Of course.

Coming upon the eve of the Inauguration of President Barack Obama, I was surfing some News websites in my free time. CNN had pretty light-weight and favorable stuff, wondering about the gown Mrs. Obama would wear or talking about the tour Barack has been on over the last few days. And then… I stumbled upon Fox News. And this is the first headline I see….

of course.

Why wouldn’t Fox News continue their rollin’ train of scare tactics on the good ol’ American South even as Obama prepares to be sworn in? Yikes.

Come on, people. Every Southern Republican with the internet is now a mastermind conspiracy theorist and has uncovered something that no one else in America knew!! Zoinks!! OMG.

Give it a rest.

FoxNews, give it a rest.

Pride & Love

I’m disappointed in a lot of people.

From reading lame, crude, & otherwise offensive Facebook status updates, my spirit is dampened. Come on, morons. It’s 2008. Obama is not the anti-Christ. He’s not a man of low moral character, save for the opinions some will take based on a few political stances of choice. The man has spent far more time fighting for the poor and downtrodden in urban areas than he has in formal government. That’s low character? give me a break. If you don’t like his politics, suck it up. Get over the paranoia. Stop listening to FoxNews and backwoods preachers and look at facts. He’s not “the liberal of liberals.” He’s a Democrat. He’s for more government control, government spending & support, and of course higher taxes in some areas to support that government spending. And do you know what else? He’s not the first! Bill Clinton was similar and he was a far better President in virtually every realm than any Republican leader of the past 25 years, maybe longer. 

Last night I got to have a good conversation with a friend about Pride and America. On the cusp of the election, I had talked some to a group of young adults about how American values and the Kingdom of God values were antithetical in a lot of ways. Here’s a picture:

My friend was particularly curious about the subject of pride. This country is what we have, and whatever President is chosen is the President we have to follow. Shouldn’t we at least take pride in that? From the context of our conversation, the bigger question is “shouldn’t we support the country & the president?”

Absolutely. I think the problem is that “Pride in Country” and “Love for Country” get mixed up. Our pride is related to our identity and our integrity, so our pride and allegiance should reside with the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom only. But our love? Oh my, it should be overflowing. We should have abundant love for America, Americans, and the American president. 

Maybe as Christians in this brave new world we’ll have the courage to leave pride behind when it comes to our politics and instead champion Love. After all, pride is a great and beautiful thing, close to the heart of God. But Love… Love IS the heart of God.

(*the chart of values is loosely adapted from the thoughts of Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw in “Jesus for President”)

The real American vote for President

Here’s the real choice. 

The Maverick? Or Robin Hood?

thank you, friendly reader…

A google search led a reader to see my blog post from this morning and he graciously passed on this:

From the RNC

When I woke up this morning, my wife was watching a replay of Sarah Palin’s speech last night at the Alaskan BackCountry Fish and Chip HoeDown Republican National Convention. 

Something I saw reminded me of perhaps the most annoying part of the smug lovefest in the Twin Cities. So I spent several minutes searching the web for a picture of those “PROSPERITY” signs that were all over St. Paul last night. 

Prosperity? We’re going to make everyone rich? Come on McCain. Mitt Romney would be much better informed on how to get all his people big houses and nice cars… But because I couldn’t find a picture of one of those signs, this gem will have to suffice:

Rumor has it that John McCain had just lost his puppy. In other news, it seems that the McCain campaign has started taking advice from this man (Prosperity?):

Creflo Dollar.

politics, the Lord of the Rings, & evil

Since the DNC has been on and I’ve been pretty interested, I’m confused concerning both the political process and the choice to vote (and if to vote, then who for?). I’ve waded my way into a sticky conversation over at Andy’s blog. Not exactly friendly fire all the way around. My question:
Can we legislate morality? Or Christianity? Or “Christian morality?”

In other news…

TNT aired the Lord of the Rings trilogy over the weekend. I didn’t get to watch them as they aired, but I set our DVR to record them. I’m a huge LOTR fan, so I watched them in pieces over the last couple of days. We finished “Return of the King” last night. (Just a side note: 4 hour movies should be aired sans commercials. Seriously.) I know their have been tons of books written on the subjects of Spirituality or Christianity or Religion and LOTR. I don’t really have an interest in comparing Frodo, or Aragorn, or that long blonde haired elf (that my friend Michael had a man-crush on), to Jesus. But I did find the whole “good v. evil” theme that keeps the movie mired in spirituality to be intriguing. And false.
Here’s why: In LOTR, evil exists “out there,” in Mordor. Obviously it also exists by batches in the heart of men, but it seems to primarily reside in an external reality. In the same way, extreme good (often portrayed as heroism or bravery) is usually only manifest inside the hearts of men; though one could make the argument it’s stronger in non-men (such as wizards and elves).
LOTR aside, I think we often do this to a fault in religious circles. We characterize evil as something “out there” and don’t deal with the reality that evil resides in us as much as anything good, holy, or profitable does. The personification or outsourcing of evil only serves to dehumanize it; therefore releasing us of guilt. I would argue that for the ancient Israelites, this is one of the major areas their religion differed from the myriad religions of surrounding cultures and empires. Most major religions relegate the soul, or even humanity, as a blank slate that’s being fought for by good or evil. In contrast, the Hebrew meta-narrative sees the dichotomy not as “good v. evil” but “God v. man.” And I’m not saying that God is warring with men, only that the desires of God are set against the selfish desires of man. In the Israelite worldview, evil is selfishness. God is the remedy. If evil is primarily an external reality, then in some ways we find ourselves satisfied just to rid ourselves of evil so that we at least return to the blank slate. In the view orchestrated by God, we have to come to grips with the truth that the only way forward, our of the mire, is in Godly impersonation (Jesus gave us a way for this).

The Kingdom of God, fools, and radical thoughts

Hugh Halter’s book, The Tangible Kingdom, is kicking my butt. It’s weird because it’s not revolutionary stuff, I’ve thought through it all before, but the way he ties it in with life experience just makes it piercing.  

Here’s a section where he’s talking about the Kingdom of God and the way it contrasts with the “don’t you want to go to heaven when you die?” Gospel of American Evangelicalism. Afterwards, I’ll contrast it with other thoughts I heard tonight:

The gospel tells us why we fight with each other, why we have war, pain, suffering, and death. The gospel of Jesus shows the heart of God for humanity and the depths of his love and acceptance and vision for every human being. It  gives us hope in the face of injustice, hunger, and poverty, and for recovery from every vice or societal ill. It advocates for community, acceptance, fairness, forgiveness, and love of all people regardless of past mistakes, sexual orientation, or political bias.

 
For me, Hugh’s thoughts are rich with the holistic, driven, and passionate hope the Creator has for his Creation. It also harkens me to comments from the tube a few hours ago. In between some evening basketball and a trip with friends to hit some golf balls at Top Golf, I caught a segment where Larry King was talking with Bill Maher about politics and religion. I’m going to attempt to quote Maher for the sake of allowing it to line up with the prior quote from “The Tangible Kingdom.”

I asked my friend, “Why doesn’t God just defeat the devil and rid the world of evil?” He didn’t have a good answer, and here’s why: It’s just like the comic books. They can’t get rid of their enemies because then there would be no reason to keep up the story. Why can’t God just rid the world of evil? He’s “all powerful” (sarcastic use of hand quotations), right? No, that will never happen because we need the story to go on so that we keep people under control and keep passing the buckets and allow some people to keep their jobs.

I was intrigued, but I can only handle that kind of stuff in small doses. Plus I had to hit the road. But it got me meditating on the existence of evil, which can be dangerous stuff. Bill Maher asked a smart question. My first instinct is to write it off, right? “Where are we promised a world without evil?” See, I asked a good question, too. But does it’s logic fall apart in the face of Maher’s thinking? Now, this isn’t new stuff. Take the train one station further and we’re back to Voltairian criticism of religion. Is it sadistic to ask if maybe God loves us enough to leave evil in the world?

As Frenchie says in Talladega Nights, “God needs the devil.” Now, theologically I don’t believe this. God doesn’t “need” the devil. But love does exist fully in the light of un-love, or non-love, or hate. Could I appreciate the beneficent nature of God evident in Halter’s description of the Kingdom without the existence of the brokenness evident in said description? 

Now, the reality is that evil isn’t very far from us. It’s not some concept enveloped in the same grandeur as the Creator of the Universe. It’s the anti-God. So even though I wanted to quote Ricky Bobby’s nemesis, the truth is that evil needs God. It’s defined by the evidences of what is antithetical to that which is love, holy, righteous, and just (all the same thing, just needed to work in the concepts…). So, Mr. Maher, to answer your question…

If God destroyed evil, there would be very little of Creation left. It seems that God wants something to love, not destroy. At least, that’s how I see the Gospel.

The Unmeritorious Nature of “Merit Pay”

It’s been a long day. After a 3 hour plane ride from Long Beach (which ended with a 45 minute delay on the tarmac in Dallas), we find ourselves finally back home and reunited with our wonderful baby girl. But that’s not what’s causing me to write tonight.

While laying in my bed, reading about some of the ulterior motives in The Federalist Papers from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the US,” and arguing with @LarsRood via text about a critical point in the much ballyhooed SaddleBack Civil Forum featuring Rick Warren interviewing presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama. The important issue? Merit pay for teachers. 

Let’s be honest: the educational system is in the crapper. Chris Seay made some comments at an open forum last night about some of the pitfalls in American educational practice (and maybe even Western educational practice) that have led to those dopey interviews Jay Leno & friends do where some grown man on the streets of Los Angeles can’t decide if George Washington was a US president, a kind of labrador, or a famous astronaut.  

At it’s core level, it makes sense. Pay the teachers who are successful and it raises the bar for other teachers to follow in their footsteps. But here’s the issue (again, let’s be honest): this isn’t how America works. The educational system is broken from a philosophical level, and it doesn’t take a Harvard grad to know that you don’t fix overarching problems by offering goodies. Come on, let’s think this through. I have two basic arguments, though I could honestly type all day on this.
 
1. Why in the world would we return to Watsonian theory? This is against the commonly held American ethos (slightly postmodern?) that we don’t want to be told what to do. Skipping the history lesson on Watsonian psychological theory (predicated on Pavlovian experimentation)–I studied Educational Psychology in college. I was successful and well thought of among the professors in the department. But there was one issue that bound me together with my mentor and alienated me from the rest of the department and almost all of my cohorts: I was okay with implementing rewards/punishment systems to correct behavioral problems in children (School Psychology was my emphasis in undergrad). Why was this so disagreeable? Because over the past decade or two (and really for about 30-40 years) there has been a massive shift in the Psychology academy that much reflects the prevailing cultural shift. Americans don’t want to be manipulated. They don’t want to be “trained,” they want to do what they want and feel good about it. Merit pay, at almost every level of the discussion, betrays this. Merit pay turns the educational system on its head (but not in a good way) by making it primary a system of carrots and tokens. This doesn’t make learning any better. It improves almost nothing. Chris Seay mentioned that the problem with Western educational theory is that it places all the eggs in one basket–the “memorize and regurgitate propositional truths basket.” All merit pay will do is make this even more egregious. It does not fix the problem with the American educational system. 

2. Here’s the answer to question #1: We’d cross our “I do what I want” philosophy because it will satisfy the American idol of the “quick fix.” But rest assured, this too will wane.  Just like your passion for those new shoes you bought last week has become less than enthusiastic, so too will the teachers’ passions for “educating.” Instead, educating will be transformed into chasing the golden carrot. If you think some teachers have an edge to them now, wait until they’re not making enough money because their students aren’t “successful.”

I could be wrong. Unlike Sir Charles, I don’t doubt it. And I may flip-flop one day on this. But from where I’m standing now, even the most thorough and well thought through process of implementing Merit Pay would not correct these two problems…