describes Social Security in that scenario as "bankrupt." Actually many economists argue that the problem can be alleviated through modest tax increases and benefit reductions.

The issue is not the lack of privatization. The problem is a result of demographics. Social Security functions as a "pay as you go" system. The Social Security taxes we pay today aren't put away in some account with our name on it - they go to pay current retirees, for the most part. Right now there are many more workers in the system than retirees. Over the next 50 years that is slowing going to shift and there will be fewer workers paying into the system while there are more retirees. Private accounts are not going to solve a problem that is resulting from a fundamental shift in the demographic makeup of our society.

Social Security was never intended as an investment mechanism for moderate to high-income Americans. It is a safety net. Private accounts aren't going to help the working poor - they'll primarily benefit the middle and upper economic classes. Meanwhile, the safety net will be broken.

Bush needs to be honest about what he's doing and tell the American people that his plan won't save Social Security. The Democrats need to acknowledge that there is a problem. Everyone needs to start discussing this in terms of social justice and realize the system isn't primarily for those of us that have employer-provided pensions and IRAs.

Ethics

2005-01-31T21:18:00.000-08:00

Being a public employee, I hear a lot about ethics. We have a long "ethics" policy that delves into details like can we eat the cookies appreciative citizens drop off (yes), can we go on vendor supplied junkets to Vegas (no), and can we use our agency-supplied cell phone to call home in an emergency (yes, if it is short and infrequent - there's also a whole discussion of what constitutes an emergency, but that's another story). In government, ethics = rules.

One of my professors in grad school said over and over that true ethics don't have much at all to do with rules. That was a little hard to comprehend at the time, but I think I understand it better now. For instance, as I've mentioned before, I work in a law enforcement agency. Law enforcement agencies tend to be very paramilitary. Thus chain of command is VERY important.

Last week, my Police Chief was engaging in some behavior (political, primarily) that was detrimental to my organization as a whole. I was faced with a choice - violate chain of command and inform the overall agency manager, or keep to myself. I chose to go over my boss' head. This isn't about me being courageous - I used to work for the agency manager and they were so grateful for the information that they pledged to protect me if necessary.

I'm sure we've all heard the saying, "Ethics are how you behave when no one is watching." Trite, but true to an extent. But I also think our ethics cut to the fundamental honesty of our character. Can we speak the truth, even if it will hurt? Today I had to tell an employee I couldn't give them a raise, as much as I value their work. That was the hardest conversation I've ever had to have with an employee - but I think that being a Christian helped prepare me to be honest.

I think we need to talk more about ethics in church and how being a Christian should affect all areas of our lives. I know that I'm constantly challenged, and it would be good to walk through those challenges with others.

Safety

2005-01-27T19:43:00.000-08:00

I mentioned our small group event in my last post. During the event we had an interesting discussion on what it means for church to be a "safe space." Our congregation (prior to my family's arrival at the church) had an understanding of what that meant. We're now trying to work that concept with our new pastor.

One of the people in the group said that there were a couple of key aspects of safety (I'm paraphrasing):

The church should accept members and guests wherever they are on their journey of faith and recognize that people will always be in different places in terms of theology, worship, prayer, etc.;
The church should accept what a person can give in terms of their time, spirit and money realizing that lives are often complicated;
Members should be able to expect that confidences will be held, both by clergy and parishoners.

My approach was that as a member of the leadership team, I need to be able to feel that I'm accepted in spite of my failures as a leader. I have a very stressful job and I don't want church to become a place I feel guilty about attending because I'm struggling with my leadership duties.

It was interesting to me how differently we identified what it means to be safe in church. I certainly agree with the three points above, but they're not at the top of my list. I'm realizing what a challenge it is to create a space that is truly safe for people. We need to create a space for people to grow and succeed, but also cope with failure. We need to be prophetic voices for truth, but recognize the different spiritual roads we all follow. We need to provide comfort and compassion, but realize when people need to carry their burdens closely.

What does it mean for you for church to be safe? Should church be safe?

It's tough being a Christian sometimes...

2005-01-24T21:59:00.000-08:00

I'm tempted to blog about Falwell's keen observation about the homosexual indoctrination in Spongebob Squarepants, but that's just too easy (and has been done better by others). One of our local radio hosts made a joke that Falwell would really be upset by the spinoff, Spongebob No-pants. Might have to watch for that one...

Church is still tough. It's tough to go, and it's tough to be part of community that's suffering. But we made some good connections with other church members that live nearby this weekend, and that was a welcome ray of sunshine. We had a small gathering of members who lived in the local area at our house to help our pastor get to know us. That last part didn't go so well, but we enjoyed getting to know each other.

It helps me understand the attraction of house churches. I think absent the formal agenda, we could have really experienced some great Christian community. But I also can't imagine leaving formal liturgy and the physical church completely behind. Maybe a small group will be the way for me to transition through this crisis?

Sorry for the light blogging - dealing with major grant applications at work and personnel issues that test my ability to follow Christ in all aspects of my life. More on that later.

Country Vacation

2005-01-19T16:16:00.000-08:00

We spent the last five days traveling to and visiting my wife's grandparents in NE Washington. It is always wonderful to be up there, out in the country, and experiencing a completely different way of life. One thing I really love is the sense of connection. On the day we were leaving, we were trying to decide our route out of town because of problems with snow and ice. My wife's aunt and uncle teach at the local school. They talked to another teacher who had just come the way were thinking of leaving. This teacher (who we've never met) called our grandparents and advised them about the road conditions for us.

In our home town of 80,000 that would never happen. This woman who doesn't know a thing about us, took the time to call and give us information to help us make our trip home safely.

I also love how welcome you feel at the church. We hadn't been there for five months, but the pastor remembers us and we're treated like family. We're treated like family.

Where I struggle is that I know theologically we're desperately different. If they knew half the things that run through my head, they'd really wonder about me (and not entirely without justification). Probably some people in that church would tell me I'm not a Christian. At the least they'd have grave concern for my soul.

So I struggle between being able to just embrace the loving connection of that community and wondering what they'd think if they really knew me. I don't believe I'm better than them or smarter than them, I just fear they might not be as willing to accept me and my crazy ideas as people in my home church are.

What are the limits of Christian love? Should there be limits?

Turmoil

2005-01-13T16:28:00.000-08:00

My church is in turmoil as we deal with the impact of a pastoral change. In the United Methodist Church, our ministers are itinerant. They work for the conference and are assigned to local congregations. So in a lot of ways the strength of the congregation is in the laity, rather than the pastor. But this recent change is desperately testing our congregation. It is an exhausting process.

I really like the fact that our churches tend to based less on the success of a charismatic pastor and more on the strength of relationships and community. But the pastor is a such an important part of that community that they can and should have a tremendous impact on the church.

But the trouble comes when a pastor doesn't connect with the laity or the laity doesn't connect with the pastor. How do we fix this?

Insanity?

2005-01-12T16:10:00.000-08:00

I've been silent for a long while now. There are a lot of reasons, most of them
not very interesting. I have a lot going on in my life, particularly my
professional life. But I've also been thinking about making a pretty major,
life-changing decision. I've blogged before about my desire to attend seminary.
I've talked about how I feel a call and the stress involved in dealing with
that. But there's another call I've been feeling since I was in high school. I
would start to think about it, then blow it off. But it always comes back. It
is persistent in the same way I've heard other people talk about how God is
constantly nudging them into ministry.

My dream has been to go to law school. I think there are probably a lot of
obnoxious jokes here involving ministers & lawyers and heaven & hell, but I
won't go there. So over the last couple of months I've been thinking seriously
about applying to law school. There is an excellent program in Portland that
would allow me to attend part-time and keep working full-time.

So I took the leap today. I've turned in my application. This is the furthest
I've ever gone. I've requested lots of applications, started filling some out,
but I've never actually turned one in.

What's this mean? I'm still trying to figure it out. We'll see if I get in.
I'm excited and terrified at the same time. But I think God has a hand in this
too.

Sharing Christ's Love?

2004-12-14T08:29:00.000-08:00

I'm taking a bit of a blogging sabbatical this Advent season. But I'll be here now and then.
As I've mentioned before, I work for a law enforcement agency. We have a program where we have several chaplains on-call who are available to respond to people who've just experienced tragedy in their life. It is a great idea.

Here's where the program breaks down. We currently have five volunteer chaplains who are all non-denominational, conservative, evangelical Christians. Our chaplains have engaged in some of the following behaviors:

refusing to cooperate with an effort to bring on Jewish or Muslim clergy so we can be responsive to all members of our community,
engaging in discriminatory behavior towards the one female chaplain in the program (e.g. refusing to schedule her for shifts)
refusing to honor requests for assistance from clergy of specific denominations

Just to be clear, I don't believe all conservative, evangelical Christian pastors would behave this way. But what a horrible example of sharing Christ's love with those in need. I have trouble imagining why a pastor would not want someone to receive the pastoral care they want.
The result of this disaster of a program is that most officers don't even offer the chaplaincy services to our citizens. We're trying to fix it, but what a mess.

The world can be a pretty crappy place...

2004-11-29T21:32:00.000-08:00

I now work for a police agency and so I get to hear all sorts of wild stories. Some of them are pretty interesting, but one today was very sad. Our detectives are on the verge of breaking up a large, local prostitution ring. Their big break was when one of the prostitutes was sent to the hospital by her pimp.

This girl is 16 years old and has been "hooking" for two years. She's pregnant and a meth user, but has been trying to cut back since she learned that meth is bad for the baby. She's turning 20-30 tricks a week for $35 each. Her pimp (who happens to be a woman) would drop her off at migrant camps and she'd work her way through one man at a time.

One of the officers was talking about prostitution in our town and kept referring to these women as hookers, whores, and street-walkers. I understand that officers can become jaded and not see the humanity of the people they work with, but I kept thinking how cruel it was to refer to this girl as a whore.

I'm sure her life is more complicated and filled with more pain than I can imagine. How is it our society can tolerate a system that turns 14 year old girls into prostitutes? What is America to this girl? What is the American dream to a 16 year old girl supporting herself through prostitution?

I don't have an answer, but I wish I did.

Shame on me!

2004-11-22T20:25:00.000-08:00

I'd like to be able to say that I haven't been blogging because of my new job. Unfortunately that's not true. In truth, I've been in a bit of a religious funk. It's hard to say what's caused it, but the result is a deep spiritual disconnect.

So I started to think this weekend about the times when I've felt closest to God. Some of those have been at church. What I realized was the one constant has really been music. I haven't talked about it much on this blog, but I've spent a lot of my life involved in music. Through high school and college I played in band. When I graduated college I was an excellent tuba player and a passable bass trombonist. I can sing a bit and slowly hack my way through easy music on a piano.

That's all to say that I really feel like I experience God when I'm making music. But starting about four years ago I had to put aside my music (which involved playing in a community band) to focus on other things - mainly working full-time and going to graduate school full-time simultaneously.

I think I'm feeling the lack of that connection and need to find a way to bring music back into my life - now while balancing family and full-time work. I'm also going to try to be better about blogging.

Read this

2004-11-05T08:09:00.000-08:00

This is from a column by Robert X. Cringely. Read the whole column here.

...
Back to the election. If the experts are correct, the 2004 election results mean we now live in a country where morality is apparently the major concern of people. Am I wrong, or is the same thing not true in Iran? And if our morality is in fundamental conflict with their morality, which side will be willing to sacrifice more to obtain what they view as their just end? I can tell you it ain't us.

Back in 1986 I talked Penthouse magazine into giving me an assignment to write the story: "How to Get a Date in Revolutionary Iran." The premise was that hormones are hormones, and those wacky kids in Tehran, most of whom could still remember the Shah, had to be finding some way to meet members of the opposite sex. So I headed off to Iran to find out the truth. If you are interested in such stuff, the only time a single man and woman not from the same family could be together in private back then was in a taxi (he being the driver), so all the teenage boys who had or could borrow cars turned them into taxis. This, of course, put all the power in the hands of the woman since she could see him but he had to take pot luck.

I eventually finished the piece and decided to go see the war since I had been in Beirut and Angola, but had never seen trench warfare, which is what I was told they had going in Iran. So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, who had gone, as I recall, to Iowa State, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack. That attack was to be conducted primarily with 11-and 12-year-old boys as troops, nearly all of them unarmed. There were several thousand kids and their job was to rise out of the trench, praising Allah, run across No Man's Land, be killed by the Iraqi machine gunners, then go directly to Paradise, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dinars. And that's exactly what happened in a battle lasting less than 10 minutes. None of the kids fired a shot or made it all the way to the other side. And when I asked the purpose of this exercise, I was told it was to demoralize the cowardly Iraqi soldiers.

It was the most horrific event I have ever seen, and I once covered a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh that killed 40,000 people.

Waiting those two nights for the attack was surreal. Some kids acted as though nothing was wrong while others cried and puked. But when the time came to praise Allah and enter Paradise, not a single boy tried to stay behind.

Now put this in a current context. What effective limit is there to the number of Islamic kids willing to blow themselves to bits? There is no limit, which means that a Bush Doctrine can't really stand in that part of the world. But of course President Bush, who may think he pulled the switch on a couple hundred Death Row inmates in Texas, has probably never seen a combat death. He doesn't get it and he'll proudly NEVER get it.

Welcome to the New Morality.

It's going to be a long four years...

2004-11-04T15:59:00.000-08:00

"I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals," said Bush.

In other words, you're either with him or against him. Sigh.

Sometimes it stinks to be right

2004-11-04T11:56:00.000-08:00

So last week I predicted Bush would win 52% - 47%, with Nader coming in with 1%. Actual results so far show a Bush win, 51% - 48%. Pretty darn close, if I do say so myself. I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised that Nader played less of a role than I thought he would. Hopefully he'll wander off into obscurity now.

I hope the Democrats use the next four years to learn from their mistakes and really build momentum for the 2006 midterm elections and 2008 presidential election. Another thing the Democrats need to do: reclaim the moral authority to talk about values. As Jim Wallis says, the Republicans have convinced America that they are the only party that can talk about values, and the only moral issues that matter are abortion and homosexuality.

Democrats need to build some serious relationships with Christian progressives and start talking seriously about morals and values. Democrats need to forcefully reject the attempts of Republicans to narrowly define what is "moral." Talking about meeting the needs of the poor and marginalized in our society is a moral issue. Guaranteeing access to healthcare for all citizens is a moral issue. Fighting for religious tolerance and against government establishment of religion is a moral issue.

I'm seriously considering registering as a Democrat. The Democratic Party needs to hear the voices of Christian progressives. How do we make sure they get the message?

Defending Orthodoxy

2004-11-04T11:54:00.000-08:00

Recent discussions on this blog have basically come down to what is orthodox? How far is too far? When is an idea too crazy? I think when we have these discussions what we run into is the desire to defend orthodoxy. It is about drawing lines. Who is in and who is out.

But I've been wondering, who are we defending orthodoxy for? I think the desire of Christians to strictly define what is orthodox is a mechanism of institutional and organizational survival. The fear is that without strict boundaries of acceptable thought the organization (the Church) will lose its distinctiveness. But how does that translate into spreading the good news? I think the inclination to defend orthodoxy is destructive to the mission of the church, because institutional concerns trump the ability of Christians to share Christ's radical message of love and grace.

Think of Martin Luther King Jr. Certainly his message was well outside "orthodox" for many southern Christians. But almost no one would argue now that people of color should be excluded from the church. Think of the movements within mainline denominations to allow women to participate in ministry. Again, outside of orthodoxy. But most Christians now would never think of denying women the right to be full partners in ministry.

Those social movements trumped the desire to defend orthodoxy. What if gay/lesbian/bisexual rights are the next movement? How are conservative Christians keeping the church from sharing the good news in the name of orthodoxy?
I think crazy ideas are good things. They're not all right, but we need to have space where we can think wild thoughts and ask crazy questions. Crazy questions like, "why does God love me?" "How can God forgive me?" When we try to limit thought to what is appropriate and orthodox, the body of Christ suffers.

I'm going to leave you this quote from Jeffrey John (read the full article here):

... If you're ever disillusioned by other Christians it's your own fault because you shouldn't have had illusions in the first place - either about them or yourself. We are all on the margins where God is concerned, but he holds his nose and he uses what he's got. If he wants to use a bad-tempered old bag to feed the poor of Calcutta, who are we to say otherwise? If he wants to use a rampant adulterer to bring freedom to a billion black people, who are we to complain? It was probably their sins that brought them to God in the first place. The question for us is, what comparable good have we achieved to balance out ours?

The Church that Jesus first assembled was a gang of sinners and rejects. Any Church that is His Church ought to know that it is the same. It has to show the same kind of love, the kind that includes and embraces first, then let’s the love do the healing from the inside. That’s what Catholic means. Michael Marshall once wrote: ‘the test of genuinely Catholic Christianity is not that it makes good people better, but that it makes bad people holy’.

Or as Oscar Wilde, another good Catholic put it: We are all in the gutter; but some of us are looking at the stars.

Thanks to Father Jake for the link.

Conferencing...

2004-10-27T21:38:00.000-07:00

I've been at a conference all week. Heard one "inspirational" speaker. He made a good point though. He said that people who survive (based on a book by a Holocaust survivor) and thrive have two characteristics:

- They have a goal for every day
- They take control of their attitude

Its a good message and I am realizing that I have control over the type of day that I have.

Three reasons to vote against Bush...

2004-10-25T20:40:00.000-07:00

that no one but me will probably care about.

1.) Bush appointees to the Federal Communications Commission (including Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell) are extremely unfriendly to local governments. Proposed FCC rules will limit the ability of local governments to collect franchise fees from telecommunication utilities. Those franchise fees pay for essential services like police and fire.

2.) The Bush Administration is proposing reduced funding for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants that provide local police agencies with equipment like radios, bulletproof vests, cars, and other essential gear. Bush appointees are also proposing to eliminate the Edward Byrne and Violence Against Women Act grant programs, that fund domestic violence prevention and recovery services across the country.

3.) The Bush administration delayed $2 billion in funding for local first responders for months after 9/11 after the House and Senate had approved it. Meanwhile, local police and fire agencies bore the burden of increased security costs based on the new terror alert system. Remember, the police and fire fighters that died in 9/11 worked for the City of New York - not the federal government.

Predictions, anyone?

2004-10-22T08:05:00.000-07:00

Anyone care to call the presidential race? Here are my predictions:

1.) All of the polls will be wrong (more on this below).
2.) There will several lawsuits, regardless of who wins.
3.) Bush wins: Bush - 52%, Kerry - 47%, Nader - 1%

There are a couple of reasons the polls will be wrong. Polls typically poll "expected voters." Those are usually people who have voted recently, kept their address at their local elections office updated, and actually answer their phone. But both liberal and conservative groups have been running very successful voter registration drives. There are a lot of new voters on the rolls that don't fit the "expected voter" mold. Thus they're not getting asked who they are going to vote for.

An interesting aside to this discussion is an article by Robert X. Cringley, who argues that the widespread adoption of cell phones is also complicating the issue. For the last 50 years, about 95% of US homes had land line phones. But an increasing number of people are switching to cell phones for their primary phone. But it is illegal for pollsters to call cell phones! A lot of these new, young, registered voters only use cell phones and they're not getting polled!

What this means is that the polls are likely not giving us good information. The election is really going to come down to turnout. Will the Republicans be more successful at turning out conservative Christians, or will the Democrats turn out more young people? I feel much more confident in the ability of the GOP to turn out evangelical Christians than in the ability of the Democrats to turn out young people. But I could be wrong. I hope that I'm wrong.

Final prediction:

4.) After the election, the Democrats will ride Nader out of town on a rail and force him to emigrate to Antarctica. Or Greenland, maybe.

Godless people?

2004-10-21T19:09:00.000-07:00

This comment was left on a previous post of mine:

"and the fact that the Godless people of the world are the main supporters of homosexuality does not make you wonder?"

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what is trying to be said. Without knowing the precise intent, I'm going to approach it in two ways.

The post that this comment belongs to affirms my opposition to a ballot measure in Oregon that seeks to ban gay marriage. Might this comment be saying, "if you're not with us (evangelical, conservative Christians), you're against us?" Godless homosexuals aren't part of God's kingdom so it is fine to discriminate against them? I think Christians are called to a higher standard of civility.

But I think the comment is more about who is in and who is out. In God's Kingdom, that is. I think the implicit message is that homosexuals aren't Christian (or at least good ones) and the people who support them aren't either, so they are obviously not in and/or welcome in God's Kingdom. Thus, if a Christian majority decides to legalize discrimination against them, that is their problem.

I want to turn back to this whole notion of who is in and who is out. The gospels have several stories where the Pharisees or Jesus' disciples were sure someone was "out." But then Jesus says, "Hang on a minute!" Take Matthew 9:10.

Jesus is sitting down to dinner with tax collectors and sinners. The Pharisees ask "what's up with that?" Jesus says, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners."

In Matthew 21:31 Jesus tells the temple priests and elders that tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before they do.

In Luke 10 (the story of the good Samaritan), Jesus asks the disciples "And who is my neighbor." The answer? "The one who showed him mercy."

In John 4, Jesus is talking to a Samaritan woman, when his disciples see him. They ask, "Why are you speaking with her?" Why would Jesus waste time with a Samaritan woman? Because he was breaking down their idea of who was in and out of the kingdom.

God asks us to show mercy. Jesus came to remind us that God's kingdom is bigger than we can imagine. I would ask who are the tax collectors and Samaritans of today? When Christians devote time and energy to exclude people from Christ's table based their sense of their own holiness, we miss the message of Christ.

I believe Christ demands us to radically welcome all people to his table. When I read the passages above, I see Jesus deconstructing the popular notion of who is in and who is out. If Jesus showed up today, what would he do? Read the passages above and tell me what you think he'd do.

An accurate diagnosis

2004-10-21T13:07:00.000-07:00

Richard has hit the nail on the head:

I agree with Chuck and others that it is this division over Biblical interpretation that lies at the root of many ongoing controversies in the church. Unless that division can be bridged there is little prospect of reconciliation, but I see no sign of that happening any time soon. Those who hold the view that the Bible is “infallible” cannot easily accommodate an alternative view and keep their integrity. As a minister who reads the Bible with the utmost seriousness I have a problem with this. I’m convinced it is a relatively simple matter to demonstrate that the Bible is plainly and unequivocally not infallible, at least by any sensible use of the word. But the attempt to make that demonstration is seen by those who hold it as an assault upon their faith, the very last thing I would want to do.

I wish I thought there could be an easy answer to this problem. Prayer, fellowship and continuing conversation would provide a route, but without settling this issue it is exactly these 3 things which are most difficult.

How do we talk about these issues when, for some of us, the issue is "untouchable" theologically?

2004-10-20T16:41:00.000-07:00

I was coming home last night I heard a radio advertisement in support of Oregon's Measure 36. Measure 36 would define marriage in the Oregon Constitution as between "one man and one woman." This ad claimed (among other things) that should Measure 36 fail, schools would have to teach gay sex. Other ads ominously declare that "liberals and activist judges" are out to destroy your way of life.

So why the scare tactics? I think it is because if you try to present the issue reasonably it comes across as an exceptionally ugly form of discrimination. Try this on for size:

"Vote for Measure 36 so we can formalize discrimination against homosexuals in the Oregon Constitution!"

"Support denying homosexuals equal protection under the law. Vote for Measure 36!"

Measure 36 is discriminatory. It is ugly, it is evil, and it is wrong.

It makes me incredibly sad that the main people supporting this initiative are Christians. This measure is probably going to pass, primarily based on the political and financial support of Christians. Now that's the love of Christ in action!

I'm pissed.

I'm sad.

I want to curse, but I won't.

WWJD?

No on 36!

Sermon - "A word about The Word"

2004-10-18T18:43:00.000-07:00

2 Timothy 3:14-17 (MSG)
There's nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another--showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God's way. Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has for us.
------------------------
I was pleasantly surprised to see that this was the lectionary passage for today. I've been thinking a lot about this lately and I didn't realize I'd have a such a great excuse to talk about this when I agreed to preach today. But I've got to start off with some bad news - the title of the message in the bulletin is "A Word about The Word." I'm afraid I've got a lot more to say than just one word.

It might seem funny to you, but this particular passage has been a big issue for me in my journey of faith. It might seem innocuous, but it isn't for me. What you might not realize is that this passage is one of a handful in the New Testament that support an idea called the Divine Plenary Inspiration of the Bible. The idea is that God directly sent what we know as the Bible down to earth through human writers. It's like God faxed it down. An accompanying doctrine is that of inerrancy. The belief is that the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts. There is not a single error and every word is as God precisely intended it to be.

The problem for me is that many of the people I've met who believe this also feel perfectly comfortable telling me exactly what the Bible has to say on whatever the issue is at hand. But when I read the Bible, it's not nearly so unambiguous. For me, anyway, the Bible is complicated. So I started wondering, what was Paul saying when he wrote his second letter to Timothy?

One of the first things I learned is that Paul almost certainly didn't write the letter. The timeline in the letter conflicts with what scholars and historians know about Paul's life. It conflicts with Paul's other letters in the Bible and the accounts of Paul's life in Acts. Because the authorship is uncertain, it is difficult to date with any certainty. Scholars place its writing sometime between the year 64 CE (about thirty years after the death of Jesus) and the year 150.

The date is important because we know that the earliest gospel account (Mark) was written about the year 70. John, the latest, was written about the year 90. Scholars believe most of the other parts of the New Testament were written around that same time period - from about the year 40 or 50 until sometime in the early second century. What this means is that author of 2 Timothy was not referring to the New Testament when he or she said all Scripture is God-breathed because the New Testament didn't exist at that point. So what were they referring to?

Almost certainly not the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible as we know it. At that time Jews commonly used what was called the Septuagint. It contains the books we know as the Old Testament, but also several deuterocanonical books known as the Apocrypha, which Catholics include as part of the Old Testament. In fact, some scholars believe that early Christians considered the Apocrypha sacred long after Jews had excluded it from their canon. But the canonization of the Bible is a story for another day. My point is that the author of 2 Timothy was referring to something radically different than what we call Scripture today.

So what is Scripture? It is easy to say that the Bible is the Word of God. But which one? Is it the original texts? Then no translation is precisely the Word of God. If translations can be the Word of God - which one is it? They're all different. Right here I have four different versions.

I want to share a quote from a British theologian and Anglican Priest, Maggi Dawn. She has been publishing a series of short articles on the internet called Words and the Word. Here's part of what she has to say:

"The dilemma we face in calling the Bible "The Word of God" is that words, which remain our best means of communication, are fluid, unstable, shifting in meaning; thus the concept of a faithful and stable God communicating with us through his 'Word' is perilously woven in with the fickle and unstable medium of lanugage. To say that words are fluid doesn't necessarily mean that they don't mean anything. But to insist that these particular words - the words in the Bible - don't obey the same rules of fluidity that other words do, far from solving the problem actually creates another, worse one, in that it fixes and ossifies "The Word of God" into a legalistic and static document, which does not reflect the fact that God is alive and in relationship with himself and with humanity (and, incidentally, still doesn't render one clear and unambiguous meaning of the text!) Words with 'fixed meaning' become ossified; God is alive.

The release valve to the problem is the recognition that "The Word" and 'the words' are related but not the same thing. We may hear God speak THROUGH the words of the Bible more effectively if we do not insist that they are 'His Words'"

God is alive, indeed. And I think that is the insidious message of the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. It tells us that if God doesn't make perfect sense to you now all the help you're going to get is in the Bible. Not only that, but God stopped speaking to world 2000 years ago. For some reason God is done with us. And the message of inspiration is that we should be able to get it. This collection of ancient writings should be able to give us perfect knowledge of God. Everything we need to know should be in the Bible. As Methodists we believe that all of the knowledge necessary for our salvation is contained in the Bible. But that is a very different thing than saying everything that we need to know is contained in the Bible.

This may not seem as ridiculous to you as it did to me, but I was reading a Christian magazine a couple of months ago. In the advice column, a woman had written in asking if it was un-Biblical to get breast implants. The author worked hard to try to convince her it was un-Biblical, but from my perspective, the biggest problem for the columnist is that the Bible doesn't say anything about breast implants.

I think it is a temptation to try to make the Bible God's encyclopedia. But the reality is that it doesn't have the answers to every question we might ask. In our darkest hours, in the midst of our brokenness, we might not find what we need there. But that doesn't mean that Bible is meaningless. Rather, I like how Marcus Borg views the Bible. He argues that the Bible is divinely inspired, but by that he means that he believes God was working in the lives of the authors. But the Bible is a human product that documents the story of our faith and its sacredness derives from its ability to help us experience the Risen Christ.

I think it is really tempting to believe that God has given us everything we need to know, if we could just read the Bible the right way. It is comforting to believe that God inspired the writers of the Bible by dictating the exact words. It brings certainty to an uncertain world. The problem for me is that the Bible does not even claim that sort of inspiration for itself, as we can see from studying 2 Timothy. I believe the Bible is unmistakably a human product, inspired by the work of God in the lives of those that came before us.

I don't believe that the sum of God is wrapped up in a few thousand pages of text written down a couple of thousand years ago. God is both bigger and more complex than can possibly be reflected in human writing. I believe that God is active and present in our lives and will work through us when we open ourselves to that possibility. I think that our legacy as Christians is that we try to understand and experience God using the Biblical witness of our ancestors as the beginning of the story, rather than the end.

Speechless, for a change

2004-10-15T09:21:00.000-07:00

I haven't had much to say lately. The main reason is that my job is keeping me very busy right now. That has actually been pretty enjoyable, but this vacation of sorts I've been having at work for the last four months comes to an end on Monday. That makes me sad, but I'll live. The good news, though, is that I start a new job on November 1st. I am very excited about the possibilities it holds.

A couple of baby stories for Friday.

It is fascinating to watch a baby develop. Now that Claire is crawling, she's starting to understand distance and the fact that people go away. She's been awake the last couple of mornings when I've left for work and she cries when I leave. It's great to feel wanted and needed, but it doesn't make you want to leave. She's also learned how to wave "bye-bye" in the last couple of weeks. It is adorable.

The flip side of that story is that Claire is incredibly excited to see me when I get home. She gives me a big smile and crawls to me as fast as she can. If there's something in her way, she cries until the obstacle is moved or she gets around it. Seeing that makes all of the baggage from a hard day at work disappear.

Now our only problem is that Claire has this small misunderstanding about sleep. She doesn't quite get that we sleep at night and play during the day. She wants to play all day and all night. That's not so good for those of us that like to sleep more than an hour at a time at night.
Speaking of babies and love, my father-in-law gave Sarah a book for her birthday called Why Love Matters: How Affection Shapes a Baby's Brain.

Apparently research is showing that affection plays a crucial role in how babies develop. Knowing that makes me happy that Sarah decided to stay home with Claire. It certainly makes my life easier, but I believe that it is making a world of difference in Claire's life. I understand that not all families can afford to have one parent stay home and that placing your children in daycare doesn't make anyone a bad parent.

But I've got to say this. If you are middle class or filthy rich and you want to have children, but you're not willing to prioritize your life in a way that makes your children more important than money, then maybe you shouldn't have children. I know some people (male or female) feel like they couldn't stay home. But making your children a priority doesn't mean you have to quit your job. Maybe each partner works part-time. But if you are unwilling to change your lifestyle (by that I mean, get along with less money), I don't think you should have children.

I know a couple that has two children. Between the two of them they make a very good living. Their children spend close to 60 hours a week in daycare. Their jobs, and the lifestyle that their salaries make possible, are more important to them than being present for their children. They could live easily on either one of their salaries. They choose a large house, new cars, exotic vacations, and eating out over presence.

I think if you have the financial means available, you should put your kids first. If that's not something you want to do, don't have children. The last thing our society needs are more people who evaluate success only in terms of money.

Here's an interesting, and kind of scary, story from 60 Minutes about the phenomenon of high-powered women staying home. The scary part is a woman arguing that staying home is worse for women than being in the workforce and that women who do decide to stay home hurt women who decide to work. No more ranting for today.

Preaching, again

2004-10-12T15:27:00.000-07:00

I have the opportunity to preach again this Sunday for Laity Sunday. Having done it once, I'm feeling a little more weight on my shoulders to do well. One of the good comments I got from my friend David (who is an excellent preacher, in my humble opinion) is to not try to cram every idea I have into my sermon. When you don't get to preach very often it is very tempting to try to say everything that's on your mind.

What's funny is that scripture the pastor picked (out of the lectionary, I assume, but I've been too busy to check) is the 2 Timothy passage used to support biblical inerrancy. Great timing for me, because I can use what I've written here as a start.

My challenge is to condense my thoughts into a single coherent message that leaves the congregation with something to take home. It's not enough to just say that I don't believe in biblical inerrancy - how do I think my perspective on the nature of the Bible should influence our lives as Christians and shape our approach to the Bible? When I find an answer, I'll let you know.

Too busy to blog

2004-10-11T14:17:00.000-07:00

Things are too busy to really blog at the moment. Work is crazy. Baby isn't sleeping - at night, anyway.

Yesterday was our Church Conference - where we elect unsuspecting souls to committees and vote on the pastor's compensation (if you can call what we pay "compensation"). This is probably heretical, coming from a United Methodist (who are probably only second to the Germans in their love for bureaucracy), but I was expecting an afternoon of pointless meetings. Actually we had a short, but moving worship service and actually got some good stuff done. Still, I was happy to go home.

There's not much like singing "O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing" with about 100 other great singers!

I've got nothing...

2004-10-07T16:44:00.000-07:00

I've got nothing today. This is one of those times when the reality of life is getting in the way of creative thoughts. I've some ideas for a post on fear. Maybe next week. In the meantime, read David's post on Biblical Inerrancy - it is a great followup to my post on the same topic.

On another note, Sarah and I watched Part I of Angels in America. All I can really say is "Wow." It is amazing and powerful - and we still have Part II to watch. It's not hard to believe that it won 5 Academy Awards, 11 Emmys, and 5 Golden Globes, The mini-series is based on the play by Tony Kushner, which won two Tony Awards and a Pulitzer.

If you're interested in learning about the early years of the AIDS crisis, read And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic, by Randy Shilts. It is an amazing book. It is also a great introduction to the field of epidemiology.

Can you say, "Insane Republican Spin"?

2004-10-05T18:36:00.000-07:00

Direct quotation from a speech by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the Council on Foreign Relations (full transcript here, courtesty of the Department of Defense):

Q: My name is Glenn Hutchins. Mr. Secretary, what exactly was the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I tell you, I'm not going to answer the question. I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over the period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was. To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two. (emphasis added)

Direct quotation from press release issued by the Department of Defense (full release here):

A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. (emphasis added)

Huh? Is he living in an alternate universe?

Reflections on (Christian) parenting

2004-10-04T13:45:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting discussion last night with my extended family about parenting. Specifically, we were talking about discipline. The discussion started when Sarah mentioned a book she was reading at the recommendation of her cousin. The book is Shepherding a Child's Heart, by Tedd Tripp. I haven't read it, but Tripp advocates use of the "rod" and talking about the misbehavior of children in terms of sin.

Sarah and I are committed to not spanking our children, regardless of what it says in Proverbs. What concerns me is this idea of misbehavior as sin. My father-in-law, the psychoanalyst, says this idea is rooted in a belief that children, absent intervention from the parents, are naturally evil. Parents must correct that evil (on behalf of God) in order to save their children.

But he suggests that there is another way to look at misbehavior. Misbehavior is essentially a form of communication. Children have unstructured ideas in their heads, and they are acting out in an effort to get their parents (or teachers) to help them learn structure. So rather than looking at "acting out" behaviors as sinful, we can see them as a very natural process in which a child learns to interact with the world.

I really like Eugene Peterson's translation of Proverbs 13:24 (the "rod" passage): "A refusal to correct is a refusal to love; love your children by disciplining them." We do our children a disservice if we don't help them structure their ideas. But it doesn't have to be done in anger and we don't have to see our children as evil.

Granted, my daughter is only 8 months old, so I don't have a whole lot of experience in this area. But this makes sense to me.

On another note, I've been trying to find a way to describe my parenting strategy that didn't make me seem lazy. I love how Jen Lemen put it: "i think that parenting is important and the way you do it matters, but i am more convinced that the real trick is going with the flow of the kind of kids you get."

I think the message is don't try to make your kid into something that they're not. Don't use that strategy as an excuse to not discipline them or put any sort of limits on them, but rather honor the person that they are becoming, not the person you wish they were.

Finally, read Sarah's post about her weekend in Idaho with her cousin. She had some interesting experiences with her cousin's kids and house rules. A good read.

No Debate

2004-10-01T09:33:00.000-07:00

Last night, though it may be hard to believe, I didn't watch the presidential debate. Instead, Sarah, Claire and I went to a fundraiser for the Bethany Christian Services Adoption Agency. A member of our church works as a birth-mother counselor for Bethany. Now the real reason we were there was that Sarah was involved with a scheme with the birth-mother counselor to setup a single guy from our church with a coworker of the counselor, but that's another story.

Reading Bethany's statement of faith, I realize that we come from very different worldviews. But Bethany is commited to finding homes for children who need them. You can't argue with that. We heard some great stories last night about families that have stepped up take children into their lives. Pretty amazing stuff.

Read my friend David's post on how he and his wife (my friend Melissa) are starting the adoption journey. They are great people who will be fantastic parents. I pray that they will be blessed with a child soon! Speaking of children and prayers, if you're so inclined, I'd ask for prayers for two couples who are good friends of ours. I'd like to respect their anonymity, so I won't say names. One couple just discovered that they are pregnant with their first child! The other couple is also starting the adoption process - they're at the same stage as David and Melissa. We're very excited for all of them!

Same-sex marriage and argumentation

2004-09-30T08:39:00.000-07:00

I think I might not disagree about the apples and oranges point mentioned in the comments to this post. But my argument here isn't (and is never stated as such) that since marriage has been unjust in the past we should support same-sex marriage. My point is that arguing against same-sex marriage from the basis of tradition is sloppy, and to an extent, intellectually dishonest.

The implicit assumption in the tradition argument is that since the opposite-gender nature of marriage has stayed consistent over recorded human history, honoring that part of marriage is defending tradition. Further, the argument suggests that nothing of substance in marriage has changed, so why start now?

My response is that marriage today is a radically different institution than it was 25 years ago. Changes like actually allowing married women to have legal rights is a fundamental transformation of the institution. These "past sins of marriage law" are as much a part of the tradition as the man/woman nature of marriage.

If you read my original post carefully, you'll notice nowhere does it say that same-sex marriage should be legal based on the sordid history of the institution of (heterosexual) marriage. The point of the original post is to advocate for better and more intellectually honest arguments.

Personally, I believe same-sex marriage should be legal. Unless you're prepared to remove the equal protection clause from the US Constitution, I don't see how you can get around it (I'll apologize in advance to my international audience - I don't know much of anything your legal system - wherever you come from...). But I realize there are other arguments against same-sex marriage. I just don't believe that the tradition argument should be one of them.

In case you're interested, my very first two blog posts dealt with this very issue. There are, admittedly, not my finest writing ever. They are snarky, sarcastic, and kind of obnoxious. Which, with my luck, means people will probably like them.

Sanctification and Same-Sex Marriage (i)
Sanctification and Same-Sex Marriage (ii)

No sarcasm here

2004-09-29T08:42:00.000-07:00

Wow! Who would have thought that a snarky, obnoxious post like this one would turn out to be my most popular post ever?

I want to deal with some issues that came up in the comments. First, an argument was made that this isn't really relevant to the same-sex marriage debate because I'm talking about legal inequities that have since been remedied. I would disagree.

Many of the arguments in favor of banning same-sex marriage are couched in terms of protecting the institution or tradition of marriage. My point is that you can't cherry-pick the parts of the tradition you like and ignore everything else. As several commenters pointed out, the idea of "civil death" for women (where a married woman essentially loses her individuality in civil and/or legal terms) is as much a part of the tradition of marriage as its limitation to opposite-gender partners.

The fact is that the institution of marriage that most opposite-gender couples enter today (in the West, anyway) is a radically different institution than it was was even 30 years ago. When we're talking about the tradition of marriage we cannot ignore the fact that for most of human history the institution of marriage has been patriarchal, oppressive, and profoundly unjust.

I'll agree that this doesn't necessarily suggest that same-sex marriage should be legal. Rather, this is a call to honesty in discussing the history of marriage. Several commenters had issues with my including marital rape in the list. As I pointed out in the comments, martial rape wasn't illegal in all 50 states until 1993. In 1976, it wasn't recognized as a criminal offense in even one. When we're talking about the tradition of marriage let's not use false, romantic visions of the past.

Thanks to the following blogs for sending hordes (for me, anyway) of traffic my way:

Alas, a Blog
Hugo Schwyzer
Maggi Dawn

Defend Traditional Marriage!

2004-09-27T13:13:00.000-07:00

On November 2, Oregonians have to opportunity to vote on Measure 36 which would amend Oregon's Constitution to say that "only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or legally recognized as marriage." The proponents of Measure 36 frequently talk about this in terms of defending traditional marriage. But if we're really interested in "defending traditional marriage," we have to realize that the current state of egalitarian utopia us married folks enjoy has only been around for 30 or 40 years. So I don't believe the proponents of Measure 36 go far enough. Let's really defend the institution of marriage as we've known it for most of human history! Thus, I propose the following changes to Oregon's Constitution:

No married woman shall be allowed to own real property, including (but not limited to) houses, land, or automobiles. If a single woman has acquired said assets, she shall be required to transfer ownership to her husband on or before the date of marriage.
No married woman shall be allowed to work outside the home without the explicit written consent of her husband.
Any man shall be allowed to divorce his wife for any reason. The man shall retain all assets and full custody of any children, if he so desires.
Any woman shall be allowed to divorce her husband only if she can prove infidelity beyond a shadow of a doubt. The woman shall not be entitled to any assets held by the husband.
Any employer shall be allowed to reasonably reduce the wages of a newly married woman now that she no longer has to support herself.
Any employer shall be allowed to terminate any woman who becomes pregnant during the course of her employment. Further, no employer shall be required to hire a pregnant woman.
"Marital rape" is no longer considered a criminal offense. Marriage is considered prima facia evidence of consent to any sexual activity between a married man and woman.
Domestic violence will only be considered a misdemeanor offense, punishable by a small fine.

Blogging in Pendleton

2004-09-23T20:44:00.000-07:00

Can you believe that the Red Lion in Pendleton, Oregon has free high-speed wireless internet access in all the rooms?

Wish me luck tomorrow in my presentation.

One addendum to add to my post on biblical inerrancy - I believe in the Bible. I believe the Bible is the witness of two historical communities of faith. The Bible matters. But the Bible is not God.

Tidbits from my week

2004-09-22T15:52:00.000-07:00

This has been a crazy week. I've started taking swimming lessons to become a more proficient swimmer. We're still dealing with auditors at work. I leave tomorrow for Central Oregon to do a presentation at the annual conference for the Oregon Association of Municipal Recorders. My presentation will be a riveting discussion about fraud prevention and internal controls in a small office environment.

If you need something to read, I suggest heading over to The Paris Project where Jenell has been doing some great writing and to Hugo Schwyzer's blog where he's been inspired by Jenell.
My post on Biblical inerrancy failed to stir up the desired controversy...oh well. Maybe next time. But thanks for the comments Hugo and Rick!

As there will likely not be blogging here for a couple of days, I'll leave you with some accounting humor (from my presentation - cleverly designed to make my audience like me and thus not fall asleep during my presentation):

A patient was at her doctor's office after undergoing a complete physical exam. The doctor said, "I have some very grave news for you. You only have six months to live."
The patient asked, "Oh doctor, what should I do?"
The doctor replied, "Marry an accountant."
"Will that make me live longer?" asked the patient.
"No," said the doctor, "but it will SEEM longer."

An accountant is having a hard time sleeping and goes to see his doctor. "Doctor, I just can't get to sleep at night."
"Have you tried counting sheep?"
"That's the problem - I make a mistake and then spend three hours trying to find it."

Q. When does a person decide to become an accountant?
A. When he realizes that he does not have the charisma to succeed as an undertaker.

Q: What's the definition of an accountant?
A: Someone who solves a problem you didn't know you had in a way you don't understand.

Q: What's an extroverted accountant?
A: One who looks at your shoes while he's talking to you instead of his own.

Q: How do you know accountants have no imagination?
A: They named a firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.

There are three kinds of accountants in the world.
- Those who can count and those who can't.

Accountants aren't boring people. They just get excited over boring things.

Biblical Inerrancy?

2004-09-20T13:16:00.000-07:00

When I was looking for suggestions for churches to attend on my "church vacation," Andrew (not an anonymous cyber acquaintance, but my sister-in-law's boyfriend) suggested the Harvest Community Church, which is just down the road from our house.

While I appreciate Andrew's suggestion, I know Harvest is not the place for me. The first statement in Harvest's "Declaration of Faith" is this:

We believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and that it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice (1 Cor. 2:13; II Tim 3:16-17; II Peter 1:20-21).

I've blogged about this before, but I think it is important so I'll do it again. I do not believe in the "plenary, verbal inspiration" of scripture and I cannot attend a church that does. That may seem a little strong, but I think theology does matter and this is an important issue.

The most oft-quoted verse in this regard is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NRSV):

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,b 17so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

It is important to note that the scripture the author of this passage (that author almost certainly not being Paul) was talking about was the Hebrew Bible, which does not precisely match our Old Testament today. The New Testament did not exist when this letter was written. How then could the author be making claims about a set of books that did not yet exist?

Further, the basic claim of those who believe the Bible is inerrant is that Bible itself says that it is inerrant and divinely inspired. As I pointed out above, the Harvest Community Church cites three Biblical references: 1 Cor. 2:13; II Tim 3:16-17; II Peter 1:20-21. Read the passage from 2 Timothy above and 1 Corinthians and 2 Peter below and tell me if you think the Bible actually makes that claim. But even then, a document's own claim of its truthfulness is hardly convincing evidence.

But people a lot smarter than me have put together very good articles on the subject. Here are two excellent sources of information from religioustolerance.org.

- INERRANCY: Is the Bible free of error?
- BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND INFALLIBILITY: Description, problems & implications

Also, Maggi Dawn, an Anglican priest, university professor in the UK, and blogging star, is in the process of writing an excellent series of short articles titled, Words and the Word.

- Words and the Word (i)
- Words and the Word (ii)
- Words and the Word (iii)
- Words and the Word (iv)
- Words and the word (v)
- Words and the word (vi)

Some have said they believe the Bible is divinely inspired, if by divine inspiration you mean that God was working in the lives of those that wrote the various books of the Bible. That makes sense to me. I can believe that God was working in their lives as God works in ours. But I think the message of plenary, verbal inspiration is damaging. I believe it says that God was active in the lives of people living thousands of years ago, but now we're on our own. God spoke directly to people in great length, but no more.

I can't believe that. I believe that God continues to work in our lives and the writings of contemporary Christians can be inspired as well. They have yet to stand the test of time and lack the power of witness to events in the time of Christ, but I think God can speak to us through our contemporaries.

Marcus Borg describes the Bible as a sacrament. It is something that lets us experience God and become closer to God. But the Bible is not God. I think the idea of Biblical inerrancy takes us dangerously close to that. Biblical inerrancy leads us closer to worshipping the Bible (bibliolatry) rather than God.

I don't believe that the sum of God is wrapped up in a few thousand pages of text written down a couple of thousand years ago. God is both bigger and more complex than can be reflected in human writing. I believe that part of our legacy as Christians is that we will continue to try to understand and know God using the Biblical witness of our ancestors as the beginning of the story, rather than the end.

Other verses:
1 Cor. 2:13 (NRSV)
And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.

2 Peter 1:20-21 (NRSV)
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Is this for real?

2004-09-19T15:50:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately it is. West Virgina Republicans have sent out a mailing claiming that Democrats will take away their Bibles if they win the election. Wow! Congratulations to the Republican National Committee for being a voice of reason and integrity in this election. Oh wait. This campaign is dishonest fear-mongering. What was I thinking?

Read Chuck Currie's comment on this campaign. Chuck is much more calm and insightful than I.

I just wonder - how far will the Republicans go to convince voters that God is on their side? Campaign ads featuring W and Jesus?

I don't think Republicans are evil. I don't think Democrats are innocent little angels either. However, I yearn for a campaign where we actually talk about the issues, not bullsh!t claims about Kerry and Edward's supposed religious bias.

Cheating & Spiritual Renewal

2004-09-16T11:55:00.000-07:00

So next weekend I'm planning on committing some denominational adultery. I think I'm desperately in need of some spiritual renewal, so while Sarah and Claire are out of town next weekend I'm going to go to another church. There are some other Methodist churches around I wouldn't mind checking out, but it is very likely I'd run into someone I knew which could raise some uncomfortable questions about our new pastor, switching churches, etc. I'd like to avoid that and just be able to go somewhere and worship.

The churches I'm thinking about are listed below. What do you think? Vote in the comments or suggest somewhere else.

First Congregational United Church of Christ - Hillsboro, OR
Bethel United Church of Christ - Beaverton, OR
St. Gabriel's Episcopal Church - Portland, OR
Trinity Episcopal Cathedral - Portland, OR
Holy Trinity Catholic Parish Community - Beaverton, OR
St. Pius X Catholic Church - Portland, OR

Doing church

2004-09-15T08:43:00.000-07:00

I have a confession to make. I'm sick of church. Sarah and I's responsibilities at church have increased dramatically in the last couple of months. I'm the lay leader. Sarah is the treasurer, though because of my financial experience, I'm getting pretty involved in the church finances also. I'm so involved in the business of doing church that I don't feel like I have time to actually appreciate and engage in church. The business of keeping the lights on, water running, trash emptied is consuming a significant portion of my energy and enthusiasm.

So I can understand the appeal of house churches and those that want to worship outside of the "institutional" context. It would be great to not have to worry about the bills and to focus on learning, teaching, praise, and prayer. But at least for our congregation, I think what is missing from that picture is mission. In many ways, our "place" is at the center of our mission in our community. We provide space to a preschool. We host several AA/NA meetings every week. We provide worship space to two other congregations. We host a food pantry that feeds several families every week. We provide sanctuary to homeless familes several times a year through a cooperative ministry with other area churches.

Place is important. I just wish we didn't have to pay the bills!

Update: Read Sarah's post on this topic. I'm having trouble getting along with our new pastor too. I was going to bring it up later, but Sarah nailed it.

Gun control or education?

2004-09-13T16:51:00.000-07:00

One of the discussions raging in the comments here is over gun control. The argument was made that we should invest in gun education rather than gun control. This reminded me of an interesting article I saw in Harvard Magazine. The article is an introduction to the book, Private Guns, Public Health, by Harvard public health professor David Hemenway.

He makes an interesting argument. He suggests that gun control vs. education is to some extent a false dichotomy. As a result of his research he argues that there are some simple technological changes that could make guns safer.

He says that gun deaths (about 30,000 in 2001) fall into three categories:
- Suicide - 58%
- Homicide - 37%
- Accidents - 5%

He doesn't argue that the prevalence of guns in the US (about 35% of households have guns) increases suicides or homicides - the research doesn't support that claim. Rather, the prevalence of guns tends to make suicides more successful and crimes more lethal. For example, suicide attempts using drugs succeed only 2-3% of the time. With guns, suicide attempts are successful 90% of the time.

In terms of homicides, guns allow fights to escalate to lethal violence, where they might not if there was not a handgun present.

He suggests a couple of relatively simple technological changes that could reduce accidental deaths. One is magazine safety - if there is not a clip in the handgun, it will not fire even if there is a round in the chamber. Children are frequently involved in these types of accidents because they don't realize a gun can still fire even if the clip is out.

Secondly, even 100 years ago gunsmiths had developed handguns that required the shooter to apply extra pressure to the grip before it would fire. This prevents small children from being able to fire guns.

He also suggest manufacturing guns that they will not fire when dropped.

To deal with the problem of guns involved in crimes, he suggests making it more difficult to remove the serial number from guns. That would allow law enforcement to track handguns and enforce existing laws.

One interesting study he talks about looked at the efficacy of gun education for children:

Many times a teenaged boy will find a gun such as a semi-automatic pistol in his home and, after taking out the ammunition clip, assume that the gun is unloaded. He then points the pistol at his best friend and playfully pulls the trigger, killing the other lad with the bullet that was already in the chamber. "People say, 'Teach kids not to pull the trigger,' but kids will do it," Hemenway says. In a 2001 study, for example, small groups of boys from 8 to 12 years old spent 15 minutes in a room where a handgun was hidden in a drawer. More than two-thirds discovered the gun, more than half the groups handled it, and in more than a third of the groups someone pulled the trigger—despite the fact that more than 90 percent of the boys in the latter groups had received gun-safety instruction.

One of the problems in dealing with suicides and homicides is that there is a lack of data on gun deaths. He's involved with the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) that is collecting detailed information on violent deaths in the US. One problem is that the center is not adequately funded and is currently only collecting data from 13 states. Once researchers have access to better data, they can figure out what actually works.

I think this is a fascinating article in that he approaches the issue of gun violence from the perspective of public health. He has no particular partisan axe to grind and he's only interested in solutions that actually work.

More on John Kerry

2004-09-10T11:35:00.000-07:00

More from Andrew (in italics) -
the fact that he has one of the worse Senate attendance records ever does not strike you as something to take notice of?

Frankly, it doesn't tell me much. Maybe he was doing something more important while he wasn't in washington. Maybe he was connecting with constituents. I don't get any indication of the consequences of his absences. Are you suggesting he wouldn't do his job as President? George Bush is known for taking a lot of vacation and being away from the White House. Would you argue that he's unfit? Probably not. Tell me why I should care about Kerry's record. Then track down Bob Dole's senate attendance while he was running for President in 1996.

and don't forget that the catholic church is refusing to give Kerry communion becuase of his position on abortion and same-sex marrage (which means its more than a few bishops)

That's actually not true. A couple of Catholic Bishops have said they would refuse Kerry Communion, but Kerry has taken communion several times since then.

Our sacred U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights have absolutely nothing to do with recreational considerations, except of course, the general right to pursue happiness, which for tens of millions of American families includes a sundry of shooting sports activities. The second amendment is all about our individual right to defend ourselves. Period. Both from foreign and domestic threats, whatever form it may take. case closed.

Here is what the second amendment actually says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't want to get into a second amendment debate here, but realize that a lot of legal scholars (though certainly not all) argue that the second amendment says something very different than what you say it does. They believe that the framers intended to protect the right of the state to keep and maintain a militia. They argue there is no explicit right for an individual citizen to bear arms.

The point I'm trying to make is that reasonable people disagree with you. John Kerry is one of those people. Don't vote for him if you agree with his position. But it's naive to assume that he's simply ignorant and controlling because he doesn't agree. I also don't believe that John Kerry wants to ban the right of citizens to own guns.

In fact, look at this picture.

This is from the Kerry website. I'd be a bit more skeptical of NRA propaganda:

Protect Gun Rights And Stop Gun Violence
John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and both he and John Edwards support
the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans to own guns. Like all of our
rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and John Kerry and John Edwards
support mainstream measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and
terrorists: enforcing the gun laws on the books, closing the gun show loophole,
and standing with law enforcement officers to extend the assault weapons ban.

Again, I'm not saying you have to agree. But lets actually debate the issues with real facts, not made up ones.

Dialogue on the 2004 Election

2004-09-10T07:42:00.000-07:00

This is a dialogue that started in the comments to my post, "Why I am not voting for George W. Bush." I'm posting it here because it was a getting a little long comments and because the original post is buried a ways back.

Andrew - I'll respond below your comments.

so how as a christian can you vote for Kerry? you can't use his faith, he has none, he claims to be catholic but afraid to come out against abortion or same-sex marraige because he wants those votes and knows that anti-abortion right to life and man and woman marraige proponents will vote against him already.

Your statement, "you can't use his faith, he has none" isn't an argument. It's a personal attack. Neither you nor I know anything about Kerry's heart. I would hesitate to question another man's relationship with God based on what you think you know about him.

But further, you mischaracterize Kerry's positions. Kerry opposes same-sex marriage. Though he believes that a constitutional amendment is unneccessary. A position that Dick Cheney happens to hold. Kerry's position on abortion isn't that complicated. He personally opposes abortion, but he's not willing to impose his belief on the roughly half of all Americans that disagree with him. Despite the proclamations of some conservative Catholic Bishops, Kerry's position is in line with many other American Catholics.

George Bush is a United Methodist. The United Methodist Church opposed the war in Iraq and opposes the death penalty. Does the fact that George Bush disagrees with the Methodist church on those issues make him not a Christian? I don't think so. It simply makes him a Christian that disagrees with his church, which is a pretty common thing in the US.

But I'd also be very hesitant about questioning someone's faith based on two of their views on hot-button social issues. Are the only people who can be authentic Christians the ones who happen to share your views on social issues? Are you suggesting that you cannot be pro-choice and in favor of same sex marriage and still be a Christian? There are a lot of American Christians who'd not take that well.

a few notes about Kerry/Edwards
Poor senate attendance

I'm not going to take the time to look it up, but I suspect that if you checked the attendance of many Senate Republicans you'd discover the same trend. The reality is that there are hundreds of votes and hearings every month and very rarely is every Senator and Represenative in attendance. Watch C-Span for a couple of minutes and you'll see.

voted 51 time out of 55 time against the second ammendment (aka 100% of the time he was in the senate to vote on the subject)

Basically your argument here is that he disagrees with your opinion, so everyone should disagree with him. Kerry feels different about gun control than you do. So don't vote for him. It's not a moral failing however. You have to understand that reasonable people can disagree about gun control and the second amendment.

I'd also suspect that the source of your information on the votes is the NRA. Understand that they are a very strong lobby and not particularly interested in competing points of view. Most interest groups (liberal and conservative) present facts in a light that is favorable to them. I wouldn't take much the NRA (or most other groups, for that matter) says at face value.

claims to be pro-Life but always supports abortion

See argument above.

voted for budget cuts on defence and intelegence after significant events such as the Oaklahoma City bombing

So did a lot of Republicans. After the end of the Cold War there were significant reductions in defense spending. Remember that for most of Clinton's presidency Republicans controlled the House (starting in 1994). The House had to approve any defense cuts. The reality is that during that time there was a lot of pressure to focus on domestic needs. It's really unfair to cherry-pick votes without looking at the context. Also remember that George Bush never served in a state legislature or the House or Senate. He conveniently has no voting record to critique.

attacks Bush's background (vietnam) but is hurt and defensive when the same happens to him

This isn't really an argument. I don't think you can prove Kerry is acting "hurt and defensive." The truth is that the Swift Boat Veterans have been largely discredited. Their own military records disprove their claims. In fact, Bush has said that "Kerry served honorably." Frankly, I don't think we need to fight the Vietnam war anymore. As John McCain said, there's a real war going on with American men and women dying every day.

as a trial lawyer Edwards' goal has been to sue america's principal source of private arms and ammunition into oblivion

I doubt that's true. I'd look it up, but I'm tired. I suspect the truth is somewhat less inflammatory. I doubt you believe everything the Democrats say about Bush. So I'd hesitate to believe everything the Republicans say about Kerry/Edwards. I don't believe much that comes straight out of either party.

on another note, what do you think about the fact that supporters of Kerry (13 democrates) actually asked the U.N. to provide international election monitors to watch over novembers election? the whole idea of bringing people from countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, China, and Cuba - people who have never seen ademocratic election in thier lifetime - to monitor elections here would be laughable if it hadn't actually been proposed by these "represenatives". (lets not forget that UN officials are elected, not by the people, but by governments. many of them dictatorships, not democratic)Fortunately for all, the U.N. turned down the request

The motive here was concern that Bush unjustly won the 2000 election. Democrats wanted to ensure that the 2004 election was fair. Personally I think that they're overreacting. I don't think that the 2000 election was stolen. But I think your criticism of the UN is unfair. The UN supervises elections all over the world and the US supports that role. There are many democratic nations in the UN and I doubt the democrats really wanted monitors from North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.

The purpose of my post wasn't to say that all Christians should vote for Kerry. Rather, as a Christian I feel led to vote in a particular way. I believe that people can and should vote their conscience and their faith will influence them in various ways. I was trying to articulate how my faith has affected my perspective.

I think that we should have discussions about these issues, but that they should be based on facts, not propaganda and innuendo. Rather than resorting to personal attacks (against Kerry or Bush), we should discuss the issues. I think that both Kerry and Bush are decent men who could serve the country well. The fact is that have different ideas about the role of government and our country's future. Let's talk about that.

Theology Doesn't Matter

2004-09-08T15:28:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure I actually believe that theology doesn't matter, but sometimes I wonder. I had a discussion yesterday with a coworker about church. He and his family are leaving their small United Methodist church and going to a large, evangelical, non-denominational church. The main reason is that their daughter is participating in the choir at the new church and they don't like the minister much at the UM church.

Another family left our small UM church because they wanted a church with a rock band and more young adults. They ended up at a foursquare church. We had a family show up at our church that had been attending a LDS (mormon) church. I'm glad they're coming, but that's quite a change.

People seem to change churches all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with theology. It amazes me that people can step from a liberal Methodist congregation to a conservative/fundamentalist congregation without blinking. What does that say about the theology of our church?

What it tells me is that of all the reasons people go to church, theology is probably not near the top of the list. People go for social activities, support, companionship, worship, music, etc. What bothers me is that I think theology is really important. What we're about as a church is more than the sum of our activities or the format of our worship. What we believe matters a great deal. How is it that our message is making so little impact? Do we have a coherent message?

Is it the destiny of our churches to be judged by the production values of our services and our ability to market our activities? Are churches going to become like health clubs, only with live (religious) music and preaching?

What's the point?

Neocons Gone Wild: The Bush Doctrine

2004-09-07T16:19:00.000-07:00

The debate between Bush and Kerry over the question of whether the war in Iraq was justified is getting a lot of attention lately. I'm not particularly interested in their debate - neither of them is probably very interested in the truth.

As I understand it, Bush's justification for the war at this point is that Iraq and specifically Saddam Hussein could have been a threat at some point in the future. Bush's own people (the CIA, Pentagon, State Department, etc.) admit that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. I think Bush's exact words were that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction related program activities."

So at this point the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War can be invoked against nations or terrorist organizations under these conditions:
1.) Any country or terrorist organization that is threatening the United States or its allies; and 2.) Any country that may at some point in the future threaten the United States or its allies.

The other argument I hear is that Iraq under Hussein was an awful place to live (particularly in terms of human rights) and that the quality of life for most Iraqis has improved or will improve with Hussein out of the picture. That may well be true, but that seems to me to be a dangerous extension of the Bush Doctrine.

So here's the final Bush Doctrine as I understand it:

The United States may unilaterally attack:
1.) Any country or terrorist organization that is threatening the United States or its allies;
2.) Any country that may at some point in the future threaten the United States or its allies;
3.) Any country whose human rights' conditions do not meet the standards of the sitting US President.

So in order to help out President Bush, here's a place to start working on #3.

Amnesty International 2004 Human Rights Report Areas of Concern - Full Country List

If that list is too long for any of you hawks to bite off at once, Amnesty has conveniently summarized the list by region.

Africa
Americas
Asia Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Middle East and North Africa

We're going to be very, very busy. Better ratchet up that draft...

This is not to say that I necessarily endorse Kerry's position. I don't know what his position is. I'd like to see a more coherent statement come out of that campaign.

Country Church

2004-09-07T15:54:00.000-07:00

We attended church this past weekend with Sarah's grandparents in Hunters, Washington. Hunters is a very small town, northwest of Spokane, Washington, and pretty close to the Canadian border. Sarah's grandparents at one time owned a 2,500 acre cattle ranch in Hunters, but since their retirement they've sold about 2,000 acres. Sarah has more details about our trip here.

Anyway, they attend the Cedonia Community Church. It is a great little church and the pastor is very nice. I suspect if we had an in depth conversation we'd discover that we're eons apart in terms of our theology. His sermon was interesting though. He made one point that I thought I was pretty good. He said that if you love someone, you'll get to know them. Thus, as people who claim to love Jesus, we should know him. He challenged the congregation to get a red letter Bible and spend time studying the words of Jesus. He acknowledged that you have to read things in context, but as followers of Jesus we should know what he said during his time on earth.

That's not exactly earth-shattering, I know, but it is profound in an obvious sort of way. It's easy to talk about Jesus, but I know that I don't spend enough time really thinking about what he said and did in his ministry. I don't know that I need a red letter Bible, but it's a good point. As followers of Jesus we should be deeply interested in his life and his words. There's obviously more than that to being a Christian, but you've got to start somewhere.

Words of wisdom from people smarter than me

2004-09-07T13:44:00.000-07:00

From The Ekklesia Project
The church must be an ever-new, living incarnation of the nonviolent Christ in a world terrorized by the pain and suffering of its own making. Striving no longer to become masters of our own destiny, as ministers of reconciliation disciples must live and work to bring all people into union with God and one another-our Pax Christi.

"That's utterly naïve," my friends and students respond. "Forswearing coercion in an age of lethal competition is not only the surest way to get yourself killed, it is also stupid." In the light of reigning political philosophies they are right. But on Good Friday, Christ's ethic looked especially naïve, inept, and futile. It was no quick fix. Christ did not employ a plan of action that allowed him to control the Passion events and promote his own safety and security. Like Christ, we renounce the coercive tactics that might enable us to control events and force our desired outcomes. So, I cannot offer any guarantees that an imitation of Christ's agape love will immediately staunch the flow of blood. Yet, just as God triumphed by raising Jesus, the church's ethic for living in the 21st century is illuminated by the glorious light of Easter morning. The church must confess that although it will seldom control the course of events, that is alright. As Archbishop Romero noted, "The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts, it is beyond our vision. We may never see the end results, but that is the difference between the master builder and the worker. We are workers, not master builders, ministers, not messiahs. We are prophets of a future not our own." (emphasis mine)

- Prof. Richard Goode, Lipscombe University

From In These Times
Our beloved land has been fogged with fear—fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich.

There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn’t the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it’s 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn’t the “end of innocence,” or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And patriotism shouldn’t prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time.

- Garrison Keillor

Warning!

2004-09-07T13:40:00.000-07:00

Blogging may be light this week as our auditors are here doing their annual fieldwork. Don't worry (or go ahead and despair, depending on your point of view), I'm not going to be hauled off to jail. As a local government we get audited every year to ensure our financial statements are presented fairly. It is a lot of work, but routine. It is also not very interesting, but that's another issue altogether.

So much for my integrity...

2004-09-01T12:42:00.000-07:00

This week is the Republic National Convention for those of you living in a cave in Wyoming. Watching what little coverage I've been able to stomach has probably increased my blood pressure to dangerously high levels.

According to what I've seen on the news, the theme for yesterday was "Inclusion and Compassion." The GOP is also working like crazy to highlight party moderates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Arnold Schwartzenegger.

This should be the real theme:

The 2004 Republican National Convention: Desperately trying to convince America that we're something we're not - Moderate, Inclusive and Compassionate.

Here are some helpful excerpts from the 2004 GOP Platform:

Moderate:
We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.

In the federal courts, scores of judges with activist backgrounds in the hard-left now have lifetime tenure. Recent events have made it clear that these judges threaten America’s dearest institutions and our very way of life. In some states, activist judges are redefining the institution of marriage. The Pledge of Allegiance has already been invalidated by the courts once, and the Supreme Court’s ruling has left the Pledge in danger of being struck down again – not because the American people have rejected it and the values that it embodies, but because a handful of activist judges threaten to overturn commonsense and tradition. And while the vast majority of Americans support a ban on partial birth abortion, this brutal and violent practice will likely continue by judicial fiat. We believe that the self-proclaimed supremacy of these judicial activists is antithetical to the democratic ideals on which our nation was founded. President Bush has established a solid record of nominating only judges who have demonstrated respect for the Constitution and the democratic processes of our republic, and Republicans in the Senate have strongly supported those nominees. We call upon obstructionist Democrats in the Senate to abandon their unprecedented and highly irresponsible filibuster of President Bush’s highly qualified judicial nominees, and to allow the Republican Party to restore respect for the law to America’s courts.

Inclusive:
We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.

Compassionate:
We oppose school-based mental health programs that include recommendations for the use of psychotropic drugs.

As Republicans, we support President Bush’s principled position that the current embargo on trade with, and restrictions on travel to, Cuba must remain in place as along as the Cuban government refuses to hold free and fair elections, ease its stranglehold on private enterprise, and allow the Cuban people to organize, assemble, and speak freely.

The Blogger's Dilemma

2004-09-01T12:38:00.000-07:00

I may be unusual, but my fragile self-esteem rises and falls with comments on my posts. I've also observed a pattern of commenting on my blog. This observation is not exactly rocket science, but bear with me. The more inflammatory and unreasonable my posts, the more comments I receive. My well thought-out (for me anyway) posts where I diligently try to be reasonable, sensitive and understanding rarely receive comments.

I think there are probably two possibilities here. First, my reasonable posts are so well thought-out there's simply nothing left to say (sarcasm alert!). Second, and probably more likely, my reasonable posts are just boring.

So do I utilize my natural talent for gross exaggeration, misrepresentation of facts, and distortion to increase my comments thereby sacrificing what little intellectual integrity I have remaining? Or do I take the moral high ground and bore my audience in absolute submission? Some people seem to be able to find a nice middle ground. I'm not nearly a good enough writer, I suspect.

Isn't that the truth

2004-08-31T10:03:00.000-07:00

Zeinab Lesso, a Somali Bantu refugee living in Beaverton, Oregon after being resettled as part of a Clinton Administration program that brought 12,000 African refugees to the United States, said this:

“There is freedom here,” she says. “But you need a job to be free.”

Read the full story.

Do not put your trust in princes...

2004-08-30T15:25:00.000-07:00

My friend David at conXian makes an excellent point. In his post, The Case for Kerry, he points out that most people are either voting for or against Bush. That was certainly the case when I wrote this post. He makes several good points and he is definitely saying something that needs to be said. That is, Kerry has significant merit as a presidential candidate besides just being someone other than Bush.

The challenge for me is that I have trouble getting behind any particular candidate. I tend to think of this line from Psalm 146:3 (NIV) "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save." A lot of political figures that I've put my faith in (so to speak) have let me down. Particularly hurtful was the downfall of politicians like Neil Goldschmidt (he raped a 14-year old girl when he was mayor of Portland) and Frank Shields (a Methodist minister and state senator who resigned from the UMC to avoid being defrocked after his adultery was discovered). I know that they are just men and their failings show that they are indeed human.

I think another problem for me is that a surprising number of men (not my father) who were involved in my life as a child turned out to be pretty despicable people. My scoutmaster was convicted of a felony for defrauding the Social Security Administration; another Boy Scout leader very publicly cheated on his wife for years; A trusted teacher grew into an angry and abusive man; and so on. The real problem is probably the fact that I (and probably most other people too) have unrealistic expectations of the people that we look up to. When we're hurt because they fail to live up to our expectations we decide not to trust anyone.

The irony, in my case anyway, is that I yearn for someone to inspire me. I want a candidate to follow. I want to work for a charismatic and intelligent leader. But I'm unwilling to place my trust in anyone. I can just hear the evangelicals out there saying, "Put your trust in Jesus! Jesus is the only man worth following." Unfortunately, life is more complicated than that. We need leaders. We need people who are alive now to motivate us and move us to create the world we want.

This makes me think of the movie City Hall (which I happen to think is a great movie - one of my favorites). It stars Al Pacino as the mayor of New York City and John Cusack as Deputy Mayor. Cusack is very idealistic and deeply believes in what Pacino wants to do. Through the course of a major scandal Cusack discovers that Pacino is corrupt and just as dirty as every other politician. This man that he'd placed his trust (and his career) in, lets him down. As the movie ends, Cusack is running for City Council himself. The way I see it, he hasn't let his idealism be crushed by the betrayal of the Mayor. Rather, Cusack realizes that he is the person he was looking for. Rather than put his faith in someone else, he's trying to become the type of leader he believes the City needs.

But I don't feel like I'm the person I'm looking for. I doubt my ability to be the kind of leader that could really create change in my community. Am I a coward? A realist? I'm not sure there's an answer.

Here's Eugene Peterson's translation of all of Psalm 146 (MSG):

1 Hallelujah! O my soul, praise GOD!
2 All my life long I'll praise GOD, singing songs to my God as long as I live.
3 Don't put your life in the hands of experts who know nothing of life, of salvation life.
4 Mere humans don't have what it takes; when they die, their projects die with them.
5 Instead, get help from the God of Jacob, put your hope in GOD and know real blessing!
6 GOD made sky and soil, sea and all the fish in it. He always does what he says--
7 he defends the wronged, he feeds the hungry. GOD frees prisoners--
8 he gives sight to the blind, he lifts up the fallen. GOD loves good people,
9 protects strangers, takes the side of orphans and widows, but makes short work of the wicked. 10 GOD's in charge--always. Zion's God is God for good!

Hallelujah!

The internet is very fickle...

2004-08-26T18:30:00.000-07:00

You write posts that you think will generate controversy and hate mail, but they don't. You write silly posts and happen to discover that the camp song "Pharaoh, Pharaoh" is very popular and generates a lot of hits via google, even when you misspell it in your post.

This has been an especially good week for traffic. Chuck Currie, a former Portlander, current UCC seminarian, and popular blogger, highlighted my blog (among others) as a progressive Christian blog. Jack Bogdanski, probably the preeminent Portland blogger, generously pointed out this post and sent a lot of traffic my way. Thanks Chuck and Jack!

Why I am not voting for George W. Bush

2004-08-25T09:02:00.000-07:00

As Jim Wallis says, "Faith is personal, but never private." I will not be voting for George W. Bush in the fall for a number of reasons, and some of those are influenced by my faith. I'm not suggesting that a "proper" Christian wouldn't vote for Bush. Rather, my faith has led me to think about the election this way. Hopefully it will stir up some debate and make me and others think more carefully about why we vote the way we do.

Disclaimer #1: I'm not an enthusiastic fan of John Kerry. I think he will do a fine job as President, but he's not quite my top choice.

Reasons I'm not voting for Bush/Cheney:
1.) I disagree strongly with how they have handled the war on terror. I get the feeling that they are strongly motivated by revenge. Remember Bush's comment regarding Osama bin Laden - he wanted him "dead or alive" like they did in the Old West. As Christians, Jesus implores us to turn the other cheek, to not seek revenge. Jesus puts it this way:

Matthew 5:38-45 (MSG)
Love Your Enemies
"Here's another old saying that deserves a second look: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.' Is that going to get us anywhere? Here's what I propose: "Don't hit back at all.' If someone strikes you, stand there and take it. If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously."You're familiar with the old written law, "Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, "Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best--the sun to warm and the rain to nourish--to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty.

Further, I believe the Bush/Cheney approach to the war has made us less safe. The emphasis on killing the men involved in 9/11 and the war in Iraq has distracted us from dealing with global terrorism generally. With the quote above I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't defend ourselves. But I would argue that the Bush/Cheney approach does nothing to change the underlying forces that drive terrorism. Here is a quote from Benjamin Barber, a political scientist at the University of Maryland:

And the 9/11 Report says, Bill, very clearly that unless we deal not just with al-Qaeda and with terrorism and the radical sect Wahhabi Islam that gives them their ideology, but that we also deal with the millions and millions of young Muslim men around the world who are angry, who feel left out of the new world markets, who feel engaged in defensive ways by the aggressive American consumer mentality and materialist economy being pushed around the world that I called McWorld. Unless we deal with that, even if we excise the tumor of al-Qaeda, we will find new tumors growing on this same immune defective system.

(Read more from my earlier post, More on Enemies)

So I believe Bush/Cheney are engaged in an un-Christian-like quest for revenge that will likely result in more terrorist activity against the US, not less.

2.) I don't believe that Bush/Cheney exhibit a consistent ethic of life. They oppose abortion, yes. However, Bush is also an enthusiastic supporter of the death penalty. There are also more than 40 million people in this country without health insurance. Almost a quarter of them are children. Bush has had almost four years to do something about that - he hasn't. I wish Bush/Cheney and the GOP cared as much about children out of the womb as they do in the womb.

I'm personally opposed to abortion. But I don't believe banning it will actually change anything. I believe we need to embrace a consistent ethic of life that cares for all men, women, children, and families. If we are successful, then abortion will become unnecessary. Bush/Cheney have also made life tougher for working families. One of the consequences of the Bush tax cuts and overall tax policy is that the tax burden is being shifted primarily to "earned" income (i.e. wages, salaries, tips). The result is that even though we've experienced small decreases in our marginal income tax rates, we're still paying the same in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Working Americans will pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes (because of those payroll taxes) than wealthy Americans. For a President that claims to support working families, that's shameful.

3.) The Bush/Cheney campaign is misusing its ties to Christianity. The most egregious example is the campaign organization requesting church members give their directories to the campaign. Either Bush/Cheney doesn't realize or doesn't care that the church and God's Kingdom are bigger than any one candidate or country. We are not God's chosen people. America is not held in greater esteem by God than the other people in the world. I believe God mourns the death of an Iraqi child as much as the death of an American child.

I wish Kerry would talk about his faith more. But I will not vote for a candidate that tries to tell me what my faith means. I will not associate with a political party that assumes my faith means support of their positions.

Disclaimer #2: I don't believe George Bush is evil, the Anti-Christ, or out to destroy America. (But I wonder sometimes...) I do believe that he is dangerously unreflective and unwilling to admit his mistakes. I believe those traits make him a poor president, but not evil.

So I will vote for Kerry/Edwards in November. I pray that the months leading up to the election are a time of national self-reflection, courtesy, honesty, and truth.

Talking Theology

2004-08-24T15:52:00.000-07:00

One of the challenges in talking about theology or even just basic Christianity is that our theological assumptions (whether we recognize them or not) are extremely different or diametrically opposed to those to whom we're speaking.

I think it goes beyond "ships passing in the night." We're not even in the same ocean. So how do we get to the same ocean? One idea that Chris (from People, Books and the Glory of Christ) and I have been discussing is that we should get to root of our theological/philosophical disagreement. For example, in a lot of quantitative academic fields, when writing a paper the authors lay out their assumptions/methods. One of the main reasons is that it makes it possible for other researchers to replicate the findings. It helps guarantee that researchers are talking about the same ideas and problems. It helps keep people in the same ballpark. One of the things Chris and I agree on is that we have different ideas about sin and salvation. So it's difficult to talk about an issue like homosexuality absent an understanding of our own underlying assumptions.

So would that work? In the end, probably not. I think the end result is that instead of having pointless arguments about issues (because we're operating under different assumptions), we'll have pointless arguments over "first principles" that people are generally unwilling to change (myself included).

For example, some of my first principles or underlying theological assumptions are as follows:

I believe that God was working in the lives of those that wrote the Bible, but that it is not inerrant or "divinely inspired" (in the way many evangelicals understand it).
I believe that many of the stories in the Bible may not have literally happened. I tend to see many of those stories (particularly the Hebrew Bible stories) as having truth that is "more than literal," to use Borg's term.
I do not believe in predestination. I think that we make our own choices, good or bad.
I'm pretty sure that most everyone (even Muslims!) is going to heaven. As someone said (can't remember who), I'm a hopeful universalist. But I also believe that our salvation isn't really about heaven. It has much more to do with how we live than where we go when we die.
I'm not convinced that Jesus is the only way to God. I have a hard time believing that God revealed himself to a couple thousand (?) people wandering in the desert and gave up on the rest of the world. I don't think that Jews and Christians have an exclusive on experiencing the sacred and divine.

I'm open to discussion, but honestly, I'm not sure you'll be able to change my mind in a dramatic way. Ultimately, I think we're still in different oceans (or ballparks - sorry for mixing metaphors). I think what further complicates the situation is that our first principles are also tied into our whole worldview and how we see ourselves as humans. Thus it's difficult to separate ourselves from ideas that are strongly connected to our sense of self.

Are we stuck? Maybe so...

Read this blog!

2004-08-23T12:49:00.000-07:00

I've plugged him before, but then he and his wife went on vacation for a month. Anyway, one of my very good friends, David, has started a blog called conXian. He's a seminary student at a United Methodist seminary in Denver. His thoughts on religion and Christianity are much more insightful than mine. So check out his blog if you're so inclined. Here are some greatest hits from conXian:

What's up with the name?

Indigenous Religion

Me and Jesus

Mistakes

2004-08-20T10:13:00.000-07:00

I read a technology column, I, Cringely, regularly. Sometimes it is a little too "techy" for me, but it is usually pretty entertaining and educational. In this week's column, Cringely is discussing the Google IPO.

He makes an interesting comment about smart people and mistakes:

There's an interesting effect here that I've noticed over the years -- smart people don't make the same mistake twice while REALLY SMART people don't make the same mistake three times. Since they tend to make fewer mistakes to start with, really smart people tend to repeat the mistakes they do make because they are initially convinced that the outcome was someone else's fault or perhaps because of cosmic rays.

That creates some interesting questions for me: How does my sense of my own cleverness/wit/smarts blind me to mistakes I might be making? How does my strong belief in my ability to make decisions keep me from recognizing or accepting the consequences of my actions?

If you like technology, read Cringely's column. If you don't, read it anyway. It will be worth your time.

Welcome Lars Larson Fans!

2004-08-20T08:44:00.000-07:00

I got a ton of hits (for me anyway) earlier this week from people googling "Kerry and Goldschmidt." To refresh your memory, Neil Goldschmidt was Governor of Oregon, Transportation Secretary under Jimmy Carter, and Mayor of Portland. Goldschmidt confessed to having a sexual relationship with a 14-year old girl while he was Mayor of Portland. He only confessed because a Portland alternative newspaper was about to publish the story. Personally, I call Goldschmidt's actions RAPE. 14-year olds don't engage in sexual relationships with 35-year olds.

Anyway, apparently when John Kerry was in town last week, he ran into Goldschmidt in a restaurant. Depending on who you talk to, it was either an extremely brief conversation or more involved. Apparently local conservative talk radio host Lars Larson is alleging Kerry and Goldschmidt had a serious conversation. I haven't heard him talk about this, but my guess is that Lars is going insane considering the possibility that Kerry (who not high on his list of favorite people) is associating with admitted (liberal Democratic) rapists.

So I'm guessing all of those hits from google were Lars Larsen listeners. Welcome! I'm bet you were shocked when you ended up here! Yes, I'm a bleeding heart, Christian liberal. But at least we can agree on our disgust for Neil Goldschmidt!

Previous posts on Goldschmidt:

Extreme Makeover: Blog Edition

2004-08-19T23:11:00.000-07:00

I'll apologize for the title of this post right off the bat. I just couldn't resist.

Welcome to the new and improved The Faithful Skeptic!

What you'll find:

I may be the last person on Blogger to take advantage of the new templates, but that's ok.
Permalinks actually work now! I finally realized how to set that function in Blogger.
I cleaned up the sidebar.
Not much else.

How do we even talk about this?

2004-08-19T21:56:00.000-07:00

My "Tired" post was inspired by a lot of things, but also by this post at by Chris at People, books and the glory of Christ. It is very frustrating to me that rather than having a dicussion about why we disagree on the important social issues of our time, the speaker at the event Chris attended instead suggests that liberal Christians are just assimilating to the culture and abandoning Christian values.

That seems to me to be a convenient way to reject the argument of someone you disagree with without having to engage the substance of the argument. As a "liberal Christian", I would suggest that honoring all people, including gays and lesbians, is an example of faithfully living the gospel of Christ.

How do we talk about these issues when, for some people, holding certain opinions disqualifies you from even participating?

Unfairness!

2004-08-18T14:05:00.000-07:00

I have a discovered a travesty that I feel compelled to share with the world. Here it is: Women can wear sandals to work and still be considered to be wearing "business casual" attire, while men cannot. Rather than being comfortable, I'm stuck with socks and shoes.

I know, this is perhaps not the most pressing issue of our time, but shouldn't all Americans care about releasing us hapless, male office workers from the shackles of non-ventilated footwear during the summer months?

Sad to say, but deep thoughts are scarce for me today.

Sobering...

2004-08-17T16:05:00.000-07:00

This weekend was the 2004 Oregon International Airshow in Hillsboro. The main attraction was the Blue Angels. We did not actually attend, but as our house was more or less under the flightpath we got to see quite a bit. It was an incredible display of skill that was enjoyable to watch and hear. The roar of the jets was incredible.

We were standing outside when one of our neighbors made a comment about how terrifying that sound must be to Iraqis. Imagine hearing it all day and all night along with the sounds of explosions. Imagine wondering if that next bomb was going to drop on your house? It reminded me that as much fun as it is to watch the show, these machines were designed to kill people. It is something that they do incredibly well and for much of the world, our air power is a tool of death and destruction, not entertainment. At the very least, it should give us empathy for the innocent Iraqi civilians who lived (and those that didn't) through our air assault.

Top ten reasons I'm not like Bill O'Reilly

2004-08-16T11:11:00.000-07:00

A commenter in my previous post where I renounced being nice (at least temporarily) argues that my forceful statement of political and religious beliefs (they would probably call it a rant...) is on the level of Bill O'Reilly. I strenuously disagree and hereby offer this top ten list in response:

10. I have more hair.
9. I am not getting rich being mean to people.
8. Sadly, I do not have a radio and tv show in addition to this blog.
7. I freely acknowledge that this is a "spin-zone."
6. Liberals do not make documentaries about my employer's pro-GOP bias.
5. In fact, no one makes documentaries about me. I might add though, I think I'd be a magnificent subject.
4. I self-righteously pontificate, but no one listens.
3. I have never engaged in a shouting match with Al Franken. If I did though, I would kick Franken's ass. (Nothing against Al Franken, but O'Reilly seems like kind of a wimp when he can't cut you off.)
2. I'm actually interested in your opinion.
1. If I were like O'Reilly, when you tried to leave a comment my blog would interrupt you and call you names.

I'm tired

2004-08-13T12:22:00.000-07:00

I'm tired of being gracious. I'm tired of being polite. I'm tired of being understanding. Not in every area of my life, just a couple very specific ones: religion and politics. I'm tired of trying to politely explain my point of view and express my understanding of other viewpoints to people and have them not return the courtesy. I'm a pretty good debater. When I was in high school, my partner and I were in the top 10 teams in the state. I'm tired of not using those skills. So, for today anyway, no more Mr. Nice Guy.

What brought this on? I was having a polite discussion with Chris over at People, Books and Christ. He commented in a post that he thought liberal Christians (anyone who isn't opposed to homosexuality) is just assimilating to society and ignoring the core values of Christianity. I tried to explain that liberal Christians (not my term of choice) see the issue differently. After some back-and-forth, he made a comment that something I said, "made him wonder about the spiritual life of [my] congregation."

I'm astounded by the stunning arrogance he just displayed. Based on one comment, he's suggesting that my church community is not authentic, not adhering to Biblical principles, etc. Further, he's suggesting that he's qualified to evaluate the spiritual health of other communities of faith. The hell he is.

Why is it when discussing basic theological issues with some conservatives their first response is to question the quality of your faith? Why do they jump in using words like "false teacher" and questioning the integrity, honesty, and faithfulness of another group of people? I've had enough.
Comments like that make me wonder about the intellectual life of his congregation. Is it a place where people aren't allowed to think? As soon as you start expressing any sign of independent thought your faith is questioned? How is it that our society has created a whole church sub-culture that is only interested in reinforcing the sketchy theology that underlies it?

This attitude mirrors the conservative political ideology that labels anyone who questions Bush as a traitor. Unflinching deference to authority is the order of the day. You may not question your pastor or your president. I refuse to accept that. I refuse to be part of a church where I cannot ask basic questions. I refuse to be part of a political or religious tradition that does not allow independent thought.

I do not believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe the United Methodist Church (and others) should joyfully ordain and marry all human beings. I believe that religious opposition to homosexuality is based primarily on fear, discomfort, and a simplistic understanding of biology, history and scripture. I believe that Christian fundamentalism is a horrific distortion of Christ's message and a plague on the church. I am disgusted how political conservatism distorts and manipulates the message of the gospel in promoting a social policy that is anything but "compassionate" and Biblical.

I believe George Bush and his administration value political power over the truth. They will do or say almost anything to get what they want. We have killed over 11,000 Iraqis in a war we have no idea how to win. Bush has inflamed our enemies, driven off our allies, and disenfranchised millions of Americans. Four more years of Bush/Cheney would be disastrous for the world.

I believe that many around Bush (and himself, possibly) believe that he is appointed by God. They have no objection to twisting religious imagery and language in support of base political opportunity. God is but another tool for Bush and company to make the rich richer, and the powerful more so.

So, those of you religious and political conservatives, I fully support your right to your opinion and your right to express it. But I think you're wrong. Absolutely, no doubt about it, dead wrong. Feel free to argue with me. Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. Debate is healthy. But if all you've got is to say I'm a false teacher or not a real Christian, then bug off. That's not debate. It's an anti-intellectual ploy designed to stifle debate and rational thought by invoking God.

I may regret this later, but I feel good now.

More from Jim Wallis

2004-08-11T15:48:00.000-07:00

Here are a couple of quotes from a commentary from Jim Wallis published in the Boston Globe. One of the things that worries Wallis is the "loss of religion's prophetic vocation." In my opinion, as long as Wallis is around, it's not completely gone.

The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable nor a loyal partisan. To raise the moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left- and right-wing governments who put power above principles. And religious action is rooted in a much deeper place than "rights" - that being the image of God in every human being.
...
It is precisely because religion takes the problem of evil so seriously that it must always be suspicious of concentrated power - politically and economically - either in totalitarian regimes or in huge multinational corporations, which now have more wealth and power than many governments. It is indeed our theology of evil that makes us strong proponents of both political and economic democracy - not because people are so good, but because they often are not and need clear safeguards and strong systems of checks and balances to avoid the dangerous accumulations of power and wealth.
...
In an election year, the particular religiosity of a candidate, or even how devout they might be, is less important than how their religious and/or moral commitments and values shape their political vision and their policy commitments. Understanding the moral compass they bring to their public lives and how their convictions shape their political priorities is the true litmus test.

Amen!

More on enemies...

2004-08-10T12:45:00.000-07:00

Reverend Ref+ pointed me to an interesting blog post about Imprecatory Prayer. According to Webster's, to imprecate is "to invoke evil on" or "to utter curses." I'd suggest reading the argument in favor of imprecatory prayers posted at The Family Letter and coming back to finish this.

The author of the post, Doug Giles, makes an argument in favor of Christians using imprecatory prayer as a defense against radical Islam. He states, "Radical Islam is incorrigible, period. So… face it and embrace it. We are not going to convert or appease these cats. We have nothing they want. There is nothing to negotiate. They want us exterminated. Capisce?"

After suggesting several courses of action, including unwavering support of President Bush, he concludes with, "As people of faith, dust off and use what’s afforded to the believer within the Old and New Testaments, namely the imprecatory prayers."

How does he describe imprecatory prayers? Like this:

It is a prayer asking God to crush a clear enemy of His, an enemy which is an aggressive adversary of freedom and peace loving people. Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Precious Moments Figurine Collector, the Bible is filled with maledictions prayed by saints and speedily answered by God against violently impenitent enemies of liberty and righteousness.
...
So… start tossing imprecatory prayers heavenward and watch what God does to militant implacable Islam. The celestial spanking of terrorists is no big deal for God. And our prayers could save thousands of our soldiers’ lives, our citizens’ lives and the lives of innocent, moderate Muslims and others who get caught in the freak boys’ villainous crossfire.

As I said in a comment at the Family Letter, this is all fine and good if you're operating under the assumption that God is on your side. I think you have to be supremely confident that your view of the world, of the Bible, and God is absolutely correct. The unfortunately reality is that the world is an extremely complicated place and seldom can one extremist position accurately convey what's at stake.

We can construct our view of the world as an "us versus them" situation and pray ferverently that God will destroy our enemies. But that worldview ignores our complicity in creating the conditions that allow "radical islam" to thrive. I think it is a normal and very understandable reaction to want the terrorists dead. But that misunderstands the world that creates them.

Benjamin Barber is a professor at the University of Maryland and author of several fantastic books including Strong Democracy, Jihad vs. McWorld, and Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism and Democracy. In an interview will Bill Moyers on NOW, he had this to say:

BARBER: And the 9/11 Report says, Bill, very clearly that unless we deal not just with al-Qaeda and with terrorism and the radical sect Wahhabi Islam that gives them their ideology, but that we also deal with the millions and millions of young Muslim men around the world who are angry, who feel left out of the new world markets, who feel engaged in defensive ways by the aggressive American consumer mentality and materialist economy being pushed around the world that I called McWorld. Unless we deal with that, even if we excise the tumor of al-Qaeda, we will find new tumors growing on this same immune defective system.

MOYERS: But there is a school of thought which holds that al-Qaeda and the terrorists that everyone takes so seriously come not from conditions in the world but from a radical ideology embedded in Islam itself.

BARBER: But the problem with that argument is that it assumes that ideologies, whether it's Communism or radical Islam, grow in isolation from the conditions around them. Communism became a radical and virulent and dangerous ideology. But it came out of three centuries of class warfare.

It came out of the abuses and difficulties and contradictions of capitalism in the 18th and 19th century. That grew the ideology that in time grew Bolshevism and all the terrible costs that we paid because of Bolshevism. And radical Wahhabi Islam is very much the same. I mean, there's a good way to define a radical religious movement.

Radical religion is normal religion under siege. When people feel threatened in their normal religious beliefs, they become radical. So we have to do something about normal religion under siege if we're going to deal with radical Islam.

As much as we'd like to deny it, we helped created radical Islam. So as much as I believe God mourns all of the deaths at the hands of terrorists, I believe God also mourns the economic, political, and social systems created and perpetuated by the United States that result in global povery and inequality. As much as we'd like God to punish the sins of radical Islam in righteous anger, we need to acknowledge our sin in our relationships with the world.

So, Doug Giles, you're right. The Psalms are full of imprecatory prayers. But I believe as Christians we're called to greater responsibility. It's easy to pray for the destruction of your enemies. It is much harder to acknowledge your role in creating the conditions the bred your enemies. So while I hate what al-Qaeda does, I'm not going to pray for God to destroy them. I'm going to pray that our society will have the courage and humility to approach the Muslim world with grace in seeking justice and peace for all people.

I'd also suggest reading a sermon Tony Campolo posted at The Church of Fools, "Why many people in the world hate America."

That Jesus guy had a couple of things to say about this too. I think it's important to note that what many Jews wanted in their Messiah was a holy warrior that would drive the Romans from Israel. They (and we) got something completely different. We should remember that.

Matthew 5:38-48 (MSG)
"Here's another old saying that deserves a second look: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.' Is that going to get us anywhere? Here's what I propose: "Don't hit back at all.' If someone strikes you, stand there and take it. If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.

"You're familiar with the old written law, "Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, "Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best--the sun to warm and the rain to nourish--to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that.

"In a word, what I'm saying is, Grow up. You're kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.

Luke 6:41-42 (MSG)
"It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, "Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this I-know-better-than-you mentality again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your own part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor.

If you'd like to read more of Doug Giles' wild, somewhat incomprehensible rants, visit ClashRadio.com.

This is long, sorry. If you've gotten this far you must be a glutton for punishment.

Camp Songs

2004-08-09T13:21:00.000-07:00

Pharaoh, Pharaoh
(sung to the tune of Louie, Louie)

CHORUS:
Pharaoh, Pharaoh Oh baby! Gotta let my people go! HUH!
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Singin' Pharaoh, Pharaoh
Oh baby! Gotta let my people go! HUH!
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!

A burnin' bush told me just the other day
that I should come over here and stay.
Gotta get my people outta Pharaoh's hands
Gotta lead my people to the Promised Land.

CHORUS

The Nile turned to blood! There were darkened black skies!
Gnats and frogs! There were locusts and flies!
The first born died, causing Egypt to grieve,
Finally Pharaoh said, "Y'all can leave!"

CHORUS

Me and my people goin' to the Red Sea
Pharaoh's army's comin' after me.
I raised my rod, stuck it in the sand
All of God's people walked across the dry land.

CHORUS

Pharaoh's army was a comin' too.
So what do you think that I did do?
Well, I raised my rod and I cleared my throat
All of Pharaoh's army did the dead man's float.

CHORUS

The trip this weekend was better than I expected, but worse in one major way - inadequate preparation (on my part) for below-freezing temperatures at night. Ugh! However, friends who had an extra bed in their cabin at the camp shared with us and saved us from another night of cold.

On a loosely related topic - if you've ever been to a Christian summer camp, you've probably sung Pharaoh, Pharaoh. I may be taking this too seriously, but the song really bothers me. Basically the song teaches kids to rejoice in the knowledge that God murdered the enemies of the Israelites. Is that the message we really want to send?

Is that what we hope for as Christians? Are we waiting for God to murder our enemies? I would hope not. I think the song also encourages us to see things in black and white, good and evil. Israelites = good, Pharaoh's army = evil. Is it really much of a leap to Americans = good, Iraqis = evil?

I'm not a pacifist (yet), but I think we need to set higher expectations for our relationships with other human beings, including those who we decide are our enemies. And I think we also need to really think about the subtle messages we send kids about violence, even in wacky, fun camp songs. Our hope should not be that God will annihilate those who oppose us, but rather that we will be reconciled through the power of grace and God's love.

Or maybe I should just lighten up...

Reluctance...

2004-08-05T19:04:00.000-07:00

We're going on an intergenerational mission trip this weekend. I hate to admit it, but I really don't want to go. I feel like I need to relax and I don't imagine this trip will be conducive to that. The trip is led by our church's youth minister, who is a fine person.

I hate to admit this too, but our youth ministry makes me crazy. She's always trying to guilt trip me into doing something that I don't want to do. I feel like if I say no, she's going to say, "do you hate Jesus?" I should get over it... Who knows, maybe I am a bad Christian. If I just give up all of my waking hours to her youth program I'll be well on my way to heaven! She doesn't ask that much...

Updated Blog

2004-08-03T20:22:00.000-07:00

Sarah, my wonderful talented and beautiful wife has updated her blog. Check it out. She writes a lot about her experience as a new mother. She's a fantastic mother, and I'm awed by her love for our daughter and her incredible patience.

2004-08-03T10:29:00.000-07:00

Hey, it's the small victories that count!
So, me and my blog are moving up in the world. My insightful, thoughtful commentary on the Democratic National Convention and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is getting noticed on the internet.

I am now the #8 hit for "goat-ball licker" and the #10 hit for "turd miner." Yea me!

2004-08-02T14:13:00.000-07:00

Grief, Anger, Fear, and ... Hope?
I went through a cycle of grief, anger and fear dealing with cancer here and here two weeks ago. This weekend I learned that my father's wife has breast cancer. The optimist in me says that God was preparing me for this news. The pessimist says that the world is a just a really crappy place sometimes.

My father's wife is not my mother (I've never known her that way), but she is a mother. She's a grandmother to my daughter. She's also a daugther, a sister, an aunt. She is a wonderful, loving, nurturing person who is a joy to have in my life. I know that right now she's scared, but she also gives hope through her strength. She received the news after spending time last week comforting, nurturing, and being present for two friends fighting losing battles against cancer.

Her prognosis is very good. She says, "I want to get it over with and get on with life." My dad says, "It's just the crap you deal with in life." So while I'm scared for them, they give me hope. It amazes me that in this time of need, she is still giving. So I thank God for her presence in my life. I hope I can learn something about what a ministry of presence really means from someone who just plans on living.

2004-07-30T11:19:00.000-07:00

Tidbits...
I actually listened to Kerry's acceptance speech last. I wanted to be moved, inspired, called to action. But I had to face the reality that Kerry really isn't that dynamic of a speaker. Thankfully, Edwards is. Kerry did say one thing that resonated with me:

"And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."

Amen to that. The full text of his speech is here.

Lesson of the day for my employees:

Honest mistakes happen. Careless, stupid mistakes happen too. Being honest about them and working to learn from them is a good thing. Lying about them and trying to cover them up is not such a good thing. Hoping that I don't find out about them is probably not the best strategy in this case. Treating the person badly that actually tells me the truth is not a good thing either.

Is it too much to ask for people to behave like adults?

My mentor believed that if we lived in a less litigious world, a personnel manual would only need two statements:

1.) Use your own best judgment at all times.

2.) Respect human dignity.

Not bad advice for life, either. He also had a plaque on his wall that said,

Trust in God. But lock your car.

Amen!

2004-07-29T14:57:00.000-07:00

I may hate politics, but at least I've still got my sense of humor...
I'm going to take this opportunity to plug something that probably in no way needs a plug from me. Last night I stayed up past my bedtime to watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. As always it was gut-bustingly funny and well worth my time. They did a beautiful job skewering the Democratic Convention. How often can you include the words "goat-ball licker" and "turd miner" in what is actually very insightful political commentary?

I'm anxiously awaiting the Republican's turn...except it's almost too easy with them.

It's a pretty sad commentary that Comedy Central's fake news is more educational and insightful than the networks' real news. Watch it if you can. You'll be glad you did. Unless of course you have no sense of humor... then you'll probably hate me. But that's ok!

2004-07-28T15:10:00.000-07:00

More on Goldschmidt
There's a great article in the American Journalism Review about the Oregonian's coverage (or lack thereof) of the Neil Goldschmidt scandal. For those of you outside Oregon, Goldschmidt served as Portland's mayor, Oregon's governor, and Secretary of Transportation under Jimmy Carter. While he was mayor of Portland he repeatedly raped his 14-year old neighbor. The story did not break until well after the statute of limitations had passed for statutory rape, unfortunately.

The American Journalism Review discusses how and why the Oregonian (Oregon's largest daily newspaper) missed the story (it was broken by a Portland alternative weekly, Willamette Week) and seemed to be trying to protect Goldschmidt. It's a long article, but very good.

2004-07-27T15:08:00.000-07:00

Disillusionment
I used to love politics. At one point I was active in the Socialist Party of Oregon and involved in a couple of small political protests. I believed passionately that the two-party system was broken and we needed new voices. Eventually I decided that being involved in an organization that was completely irrelevant to the political process was a waste of my time.

But at the same time I haven't been able to go back to the Democratic Party. I can be pretty cynical at times, especially about politics. I think cynicism requires two things of a person - a lot of optimism - or at least the ability to envision a better future, and a firm grounding in reality. In the case of American politics, reality quickly overwhelms optimism.

The reality of our political system is very discouraging. Beyond just being the "art of the possible," I think both parties lack any sort of compelling vision for the future. But even if they did, they are so bound to special interests through campaign finances that dramatic visions are limited. Further, the campaign process is totally disingenuous and grounded in distortion, manipulation, and outright lies. Kerry does it. Bush does it.

I yearn for a real discussion of issues. But I think the reality is that Bush and Kerry are so close ideologically on many issues that there's nothing to discuss. All they're left with is slinging mud. I'd love to see a candidate articulate a consistent, comprehensive pro-life ethic. We need a platform that cares for children in and out of the womb, men, women, and families. We need a platform that cares as much about Iraqi or Sudanese children as it does unborn American children. We need a platform that actually cares for working families, rather that using them as an excuse to further enrich the already rich.

I don't believe either candidate offers anything close. But I'll be voting Kerry, if only because I think there's a slightly better chance that he won't get us involved in another religious/oil war in the Middle East.

I wish I could still love politics.

I think we have a cause worthy of fighting against here in Oregon, though. The Defense of Marriage Coalition was successful in getting their amendment to the Oregon Constitution banning gay marriage on the ballot for November. I'm sure someone is gearing up to fight it - I'll just have to find out who...

Update: Basic Rights Oregon is already organizing. Volunteer opportunities are here.

No on Measure 36!

2004-07-26T22:25:00.001-07:00

And finally, the lake!

2004-07-26T22:25:00.000-07:00

Another peak - view from the dining hall.

2004-07-26T22:24:00.000-07:00

One of the peaks around Wallowa Lake.

2004-07-26T13:09:00.000-07:00

History
Family camp was great. It was a fanatastic time to relax and enjoy the wonder of God's creation. I'll post some pictures later, but the Wallowa Lake Camp is in a truly magnificent area. It is in northeast Oregon in the Blue Mountains, right on the edge of the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area. It is across the lake from the town of Joseph. Joseph is named after Chief Joseph, of the Nez Perce.

The cruel irony is that Joseph and the Nez Perce were forced out of the Wallowa Valley under threat of an attack from the US Army. The Federal Government was requiring the Nez Perce to move to a reservation in Idaho. The Nez Perce elected to flee to Canada, but after several young men attacked some white settlements killing four whites (in retaliation for the killing of several Nez Perce), the Army pursued the Nez Perce into Montana where Joseph and Nez Perce surrendered after three months of fighting. The Nez Perce were sent first to Kansas, then Oklahoma.

In 1885, after lobbying President Rutherford Hayes, half of the Nez Perce (including Chief Joseph) were returned to the Pacific Northwest. However, they were sent to a reservation in Eastern Washington. The Nez Perce were never allowed to return to the Wallowa Valley. Chief Joseph died in 1904.

The powers that be have renamed the valley the "Nez Perce Valley" which is probably a small consolation to the Nez Perce. I don't think that the Methodists or the Boy Scouts (who also have a camp in the area) shouldn't be there. But I do think we have an obligation to remember our history. America has a black mark on its soul for our treatment of Native Americans. And many of those horrifying actions were in the name of God. So as much fun as we had at Wallowa Lake, I'll always remember the horrible price the Nez Perce paid for happening to live someplace so wonderful.

More resources:

Nez Perce National Historic Trail
Nez Perce National Historic Trail - from the End of the Oregon Trail website
Nez Perce National Historical Park

2004-07-21T18:03:00.000-07:00

Go Camping!
We're leaving tomorrow for family camp at Wallowa Lake. The Wallowa Lake Camp is part of the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference's excellent camp and retreat ministry. It should be a great time for rest, relaxation, and reflection.

2004-07-20T11:45:00.000-07:00

Epiphany
Every so often I get a revelation. Not from God, but usually something most everyone else in the world has already thought of. Even if I'm a latecomer to an idea, it still makes me feel good. So here's my latest revelation. I was thinking about homosexuality and the church. One of the arguments I've used is that if you believe homosexuality is a sin (which I don't), is it fair to pick on it when we're all sinners, to varying degrees?

So, if we don't require our ministers to be sinless in other regards, why require them to not commit the sin of homosexuality (presuming you believe homosexuality is a sin)? The response I've usually received is that homosexuals who want to be ordained are unrepentant. So it's ok to be greedy occasionally or uncharitable, so long as you feel bad about it.

So then I thought of a pretty major group of unrepentant sinners we let slide in the church: divorcees. Below are four passages from the New Testament (three from the gospels) where Jesus and Paul lay out the case against divorce pretty tightly. Not much getting around it. But most churches still allow divorced men and women to be ordained, to take communion, and marry again. We don't generally require them to repent of their sin of divorce (I'm sure there are exceptions).

It seems to me that the church (generally - not any specific denomination necessarily) has decided that divorce is a part of life in 20th and 21st century America. Most churches will let divorced and remarried men and women fully participate in the life of the church, whether it is a sin or not. Clearly according to Jesus, divorce is a sin. If we're going to be hardcore legalists, we have to treat divorced people much, much worse than we currently do. If you're a legalist and are not willing to go to that length, why not cut gays and lesbians some slack?

I can't believe how much effort churches in Oregon have put into the "Constitutional Definition of Marriage" initiative. Under state law, they needed 100,840 signatures to get the constitutional amendment on the ballot. They collected 244,587 signatures. Those have not been verified - undoubtedly some will not be valid, but unless there's a miracle this will be on the ballot in November.

Imagine if these churches have devoted that effort to loving their neighbors by fighting poverty, feeding the hungry, or protecting the environment? Oh wait, I missed that part in the Bible about actively persecuting those that you don't agree with. What was I thinking?

Matthew 5:31-32 (MSG)
"Remember the Scripture that says, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him do it legally, giving her divorce papers and her legal rights'? Too many of you are using that as a cover for selfishness and whim, pretending to be righteous just because you are "legal.' Please, no more pretending. If you divorce your wife, you're responsible for making her an adulteress (unless she has already made herself that by sexual promiscuity). And if you marry such a divorced adulteress, you're automatically an adulterer yourself. You can't use legal cover to mask a moral failure.

Matthew 19:3-9 (MSG)
One day the Pharisees were badgering him: "Is it legal for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" He answered, "Haven't you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female? And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh--no longer two bodies but one.   Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart." They shot back in rebuttal, "If that's so, why did Moses give instructions for divorce papers and divorce procedures?" Jesus said, "Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hardheartedness, but it is not part of God's original plan. I'm holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery."

Mark 10:2-12 (MSG)
Pharisees came up, intending to give him a hard time. They asked, "Is it legal for a man to divorce his wife?" Jesus said, "What did Moses command?" They answered, "Moses gave permission to fill out a certificate of dismissal and divorce her." Jesus said, "Moses wrote this command only as a concession to your hardhearted ways. In the original creation, God made male and female to be together. Because of this, a man leaves father and mother, and in marriage he becomes one flesh with a woman--no longer two individuals, but forming a new unity. Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart."   When they were back home, the disciples brought it up again.   Jesus gave it to them straight: "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her.   And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery."

Luke 16:18 (MSG)
Using the legalities of divorce as a cover for lust is adultery; Using the legalities of marriage as a cover for lust is adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:10-16 (MSG)
And if you are married, stay married. This is the Master's command, not mine. If a wife should leave her husband, she must either remain single or else come back and make things right with him. And a husband has no right to get rid of his wife.   For the rest of you who are in mixed marriages--Christian married to nonChristian--we have no explicit command from the Master. So this is what you must do. If you are a man with a wife who is not a believer but who still wants to live with you, hold on to her. If you are a woman with a husband who is not a believer but he wants to live with you, hold on to him. The unbelieving husband shares to an extent in the holiness of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is likewise touched by the holiness of her husband. Otherwise, your children would be left out; as it is, they also are included in the spiritual purposes of God.   On the other hand, if the unbelieving spouse walks out, you've got to let him or her go. You don't have to hold on desperately. God has caled us to make the best of it, as peacefully as we can. You never know, wife: The way you handle this might bring your husband not only back to you but to God. You never know, husband: The way you handle this might bring your wife not only back to you but to God.

Update: I want to clarify something - I'm not necessarily saying that divorce is a sin and any divorced reader is thereby a sinner. There are a lot of good and bad reasons for getting divorced and I'm not qualified to judge them. One thing that seems to be clear from the passages above is that if you leave your spouse so you can marry someone else, that's a sin. What Jesus says in Matthew 5 is that people were using the law as "cover for selfishness and whim." That's a very different situation than leaving a physically or emotionally abusive relationship, etc. But again, it's not up to me to make that distinction. I also believe that redemption and grace are available to all us and that God can be present in our lives married, single, divorced, gay or straight.

2004-07-16T16:11:00.000-07:00

It's hard to be unhappy when someone looks at you like this. It would be nice if it were easy to always stay this happy!

2004-07-15T09:22:00.000-07:00

Fear
My former pastor used to tell us that she believed fear was the root of sin. Fear has amazing power over our lives. I'm feeling less angry today, but very tired. I think I need to do a better job confronting the things that I'm afraid of. Reading about Rudy's son brought back a lot of memories and strong emotions from the death of my friend three years ago.

I'm afraid of cancer. I'm afraid of pain. I'm afraid of seeing those I love in pain. I'm afraid of not living to see my daughter grow up. I'm afraid of failing my family. I'm afraid of failing God.

In reflecting on the kind words Karen H. left in the comments to my previous post, I think maybe I should just keep praying in spite of everything. I don't know if it will "work" or even what to say. I know it won't give me any answers, easy or otherwise. Not having answers is a struggle for me. In my professional life, I'm an analyst (of the financial flavor). Answers are what I do. Give me a pile of data and I'll tell you what it means. I need to admit to myself that I can't reason or argue my way to an answer. Bad things do happen to good people, but I can't let this reality convince me that God isn't present in our lives.

So God, I pray that you will be present with Rudy, Kafi, and Sam, in whatever form that takes. I pray that I will not be bound by my fear and that I can be present in the lives of those that I love and love me. I'll admit, God, that what I want are answers, but maybe what I need is patience and humility. I pray that I will be able to turn to you in the depths of unbelief, the darkness of faithlessness, and the pain of grief. Help me to rejoice in your goodness even as I'm blinded by self-pity and sadness. God, I pray that I can recognize your presence. Amen.

2004-07-14T15:21:00.000-07:00

The power of prayer?
I've always had trouble with prayer. I ask all the questions - why? what? where? when? how? I'm not sure I know how to answer any of them with certainty. The Christian blog world is reeling at the news that a prominent blogger's son has leukemia. I've never met or even corresponded with Rudy Carrasco, who blogs at Urban Onramps, but he seems like a man of great faith. It makes me incredibly sad to think of how much pain he and his wife are feeling right now. I get worried when my five month-old daughter doesn't have regular bowel movements - I don't want to imagine how much worse this must be.

He's obviously praying. I've been praying for his son. But what do I pray for? For healing? That would be great, but if God will heal people if we just ask the right way, why does God let them get sick in the first place? That seems to me to be a pretty capricious God we have. I think of palmer's Journal. Palmer's wife died after a short battle with cancer. He wrote how they prayed daily for a miraculous recovery. Needless to say, it didn't happen. Now he's a single father (supported by a great community) raising their 2 year-old son.

I think the problem for me right now is that I'm angry. I don't understand God. I don't understand why good people get sick and some get better and some don't. I don't understand why we think praying makes a bit of difference. Are we asking for the wrong things? Should we be asking for anything at all? It's not enough to say to me that we "can't understand God's plan." No shit. God's plan doesn't seem to make any sense a lot of the time. Is there even a plan?

I had a very good friend in college. Karen was a fantastic human being: smart, funny, kind, generous, and compassionate. She brought out the best in everyone and made you want to be a better person. Then one day during our junior year she found a lump under her arm. During the summer she had it removed. The doctor, thinking it was benign, put in a shunt to drain the wound. The doctor, being completely f$&%*ing wrong, created a pathway for a rare, very deadly cancer to spread to the rest of her body. Karen died in 2001, after three years of fighting. If that was in God's plan, I don't want any part of it.

I'm angry because I don't have answers. I'm angry because I feel guilty that I'm still here when better people than me have died. I'm angry because it seems like all God has to offer right now is a shoulder to cry on. ("Life sucks. I hope you feel better soon." - God) I'm angry that I'm feeling grief for someone I don't know and will probably never meet. I'm angry that I feel totally powerless. I'm angry because I'm scared. I'm scared because I have a child that depends on me, and I can't protect her from the worst the world has to offer. I'm scared because I hoped God would protect us, but part of me wonders now.

God help us. Please.

Information about the Karen Wyckoff Sarcoma Research Fund

2004-07-13T16:53:00.000-07:00

Christian Economics?
Is there such a thing as Christian economics? I think there probably is, but obviously people come at it from different perspectives. I'm thinking about this primarily because of Father Jake's recent posts on John Kerry's book. Jake, being a priest rather than an economist, is struggling to find economics interesting. I was also inspired by Hugo's post on his struggles with money, though he was talking about personal finances, rather than macroeconomics.

I am not an economist. I know enough to make me dangerous, but not so much to speak with real authority. If you want a real economist, read Paul Krugman. But anyway, what's a Christian perspective on economics? There are definitely some loonies out there. I blogged before about Christian Reconstructionism here. Gary North, a prominent reconstructionist, founded the Institute for Christian Economics which promotes some absolutely nutty theories. But there are progressive thinkers out there too.

So I'd like to identify what I think are some of the really important economic issues out there for Jake and other progressive Christians who aren't all that interested in economics. I might talk about some solutions later if I get around to it.

So one of the major issues is employment and unemployment. A lot of conservatives (and some liberals) love to bash poor people for not trying harder to find work. But the reality is that 5.6% of Americans were unemployed in June and that only counts the people who were actively looking for work. One concept economists use in discussing unemployment is called the natural rate of unemployment or the non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment. Basically it is the idea that some level of unemployment is structurally necessary to prevent inflation and keep the economy running smoothly.

So when you hear about the Federal Reserve adjusting interest rates that's what they are doing - manipulating (or attempting to, anyway) the economy to control prices (inflation) or employment. So the Federal Reserve is actively engaged in a policy of maintaining a natural rate of unemployment. Our government has a policy that actively seeks to prevent full employment! Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing if you believe the economists. The effect of extremely high inflation would be catastrophic (remember people in Eastern Europe around the fall of communism using paper currency as wallpaper because inflation had made it totally worthless?) for the economy.

But here's the Christian perspective - is moral to also have social policies that punish the poor and unemployed when our government is actively working to ensure that a large number of them stay that way? Is it right to send a message a self-sufficiency through hard work when we know without a doubt that there are more workers than jobs? I don't think so. We need social policies that encourage work while recognizing at the same time that some people will not be able to find work, no matter how hard they try.

This is getting long, so I'll cover the other issues more briefly. The way we work is changing dramatically. The blue collar jobs that sustained the middle class through most of the 20th century are disappearing. We're transitioning to an information economy that provides many jobs for knowledge workers and service workers. But its unclear whether those jobs will provide family-wage incomes over the long term. We're already seeing many information technology jobs be outsourced to India - and these were supposed to be "safe" jobs for the future.

The changes in the way we work are affecting other areas as well. Our system (not really a system, more a practice) of employer-based health insurance is failing badly. Non-traditional jobs (outsourced, contracted labor) don't provide health insurance to millions of Americans. In September 2003, the US Census Bureau estimated that 43.6 million Americans don't have health insurance. Families USA estimates that 1 in 3 adults under the age of 65 were without health insurance for all or part of 2003. What is maddening is that most of them work for a living. Further, the dramatically increasing costs of health insurance and care are making it harder for those that are lucky enough to actually have insurance.

There are a lot more issues, obviously. The overriding issue is that it is getting harder for average Americans to make it. I think as Christians we're called to a politics of compassion and care. It is easy to get bogged down in a discussion of capital gains taxes and completely miss the economic reality for a lot of American families. The next step is to consider the effects of American policies on global poverty. Do middle class tax cuts matter that much in a world dealing with a global HIV/AIDS crisis, genocide in the Sudan, crushing poverty across the developing world? I think most discussions of economics in the political system (particularly the Presidential race) are dangerously short-sighted and incredibly myopic.

This is way too long now.

2004-07-13T15:16:00.000-07:00

X's & Y's
Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist, developed his X Y Theory in the 1960s. Basically he argues that there are two types of managers: X's, who tend to see their subordinates as inherently lazy with no ambition; and Y's who see them as naturally self-directed and committed. The theory suggests that Y's get better results than X's. X's tend to be domineering, dehumanizing managers, while Y's can bring out the best in their employees.

There has been a lot of criticism directed at the theory over the years for many predictable reasons. Primarly it is a recognition that the world is a heck of a lot more complicated than any dualist-type theory can hope to explain. But I don't think it is totally without value. I think a lot of people tend to approach the world with one of two general mindsets - basically that we'll either get what we need from the world, or the world is going to screw us. My father-in-law who is a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst says infant research bears this out. The research suggests that how we view the world is formed, to a great extent, when we are infants. But I digress.

I've always considered myself pretty much a Theory Y person. I think that people are generally good and when they're not, we need to consider external factors along with their character. Now, on June 21, I became a supervisor - at least for a couple of months. I now have three people reporting to me. I'm finding myself slowly morphing into a Theory X'er.

Part of it may be the people working for me are just testing my limits and trying to find out how I work. Or maybe not. But, man, they're driving me nuts! We're in the middle of the busiest part of our year and I'm getting all sorts of crazy requests for time off. They're not all unreasonable, but the reality is any time they're away from the office makes more work for the rest of us.

Here's a smattering:

"I need to take a long lunch every day to go home and feed my puppy." (why didn't you wait a week to get your puppy? Why can't your damn husband feed the puppy?)

"I need Monday the xxth off for bereavement leave." (This is for a relative they hardly knew. Further, the memorial service is on Saturday, there's no travelling involved, and it isn't for three weeks. Conveniently, they've planned for their grief three weeks in advance to create a three-day weekend.)

"I'm sick and can't come to work today. Cough, cough." (The cough sounds like the smoker's cough I hear everyday. Give up the damn cigarettes and maybe you can come to work.)

I know I shouldn't mock my employeees. I don't know how important their puppy is to them, and maybe they process their grief differently than I do, and I'm certainly in no position to evaluate their health. But with these people it is always something. I guess I just have this funny idea that when you have a job, you should actually SHOW UP FOR WORK every once in a while. The kicker is that now we're seriously behind because no one (except me) actually worked last week. UGH!

Anyone interested in supervising some employees?

Our recently departed pastor always said, "Look for the Christ in everyone you meet." I'm not doing a very good job.

More on the XY Theory:

Douglas Mcgregor's XY Theory

Theory X and Theory Y

2004-07-12T11:37:00.000-07:00

Funky
I've been in a bit of a blogging funk lately. I tend to be a bit manic - I'll oscillate from feeling like I have a great deal to say that someone, somewhere might actually be interested in hearing to telling myself, "What in the hell are you thinking? No one cares what you think!" It's hard to drown out those negative voices in your head. I've been reading Anne Lamott's Operating Instructions - it is a journal of her son's first year (great book, by the way). One of the recurring themes is the difficulty she has silencing the "crazy" voices in her head. The voices that tell her she's not a good mother, she shouldn't have been entrusted with a child, and darker, scarier messages. In talking to Sarah (my wife, who read the book first), we've had all of those thoughts running through our heads in our daughter's first five months. I want tell Anne, "You're not as crazy as you think. We think all of those thoughts too!"

So maybe the message for me, and many others, I'm sure, is that I'm not as crazy as I think. Even though those waves of self-doubt crash on me periodically (like ocean imagery - we just got back from the beach), I do have something to add to the blogging world.

On an loosely related topic, Chuck Currie is the proud papa of twins! I can't even imagine how much work that's going to be. Well, I guess I actually can imagine and that's what scares me. Our one is a handful by herself - visualize projectile vomiting on our bed at 12:00 am this morning.

2004-07-09T11:34:00.000-07:00

Going to the beach!
We're going to the beach this weekend. In Oregon, unlike parts of the East Coast apparently, the entire coastline is a State Park. However, unlike most other State Parks in Oregon, there is no daily admission fee (unless you happen to go to another State Park that happens to be on the beach).

In Oregon: we may have (unknowingly) put a rapist in the Governor's office, we may not value education like we should, and we may soon formalize our denial of a basic human right to gays and lesbians, but dammit, our beachers are free and beautiful!

2004-07-08T11:08:00.000-07:00

Now that's commitment!
Three men in France started a fast on June 21, 2004 to protest the use of nuclear energy. They don't know when they'll stop - I hear it will be at least a month. I wouldn't know anything about this, except that the step-daughter of one of the men (Michel Bernard) is staying with my wife's family this summer. My wife also lived with the family for a year in Lyon during college.

This is a pretty impressive level of commitment. If you're interested in learning more, check out www.vivresansnucleaire.org. Of course it's all in French, but there are some parts you can translate to English. You can also use the altavista Babel Fish Translator. This is the English press release.

Wow!

2004-07-07T11:57:00.000-07:00

Hmm...
The nation's top Medicare official threatened to fire one of his subordinates if the subordinate (an actuary) reported to Congress the true cost of President Bush's prescription drug benefit. As a result, the true cost was not revealed until after President Bush had signed the bill into law. Now we know the benefit will cost $500-$600 billion over ten years rather than the no more than $400 billion Bush promised. In December, Thomas Scully, the top Medicare official, resigned to take a job as a lobbyist for health care companies. He now lobbies for (among others) Abbott Laboratories, Aventis (major drug companies) and Caremark Rx, a pharmacy benefit manager. Is it surprising that all of these companies are major beneficiaries of the new prescription drug benefit?

It is stories like this that make people not trust government. Personally, it reaffirms my absolute lack of trust in the Bush administration. If I behaved this way working in local government the best that would happen to me is that I'd lose my job. But more likely I'd probably go to jail.

Full story here (free registration req'd).

2004-07-07T08:22:00.000-07:00

New Blogger
My friend David has a new blog, ConXian. David is a United Methodist seminary student and an old friend. I finally convinced him to start blogging and I'm sure he'd appreciate some encouragement.

2004-07-06T13:07:00.000-07:00

Why are political advertisements so bad?

The answer is here. This is a great article from the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly.

2004-07-06T13:03:00.000-07:00

Fathers and sons
I spent much of this last weekend helping my dad hang siding on his house. We got a lot done and enjoyed working together. That might not seem remarkable, but up until a couple of years ago we didn't have a very good relationship. Nothing particularly interesting, just a typical American story of white bread family dysfunction. What changed our relationship was that I learned to forgive.

There wasn't one moment or one great event that changed me, but rather a slow turning of the tide. This also corresponded with a deepening of my faith. I decided that I wasn't going to let my anger, disappointment, fear, and frustrations keep me from having a relationship with my dad. It took a while, but now I really value having him in my life and I am very thankful that my daughter will know her grandfather.

I think as I came to realize the power of grace through God's love I was able to be more forgiving. For me it was an amazing transformation. My sisters, on the other hand, are a different story. They are angry, and probably rightly so, to some extent. But their anger is poisoning any possibility of having a meaningful relationship with our dad. It makes me incredibly sad that they cannot respond to the positive changes he's made in his life with forgiveness. I wish I knew a way to get through to them. But maybe they'll just have to get there on their own.

So today I rejoice in the opportunity to work side-by-side with my dad. As a new father I am especially grateful to be reconnecting with my dad. Thank God for grace!

Speaking of grace, What's So Amazing About Grace, by Philip Yancey, is an absolutely fantastic book. Not theologically complex, but powerful, challenging and wonderful all the same. Read Yancey's interview at Sojourners too - great stuff. While Yancey is a conservative, he is very thoughtful and honest. While I disagree with some of his beliefs, I respect his intellectual honesty and integrity.

2004-07-01T15:58:00.000-07:00

Inadequacy...
It's amazing how life can push everything but the essentials (or what seems essentials) out of your focus. I have quite a bit of extra responsibility at work right now because my boss is on maternity leave. I'm swamped at work, the baby has her first cold, I'm fighting off a cold, and consequently I have no time left for blogging.

In the meantime, Jenell Paris is back (from a short hiatus), Hugo Schwyzer is stirring things up like usual, Matthew 25:40 is thinking deep thoughts, and Chuck Currie has an interesting interview with the general secretary of the National Council of Churches.

I'll try to have some original thoughts soon...

2004-06-29T19:05:00.000-07:00

Auditors and Christian Culture
Work has kept me unusually busy the last couple of days. In my job as a financial analyst, I wear many hats. I float between accountant, analyst, auditor, coffee boy, sherpa. This week I'm the dreaded internal auditor. I show up (unexpectedly!) at various departments and count their petty cash. Thankfully my organization is full of honest people or exceptionally good thieves.

I heard an interesting observation today. I was watching a video promoting a somewhat alternative Christian college (Gutenberg College) here in Oregon. One of the faculty said that most traditional Christian colleges view Christianity as a culture that you need to be socialized into, whereas, they see faith and your relationship to God as primary. They teach a "Great Books" curriculum, in which, they argue, students learn to think critically in a Christian context.

As I haven't ever attended any sort of Christian college, I have no idea if it is true or not. Interesting idea though...