Fill in the Blank – Marriage Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Fill in the blanks:

Almighty God created the __________and he placed them __ separate _________. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the _______ shows that he did not intend for the _________ to mix.

I’m guessing that a lot of folks would assume the blanks are to be filled in like this:

Almighty God created the genders and he placed them in separate kinds of bodies. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the genders shows that he did not intend for the genders to mix.

That quote works in 2013. But it’s not from this year, and those aren’t the right words in the blanks.

Here is the original, from 1958.

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

 

This was the ruling of a Virginia judge in 1958, condemning the illegal marriage of a white man and a black woman.

To them, it was completely obvious that interracial marriages were abominations before God. This was the popular opinion. The majority agreed that this was true.

When we all agree about whom God dislikes, it is hard to see any other perspective. The Supreme Court, however, was able to see the denial of rights to a certain group of people as discrimination. They were able to see past popularity and rule instead in favor of justice. In the same case, Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Warren, of Supreme Court of the United States, wrote on June 12, 1967:

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.” –

 

We have seen the dangers of assuming that God wants us to treat a certain group of people as less valuable than ourselves. Perhaps some humility is in order again.

Quotes accessed here.

The Pope willing to let go of Power

Posted on by
Reply

When I was a kid, I was not allowed to run in my grandmother’s living room. If I did run, or get too excited, my parents would say, “walk.” When I was doing something wrong, they tried to tell me what I should do, rather than what I should not do. “Walk” rather than “Don’t run.” “Inside voice” rather than “Be quiet.” They gave positive directions.

The most influential way to give a positive direction is to set an example. The most powerful reason I didn’t run in the living room was that adults didn’t run in the living room. My uncle would wrestle with me in the family room, but not in the living room. My grandfather might throw a ball around with me in the basement, but not in the living room. Mom might hurry through the kitchen getting something ready, but not the living room. Nobody ran in the living room, so I followed suit.

 

The Catholic Church takes the relationship of marriage very seriously. It’s safe to say that they show more reverence for marriage than my grandmother shows for her living room. I do not doubt the sincerity with which Catholic leaders hold these beliefs. The church is preparing to select and install a new Pope, and continues to strive to move forward. It seems to me that a few changes in the way the seriousness of marriage is presented would be useful in expressing that view and inviting others to live it out as well.

One of the Catholic teachings that I hear most often is the prohibition against Birth Control. I generally hear this stated in the negative form, as a regulation: “Do not use Birth Control.” The goal is to respect God’s action in marriage and in the continuation of creation through the family. Childbirth is a Holy thing and should be treated with respect.

It seems to me that this would be better stated as a positive. “Walk” is better than “Don’t run.” Rather than saying, “Don’t use Birth Control,” teach a positive sexual ethic. Explain sexuality as a good thing, a gift from God, to be used within the bounds of a healthy marriage. Make clear that this restriction is not some sort of mean, cruel test by God, but is, in fact, the healthiest and most fulfilling way to experience sexual intimacy.

Perhaps the most powerful way to express this positive sexuality would be to model it – to express what the healthy expression of a marriage looks like. This is difficult to do when the Catholic Church requires ordained clergy to remain celibate. Of course, celibacy allows clergy members to model dedication and devotion, but it hardly allows them to lead by example when teaching the proper expression of sexuality.

 

The prohibitions against Birth Control and married clergy have some unintended side effects. Not allowing priests to marry implies that women are dirty or unholy, and associating with them too closely would prevent the priest from associating closely enough with God. I do not think that Catholics leaders believe this, but the policy of only allowing male clergy, and not permitting them to marry, sends this message.

Preventing the use of Birth Control is intended to reduce unhealthy sex, and to provide an incentive for people to restrict sex to committed relationships. Perhaps it provides some incentive, but I doubt that many people would argue that less available Birth Control completely eliminates extramarital sex. Instead, less Birth Control means more conception, increasing rates of poverty and abortion. A lack of condoms increases the spread of AIDS. Poverty, abortion, and AIDS hardy contribute to the health and strength of the family.

 

I never broke anything in my grandmother’s living room. This was not because I was forbidden to go in there; it was because, when I was in there, I walked. My parents didn’t forbid me from having shoes in order to keep me from running. If they had taken only that step, then I would have run barefoot, and stumped my toe when I crashed into the piano or the end table. They walked, and they taught me to walk. It was very effective.

These thoughts come to mind now, of course, because of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Benedict would not be in favor of these changes, and most leaders who he taught and influenced will not, either. These will not be easy changes to make.

But I think that the example Pope Benedict XVI sets in stepping down is one that we would do well to learn from. I admire the humility that it takes for one of the most recognized leaders in the world to say, “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.” 

The Pope knew that he would face criticism for this decision, but he did was he thought was best for the Church. He was willing to go against tradition in order to reach something more important. Relinquishing power is a selfless, humble act. I am hopeful that the selfless, brave way the Pope walked away from power will also inform the way the church proceeds.

It will take bravery and humility for the leadership of the Church to change the ways that they address Birth Control and priestly celibacy. To make changes would go against the church tradition and draw some sharp critiques. But I think that it would also allow the Catholic Church to speak with another voice – a voice that others may be more willing to hear. Pope Benedict the XVI realized that it was time for the church to move forward, and it was time for him to step aside. I hope that the church will show similar wisdom, selflessness, trust, and grace as it continues to discern what parts of her tradition enhance the message of the Gospel and what parts should be reevaluated, introducing the unchanging truth of the Gospel in living ways to an ever-changing world.

Busy, Pushing

Posted on by
Reply

I am being pulled.
I am being called.
I have something to do.
A call to make.
A book to read.
A thought to think.
And another one behind that.

I was going to to it all.
I am good at starting things.

But it comes faster and faster,
I am running,
life is rolling
something else to do
something else
something else

It makes a ball in my chest.
It could own me.

But I breathe.
Again.
Again.

And music.
And a poem.
Breathe.

I am not my to-do list.
It will be there tomorrow.
I am just me.
And that’s enough.

Deceptive Freedoms

Posted on by
Reply

I like freedom.

It is one of God’s biggest gifts to us. It allows us to connect with other people, to make decisions that matter, to show love and to form relationships.

Freedom is very personal. But Freedom cannot exist if it is only personal.

Freedom has to be communal.

Freedom is meaningless when it is held by only one person. In order for a society to be free, everyone in that society must be free. Our freedoms are related to our neighbors’ freedoms. This is more complicated than it sounds.

For example, I am not free to own slaves.

 

For the first half of the 1800s, people in the US were free to own slaves. They argued that this was their God-given right. Slavery appears repeatedly in the Bible. The Bible describes how slaves are to be treated. To end slavery, they argued, was against God’s plan for the world. Part of their freedom, endorsed by their religious understanding, was to continue holding slaves.

Now that we have thought a bit more about this, we realize that our ancestors hardly lived in a free society. Emancipating slaves is universally recognized as increasing freedom.

The former slave-owners lost the freedom to own slaves, but slavery is an abusive and unjust practice. “Freedom” obtained by denying basic human rights to people who are less powerful is not true freedom.

 

For the first half of the 1900s, white people in the US were free to send their children to schools where no black students were allowed. This was generally accepted as the natural way of things – to suggest otherwise was to go against the common understanding of society and the will of God.

Again, the “freedom” to discriminate based on race was only the abuse of power by the majority. We moved towards true freedom when we passed laws granting freedom and equality to the minority – a struggle that continues in our time.

 

Other Freedoms that we restrict on purpose:

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees “The freedom of speech,” but there are laws regulating speech. Slander regulations punish those who tell lies about others – replacing the freedom to lie with the more important freedom to expect others not to lie about you, and the freedom to be able to trust the word of your neighbors.

Decency laws regulate publication of obscene and offensive material – because people should have the freedom of not coming across this material, and not having their children exposed to it.

The freedom to yell “fire” in a crowded room is replaced with the more important freedom of not hearing “fire” yelled falsely and then being trampled by a panicked mob.

 

Any law can be seen as a restriction on some freedoms. We are in favor of this because this allows greater freedoms to exist. I am happy that I am not allowed to murder anyone because that means that no one is allowed to murder me. The same with stealing, and vandalism, and assault.

 

We very often hear of people accusing the government of threatening or reducing their freedoms. Two examples have been prevalent recently: Gun Control, and the perception that America is not a Christian Nation.

 

Gun Control

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads:

“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.”

Some say that this guarantees anyone the right to own any weapon and to carry it at any time for any reason. Most argue for a more nuanced approach.

Most reasonable people agree that Rocket Propelled Grenades and the most powerful guns available to the military are not appropriate in the hands of private citizens. Most people agree that some background checks and precautions are a good idea.

Some people argue that, in order for their freedom to be protected, they must be allowed to carry extremely powerful and destructive weapons. But increasing destruction does not increase freedom.

For freedom to exist, it must exist for the society. People should be free from worrying about regular and devastating gun violence.

Increasing access to the most destructive weapons creates more likelihood for more damage. This does not increase freedom, in much the same way that the ability to steal or discriminate against others does not increase freedom.

The lives and freedoms of the potential victims must be considered when weighing the importance of owning more powerful and destructive firepower.

 

Religious Liberty

Some conservative Christian commentators have claimed that any move towards governmental acceptance of same-sex marriage threatens their religious liberty. They believe same-sex relationships to be immoral within their religious communities, so they claim that any societal acceptance of these relationships threatens their freedom.

Again, this argument mistakes the freedom to control others with actual, societal freedom. If some people want to believe that same-sex relationships are sinful, then they should have the right to hold those beliefs. The reverse is also true – people should be free to believe that these relationships are morally acceptable.

A society in which the government makes these decisions is a theocracy. The government is not in the business of regulating morality. To do so is to refuse to recognize the freedom that the people deserve to process morality on the basis of their beliefs.

 

Freedom is good.

In order for a society to have freedom, it must protect its members from murder, theft, and abuse.

At one time, people believed that slavery and segregation were part of the responsibility that government had to offer freedom and protection to citizens. We have now admitted that this was backwards, and the government could only enhance freedom by ending these policies and the harm they caused.

Discrimination against homosexual people falls into the same category. It is an unfair and unbalanced abuse of power – an attempt to force other people to follow one specific religious interpretation.

Access to the most destructive and violent weapons, similarly, reduces the well-being of our society.
Freedom permits us all better to live in community. Let us continue to seek peace, justice and freedom for our society, especially for those who are currently denied those freedoms.

Words Inundating

Posted on by
Reply

Words get lobbed around.
I pile them into towers.
Frantic to impress.

I am tired of the games I play with words.
I preach, and the words have to fit -
they have to challenge and inspire.
I teach, and the words have to cause thought -
they have to be accurate and interesting.
I visit, and the words have to comfort -
prayers have to draw us nearer to God,
responses reflect pain and show hope.
I blog, and the words have to fit –
entertain, anticipate rebuttals, weave stories and truth and doubt.

I am tired of words flying at me.
All day –
phone calls, blogs, facebook,
opinions on politics and football,
I should do this.
We should have done that.
Somebody ought to do everything.

Can I take a breath?
From the tornado of words.
Sort out me from them.

An Eye for an Eye and Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

In the pilot episode of Modern Family, Luke, the goofy young son, gets a toy gun and accidentally shoots his sister. His folks made a deal with him that, if he shot someone, then the dad would have to shoot him. Phil finds this more difficult that anticipated, but ends up shooting Luke, then his daughter’s boyfriend, and then himself. It’s funny.

In general, sitcoms don’t provide the most accurate depictions of life. If they did, we wouldn’t watch them.

But the idea behind this scene is familiar: an eye for an eye. If you do something wrong, then the punishment should be equal to the crime. Obviously if Phil had locked Luke in his room for a week with no food because Luke accidentally shot his sister with a toy gun, that would have been cruel. It would have been an overreaction.

 

Eye for an Eye

We like to cite the Old Testament line demanding an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, as found in Exodus 21:22-25 and Leviticus 24:19-20. One of the major arguments against gun control stems from this concept. Folks who hold this view say something like, Well, if other folks have guns, then we should, too. Our best bet to stop them from being violent is to be ready to be violent ourselves.

In other words, we should be ready to poke people’s eyes out. The Bible says its a good idea.

But the Biblical concept of an eye for an eye is actually a call to restraint. It is a limit. It is intended to reduce violence and brutality.

Imagine that you and I are neighbors in Israel. One day, while practicing with my slingshot, I accidentally kill one of your sheep. So you kill my goat. So I kill three of your sheep. So you burn down my house.

Or we are working together to rebuild your house, and you accidentally drop a board on my toe. I get so mad that I poke you in the eye. So you knock me down and kick me. So I steal your plow. You come to take it back, and my family and I are ready to fight you. Pretty soon, we are the Hatfields and the McCoys, and no one can remember why.

This law says, If someone kills your sheep, you can only take revenge by taking one of their sheep; you do not get to burn their house down. If someone pokes out your eye, you cannot start a war.

In order to keep things from escalating, the reaction cannot exceed the crime.

 

Jesus says even that’s not good enough.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” Matthew 5:38-39.

Responding with measured violence, Jesus says, still doesn’t bring about peace.

There were people in Jesus’ world who thought that the best way to bring about lasting peace and freedom was by furthering the Pax Romana, the Peace of Rome. They thought that peace was preserved through violence. They threw the most violent, painful, terrifying weapon they could at Jesus. Jesus said to turn the other cheek; that’s powerful. But then, when faced with being tortured to death on the cross, he actually turned the other cheek. That changed the world.

 

Guns for the Pax Americana.

We face a choice in our world. We can be voices who claim that peace is naive, that turning the other cheek is silly, and that we need bigger guns in order to preserve the Pax Americana. That is to say, we can stand with Rome in saying that Jesus is wrong.

Or we can stand with Jesus.

We can believe that love can overpower hate, that the gospel can overpower weapons – crosses and AK-47s alike.

Reducing the availability of the most violent weapons in our society is a way for us to embrace Jesus’ call to peace. To search for salvation in those weapons is to embrace the worldview that lashed out as violently as it could against the Prince of Peace.

Jesus calls us to choose love over violence. He lived that out in his life. The question for us is, quite simply, whether or not we take him seriously.

I hope we do, because I would much rather live in his Kingdom than in a red, white, and blue version of the violent, uncaring Roman Empire.

Original War on Christmas

Posted on by
Reply

Now that Halloween and Thanksgiving are behind us, and it is getting colder outside, it’s time for us to move on to our next cultural event – getting angry about “the war on Christmas.”

We hear about this every year. Folks say “Happy Holidays.” Schools and government buildings don’t display nativity scenes. People are more interested in being in Santa’s lap than being at the foot of the manger. These are all cited as evidence of a war on Christmas. Clearly, there is a conspiracy against allowing us to follow Jesus, and the secularists/atheists/liberals/socialists/feminists are winning. So goes the argument.

We have heard this warning for several years. It has gotten especially loud as some people have expressed dismay at companies that instruct employees to say “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas.”

 

This is not the first time that someone has tried to stop Christmas. There has always been resistance. In fact, the government tried to stop the very first Christmas. King Herod heard that a new baby was born to be King of the Jews. That was Herod’s job. He wasn’t about to let someone else take his power. That’s how Kings work; that’s how they become kings, and that’s how they stay kings.

So, as the second chapter of Matthew describes, King Herod tried to do something about this threat. He tried to kill this baby, who he assumed was a threat to his power. Matthew even tells us that, when Herod couldn’t find Jesus specifically, he killed all of the baby boys nearby, just in case.

Herod is the head of the government. He has soldiers. He also consults the chief priests and scribes. The religious leaders are working with him. Everyone in power is apparently on board with killing these babies in an attempt to keep this potential King of the Jews from developing into a threat.

This original war on Christmas, most reasonable people would agree, is substantially worse than the “war” we perceive today, in which K-Mart says “Holidays” and town parks have reindeer and candy-canes but no shepherds and wise men.

 

King Herod and his court tried to prevent the first Christmas because they recognized it as a threat to their power. They didn’t want Jesus to be born because they didn’t want to lose control. They wanted everybody to keep listening to them. When Herod didn’t get his way, when he thought that something other than what he wanted might come about, he threw a fit. Herod was known for tantrums. Nobody should be able to stand up to him – it was up to him to decide what everyone else had to do.

He was right to see Jesus as a threat. The innocence and grace of that baby turned everything upside down. In ways far greater than Herod could even imagine, Jesus would grow up to call people’s loyalty to another Kingdom. Jesus would go on to teach, not only that overbearing, self-important rulers like Herod are temporary, but even that their Kingdoms are insignificant. Jesus is a threat to the entire system of ruling through power and force.

 

So we have Herod on one side, trying to force everyone to follow his lead, and cursing those who refuse. And on the other side, we have Jesus, born the prince of peace, to deliver people from the darkness of this world, including the turmoil that comes from placing ultimate hope in earthly kingdoms.

Which of these do we sound more like when we complain about how others see Christmas?

 

No one has suggested that we can’t put Nativities in our yards and in front of our churches. It is only spaces owned by the government that are inappropriate for religious displays. If we believe that we cannot get the message of the gospel out without government backing, then we have a very low view of God’s competence.

No one is saying that we cannot call the season “Christmas.” Businesses are simply recognizing that some patrons are Jewish, or non-religious, or Hindu, or any of hundreds of other groups that don’t recognize Christmas. Surely we are not suggesting that God cannot come into the world unless the corporations endorse it.

King Herod so wanted for everyone to follow him that he was willing to order the slaughter of babies. I don’t think that we are likely to go that far. But we claim that we are being victimized and neglected because the government and corporations do not seek to impose our ideas on everyone else.

To me, that kind of forceful action seems backwards as we proclaim the message of the God whose character is most fully revealed in the humble birth of that Christmas baby.

Arguing about Communion, and humility

Posted on by
Reply

It is interesting to be a Baptist pastor in the south.

A lot of Baptist pastors in the south are very much like the ones on TV. I’m not. I think hunger and racism are bigger problems than sexual orientation. I think if Jesus showed up to talk to us, he would tell us to stop being so self-righteous, self-important, and greedy. (I think this largely because, when he did show up to talk to us two-thousand years ago, that’s what he talked a lot about.)

Lots of other Baptist pastors in my area see these things differently. I don’t think this makes them awful. I’m humble enough (most of the time) to know I’m not perfect, and they are humble enough (at least most of the are) to know that they aren’t perfect either. We usually realize that our differences are outweighed by the hope, redemption, and salvation of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit unites us in ways more powerful than our differences.

 

Recently, I had lunch with a group of other Baptist pastors from the area. As we ate, they talked about women and people who are homosexual. Their underlying assumption is that God does not use these people in the same ways that God can use us (straight, middle-class, white guys). I see these things differently. I happen to believe that God does not take human biases into account when calling people to work for the Kingdom. But those differences are well documented and understood by all involved. I’m convinced those guys are wrong, they are convinced that people like me are wrong.

What surprised me was an argument over communion.

One pastor, proud to be an extreme conservative, said that he is unwilling to take communion to anyone outside of the church building. He says that communion is only valid when administered as part of a worship service. He couldn’t imagine anyone wanting communion outside of the regular worship situation, but he said it could conceivably be done if he took several families with him in order to worship with someone who is unable to attend.

I told him that, as pastor, I sometimes go with a deacon or two to take communion to people who are home bound. They would love to come to the service, but cannot. They greatly appreciate the connection that they feel to the rest of the church body, and they are blessed by being able to partake in a physical affirmation of their faith and of the saving action of Jesus Christ in their lives.

He said that this was unbiblical – that communion could only take place within a church service; otherwise it’s just bread. What the deacons and I do with elderly church members doesn’t count because there is no sermon or offering plate. (I wish this was an example I made up to exaggerate. He actually said that the sermon and the offering plate are necessary for communion to be real.)

I suggested that the Spirit was what was significant, not the service that we put together. (In retrospect, I could have cited Galatians. The whole book. Paul says that Christ is insulted when we pretend that our own understandings and actions are the origin of salvation. The initiative lies with God.)

He said I needed to look closer at scripture – that communion only takes places within the church.

I asked how many people the scripture required for church, and reminded him of Jesus’ promise that “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Well, he said, it wasn’t Baptist. I was acting like a Presbyterian when I took communion outside of the church.

 

He and I both left the conversation with our original opinions about communion intact. I was a bit aggravated and still had the same impression of this pastor’s compassion and care that I began with. I suspect that he was not particularly fond of me either, although his ego didn’t seem much at risk of being bruised.

As I drove home, I reflected that, for this guy, there is no discernible difference between:

  1. His position (or his interpretation, opinion, understanding)
  2. God’s position
  3. What the Bible Says
  4. Baptist tradition
  5. Goodness, the moral position, or the “right” thing

For him, all five of these are the same.

If you are doing something that goes against this pastor’s understanding of Baptist History, then you are violating what God said to do in the scriptures. If you interpret scripture differently than he does, your position is immoral.

This is a handy framework. If you act as though all of your sources of information mesh together perfectly, then there is no need to cite individual sources – anything that you don’t like has always been clearly defined as wrong by God and by everyone loyal to God. Those with different opinions are heretics: scripturally, historically, and morally.

Once I realized this, and counted these 5 things, I was proud of myself. I was outraged at him, of course, but in that thoroughly self-satisfied way that can feel so good.

I knew that he was wrong because:

  1. I had taken communion to people’s homes, and it was rewarding.
  2. God is generous and boundary breaking.
  3. Scripture doesn’t say we need a sermon and an offering plate for communion. Jesus says that people who worship the form of the Sabbath while missing the point are off base; it seems to me that’s what this pastor is doing with communion.
  4. Baptists don’t worship the sacraments. We realize that symbols are valid, not because some priest says so, but because God moves through them in meaningful ways for the faithful.
  5. Not taking communion to home-bound people is mean and exclusive; we are called to be compassionate, generous, and giving as we follow the example of the one who ministered to the downtrodden, the sick, the helpless, and the outcast.

My list is great. He is an idiot. I’m right, and God, scripture, Baptist tradition, and morality all back me up.

Oh. Wait.

My list is the same as his.

 

In seminary, one of my friends suggested the term “fundamentalist moderate” – someone who is a progressive or moderate, and believes that this is the only acceptable position. The identity statement would read something like this, “I think that everyone should be free to have their own opinions because we all have something valuable to add to the conversation – and you have to think so, too.”

Perhaps I’m not as open as I would like to be.

 

I still think I’m right about communion. In fact, even the conservative pastors there, who would never have a woman in their pulpits, seemed to think that this guy was over the top about communion exclusion.

But it was valuable for me to realize that, no matter how passionate I feel, I am not God. All of history does not support me. The scripture verses that I read most often don’t do away with the verses that other people assign the most weight. God is not limited to my thoughts and my opinions – God is just as much bigger than me as God is bigger than this other pastor.

Sometimes I forget how outstanding a candidate I am for humility.

I have faith in the hope that the grace of God is large enough to extend to me and to this  pastor, that the compassion of God is deep enough to reach the people I take communion to and the people who he does not take communion to, and that the redemption offered by God continues to invite us all into the humble, transformed, honest, self-giving life that Christ models for us.

Election Day Prayer

Posted on by
Reply

God,

I pray for the United States on this Election Day.

I pray that our decisions and our interactions may be directed by grace and compassion.

Help us to realize that we are not electing a savior. Remind us of where our  ultimate hope lies. Help us to focus on the Kingdom to which you invite our allegiance.

I pray for wise choices, as we make decisions that affect our lives and the lives of those around us. Help us to be generous and loving. Help us to see the results of the choices we make.

 

Tonight, as we find out the results, most of us will be happy about some things and disappointed about others.

For those whose chosen candidates and positions win, I pray for graciousness and humility. Help the candidates who are elected to lead the US in the healthiest, most caring, most humane ways.

For those whose chosen candidates are defeated, I pray for graciousness and humility. Help the candidates who lose to find positive ways to express their ideas and to contribute to the conversation.

 

Come what may politically, help each one of us to manage our anger and disappointment, as well as our hopes and pride. Help us to appreciate the good things we have, and the ways that we are able to participate in our society. Help us to respect one another, to listen to other people, to trust that others have positive motives even if they reach different conclusions, and help us to have the right motives as well.

Show us how we can see in others what you see – beloved people, created in your image, and in need of redemption.

Give us the humility, the perspective, the compassion, and the insight to reflect your love in all that we do. And remind us that You are our ultimate hope for the transformation of this world and the establishment of your Kingdom.

In Jesus name,

Amen

 

Richard Land endorses Mitt Romney

Posted on by
Reply

Richard Land, prominent Southern Baptist and political commentator, has endorsed Mitt Romney as the most ethical Christian choice for president. Land explains his reasons: “For Christians of traditional religious faith there cannot be more fundamental issues than the protection of the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death and the defense of marriage as a divinely-ordained institution between one man and one woman.”

As I have previously written, I do not see how committed relationships between people of the same gender are the largest threat to our society.

There are people in our world, even in this country, who are homeless and starving.  There are others who hoard extreme wealth, ignoring the ways that they hurt the lives of people around them. Throughout the world, there are people who focus only on increasing their power: in business, politics, control of religious institutions, militarily, or through coercion and deceit. Prejudice is rampant – based on skin color, gender, lifestyle, wealth, and religion.

Our world has a great deal of suffering, often met with indifference. I can see no honest, logical way of believing that homosexual relationships or abortions cause the majority of the starvation and violence in the world.  But, Richard Land tells us that no issues can be more fundamental than gay marriage and abortion.

Jesus makes clear what he will ask people in order to determine if they have lived loyally. Did you feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the sick, visit the imprisoned? Did you love the least of these? Each of these actions requires following Jesus’ example of loving powerless people who aren’t always easy to love.

 

Richard Land says that one clear reason to support Mitt Romney is the Republican Party’s desire to create constitutional amendments banning abortion and gay marriage.

Land goes on to say, “Gov. Romney understands that the size of government must decline.” Mitt Romney’s campaign website, on a page entitled “Protect the Constitution – Save the Court,” states: “A Court with another Obama appointee (or two) would run amok, totally unconcerned with the restraints placed on governmental power by the Constitution.”

These ideas seem contradictory. One the one hand, the Republican Party promises to shrink the size of government and to protect the liberties promised by the constitution. However, in areas of abortion and gay marriage, they propose changing the constitution to give the government more power and control over the lives of individual citizens.

The constitution is designed to protect the minority from the mob rule of the majority. Jesus worked on the side of the poor, the neglected, the forgotten. Those who are politically and religiously conservative purport to take the constitution and the Bible more seriously than anyone else.

Richard Land asserts that the two most fundamental goals for Christians are the restrictions of rights for two less powerful minority groups – homosexuals and people facing the decision of abortion. To me, the removal of rights for which he calls goes against both the constitution and the Word of God.