This post is a follow-up to my previous post, "Rob Bell's Return." I feel this sequel necessary, not only to clarify my stance and thoughts, but also to add a response to continuing questions, concerns, and blog posts. Again, Rob Bell was never intended to be the focus--the focus of my earlier discussion is on the Truth. And that can be applied to any of us, not just one particular man.
Allow me to state again what my biggest two points were in my preceding commentary. First, as humans, we have disagreements. Disagreements happen, but we can still seek the same goal--and be cordial, respectful, and loving about it. Second, if we are leading someone to find a relationship with the one true Christ, they need to be pointed in the correct direction.
An elaboration on these points:
1. Disagreements.
It won't matter whether we seek the same goal; when there are two sets of eyes on one thing, perceptions and thoughts are extremely likely to vary, even to some small degree. It is not overlooked by this casual blogger that my thoughts--my questions and conclusions--are sometimes different from Rob Bell's. They are also likely different from yours, as are yours different from another reader's, and so on.
But Christianity, or the practice of submission to Christ, is mainly about living a life like Christ. Christ is the focus. Thank goodness that it is, because if we worshipped our fellow Christians and how much disagreement and general imperfection there is, we'd all be hopeless. I cannot emphasize that point enough. I wish that point would be emphasized more for people who are deterred from the faith because of what Christ-followers do. We're just people, all imperfect knuckleheads, and we are no different from any other world religion in terms of our imperfections. We make mistakes. All of us. End of story there.
But we can disagree AND be peaceful and loving about it.
2. The Truth.
When we develop opinions that start to drift from "True North", we are in danger of pointing others to something that isn't the truth. In order to reach that narrow gate, the true author and perfector of our faith should be the one that is followed--and nobody else. Not imitators, not similar characters, only One. There is only one way. Jesus said " I am THE way, THE TRUTH, and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6.
Truth is not a broad concept. It may cover a multitude of subjects, but it is not broad, and it does not vary. It is like the stars that shine at night, constant and reliable, and used by sailors to guide their journey. The Bible compares the way to Heaven as two roads and gates: one is broad and leads to destruction. The other is narrow and leads to eternal life.
So disagreements on the message are not, per se, an act to get worked up about. And disagreements are not, per se, a bad thing either. So here is the extended message of this post: Why have some settled on a misguided perception that truth and love are exclusive concepts?
Why is it that many are shooting arrows at fellow Christians, saying they are "crucifying" Rob Bell, merely for disagreeing with his thoughts? I have yet to see a post whose theme is "Oh crap, it's that Nooma video guy again. I hate that guy. He, as a person, is terrible." However, there are some, maybe plenty, that have disagreed with his conclusions. I personally find it somewhat hypocritical for those who, out of one corner of their mouth, support asking questions and searching for answers--sticking up for Rob Bell because he "asked questions", while out of the other side of that same mouth, hurl insults at others for questioning Rob Bell or reaching a different result. What...what?! No joke; it's happening.
So what exactly is the problem? (And I hope you'll forgive me and bear with me as I take the side with those who chose to reject a conclusion someone offered.)
Is it because there is discord? Surely not. Jesus didn't agree with people...a lot.
- He didn't exactly come to bring peace and agreement among everyone (in fact, He said: "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36). He called the religious leaders snakes, hypocrites, burdens to others, blind, and...oh yeah:
- He got angry. And had the time to cool off, but didn't. He saw the temple being used for perverted purposes, so he took the time to fasten a whip, used it to drive out the occupants, flipped their tables and benches, scattered their coins, and defended the temple from those people returning. See Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:13-17.
- The Bible also praises the Christians in Berea for being studiers of the Word and examining it carefully before quickly and recklessly accepting it. See Acts 17.
So surely we aren't turning the Jesus we claim to worship into someone He wasn't...right? Surely we haven't turned Him into a purple dinosaur who sings that getting along and being happy is more important than anything else. To do so, as previously pointed out, is idolatry.
So I ask again, shouldn't we indeed recognize that we don't have to sacrifice Truth while loving others?
To those who are "crucifying" those who "crucify" Rob Bell, here is my admonition to you:
1. Read Ephesians 4.
Matter of fact, this should apply to all Christians, regardless of where you stand. See how it encourages truth and love to coincide.
- "...bear with one another in love..."
- "There is one body and one Spirit...one faith...one Lord...one God..."
- "... unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God...so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves..."
- "speaking the truth in love"
- and all this is for the building up and unity of Christ's body.
2. Be sure to truly analyze the message, and find awareness as to the topic of discussion. Is it about the person, or is it about the message?
3. If your problem is merely with disagreement among Christians:
(a) Start finding common ground on things to which you may relate to others.
(b) Make every effort to unify yourself with them. Christ's last prayer in the Garden before His crucifixion was for unity.
(c) Respectfully and lovingly, I urge you to drop your milquetoast ideology. Again, if the only basis of your uneasiness is because you don't like seeing disagreement, I assure you, you have no dog in the fight. Realize that, yes, our job is to be loving and to stand out from the rest of the world, but your job is also to defend the truth (see scriptural support from previous post). And one doesn't have to be sacrificed to achieve the other.
4. Be careful as to how you make Christians, as a whole, look to those who have a desire to seek Christ. Your words are not free from consequence.
To those who really are finding it difficult to distinguish the man from the message:
1. Separate the two. Just like Jesus hates the sin but loves the sinner. And also wake up, because you're immersed in a culture full of people who oppose and reject the Truth, some of whom even consider themselves Christians.
2. Defend truth, but speak in love too. Again, they're not exclusive. Never allow your light to be overcast by degradation of another.
3. Use your passion in a winsome manner. I myself have a tendency to get caught up in allowing my heart to burn over certain topics. But don't allow that fire to come pouring out of your mouth--your tongue is still to be bridled. James 3. "The wisdom that comes from heaven is...peace-loving, considerate...".
4. Finally, make sure you're doing your best not to become "that person" who deters another from a desire to seek Christ. Think about the consequences of what follows your words (applicable to all of us). "Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God." 1 Peter 2:12.
Here's to unity. And truth rested in love.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Wednesday, December 03, 2014
Rob Bell's Return
It seems that Rob Bell (from the Nooma video series, and author of several contemporary theological works) is coming back on the scene as part of the Oprah Winfrey network. This was the same guy that, around 2011 or so, made the claim that Hell is empty because God is too warm, fuzzy, cuddly, and loving to send anyone there (ok, so perhaps I paraphrased a bit). Which also, logically, would follow that Hell doesn't truly exist. Anywhoo...
Some evangelicals are elated at this news, as as Bell's new show, called "The Rob Bell Show" premiering Dec 21, will potentially reach millions of viewers. After all, he is talking about God, right? Others are concerned to once again see this once-called heretic take the stage. Personally, I share that concern, based on the message to be presented.
One blogger had the gall to call Christians who merely are concerned about this "small-minded" (huge insult there! and will truly shame ALL to repentance! haha), and went on to describe how deplorable the thought is of rejecting a message that wasn't 100% Scripturally-based. There were other things wrong, but instead of more criticism, I'll wish that blogger well...go in peace, with your evidently over-sized mind.
My point here is that it isn't enough to merely make God the topic of conversation. That doesn't make that message or conversation the truth, or Holy, or fulfilling, any more than me standing in a garage makes me a car. There can be, and indeed there is, plenty of deviation of what starts out being in line with the Truth, but gradually wanders from it.
Now to my disclaimers, before I get to my harder-hitting points:
1. Have a conversation with a large sample of Christians, and you'll find plenty of deviation in thoughts. True. But that's humans! What...like humans ever agree? On anything? (and I'm sure plenty of readers will disagree with that too, haha). I think, however, that most (but not all) deviation comes from minor differences which are peripheral to the point of redemption and salvation. Examples include using instruments in worship, the necessity of certain salvific steps of acceptance, and which translation of the Bible to use.
2. Should there be unlimited access that if someone, who is searching for Christ, wants to do so in their own comfortable method, they can? You bet.
Now that those are out of the way, what are my biggest concerns?
1. When the message no longer follows the Truth, it is not the Truth.
I'll reiterate what I said before: There can be, and indeed there is, plenty of deviation from what starts out being in line with the Truth. But that message, if it does not line up with the Truth, is no longer the Truth... by definition.
"But Cody, what actually is the Truth?" Great question, and I'm glad you asked. The Truth has been written down for us all. The Bible is God's Holy Word, and we can trust this because "all Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Does this mean that only the uber-intelligent or those of only the greatest of intellect or some special connection to God can know and understand the Truth? By no means. Indeed, even the "small-minded" can know Truth. It's not harder than one person can take--but it takes work. You just have to spend your time in the Word, and get to know God, just as you would a best friend. Anyone can do that, and indeed, Christ calls all to know Him. "But Jesus called the children to him and said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.'" Luke 18:17. Note: children don't possess immense mental capabilities...
2. So what is the problem with deviation?
Again, deviation from truth is no longer truth. We have been warned about this. In a nutshell, tricks or deviations are disguised. They don't come with flashing yellow lights or a neon sign that says "Warning! This is a trick!" Instead, the Bible says that it comes like a wolf in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15).
A. It is our job as Christians, not only to recognize such deviation, but to ensure that the Truth is guarded. Check it out:
- "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." 2 Corinthians 10:5. Verse 6 also continues, "...being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete."
- "...guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith." 1 Timothy 6:20-21.
- "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach." Titus 1:9-11. Also, "Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth." v. 13-14.
B. So why is such a message not the Truth? Look at it this way; here is a good example for you:
You may have seen a viral video of Joel and Victoria Osteen preaching to a large mass that, paraphrased, "We don't obey God to make Him happy--we do it for ourselves. And when we are happy, God is happy." First, please show me that in the Bible. Second, this is called idolatry--the worship of idols. In the context of Christianity, the "idol" is anything that is not God and the worship of such a thing. If we are doing things to make ourselves happy, that is self-serving and not a service to God, despite what that message says. The Bible has made it clear: we can either serve ourselves, or we can serve God, but we can't do both. That means that the message preached to (maybe) millions was a false one.
But the topic was about God! ... kinda.
But the message reached millions that might not have otherwise reached them!
SO WHAT.
This is utterly irreverent babble and contradictions of the Truth. Period. No other way around it. It is a sharp deviation of the message of the Bible. What you are doing, by perpetuating and supporting such nonsense, is you've now taught a message that doesn't serve God--it tells the listener to do what makes them happy. Um...That's exactly what's wrong with the world today!
So don't tell me that a message with God as the topic is going to be fruitful, or helpful, or Holy, or anything that even closely resembles the God of Truth. The threshold is higher than that one qualification.
So back to the doctrine of Rob Bell: why am I more cautious and concerned than I was before 2011? I hope that I've already made that clear at this point. If not, I encourage you to read more about what the Truth--the Bible--says about Hell and how there are truly people headed there.
I'll start you off:
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’" Matthew 7:21-23.
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Matthew 7:13-14.
I'm not saying that everything that comes out of Bell's or Osteen's mouths are going to be heretical. I'm only saying that I am now more suspicious than before, and it makes me nervous for this main reason:
I'm concerned that those who are seeking to follow Jesus will end up following someone who is not really leading them to Jesus and the Truth that we know Him to be.
Some evangelicals are elated at this news, as as Bell's new show, called "The Rob Bell Show" premiering Dec 21, will potentially reach millions of viewers. After all, he is talking about God, right? Others are concerned to once again see this once-called heretic take the stage. Personally, I share that concern, based on the message to be presented.
One blogger had the gall to call Christians who merely are concerned about this "small-minded" (huge insult there! and will truly shame ALL to repentance! haha), and went on to describe how deplorable the thought is of rejecting a message that wasn't 100% Scripturally-based. There were other things wrong, but instead of more criticism, I'll wish that blogger well...go in peace, with your evidently over-sized mind.
My point here is that it isn't enough to merely make God the topic of conversation. That doesn't make that message or conversation the truth, or Holy, or fulfilling, any more than me standing in a garage makes me a car. There can be, and indeed there is, plenty of deviation of what starts out being in line with the Truth, but gradually wanders from it.
Now to my disclaimers, before I get to my harder-hitting points:
1. Have a conversation with a large sample of Christians, and you'll find plenty of deviation in thoughts. True. But that's humans! What...like humans ever agree? On anything? (and I'm sure plenty of readers will disagree with that too, haha). I think, however, that most (but not all) deviation comes from minor differences which are peripheral to the point of redemption and salvation. Examples include using instruments in worship, the necessity of certain salvific steps of acceptance, and which translation of the Bible to use.
2. Should there be unlimited access that if someone, who is searching for Christ, wants to do so in their own comfortable method, they can? You bet.
Now that those are out of the way, what are my biggest concerns?
1. When the message no longer follows the Truth, it is not the Truth.
I'll reiterate what I said before: There can be, and indeed there is, plenty of deviation from what starts out being in line with the Truth. But that message, if it does not line up with the Truth, is no longer the Truth... by definition.
"But Cody, what actually is the Truth?" Great question, and I'm glad you asked. The Truth has been written down for us all. The Bible is God's Holy Word, and we can trust this because "all Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Does this mean that only the uber-intelligent or those of only the greatest of intellect or some special connection to God can know and understand the Truth? By no means. Indeed, even the "small-minded" can know Truth. It's not harder than one person can take--but it takes work. You just have to spend your time in the Word, and get to know God, just as you would a best friend. Anyone can do that, and indeed, Christ calls all to know Him. "But Jesus called the children to him and said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.'" Luke 18:17. Note: children don't possess immense mental capabilities...
2. So what is the problem with deviation?
Again, deviation from truth is no longer truth. We have been warned about this. In a nutshell, tricks or deviations are disguised. They don't come with flashing yellow lights or a neon sign that says "Warning! This is a trick!" Instead, the Bible says that it comes like a wolf in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15).
A. It is our job as Christians, not only to recognize such deviation, but to ensure that the Truth is guarded. Check it out:
- "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." 2 Corinthians 10:5. Verse 6 also continues, "...being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete."
- "...guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith." 1 Timothy 6:20-21.
- "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach." Titus 1:9-11. Also, "Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth." v. 13-14.
B. So why is such a message not the Truth? Look at it this way; here is a good example for you:
You may have seen a viral video of Joel and Victoria Osteen preaching to a large mass that, paraphrased, "We don't obey God to make Him happy--we do it for ourselves. And when we are happy, God is happy." First, please show me that in the Bible. Second, this is called idolatry--the worship of idols. In the context of Christianity, the "idol" is anything that is not God and the worship of such a thing. If we are doing things to make ourselves happy, that is self-serving and not a service to God, despite what that message says. The Bible has made it clear: we can either serve ourselves, or we can serve God, but we can't do both. That means that the message preached to (maybe) millions was a false one.
But the topic was about God! ... kinda.
But the message reached millions that might not have otherwise reached them!
SO WHAT.
This is utterly irreverent babble and contradictions of the Truth. Period. No other way around it. It is a sharp deviation of the message of the Bible. What you are doing, by perpetuating and supporting such nonsense, is you've now taught a message that doesn't serve God--it tells the listener to do what makes them happy. Um...That's exactly what's wrong with the world today!
So don't tell me that a message with God as the topic is going to be fruitful, or helpful, or Holy, or anything that even closely resembles the God of Truth. The threshold is higher than that one qualification.
So back to the doctrine of Rob Bell: why am I more cautious and concerned than I was before 2011? I hope that I've already made that clear at this point. If not, I encourage you to read more about what the Truth--the Bible--says about Hell and how there are truly people headed there.
I'll start you off:
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’" Matthew 7:21-23.
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Matthew 7:13-14.
I'm not saying that everything that comes out of Bell's or Osteen's mouths are going to be heretical. I'm only saying that I am now more suspicious than before, and it makes me nervous for this main reason:
I'm concerned that those who are seeking to follow Jesus will end up following someone who is not really leading them to Jesus and the Truth that we know Him to be.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Slipping Standards
We are currently in the midst of this generation's witch hunt or McCarthyism. No, I'm not talking about actual witches, but it does involve demons and making lists. Only now, these "witches" come in forms of being accused of being "hateful", "racist", and "bullies" and demonizing those folks. The squeaky wheels of today seem to have some fixation on seeing who they can attach these labels to, ready to pounce at the slightest misstep of their prey. I'll explain further shortly, but let me first share the dangers/results of this.
1. Lowering of Societal Standards and Principles. I fear that we are being conditioned to lower societal standards or principles by means of emotions and hurt feelings. When someone says "don't judge me" or calls it names such as "hate," it is a defense mechanism used to justify living outside of standards. Not to mention, it is only a disguise for a guilt trip.
If we don't have standards and rather live by "don't judge [anyone else]," then no one can say that cooking and eating pets is wrong. Or that parking your car on your neighbor's grass is wrong. Or that just letting go of your empty shopping cart (and if it hits another car, oh well) is wrong. Or that a father who has sex with his own 6 year-old daughter is wrong. Or Hitler. Hitler didn't see that extermination of an entire sect of people was wrong; in fact, he claimed religious purposes for it. In Mein Kampf, he wrote, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." [Alrighty then, well, who are we to "judge" him? Hitler believed he was right and justified in his work, so why should we impose our standards on him? As Americans, he really wasn't bothering us, so what business did we have? We should have left him alone and "let him do him", right?] Please note this bracketed section is not what I believe; indeed it is crude and extreme examples, but I feel like they clearly get the point across.
All the aforementioned wrongdoings would easily pass muster if the world lived by the "don't judge others" rule. Because by someone saying "don't judge me," they are pleading for the other to leave them alone to do what they want to do (and sometimes are attempting to guilt the other).
Here is the crazy part: People buy into it! Because it is only a guilt mechanism that implores the "aggressor" to refrain from applying principles, the "judge" or "aggressor" backs off in fear of hurting feelings. That leads me to result #2.
There are things that society must protect and object to, and for someone not to call evil or perversion what it is, is evil itself.
"Principles invite us to clean up our act; to become intolerant of moral laxity and compromise and cowardice and the turning away from what is upsetting." - Susan Sontag
2. A Society Run by Fear of Hurting Feelings. Continuing from my previous point, they say fear is a great motivator--and we certainly aren't proving that saying wrong by being a spineless society. Instead, we kowtow to the person committing the act we know to be wrong (really, we are giving way to the act), all because we don't want to hurt their feelings. Perhaps we also are fearful of being put on the Black List of haters, homophobes, and bullies.
If you dare speak out against what someone does (take the rape and incest example above), you are deemed hateful and/or a "bully" because you are trying to get someone to conform to something they personally don't agree with.
Second example: Society has bought into this twisted idea that in effect, "bullying" is when another does something to you that you don't like (or hurts feelings). Aledo, Texas' high school football team beat Western Hills 91-0, and a parent filed a complaint, alleging that Aledo's coaches were mean ol' bullies. Why? Because they intentionally meant to inflict emotional and mental harm on the other team? No; that theory fails because the coaches put in the backups beginning in the first quarter. Was it because Aledo tried to coerce Western Hills to do something against their will? No. What then is the basis of the complaint? It boils down to this: someone got embarrassed or didn't feel like they were up to par.
That doesn't sound like Aledo's problem to me--that is solely the parent's problem! In fact, Western Hills' coach (for the defeated team) said he disagreed with the complaint filed. As the Texas Education Agency defines it, "bullying" is unwanted behavior that may stem from an imbalance of power or strength, sometimes resulting in one side being unable to defend themselves. This leads me to point #3.
3. A Society Full of Wusses. By the TEA enforcing this definition of "bullying," our society is being conditioned to cater to the weakest of society. It's a message of teaching kids to cry, give up, give in, and decline to learn how to solve their own problems, rather than encouraging kids to learn about disappointment, failure, or imbalances. Life is going to really, really suck for the kids brought up in the filth of "trophies for everyone!" (or maybe suck for the older generation watching the debacle this creates).
Here's why: if you're reading this, you cannot tell me that you have never had to go through a time in life in which you never experienced disappointment, failure, or imbalance. You can't tell me you've never lost a matchup in debate, sports, chess, etc. You can't tell me with a straight face that you haven't ever missed a basket on a basketball court, or gotten less than a 100 semester average. You can't tell me that you've never been let down by a peer, co-worker, friend, parent, girlfriend, etc. You can't tell me that you've never come across someone who was better than you at something. You can't tell me these unless you live in a bubble by yourself.
That's life! Life is about disappointment, failure, and imbalances! If kids don't learn how to deal with life in its entirety and whole package, we all are freakin' doomed because we will have a society full of degenerates who don't know how to function. They won't learn how to counter "imbalances in strength". They won't learn to develop their own strengths. They won't learn to overcome adversity.
Look, no matter what mindset our society is feeding, there is no "Hurt feelings task force" ready to roll out and hammer down on someone who isn't nice, or is offensive, or says mean things. People can suck sometimes. It happens. That's life! But everyone has to be responsible for themselves. You cannot control what someone else says, but you ARE in control of you. You CAN control how those words make you feel. You CAN allow those words get to you, or you can decide to shake them off. You CAN control your emotions, no matter what anyone else says.
You know what's cool? Being strong. And it takes a strong person to choose to let things go and be the bigger person. It takes a strong person to accept responsibility and to take command themselves and what they do. It takes a strong person to refuse to let someone else offend them.
But you won't hear that from the society that seeks to target "bullies". You won't get that message from a society that feeds the idea that you need to be hands-off on others' perverted policies either because you're being "judgmental" (a term so far lost in society) or "hateful."
I'm fearful that I find myself living in a world that has lost its idea of what is right and wrong between a growing gap of the extremes. I'm afraid that I live among people who applaud things such as incest, how many one-night stands or "notches on the belt" you've had, and marital infidelity. If that line is regressing, where does it end? At what point does Hitler become justified? That scares me.
1. Lowering of Societal Standards and Principles. I fear that we are being conditioned to lower societal standards or principles by means of emotions and hurt feelings. When someone says "don't judge me" or calls it names such as "hate," it is a defense mechanism used to justify living outside of standards. Not to mention, it is only a disguise for a guilt trip.
If we don't have standards and rather live by "don't judge [anyone else]," then no one can say that cooking and eating pets is wrong. Or that parking your car on your neighbor's grass is wrong. Or that just letting go of your empty shopping cart (and if it hits another car, oh well) is wrong. Or that a father who has sex with his own 6 year-old daughter is wrong. Or Hitler. Hitler didn't see that extermination of an entire sect of people was wrong; in fact, he claimed religious purposes for it. In Mein Kampf, he wrote, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." [Alrighty then, well, who are we to "judge" him? Hitler believed he was right and justified in his work, so why should we impose our standards on him? As Americans, he really wasn't bothering us, so what business did we have? We should have left him alone and "let him do him", right?] Please note this bracketed section is not what I believe; indeed it is crude and extreme examples, but I feel like they clearly get the point across.
All the aforementioned wrongdoings would easily pass muster if the world lived by the "don't judge others" rule. Because by someone saying "don't judge me," they are pleading for the other to leave them alone to do what they want to do (and sometimes are attempting to guilt the other).
Here is the crazy part: People buy into it! Because it is only a guilt mechanism that implores the "aggressor" to refrain from applying principles, the "judge" or "aggressor" backs off in fear of hurting feelings. That leads me to result #2.
There are things that society must protect and object to, and for someone not to call evil or perversion what it is, is evil itself.
"Principles invite us to clean up our act; to become intolerant of moral laxity and compromise and cowardice and the turning away from what is upsetting." - Susan Sontag
2. A Society Run by Fear of Hurting Feelings. Continuing from my previous point, they say fear is a great motivator--and we certainly aren't proving that saying wrong by being a spineless society. Instead, we kowtow to the person committing the act we know to be wrong (really, we are giving way to the act), all because we don't want to hurt their feelings. Perhaps we also are fearful of being put on the Black List of haters, homophobes, and bullies.
If you dare speak out against what someone does (take the rape and incest example above), you are deemed hateful and/or a "bully" because you are trying to get someone to conform to something they personally don't agree with.
Second example: Society has bought into this twisted idea that in effect, "bullying" is when another does something to you that you don't like (or hurts feelings). Aledo, Texas' high school football team beat Western Hills 91-0, and a parent filed a complaint, alleging that Aledo's coaches were mean ol' bullies. Why? Because they intentionally meant to inflict emotional and mental harm on the other team? No; that theory fails because the coaches put in the backups beginning in the first quarter. Was it because Aledo tried to coerce Western Hills to do something against their will? No. What then is the basis of the complaint? It boils down to this: someone got embarrassed or didn't feel like they were up to par.
That doesn't sound like Aledo's problem to me--that is solely the parent's problem! In fact, Western Hills' coach (for the defeated team) said he disagreed with the complaint filed. As the Texas Education Agency defines it, "bullying" is unwanted behavior that may stem from an imbalance of power or strength, sometimes resulting in one side being unable to defend themselves. This leads me to point #3.
3. A Society Full of Wusses. By the TEA enforcing this definition of "bullying," our society is being conditioned to cater to the weakest of society. It's a message of teaching kids to cry, give up, give in, and decline to learn how to solve their own problems, rather than encouraging kids to learn about disappointment, failure, or imbalances. Life is going to really, really suck for the kids brought up in the filth of "trophies for everyone!" (or maybe suck for the older generation watching the debacle this creates).
Here's why: if you're reading this, you cannot tell me that you have never had to go through a time in life in which you never experienced disappointment, failure, or imbalance. You can't tell me you've never lost a matchup in debate, sports, chess, etc. You can't tell me with a straight face that you haven't ever missed a basket on a basketball court, or gotten less than a 100 semester average. You can't tell me that you've never been let down by a peer, co-worker, friend, parent, girlfriend, etc. You can't tell me that you've never come across someone who was better than you at something. You can't tell me these unless you live in a bubble by yourself.
That's life! Life is about disappointment, failure, and imbalances! If kids don't learn how to deal with life in its entirety and whole package, we all are freakin' doomed because we will have a society full of degenerates who don't know how to function. They won't learn how to counter "imbalances in strength". They won't learn to develop their own strengths. They won't learn to overcome adversity.
Look, no matter what mindset our society is feeding, there is no "Hurt feelings task force" ready to roll out and hammer down on someone who isn't nice, or is offensive, or says mean things. People can suck sometimes. It happens. That's life! But everyone has to be responsible for themselves. You cannot control what someone else says, but you ARE in control of you. You CAN control how those words make you feel. You CAN allow those words get to you, or you can decide to shake them off. You CAN control your emotions, no matter what anyone else says.
You know what's cool? Being strong. And it takes a strong person to choose to let things go and be the bigger person. It takes a strong person to accept responsibility and to take command themselves and what they do. It takes a strong person to refuse to let someone else offend them.
But you won't hear that from the society that seeks to target "bullies". You won't get that message from a society that feeds the idea that you need to be hands-off on others' perverted policies either because you're being "judgmental" (a term so far lost in society) or "hateful."
I'm fearful that I find myself living in a world that has lost its idea of what is right and wrong between a growing gap of the extremes. I'm afraid that I live among people who applaud things such as incest, how many one-night stands or "notches on the belt" you've had, and marital infidelity. If that line is regressing, where does it end? At what point does Hitler become justified? That scares me.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
My Political Speech
My fellow citizens:
I address you today, not as a leader, but instead as a servant. This will not be the most eloquent or charismatic speech you have ever read, but I feel that it is necessary to speak candidly to you from my heart. I am merely seeking your consideration, not in regard to me personally, but as to my proposals, challenges, and concepts that I present to you.
I told you that I speak to you as a servant -- I am a servant of Christ and of people. Now, yes, I try to live my life like Christ, but I often find myself unsuccessful. I make mistakes because I am imperfect. But that's what being a Christian is about: trying, trying, and trying again, and living in a state that we know that we are forgiven by God's grace. We as Christians try to better ourselves constantly. We have been instructed to examine ourselves and clean ourselves from the inside, so that we can realize our mistakes, learn from them, and teach others.
Now, I also said that I'm not speaking to you as a leader -- I am not claiming to know everything there is to know about everything. I don't. But I do understand that's we want that from the person we elect to be the leader of our country, because not everyone can do it, and we hope for some intellectual giant and flawless decision-maker to lead us to what is best. Nevertheless, as I proposed before, I only ask that you consider the concepts I present to you.
It must first be noted that we, as Americans, want what is best; I think it is fair to say, generally, that we all are genuinely interested in what is best for all. I use the term "America" not as a piece of land, not as a set of documents, but as a collection of individuals who, throughout history, have yearned for the best and what is right. And Americans are do-ers. When something isn't isn't right, Americans do something about it. I truly believe that at the root of the two dominant political parties lies a genuine interest for the best of everyone. However, I have learned that the two parties differ as to how that is to be achieved.
For instance, at this country's inception, we fled England for reasons including that we didn't want to be told who or what to worship and we didn't appreciate the idea of concrete social classes in which nobody could escape or make of themselves what they wished. So, we did something about it and changed it. Our ancestors set up a system that they believed would truly benefit everyone and to give them the best there was to offer. True, there were flaws in that system that we learned from and adapted to correct, such as slavery. And we did something to correct that problem and eradicate it. We continue to face flaws today 236 years later. And we're still learning and engaging in much discussion as to how to correct the imperfections. That's great news.
So, as to how we all feel that we want what is best, I don't subscribe to the idea that, generally speaking (emphasis added), people want to accumulate all the financial wealth for themselves and purposefully leave others in their dust. Nor do I subscribe to the idea that people, generally speaking, want to strip everything that the single richest man or woman in America has and give it all to the 150,000 poorest people. Give me a little leeway on that. Deep down, I don't believe that we wish ill on someone else, as both of those scenarios depict. However, I do think that we don't want to see people suffering, no matter the circumstance. We don't like seeing disparity and injustice -- and that's the main problem we're trying to solve. And that's something that I see from both political parties. Again, both sides believe in the well-being of all, just disagree as to how to get there.
We disagree on things like "Who should bear the heavier tax burden," and how we can help the economically disadvantaged. We all have our different ideas for those. Here is my first proposal that I would give a left arm to hear from a politician: There would be less of a problem if people willingly gave more. And I'm not exclusively speaking in financial terms. I personally think that this could be a viable solution. Unfortunately, theory differs from reality.
I believe that where our two political parties branch off and differ is directed at how genuine people can be. Again, they differ in what one sees as theory and another sees as potential reality. Let me explain: (First off, please don't take these next statements too personally. They are intended to be very general and may not even apply to you, but please hear me out.)
Those aligned on the left (Democrats/Liberals/other terms) have somewhat lost hope in the benevolence of people. Through my many discussions with others, I have summarized that they believe "benevolence" is a somewhat mythical theory that won't carry the people as far as you can throw them and is therefore not dependable. And it's somewhat true. People certainly don't give as much as they should. And I'll be the first to admit that I should give more, not to say that I don't give my time and money to others. But it's because of this lack of trust that we have come to rely more heavily on the government. They see that the government has a responsibility to provide for and take care of everybody. And so we come to the conclusion that I initially drew here -- that everyone should be taken care of!
Those aligned on the right (Republicans/Conservatives/other labels) still see that folks can and should be benevolent. They believe these things because of what has been done to contribute to their own successes. They want others to thrive as well, and that's where business comes in -- those on the right see the rewards of their hard work, and they genuinely want others and everyone else to experience the same... generally speaking.
But financial security is just one example of how both sides generally want the best for everyone. I personally want the same, but I don't think that we should have to rely on the government to take care of us. We would all be better off if we had a stronger consideration of others. I can see how we do rely on Uncle Sam. Our trust in the human spirit has been lost, and when something we trust lets us down, it's disappointing. So, we have turned to the government to be the net beneath us.
I know it's somewhat theory to increase reliance on our neighbor, but I know it has worked before. Take the Great Depression. (Now is that time when fact-checkers become busy.) People then lost their trust in third parties, e.g., the stock market, to take care of them. And the government failed them temporarily too. Banks shut down, personal investments literally disappeared, loans were scarcely given, and healthcare was largely unaffordable. So, when America couldn't rely on help from the big wigs and higher-ups, they turned within and next door for help. Farmers lent each other tools and equipment and neighbors gave neighbors coffee and sugar, all the while asking nothing in return, because they knew they could rely on their neighbor to be their spotter in the tough times. I know that my grandparents relied heavily on their friends and neighbors during this time. Both of my grandfathers each grew up on farms with their two parents and ten siblings. "Affordability" was a far-off concept for both families. Daily meals consisted merely of two biscuits and some water. Both of my grandfathers were hard-working men, spending the greater part of 12 to 16 hours per day sweating, bleeding, and working in their teens so that their families could have it easier, both then and in the future. Coupled with new social policies from FDR that folks were largely eager to contribute to, America's benevolence led them to crawling out of its pit of Depression.
I personally believe that "change" is necessary at times. When something's not "broke", don't fix it, but when it is, do something about it. I don't believe, however, in change from the top down; I believe it starts from within and on the personal level. It starts with decision-making -- making the right decisions. And when you don't make a right decision, don't give up hope; make a good decision to get back on your feet and get it together. It's about making the decision to be an influence to someone else. It's about making the decision to pray with your wife and children. It's about making the decision to pass along wholesome values to your children and monitoring their activity to guide them to success and good decisions. It's about making the decisions to forego things that you know are likely to have undesirable consequences. It's about taking responsibility and being accountable for what you can control. It's about making the decision to provide financial assistance to organizations that genuinely provide services that those in poverty truly need, not merely handing out a dollar on the street. It's about making the decision to volunteer your time and energy to the canned food drive to benefit the Tarrant Area Food Bank. It's about making the decision to give some of your clothes away when you have shirts that you've outgrown or never wear anymore, rather than just sitting in your stuffed closet. It's about making the decision to volunteer your time and energy to coach your kid's soccer team and to make an impact on the children -- the future of America. It's about making the decision to visit your next door neighbor who has been undergoing chemotherapy treatments for the past three years. It's about making the decision to let the car in the next lane over in front of you, forgiving them for the possible mistake of not seeing the traffic jam ahead. It's about making the decision to forgive others who make mistakes, just like you do. THAT, my friends, is how true "change" comes about. THAT is how you turn America into a better place. And THAT is how you defeat concepts of entitlement, greed, and self-interests. Do something for somebody else and benefit your neighbor.
The second idea I present to you (that actually doesn't fit super-well in the theme of this whole speech, but what the heck) is that the folks who perform the jobs at the foundation of our society need to be compensated more. Again, theory differs from realistically achieving this. But why shouldn't teachers in public schools be provided more financial assistance? Think about where we would be standing without the love and guidance from our teachers. I think I can fairly state that the public school teachers, pre-k through 12th grade, don't go into the field because of the pay. And I suppose the same can be said about our emergency responders and military. They willingly perform their tasks because they understand the need for those roles in society. God bless them! Why aren't they rewarded more? I believe that better compensating and better encouraging and supporting those with these jobs will strengthen our country's foundation. It's about investing in our safety, or education, and our future.
America once again faces an economic depression. Even though it has lasted now close to four years, it's not as serious as the one in the first half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, Americans are do-ers. Americans are working to do something about it in their different ways. Many blame politicians for not agreeing on a clear plan to turn this around and for keeping us in stalemate. But it's time we put away our fingers and quit playing the blame game, because pointing to the past as a reason for why something wasn't done will not resolve the problem for the future. That's not a plan. That's not going to get us out of the depression. This practice is destructive and only causes pointless disagreements. It's time that we stop being hateful and slanderous on our internet pages and cussing each other out. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with other people, but it's about the way we approach it. It's time that we stop flipping people off on the road. It's time that we stop accusing politicians of lying -- that solves nothing. It's time for CONstruction, rather than DEstruction. As I said before, be responsible for what you can. You may not have a direct say in who sits on the Supreme Court of the United States, but you do have the opportunity to be benevolent to someone on a personal level. Everyone does, no excuses. Give just a little more. It's time that we restore some faith in humanity. Are you building people up or tearing them down? Are you truly benefiting the society in which you live by your every word and action?
I'm aware that this does not solve the entire gamut of issues, but it's certainly a start. I know this is currently theory, but it's only theory if we don't put it into play and apply it. We can make this a reality. Because America is a country of do-ers. God bless you all.
I address you today, not as a leader, but instead as a servant. This will not be the most eloquent or charismatic speech you have ever read, but I feel that it is necessary to speak candidly to you from my heart. I am merely seeking your consideration, not in regard to me personally, but as to my proposals, challenges, and concepts that I present to you.
I told you that I speak to you as a servant -- I am a servant of Christ and of people. Now, yes, I try to live my life like Christ, but I often find myself unsuccessful. I make mistakes because I am imperfect. But that's what being a Christian is about: trying, trying, and trying again, and living in a state that we know that we are forgiven by God's grace. We as Christians try to better ourselves constantly. We have been instructed to examine ourselves and clean ourselves from the inside, so that we can realize our mistakes, learn from them, and teach others.
Now, I also said that I'm not speaking to you as a leader -- I am not claiming to know everything there is to know about everything. I don't. But I do understand that's we want that from the person we elect to be the leader of our country, because not everyone can do it, and we hope for some intellectual giant and flawless decision-maker to lead us to what is best. Nevertheless, as I proposed before, I only ask that you consider the concepts I present to you.
It must first be noted that we, as Americans, want what is best; I think it is fair to say, generally, that we all are genuinely interested in what is best for all. I use the term "America" not as a piece of land, not as a set of documents, but as a collection of individuals who, throughout history, have yearned for the best and what is right. And Americans are do-ers. When something isn't isn't right, Americans do something about it. I truly believe that at the root of the two dominant political parties lies a genuine interest for the best of everyone. However, I have learned that the two parties differ as to how that is to be achieved.
For instance, at this country's inception, we fled England for reasons including that we didn't want to be told who or what to worship and we didn't appreciate the idea of concrete social classes in which nobody could escape or make of themselves what they wished. So, we did something about it and changed it. Our ancestors set up a system that they believed would truly benefit everyone and to give them the best there was to offer. True, there were flaws in that system that we learned from and adapted to correct, such as slavery. And we did something to correct that problem and eradicate it. We continue to face flaws today 236 years later. And we're still learning and engaging in much discussion as to how to correct the imperfections. That's great news.
So, as to how we all feel that we want what is best, I don't subscribe to the idea that, generally speaking (emphasis added), people want to accumulate all the financial wealth for themselves and purposefully leave others in their dust. Nor do I subscribe to the idea that people, generally speaking, want to strip everything that the single richest man or woman in America has and give it all to the 150,000 poorest people. Give me a little leeway on that. Deep down, I don't believe that we wish ill on someone else, as both of those scenarios depict. However, I do think that we don't want to see people suffering, no matter the circumstance. We don't like seeing disparity and injustice -- and that's the main problem we're trying to solve. And that's something that I see from both political parties. Again, both sides believe in the well-being of all, just disagree as to how to get there.
We disagree on things like "Who should bear the heavier tax burden," and how we can help the economically disadvantaged. We all have our different ideas for those. Here is my first proposal that I would give a left arm to hear from a politician: There would be less of a problem if people willingly gave more. And I'm not exclusively speaking in financial terms. I personally think that this could be a viable solution. Unfortunately, theory differs from reality.
I believe that where our two political parties branch off and differ is directed at how genuine people can be. Again, they differ in what one sees as theory and another sees as potential reality. Let me explain: (First off, please don't take these next statements too personally. They are intended to be very general and may not even apply to you, but please hear me out.)
Those aligned on the left (Democrats/Liberals/other terms) have somewhat lost hope in the benevolence of people. Through my many discussions with others, I have summarized that they believe "benevolence" is a somewhat mythical theory that won't carry the people as far as you can throw them and is therefore not dependable. And it's somewhat true. People certainly don't give as much as they should. And I'll be the first to admit that I should give more, not to say that I don't give my time and money to others. But it's because of this lack of trust that we have come to rely more heavily on the government. They see that the government has a responsibility to provide for and take care of everybody. And so we come to the conclusion that I initially drew here -- that everyone should be taken care of!
Those aligned on the right (Republicans/Conservatives/other labels) still see that folks can and should be benevolent. They believe these things because of what has been done to contribute to their own successes. They want others to thrive as well, and that's where business comes in -- those on the right see the rewards of their hard work, and they genuinely want others and everyone else to experience the same... generally speaking.
But financial security is just one example of how both sides generally want the best for everyone. I personally want the same, but I don't think that we should have to rely on the government to take care of us. We would all be better off if we had a stronger consideration of others. I can see how we do rely on Uncle Sam. Our trust in the human spirit has been lost, and when something we trust lets us down, it's disappointing. So, we have turned to the government to be the net beneath us.
I know it's somewhat theory to increase reliance on our neighbor, but I know it has worked before. Take the Great Depression. (Now is that time when fact-checkers become busy.) People then lost their trust in third parties, e.g., the stock market, to take care of them. And the government failed them temporarily too. Banks shut down, personal investments literally disappeared, loans were scarcely given, and healthcare was largely unaffordable. So, when America couldn't rely on help from the big wigs and higher-ups, they turned within and next door for help. Farmers lent each other tools and equipment and neighbors gave neighbors coffee and sugar, all the while asking nothing in return, because they knew they could rely on their neighbor to be their spotter in the tough times. I know that my grandparents relied heavily on their friends and neighbors during this time. Both of my grandfathers each grew up on farms with their two parents and ten siblings. "Affordability" was a far-off concept for both families. Daily meals consisted merely of two biscuits and some water. Both of my grandfathers were hard-working men, spending the greater part of 12 to 16 hours per day sweating, bleeding, and working in their teens so that their families could have it easier, both then and in the future. Coupled with new social policies from FDR that folks were largely eager to contribute to, America's benevolence led them to crawling out of its pit of Depression.
I personally believe that "change" is necessary at times. When something's not "broke", don't fix it, but when it is, do something about it. I don't believe, however, in change from the top down; I believe it starts from within and on the personal level. It starts with decision-making -- making the right decisions. And when you don't make a right decision, don't give up hope; make a good decision to get back on your feet and get it together. It's about making the decision to be an influence to someone else. It's about making the decision to pray with your wife and children. It's about making the decision to pass along wholesome values to your children and monitoring their activity to guide them to success and good decisions. It's about making the decisions to forego things that you know are likely to have undesirable consequences. It's about taking responsibility and being accountable for what you can control. It's about making the decision to provide financial assistance to organizations that genuinely provide services that those in poverty truly need, not merely handing out a dollar on the street. It's about making the decision to volunteer your time and energy to the canned food drive to benefit the Tarrant Area Food Bank. It's about making the decision to give some of your clothes away when you have shirts that you've outgrown or never wear anymore, rather than just sitting in your stuffed closet. It's about making the decision to volunteer your time and energy to coach your kid's soccer team and to make an impact on the children -- the future of America. It's about making the decision to visit your next door neighbor who has been undergoing chemotherapy treatments for the past three years. It's about making the decision to let the car in the next lane over in front of you, forgiving them for the possible mistake of not seeing the traffic jam ahead. It's about making the decision to forgive others who make mistakes, just like you do. THAT, my friends, is how true "change" comes about. THAT is how you turn America into a better place. And THAT is how you defeat concepts of entitlement, greed, and self-interests. Do something for somebody else and benefit your neighbor.
The second idea I present to you (that actually doesn't fit super-well in the theme of this whole speech, but what the heck) is that the folks who perform the jobs at the foundation of our society need to be compensated more. Again, theory differs from realistically achieving this. But why shouldn't teachers in public schools be provided more financial assistance? Think about where we would be standing without the love and guidance from our teachers. I think I can fairly state that the public school teachers, pre-k through 12th grade, don't go into the field because of the pay. And I suppose the same can be said about our emergency responders and military. They willingly perform their tasks because they understand the need for those roles in society. God bless them! Why aren't they rewarded more? I believe that better compensating and better encouraging and supporting those with these jobs will strengthen our country's foundation. It's about investing in our safety, or education, and our future.
America once again faces an economic depression. Even though it has lasted now close to four years, it's not as serious as the one in the first half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, Americans are do-ers. Americans are working to do something about it in their different ways. Many blame politicians for not agreeing on a clear plan to turn this around and for keeping us in stalemate. But it's time we put away our fingers and quit playing the blame game, because pointing to the past as a reason for why something wasn't done will not resolve the problem for the future. That's not a plan. That's not going to get us out of the depression. This practice is destructive and only causes pointless disagreements. It's time that we stop being hateful and slanderous on our internet pages and cussing each other out. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with other people, but it's about the way we approach it. It's time that we stop flipping people off on the road. It's time that we stop accusing politicians of lying -- that solves nothing. It's time for CONstruction, rather than DEstruction. As I said before, be responsible for what you can. You may not have a direct say in who sits on the Supreme Court of the United States, but you do have the opportunity to be benevolent to someone on a personal level. Everyone does, no excuses. Give just a little more. It's time that we restore some faith in humanity. Are you building people up or tearing them down? Are you truly benefiting the society in which you live by your every word and action?
I'm aware that this does not solve the entire gamut of issues, but it's certainly a start. I know this is currently theory, but it's only theory if we don't put it into play and apply it. We can make this a reality. Because America is a country of do-ers. God bless you all.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Equality
My apologies for going off the grid for a few months. Now that I have taken the Texas Bar Exam (still awaiting results) and have graduated from law school, I seem to find a few minutes extra on my hands. Thanks to my readers for following and for your patience.
I have begun to cringe at a few certain buzz words that pervade society. Such words are "justice," "diversity," "tolerance," and "equality." These words used to be more pure and have a genuine meaning, but I fear that they have been misused to the point that they now represent words to compel a result or induce someone to be ok with a concept.
So, today's word, ladies and gentlemen, is "equality", brought to you by the letter E! In my mind, equality used to simply refer to pure concepts: God created all mean equal (Declaration of Independence), "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Today, my heart is saddened when the word "equality" is used as a trump card to justify actions that are contrary to what our gut tells us something isn't right per se. These words are used today to suggest that these are noble endeavors. The most prominent twisted example I can give is when our government plays the role of redistributing wealth or money. (My discussion today isn't meant to be exclusive.)
Let's be clear -- do I think that we should be equal, according to the eyes of God? Yes. Is that possible? Probably not; I think that full equality is something only God can control. Do I believe that people should be left to fend for themselves without any help from others? No way. Here is my quarrel: Whose job is it to be the enforcer of equality? (Let's also note that "equality" encompasses a much broader notion than simply economics or finances.)
Generally speaking, why can't we just issue scholarships based on merit (high school GPA and standardized test scores)? And sure, let's give a little latitude to financial need. I don't agree that race, sex, national origin or religion is sometimes considered in order to meet a quota.
Let's propose a hypothetical: Bob has two degrees and is a fairly capable person. He can walk, lift heavy-ish things, think, write, and communicate. Let's say that Bob chooses not to use the skills that God gave him and chooses not to find work -- it's just too hard; Bob has applied at three firms, but none have responded affirmatively, so Bob is giving up. Bob sits at home and, with a feeling of entitlement, awaits his check from Uncle Sam. After all, they owe him because he shouldn't be treated differently from anyone else. And look at ole' Richie Rich over there with his $200,000 a year income. Why should that guy be earning as much as he is, while Bob doesn't have a job? Despite what Obama thinks, Richie built his company on his own, taking out loan after loan, repaying each through many months, and working restless 80-hour work weeks for 8 years. Richie did this while supporting a wife and three children, and has just now started taking his cut/earnings from his company due to the fact that his company is just now beginning to turn quarterly profits. Moreover, he has a few dollars invested in hopes of someday helping his kids pay for college.
Sure, the above situations are a bit extreme, and the general populous most likely doesn't fit the mold. Some do. And sometimes, these stories happen. But for purposes of "equality," why would it make sense for Richie to have the government strip a percentage of his income that could potentially pay for his kids' college education and redistribute it to Bob, thereby rewarding him for giving up and excusing him from paying income taxes? The government, in this scenario, punishes Richie for his hard work and for supporting his family and thinking of his family's future financial stability, in hopes that his kids don't have to incur the same hardships that he does. What boggles my mind is that some folks support this notion! And they further think that it's the government's job to play "income arbiter" and redistribute money based on a limited number represented by earnings or income. Where is the relief for those truly in need?
Sure, I might be limited in my perspective -- limited by my age and lack of experience. I haven't seen the full inner workings of the IRS. But I have had experience in paying taxes (and being taxed out the whazoo because I attempt to save a few bucks for the future. Apparently, that's a mistake for tax liability purposes). Further, I've heard the stories of friends and connections who have made sure that they pay for health insurance, but have been denied critical shots and medication because they were insured (yes, Obamacare made it impossible for the private clinics, most of which are the only healthcare providers in small Texas counties, to provide such shots to those who were insured). That's also a true story. I've engaged in numerous discussions about other folks' involvement in this messy web. And the more I hear, the deeper that rabbit hole goes and the more I disfavor government intervention into this area.
It SHOULD NOT be the government's job to forcibly redistribute people's earnings (and savings), much less anyone else's job to do so. The task involves peeking into people's private lives, speculating and scrutinizing earnings, evaluating many different degrees and levels of need (such as "does Bob really need this money to support himself, or can he really do something about it if he tried?"), sticking fingers into people's bank accounts, and ultimately becoming an arbiter of the populous on a personal level. There is no way to achieve true fairness or efficiency in this. Absolutely not. I'm not talking about theory - I'm speaking in terms of actuality. And if you think there is, get real. I'm sure some of you have had moments of discontent in this area.
So, if Mighty Uncle Sam doesn't do this as well as you'd like, Cody, whose job is it to try and achieve equality? Here is an idea: How about the Church? I'll explain more in a moment, but from what I've seen, the more and more dependent people grow on government, the less they depend (or have the opportunity to depend) on the Church. See, the Bible calls us to benevolence: "Each must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7. "Freely you have received, freely give." Matthew 10:8. (And there are many more verses in which God commands us to give.) Here is my point: it is not truly "benevolence" when you are forced to give to the U.S., knowing that they will inefficiently misallocate the revenue. Sure, some masochists ;-) might be happy to do so, and that's fine, but I have trouble seeing it as doing something out of love on a more personal level, because with those commands to give, I feel that God wants us to develop personal relationships with others. Can you be happy paying taxes? Sure, but while paying taxes is certainly something we should do, it doesn't hit the nail on the head. But the Church is better positioned to care for people.
Up-Sides to church/private intervention: (1) The Church, when gathering collection from its members, won't be in effect punishing those with a higher income by requiring a certain percentage of contribution. (2) The Church can better address those in true need. This means that they won't merely supply welfare checks or food stamps. Instead, the Church has the power to build homes, dig wells, supply food and clothing, give financial advice, develop personal relationships, and more -- all things that the government doesn't do, or at least doesn't do well or provide a direct benefit to people on a personal level. This leads to (#3): Efficiency -- more efficient allocation of goods and services in relation to the basis of need. If you don't agree with me on this point, take a look at and compare the financial statuses of Parkland Hospital, a guv'mint hospital vs. The Texas Scottish Rite, a private institution backed by the Masons, who is just now beginning to bill insurance companies after more than 100 years of existence (see hyperlink). By the way, one of the two is having to cut back almost to the point of closure (hint: it's not the private entity).
Parkland's financials: http://www.
parklandhospital.com/whoweare/
pdf/AR_financials.pdf vs. Scottish Rite's tax return: http://www.
dallasscottishrite.org/
Parkland is spending more than they are getting. (Note: whether or not they have to is not in discussion here.) Scottish Rite had an additional $54,000 they could have spent in 2010, yet they chose not to. Novel concept.
Down-Sides to church intervention: (1) Not everyone is comfortable with churches or the roles that they currently play. It would likely be tough for those to turn to the church in times of need. No blame imparted there, although I strongly encourage reconsideration, based on the above points. (2) This idea of "benevolence" - it gives humanity a very wide credit of trust and hope. (uh oh...buzz words!) A trust that folks can open their pocket books to give to the point that it meets the need. So is it a false or fruitless sense of hope in humanity? It's debatable. I'm not 100% sold. But think about how much more we would have available to toss in the church fund if we weren't coughing up roughly 28% to Uncle Sam. Now am I suggesting a complete cut-off of taxes? No way. That would be utterly foolish. And besides, what would we have to debate? ;-) Taxes are necessary, and I'm an advocate for flat tax (along the lines of achieving true "equality"), but that is also of a different, hairy discussion.
Equality is a much better goal for the Church and is not fit for the government. As I promised to continue earlier, I hope you'll stop to take notice that dependence on government and church/faith/religion/God, in general, are antithetical trade-offs -- more dependence on the U.S. to provide for our needs means "why do we need the church, or the body of our Christian brotherhood, to take care of us when we have Uncle Sam? Perhaps a goal of Obama's? Such a dependence kick-started the downfall of Cuba in the 1950s. Castro and his regime got the citizens to trade their dependence on religion and faith for a dependence on the Cuban gov't to take care of them. Worked out well (*facetious statement there). Alternatively, more dependence on Christ makes us realize that Christ gives us so much more, both now and eternally, than any government or political party could even promise or deliver.
To close out, I leave you with food for thought:
I have begun to cringe at a few certain buzz words that pervade society. Such words are "justice," "diversity," "tolerance," and "equality." These words used to be more pure and have a genuine meaning, but I fear that they have been misused to the point that they now represent words to compel a result or induce someone to be ok with a concept.
So, today's word, ladies and gentlemen, is "equality", brought to you by the letter E! In my mind, equality used to simply refer to pure concepts: God created all mean equal (Declaration of Independence), "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Today, my heart is saddened when the word "equality" is used as a trump card to justify actions that are contrary to what our gut tells us something isn't right per se. These words are used today to suggest that these are noble endeavors. The most prominent twisted example I can give is when our government plays the role of redistributing wealth or money. (My discussion today isn't meant to be exclusive.)
Let's be clear -- do I think that we should be equal, according to the eyes of God? Yes. Is that possible? Probably not; I think that full equality is something only God can control. Do I believe that people should be left to fend for themselves without any help from others? No way. Here is my quarrel: Whose job is it to be the enforcer of equality? (Let's also note that "equality" encompasses a much broader notion than simply economics or finances.)
Generally speaking, why can't we just issue scholarships based on merit (high school GPA and standardized test scores)? And sure, let's give a little latitude to financial need. I don't agree that race, sex, national origin or religion is sometimes considered in order to meet a quota.
Let's propose a hypothetical: Bob has two degrees and is a fairly capable person. He can walk, lift heavy-ish things, think, write, and communicate. Let's say that Bob chooses not to use the skills that God gave him and chooses not to find work -- it's just too hard; Bob has applied at three firms, but none have responded affirmatively, so Bob is giving up. Bob sits at home and, with a feeling of entitlement, awaits his check from Uncle Sam. After all, they owe him because he shouldn't be treated differently from anyone else. And look at ole' Richie Rich over there with his $200,000 a year income. Why should that guy be earning as much as he is, while Bob doesn't have a job? Despite what Obama thinks, Richie built his company on his own, taking out loan after loan, repaying each through many months, and working restless 80-hour work weeks for 8 years. Richie did this while supporting a wife and three children, and has just now started taking his cut/earnings from his company due to the fact that his company is just now beginning to turn quarterly profits. Moreover, he has a few dollars invested in hopes of someday helping his kids pay for college.
Sure, the above situations are a bit extreme, and the general populous most likely doesn't fit the mold. Some do. And sometimes, these stories happen. But for purposes of "equality," why would it make sense for Richie to have the government strip a percentage of his income that could potentially pay for his kids' college education and redistribute it to Bob, thereby rewarding him for giving up and excusing him from paying income taxes? The government, in this scenario, punishes Richie for his hard work and for supporting his family and thinking of his family's future financial stability, in hopes that his kids don't have to incur the same hardships that he does. What boggles my mind is that some folks support this notion! And they further think that it's the government's job to play "income arbiter" and redistribute money based on a limited number represented by earnings or income. Where is the relief for those truly in need?
Sure, I might be limited in my perspective -- limited by my age and lack of experience. I haven't seen the full inner workings of the IRS. But I have had experience in paying taxes (and being taxed out the whazoo because I attempt to save a few bucks for the future. Apparently, that's a mistake for tax liability purposes). Further, I've heard the stories of friends and connections who have made sure that they pay for health insurance, but have been denied critical shots and medication because they were insured (yes, Obamacare made it impossible for the private clinics, most of which are the only healthcare providers in small Texas counties, to provide such shots to those who were insured). That's also a true story. I've engaged in numerous discussions about other folks' involvement in this messy web. And the more I hear, the deeper that rabbit hole goes and the more I disfavor government intervention into this area.
It SHOULD NOT be the government's job to forcibly redistribute people's earnings (and savings), much less anyone else's job to do so. The task involves peeking into people's private lives, speculating and scrutinizing earnings, evaluating many different degrees and levels of need (such as "does Bob really need this money to support himself, or can he really do something about it if he tried?"), sticking fingers into people's bank accounts, and ultimately becoming an arbiter of the populous on a personal level. There is no way to achieve true fairness or efficiency in this. Absolutely not. I'm not talking about theory - I'm speaking in terms of actuality. And if you think there is, get real. I'm sure some of you have had moments of discontent in this area.
So, if Mighty Uncle Sam doesn't do this as well as you'd like, Cody, whose job is it to try and achieve equality? Here is an idea: How about the Church? I'll explain more in a moment, but from what I've seen, the more and more dependent people grow on government, the less they depend (or have the opportunity to depend) on the Church. See, the Bible calls us to benevolence: "Each must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7. "Freely you have received, freely give." Matthew 10:8. (And there are many more verses in which God commands us to give.) Here is my point: it is not truly "benevolence" when you are forced to give to the U.S., knowing that they will inefficiently misallocate the revenue. Sure, some masochists ;-) might be happy to do so, and that's fine, but I have trouble seeing it as doing something out of love on a more personal level, because with those commands to give, I feel that God wants us to develop personal relationships with others. Can you be happy paying taxes? Sure, but while paying taxes is certainly something we should do, it doesn't hit the nail on the head. But the Church is better positioned to care for people.
Up-Sides to church/private intervention: (1) The Church, when gathering collection from its members, won't be in effect punishing those with a higher income by requiring a certain percentage of contribution. (2) The Church can better address those in true need. This means that they won't merely supply welfare checks or food stamps. Instead, the Church has the power to build homes, dig wells, supply food and clothing, give financial advice, develop personal relationships, and more -- all things that the government doesn't do, or at least doesn't do well or provide a direct benefit to people on a personal level. This leads to (#3): Efficiency -- more efficient allocation of goods and services in relation to the basis of need. If you don't agree with me on this point, take a look at and compare the financial statuses of Parkland Hospital, a guv'mint hospital vs. The Texas Scottish Rite, a private institution backed by the Masons, who is just now beginning to bill insurance companies after more than 100 years of existence (see hyperlink). By the way, one of the two is having to cut back almost to the point of closure (hint: it's not the private entity).
Parkland's financials: http://www.
parklandhospital.com/whoweare/
pdf/AR_financials.pdf vs. Scottish Rite's tax return: http://www.
dallasscottishrite.org/
Parkland is spending more than they are getting. (Note: whether or not they have to is not in discussion here.) Scottish Rite had an additional $54,000 they could have spent in 2010, yet they chose not to. Novel concept.
Down-Sides to church intervention: (1) Not everyone is comfortable with churches or the roles that they currently play. It would likely be tough for those to turn to the church in times of need. No blame imparted there, although I strongly encourage reconsideration, based on the above points. (2) This idea of "benevolence" - it gives humanity a very wide credit of trust and hope. (uh oh...buzz words!) A trust that folks can open their pocket books to give to the point that it meets the need. So is it a false or fruitless sense of hope in humanity? It's debatable. I'm not 100% sold. But think about how much more we would have available to toss in the church fund if we weren't coughing up roughly 28% to Uncle Sam. Now am I suggesting a complete cut-off of taxes? No way. That would be utterly foolish. And besides, what would we have to debate? ;-) Taxes are necessary, and I'm an advocate for flat tax (along the lines of achieving true "equality"), but that is also of a different, hairy discussion.
Equality is a much better goal for the Church and is not fit for the government. As I promised to continue earlier, I hope you'll stop to take notice that dependence on government and church/faith/religion/God, in general, are antithetical trade-offs -- more dependence on the U.S. to provide for our needs means "why do we need the church, or the body of our Christian brotherhood, to take care of us when we have Uncle Sam? Perhaps a goal of Obama's? Such a dependence kick-started the downfall of Cuba in the 1950s. Castro and his regime got the citizens to trade their dependence on religion and faith for a dependence on the Cuban gov't to take care of them. Worked out well (*facetious statement there). Alternatively, more dependence on Christ makes us realize that Christ gives us so much more, both now and eternally, than any government or political party could even promise or deliver.
To close out, I leave you with food for thought:
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Rick Santorum and Contraception
I like Rick Santorum, and I'm voting for him in this election. It's only my personal belief. I just think that Santorum has his priorities right - focus on social issues first and economic policies after that. "Ultimately," said Santorum at a local rally I attended recently, "America's identity boils down to its rights. It is these rights that distinguish America from the rest of the world, and we must fight together to protect those rights. If we lose our inalienable rights, we have lost our identity." Couldn't agree more. In the big picture, our identity is not based on the amount of dollars our country has (or doesn't have) in its pocket.
Sadly, many are deterred from Santorum based on a misperception that once in office, he will regulate, and perhaps ban, contraceptions (or birth control). I hope you're not one of the people that have bought into this idea. Where do these people come up with that idea? I bet they have been duped by believing the media (oh boy, there's a can of worms). Liberal media wants to present this as an issue to deter folks from voting for this conservative candidate.
Let's not be fooled. Check out his statement on CNN (The Communist News Network, haha). He states that birth control should be available. And check out his voting record. Where has he voted to regulate contraception? Pray tell.
To clarify, abortion is an entirely separate issue from contraception. I can't say that he personally believes the two are different, but he has made it very clear that his personal beliefs are not, and should not be, imposed on the rest of society. God bless him for that. It is true that Santorum consistently votes pro-life (anti-abortion). God bless him for that, too.
And that's the #1 reason I like Santorum. He defers to God's instruction when deciding his stance on issues. I will never vote for a candidate who takes the position that it is acceptable to willingly take the life of an innocent child without danger to both the child and mother's health. That is inconsistent with my view of God's will.
Sadly, many are deterred from Santorum based on a misperception that once in office, he will regulate, and perhaps ban, contraceptions (or birth control). I hope you're not one of the people that have bought into this idea. Where do these people come up with that idea? I bet they have been duped by believing the media (oh boy, there's a can of worms). Liberal media wants to present this as an issue to deter folks from voting for this conservative candidate.
Let's not be fooled. Check out his statement on CNN (The Communist News Network, haha). He states that birth control should be available. And check out his voting record. Where has he voted to regulate contraception? Pray tell.
To clarify, abortion is an entirely separate issue from contraception. I can't say that he personally believes the two are different, but he has made it very clear that his personal beliefs are not, and should not be, imposed on the rest of society. God bless him for that. It is true that Santorum consistently votes pro-life (anti-abortion). God bless him for that, too.
And that's the #1 reason I like Santorum. He defers to God's instruction when deciding his stance on issues. I will never vote for a candidate who takes the position that it is acceptable to willingly take the life of an innocent child without danger to both the child and mother's health. That is inconsistent with my view of God's will.
Monday, April 02, 2012
A Christian Lawyer in a Not-So-Christian World
I'm in my last semester of law school. Lord willing, and through His power and sustenance, I will be a licensed, practicing attorney in seven months. I just took the Professional Responsibility exam and will be sitting for the Bar Exam in July. If you feel compelled, lifting a prayer in my direction is certainly appreciated. That such a great responsibility is about to be thrown on my shoulders in short time is slightly scary. Nevertheless, this isn't about me; this is 100% about God using me in a way that will accomplish His will and His purposes.
So, in case you were dying to know why lawyers are such crooks, I have been noting (although, not well) some of the inconsistencies in the practice of law and the practice of following Christ. As a disclaimer, some will say that the two codes are indeed consistent; however, these are my personal notes and observations. I wouldn't say they directly clash, but there are noteworthy nuances.
1. Lawyers don't lend money to clients.
I am almost certain that the money the restriction speaks of is client funds (particularly, funds in holding) and not personal funds. The goal is that attorneys' judgment calls aren't to be affected by ulterior motives, such as gaining your loaned money back. That seems fair, but I can't help but recall that Jesus tells us, in the Sermon on the Mount, to give to the man that asks. And if someone sues you, give him not just your cloak, but your tunic also. And I don't see an exception. (See Matthew 5:38-42)
2. Generally, lawyers don't have a duty to do the best thing, only the acceptable thing.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are written to be a floor, or standard, that an attorney cannot fall below in conduct. They (soon to be "we") are permitted to go above and beyond the call, but the rules are what are noted as acceptable. But does Jesus call us to be merely acceptable, or are we called to be the best we can possibly be? (Note Matthew 5:43-48). Again, this is not necessarily inconsistent per se, as attorney rules allow for better-than-minimal acts.
3. Attorneys are always working in ways that will protect themselves.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing; indeed, it's a smart thing to do. But I think it's sad that lawyers have to be constantly looking over their shoulders in preparing work. They are fearful that clients will turn around and sue for malpractice. Note: It is fairly difficult to prove and win a malpractice suit against an attorney. Moreover, as I noted, malpractice is most often due to an act that fell below that "floor." I just think that in such an environment of self-protection and "C.Y.A.", it would be easy to get caught up in and focus more on selfish endeavors to protect myself. It should be absolutely important to put the client's interests ahead of the attorney's.
There are more things to note, but I won't get into nitty-gritty rules of attorney conduct and practice. That might put you to sleep. As always, thank you for reading, and thank you for your support. I can't wait to finally finish law school.
So, in case you were dying to know why lawyers are such crooks, I have been noting (although, not well) some of the inconsistencies in the practice of law and the practice of following Christ. As a disclaimer, some will say that the two codes are indeed consistent; however, these are my personal notes and observations. I wouldn't say they directly clash, but there are noteworthy nuances.
1. Lawyers don't lend money to clients.
I am almost certain that the money the restriction speaks of is client funds (particularly, funds in holding) and not personal funds. The goal is that attorneys' judgment calls aren't to be affected by ulterior motives, such as gaining your loaned money back. That seems fair, but I can't help but recall that Jesus tells us, in the Sermon on the Mount, to give to the man that asks. And if someone sues you, give him not just your cloak, but your tunic also. And I don't see an exception. (See Matthew 5:38-42)
2. Generally, lawyers don't have a duty to do the best thing, only the acceptable thing.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are written to be a floor, or standard, that an attorney cannot fall below in conduct. They (soon to be "we") are permitted to go above and beyond the call, but the rules are what are noted as acceptable. But does Jesus call us to be merely acceptable, or are we called to be the best we can possibly be? (Note Matthew 5:43-48). Again, this is not necessarily inconsistent per se, as attorney rules allow for better-than-minimal acts.
3. Attorneys are always working in ways that will protect themselves.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing; indeed, it's a smart thing to do. But I think it's sad that lawyers have to be constantly looking over their shoulders in preparing work. They are fearful that clients will turn around and sue for malpractice. Note: It is fairly difficult to prove and win a malpractice suit against an attorney. Moreover, as I noted, malpractice is most often due to an act that fell below that "floor." I just think that in such an environment of self-protection and "C.Y.A.", it would be easy to get caught up in and focus more on selfish endeavors to protect myself. It should be absolutely important to put the client's interests ahead of the attorney's.
There are more things to note, but I won't get into nitty-gritty rules of attorney conduct and practice. That might put you to sleep. As always, thank you for reading, and thank you for your support. I can't wait to finally finish law school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)