Lots of does out this afternoon-- there are seven in the field behind the church, some young, some older. The young ones are playful, dancing about the field and almost playing tag with each other.
No sign of the buck(s) that is inevitably with them; he is almost certainly playing it safe just inside the edge of the woods, since it has been a busy hunting season around here lately (I’ve regularly heard gunshots from the church grounds.)
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
New meaning to "Black Friday"
This just gets worse every year.
Hearing the announcements that some department stores would be opening as early as 4am this morning, Marcie and I shook our heads in awe. What about the poor employees? we thought-- wouldn’t that mean they would be forced to be there earlier, probably 3am? They ought to be paid extra wages for coming in that early, just to serve others’ greed.
Well, the wages of sin (including greed) is death-- and the Valley Stream, NY Wal-Mart can vouch for it. It seems a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death when the surge of crowds pressing in (having literally broken down the doors) flooded into the store.
No one stopped to help him. No one heeded the other employees who were trying to help him. Their eyes were blinded, hearts hardened, and minds clouded by the lust and greed that drove them in.
In fact, others were injured in the same incident, including an expecting mother. One of the policemen present said, “I’ve heard other people call this an accident, but it’s not. This certainly was foreseeable.”
If I bought the hype that the government holds the answers-- that so much was “at stake” in the election earlier this month that Christians truly had reason to fear-- then I might think, “they ought to pass a law banning this sort of thing.” And maybe they should anyway.
But the answer to this isn’t legislation; friends, the answer is repentance. We need to repent, as a culture and as a nation, for the sins of greed, lust, decadence, and envy. We need to repent of the idolatry of stuff that breeds the phenomenon of “Black Friday.” We need to repent of our desire to get something for nothing-- and for our support of a corporate culture that overcharges so much for goods that they can be discounted so steeply on sale days like this. We need to repent of being able to foresee how our greed and lust could lead to others’ injury, yet doing nothing about it.
And we need to pray for the family of Jdimypai Damour of Queens, NY, as they learn a new meaning to the label “Black Friday”-- that they would be drawn to Christ, that they would know true love and grace in Jesus, that they would forgive us for our sins that led to the apathetic killing of their loved one.
This is not a Wal-Mart problem; this is a society problem. As a part of that society, I am culpable and so are you. God, forgive us.
Hearing the announcements that some department stores would be opening as early as 4am this morning, Marcie and I shook our heads in awe. What about the poor employees? we thought-- wouldn’t that mean they would be forced to be there earlier, probably 3am? They ought to be paid extra wages for coming in that early, just to serve others’ greed.
Well, the wages of sin (including greed) is death-- and the Valley Stream, NY Wal-Mart can vouch for it. It seems a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death when the surge of crowds pressing in (having literally broken down the doors) flooded into the store.
No one stopped to help him. No one heeded the other employees who were trying to help him. Their eyes were blinded, hearts hardened, and minds clouded by the lust and greed that drove them in.
In fact, others were injured in the same incident, including an expecting mother. One of the policemen present said, “I’ve heard other people call this an accident, but it’s not. This certainly was foreseeable.”
If I bought the hype that the government holds the answers-- that so much was “at stake” in the election earlier this month that Christians truly had reason to fear-- then I might think, “they ought to pass a law banning this sort of thing.” And maybe they should anyway.
But the answer to this isn’t legislation; friends, the answer is repentance. We need to repent, as a culture and as a nation, for the sins of greed, lust, decadence, and envy. We need to repent of the idolatry of stuff that breeds the phenomenon of “Black Friday.” We need to repent of our desire to get something for nothing-- and for our support of a corporate culture that overcharges so much for goods that they can be discounted so steeply on sale days like this. We need to repent of being able to foresee how our greed and lust could lead to others’ injury, yet doing nothing about it.
And we need to pray for the family of Jdimypai Damour of Queens, NY, as they learn a new meaning to the label “Black Friday”-- that they would be drawn to Christ, that they would know true love and grace in Jesus, that they would forgive us for our sins that led to the apathetic killing of their loved one.
This is not a Wal-Mart problem; this is a society problem. As a part of that society, I am culpable and so are you. God, forgive us.
Sermon texts for December 2008
December 7 Romans 8:25 -- The gift of patience
December 14 1 Peter 1:3 -- The gift of hope
December 21 Hebrews 1:1-4 -- The gift of revelation
December 24 Isaiah 12:3ff -- The gift of joy (Christmas Eve Candlelight Service)
December 28 Luke 11:1-13 -- Learning to pray
December 14 1 Peter 1:3 -- The gift of hope
December 21 Hebrews 1:1-4 -- The gift of revelation
December 24 Isaiah 12:3ff -- The gift of joy (Christmas Eve Candlelight Service)
December 28 Luke 11:1-13 -- Learning to pray
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Thanksgiving wishes
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
I trust you and your families are resting, feasting, and enjoying the community and fellowship of family and friends. We are having a small but delightful family gathering here in Oakland-- my sister came down from St. Louis to join us for the weekend. We’ll have turkey, rice and gravy, green bean casserole, pineapple and cheese casserole, yeast rolls, and pie. This afternoon will be about rest, football, and feeding babies.
I apologize for the general slowness of posting here lately. I hope you will excuse me for putting pastoral ministry and family above blogging. I plant to resume more regular/frequent posting in the next week or so.
Meanwhile, here’s a recent shot of the twins-- they are growing fast.
I trust you and your families are resting, feasting, and enjoying the community and fellowship of family and friends. We are having a small but delightful family gathering here in Oakland-- my sister came down from St. Louis to join us for the weekend. We’ll have turkey, rice and gravy, green bean casserole, pineapple and cheese casserole, yeast rolls, and pie. This afternoon will be about rest, football, and feeding babies.
I apologize for the general slowness of posting here lately. I hope you will excuse me for putting pastoral ministry and family above blogging. I plant to resume more regular/frequent posting in the next week or so.
Meanwhile, here’s a recent shot of the twins-- they are growing fast.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Why churches are usually big or small
Scot McKnight is a college professor who writes a wonderful blog called Jesus Creed. Among several factors, one thing that makes Jesus Creed wonderful is that it is a true online community: there is a tight group of regular readers who read almost every post, comment frequently, and have actually gotten to know one another online. The tone of their discourse is civil and gracious, even when they disagree. Scot is a prolific writer, but he is also a master at moderating comments and regularly interacting with them.
In my view, Jesus Creed has become as close to an online “church” as it is (currently) possible to do so-- the readers are the congregation, and Scot is the Pastor, and he regularly feeds them from the Word and encourages them in the growth of their faith, while they learn and grow together in fellowship and discussion.
Scot recently had the opportunity to expand the reach of his blog, and after careful consideration, he took it. When he announced the changes that would take place (which included “moving” the blog to a large online community called BeliefNet), he got mixed reactions. Here is an example:
This comparison-- small vs. big, community-based vs. corporate, local vs. chain, etc.-- reflects a common posture toward the church today, and one that is the fruit of social, psychological, and anthropological constructions. While the Jesus Creed blog isn’t a church, it presents an interesting case-study that helps us understand why churches are usually big and growing larger, or small and staying so.
It turns out that we have built-in levels of capacity. Seven happens to be the highest number of memorable digits-- which is why the Bell company originally chose seven digits for telephone numbers: they wanted the highest number of digits possible that would still be something easily committed to memory. Psychologists have tested this and proven that, by and large, this is a built-in limit for most people. They call this “channel capacity.”
Our built-in limits to handling information affects us relationally, too. Anthropologist Robin Dunbar has developed extensive theories about what writer Malcolm Gladwell calls our “social channel capacities.” Here’s Gladwell describing Dunbar’s findings:
This inherent increase in complexity explains why growing groups appear to struggle, while static groups seem to be more consistently content: there is an intellectual and social challenge attached to growth that is correlated in an exponential way to the addition of members. For every single person added to the mix, that represents an additional challenge of much more than one more relationship-- and that addition increases with every new member.
Gladwell continues:
So we’re beginning to get the point: we tend to cluster into groups of 150 or smaller. Does this apply to churches too?
Yes it does. One more quote from Gladwell:
This explains why the readership on Scot McKnight’s blog are antsy about the changes that will draw more readers and, by implication, commenters (who will become members of this online community). They have felt the struggle of that exponential increase in social/intellectual challenge before. They realize that it will happen again-- to a community that they love. They are acting on instinct.
This is also what happens in any church-- especially an historically small congregation-- that experiences rapid growth. The original members push back instinctively. Pastors and leaders tend to dismiss this as a poor attitude toward growth, but what Gladwell wrote above suggests that it is more than that, and far more unconscious and innocent than that.
I’ll continue this posttomorrow next time, when I’ll bring in the idea of churches that are big, how they got that way, and why some grow big while others don’t.
In my view, Jesus Creed has become as close to an online “church” as it is (currently) possible to do so-- the readers are the congregation, and Scot is the Pastor, and he regularly feeds them from the Word and encourages them in the growth of their faith, while they learn and grow together in fellowship and discussion.
Scot recently had the opportunity to expand the reach of his blog, and after careful consideration, he took it. When he announced the changes that would take place (which included “moving” the blog to a large online community called BeliefNet), he got mixed reactions. Here is an example:
My concern about a lowered level of dialogue remains also. There is thoughtful, quality commentary in many of the actual articles on Beliefnet. But perusing the comments and looking at those ads mentioned above, Beliefnet feels more like the fast food station in Wal-Mart, while this blog has felt like a cozy community-owned cafe that has its own community-shaped culture. Maybe rather than the McDonalds in Wal-Mart, the Starbucks in Barnes and Noble is a more fair analogy to Beliefnet, I don't know. I'd still prefer the locally owned coffee shop with its own community based culture over the corporately created ambience of the B&N Starbucks. I hate the fact that this sounds snobbish. But the level of discourse here is one of the reasons I come, and if in order to find one thought provoking comment I have to wade through multiple posts that don't follow the basic rules of logic or show an awareness of how to make a point cogently while trying to ignore obnoxious advertisements, then I'll probably come less often.
This comparison-- small vs. big, community-based vs. corporate, local vs. chain, etc.-- reflects a common posture toward the church today, and one that is the fruit of social, psychological, and anthropological constructions. While the Jesus Creed blog isn’t a church, it presents an interesting case-study that helps us understand why churches are usually big and growing larger, or small and staying so.
It turns out that we have built-in levels of capacity. Seven happens to be the highest number of memorable digits-- which is why the Bell company originally chose seven digits for telephone numbers: they wanted the highest number of digits possible that would still be something easily committed to memory. Psychologists have tested this and proven that, by and large, this is a built-in limit for most people. They call this “channel capacity.”
Our built-in limits to handling information affects us relationally, too. Anthropologist Robin Dunbar has developed extensive theories about what writer Malcolm Gladwell calls our “social channel capacities.” Here’s Gladwell describing Dunbar’s findings:
If you belong to a group of five people, Dunbar points out, you have to keep track of ten separate relationship; your relationships with the four others in your circle and the six other two-way relationships between the others. That’s what it means to know everyone else in the circle. You have to understand the personal dynamics of the group, juggle different personalities, keep people happy, manage the demands on your own time and attention, and so on. If you belong to a group of twenty people, however, there are now 190 two-way relationships to keep track of: 19 involving yourself and 171 involving the rest of the group. That’s a fivefold increase in the size of the group, but a twentyfold increase in the amount of information processing needed to “know” the other members of the group. Even a relatively small increase in the size of a group, in other words, creates a significant additional social and intellectual burden. [Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2000), pp. 178-179.]
This inherent increase in complexity explains why growing groups appear to struggle, while static groups seem to be more consistently content: there is an intellectual and social challenge attached to growth that is correlated in an exponential way to the addition of members. For every single person added to the mix, that represents an additional challenge of much more than one more relationship-- and that addition increases with every new member.
Gladwell continues:
[Quoting Dunbar] “The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are and how they relate to us. Putting it another way, it’s the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar.”Dunbar has combed through anthropological literature and found that the number 150 pops up again and again. For example, he looks at 21 different hunter-gatherer societies for which we have solid historical evidence, from the Walbiri of Australia to the Tauade of New Guinea to the Ammassalik of Greenland to the Ona of Tierra del Fuego and found that the average number of people in their villages was 148.4. The same pattern holds true for military organization. “Over the years military planners have arrived at a rule of thumb which dictates that functional fighting units cannot be substantially larger than 200 men,” Dunbar writes. [Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2000), pp. 179-180.]
So we’re beginning to get the point: we tend to cluster into groups of 150 or smaller. Does this apply to churches too?
Yes it does. One more quote from Gladwell:
Then there is the example of the religious group known as the Hutterites, who for hundreds of years have lived in self-sufficient agricultural colonies in Europe and, since the early twentieth century, in North America. The Hutterites (who came out of the same tradition as the Amish and the Mennonites) have a strict policy that every time a colony approaches 150, they split it in two and start a new one. “Keeping things under 150 just seems to be the best and most efficient way to manage a group of people,” Bill Gross, one of the leaders of the Hutterite colony outside Spokane told me. “When things get larger than that, people become strangers to one another...” At 150, the Hutterites believe, something happens-- something indefinable but very real-- that somehow changes the nature of community overnight. “In smaller groups people are a lot closer. They’re knit together, which is very important if you want to be effective and successful at community life,” Gross said. “If you get too large, you don’t have enough work in common. You don’t have enough things in common, and then you start to become strangers and that close-knit fellowship starts to get lost.” Gross spoke from experience. He had been in Hutterite colonies that had come hear to that magic number and seen firsthand how things had changed. “What happens when you get that big is that the group starts, just on its own, to form a sort of clan.” He made a gesture with his hands, as if to demonstrate division. “You get two or three groups within the larger group. That is something you really try to prevent, and when it happens it is a good time to branch out.” [Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2000), pp. 180-181.]
This explains why the readership on Scot McKnight’s blog are antsy about the changes that will draw more readers and, by implication, commenters (who will become members of this online community). They have felt the struggle of that exponential increase in social/intellectual challenge before. They realize that it will happen again-- to a community that they love. They are acting on instinct.
This is also what happens in any church-- especially an historically small congregation-- that experiences rapid growth. The original members push back instinctively. Pastors and leaders tend to dismiss this as a poor attitude toward growth, but what Gladwell wrote above suggests that it is more than that, and far more unconscious and innocent than that.
I’ll continue this post
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Bits & Tidbits, 11/5/2008
- Fascinating stuff: looking at NFL football from all the angles, through new online-only services.
- Good words on what Christianity should look like. (HT: Christopher)
- Things like this make me think we get closer to the Prime Directive every day. I love the idea; but can businesses survive on the advancement of brand alone? Something tells me this would only glut the already bloating market for consultants.
- Interesting article: “Why not a 40-MPG SUV?” This offers a lot of apologetic for my piece on vehicle taxes.
- Great words from my friend Paul on Preparing for the Word-- Paul, you’ve made me want this book!
- Thanks to Ligon Duncan for this excellent advice on praying for our President-Elect.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
"Felling the idols"
Many people struggle with weight-- either being overweight (most of us) or, in some cases, being underweight. In some cases (on either end), the struggle is a truly dangerous one.
To combat the problems and struggles of being overweight, our culture offers us a number of “solutions.” (Sadly, our culture doesn’t offer any real help for the struggles of being underweight.) You can take pills that will suppress your appetite. You can have the fat literally sucked out of your body, and even have your digestive system permanently altered so that you are physically unable to eat “too much.” You can buy into a “subscription” diet program where every bit of your diet is prescribed for you. All of these will cause you to lose weight-- and there is nothing inherently wrong about any of them.
But none of them address the real problems of overeating. With some relatively rare exceptions, every chronic overeater does so for the same sets of reasons: as a coping mechanism, because of lack of self-control, out of greed, or even because of boredom. How does a person overcome these?
A friend of a friend asked exactly this question. He had been a collegiate wrestler, and this had completely messed up his metabolism. When he found himself significantly overweight not long after college, he determined to deal with it in a manner that is a consistent outgrowth of his Christianity. He called it “felling the idol.”
The real solution to the problem of overeating is to turn away from the idols in our hearts and find our hope in the Lord. What does that look like for an overeater? Maybe realizing that Christ alone will pacify the sadness and turbulence in her heart. Maybe owning that a biblical view of moderation will make us more satisfied in the long run, not less. Maybe in finding outlets for our boredom in a creative endeavor rather than only in food. Maybe relearning how to eat in moderation, enjoying the delights of food that God made (and that He made good). (As programs go, Weight Watchers does a good job helping with this.) Maybe starting an exercise program that improves your health and complements a healthy and moderate diet.
The bottom line here: Christians must learn to face the sin and fallenness that causes them to overeat and struggle against that-- not simply treat the fruits of that sin and fallenness with solutions that don’t get to the heart of it. What if eating in moderation was your natural inclination, the fruit of the Holy Spirit granting you self-control?
This can only happen if we think and live like disciples, not like food vessels that expand and contract mechanically.
So it goes...
The same is true for other perpetual struggles. For example, over the past 15 years there has been a substantial rise in use of pornography, even among Christians (and the struggle isn’t unique to men, either). One recent statistic suggests that as many as 50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women are addicted to pornography (comprehensive statistics here.) The rampant availability of pornography on the internet accounts for much of the increase in this problem, while our over-sexualized culture easily accounts for the rest.
So, what is a Christian to do about that? Well, the “stomach-stapling” solution is to simply activate the filters and blockers that are built into many computers, or perhaps subscribe to a similar (but more effective) service that offers the same. And there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But this is treating the symptoms, not the root problem.
A service like Covenant Eyes is a step or two in the right direction: beyond mere filtering, Covenant Eyes offers internet accountability, where a report of your internet activity is regularly e-mailed to one or more accountability partners, who (one would presume) have agreed to exercise true accountability if they see something amiss. As I said, this IS better-- it puts in place a system and structure that allows real growth and healing through accountability.
Even better (perhaps in addition to using something like Covenant Eyes) is to get deeper. God has created sex (and sexuality), and He made it good and pleasurable. He also designed it for certain contexts and relationships. A biblical treatment of the problem behind pornography (and addiction to it) is to face the sin of addiction, the struggle of lust, the indignity of objectifying others, and the neglect of God’s beautiful and perfect design. We must fell these idols in order to truly deal with a struggle with pornography.
Christians can do this-- it isn’t impossible to overcome addiction or a struggle with pornography. Resources like New Man magazine and Mark Driscoll’s e-book Porn-Again Christian are good places to start. The church can help, too, by making it safe to discuss this struggle (and other “taboo” topics) honestly and without fear of judgment or ill-treatment. What if desire and lust were checked quickly, and dignity and God-honoring treatment of others instinctively came to mind, as the fruit of Christ at work in you to restore a righteous view of people and relationships?
This can only happen if we learn to live like disciples instead of amoral, sexually perverse creatures.
Broadening the application...
So, if we deal with overeating only by treating the symptom through stapling our stomachs or denying ourselves food, we’ve missed the point. Likewise, if we deal with a struggle with pornography only by cutting off our connection to it, we haven’t truly dealt with the sinful lust in our hearts.
I would argue that we would do the same by making the outlaw of abortion our sole approach to dealing with the sin of abortion.
Make no mistake: I believe that abortion is a sin. I am appalled by the statistics related to legal abortions in the United States, and long to see it eradicated as a practice. I believe that, as a nation and a culture, we all have blood on our hands and ought to be regularly on our knees in repentance.
But if our agenda for dealing with the sin of abortion is simply to make it illegal, we’ve ignored the sin behind abortion. In short, we’ve become Pharisees-- who were utterly concerned with the appearance of righteousness, but inwardly were indifferent.
What about the sin of immorality that led to many of the pregnancies that were aborted? What of the sins of selfishness and lazyness that drove some to abort because a pregnancy-- let alone a baby-- would be too much of an inconvenience? What about the sin of those around an aborting mother, who allowed or even drove her to believe that abortion was her best option? What about the sin of a culture that leaves so many children languishing in foster care and orphanages because we won’t step up to adopt? What about the sin of a world that tolerates a highly-sexualized culture-- even participates in and encourages it-- that persuades children to take sexual relations so casually?
There is great sin involved in abortion. Be assured of this: if we do not attend to the litany of sins wrapped up in abortion, we will not reduce abortion substantially simply by making it illegal. Abortion wasn’t invented in 1973, and it wouldn’t be eliminated by the passing of legislation.
But if we fell the idols of abortion, we create an environment where abortion is reduced or even eliminated because it isn’t necessary. Women and men alike take sexuality seriously enough to not engage in it lightly, and they take responsibility for their actions if she does get pregnant by not aborting (and by giving the child up for adoption if they cannot properly care for him or her). The culture around them supports this out of an inherent value of all life, and few children who need adopting aren’t adopted, few mothers who need spiritual, social, and financial support lack it. No one who faces the struggle of being pregnant at a young age or out of wedlock becomes a pariah, because all acknowledge that their sins are just as severe-- and yet neither do they go without loving accountability.
What if abortion was essentially eliminated from our culture because there was no need for it?
It can happen if we learn to think and act like disciples, rather than political activist culture warriors.
To combat the problems and struggles of being overweight, our culture offers us a number of “solutions.” (Sadly, our culture doesn’t offer any real help for the struggles of being underweight.) You can take pills that will suppress your appetite. You can have the fat literally sucked out of your body, and even have your digestive system permanently altered so that you are physically unable to eat “too much.” You can buy into a “subscription” diet program where every bit of your diet is prescribed for you. All of these will cause you to lose weight-- and there is nothing inherently wrong about any of them.
But none of them address the real problems of overeating. With some relatively rare exceptions, every chronic overeater does so for the same sets of reasons: as a coping mechanism, because of lack of self-control, out of greed, or even because of boredom. How does a person overcome these?
A friend of a friend asked exactly this question. He had been a collegiate wrestler, and this had completely messed up his metabolism. When he found himself significantly overweight not long after college, he determined to deal with it in a manner that is a consistent outgrowth of his Christianity. He called it “felling the idol.”
Man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols. ~John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1, ch. 11, sec. 8
The real solution to the problem of overeating is to turn away from the idols in our hearts and find our hope in the Lord. What does that look like for an overeater? Maybe realizing that Christ alone will pacify the sadness and turbulence in her heart. Maybe owning that a biblical view of moderation will make us more satisfied in the long run, not less. Maybe in finding outlets for our boredom in a creative endeavor rather than only in food. Maybe relearning how to eat in moderation, enjoying the delights of food that God made (and that He made good). (As programs go, Weight Watchers does a good job helping with this.) Maybe starting an exercise program that improves your health and complements a healthy and moderate diet.
The bottom line here: Christians must learn to face the sin and fallenness that causes them to overeat and struggle against that-- not simply treat the fruits of that sin and fallenness with solutions that don’t get to the heart of it. What if eating in moderation was your natural inclination, the fruit of the Holy Spirit granting you self-control?
This can only happen if we think and live like disciples, not like food vessels that expand and contract mechanically.
So it goes...
The same is true for other perpetual struggles. For example, over the past 15 years there has been a substantial rise in use of pornography, even among Christians (and the struggle isn’t unique to men, either). One recent statistic suggests that as many as 50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women are addicted to pornography (comprehensive statistics here.) The rampant availability of pornography on the internet accounts for much of the increase in this problem, while our over-sexualized culture easily accounts for the rest.
So, what is a Christian to do about that? Well, the “stomach-stapling” solution is to simply activate the filters and blockers that are built into many computers, or perhaps subscribe to a similar (but more effective) service that offers the same. And there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But this is treating the symptoms, not the root problem.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ~Matthew 5:27-28
A service like Covenant Eyes is a step or two in the right direction: beyond mere filtering, Covenant Eyes offers internet accountability, where a report of your internet activity is regularly e-mailed to one or more accountability partners, who (one would presume) have agreed to exercise true accountability if they see something amiss. As I said, this IS better-- it puts in place a system and structure that allows real growth and healing through accountability.
Even better (perhaps in addition to using something like Covenant Eyes) is to get deeper. God has created sex (and sexuality), and He made it good and pleasurable. He also designed it for certain contexts and relationships. A biblical treatment of the problem behind pornography (and addiction to it) is to face the sin of addiction, the struggle of lust, the indignity of objectifying others, and the neglect of God’s beautiful and perfect design. We must fell these idols in order to truly deal with a struggle with pornography.
Christians can do this-- it isn’t impossible to overcome addiction or a struggle with pornography. Resources like New Man magazine and Mark Driscoll’s e-book Porn-Again Christian are good places to start. The church can help, too, by making it safe to discuss this struggle (and other “taboo” topics) honestly and without fear of judgment or ill-treatment. What if desire and lust were checked quickly, and dignity and God-honoring treatment of others instinctively came to mind, as the fruit of Christ at work in you to restore a righteous view of people and relationships?
This can only happen if we learn to live like disciples instead of amoral, sexually perverse creatures.
Broadening the application...
So, if we deal with overeating only by treating the symptom through stapling our stomachs or denying ourselves food, we’ve missed the point. Likewise, if we deal with a struggle with pornography only by cutting off our connection to it, we haven’t truly dealt with the sinful lust in our hearts.
I would argue that we would do the same by making the outlaw of abortion our sole approach to dealing with the sin of abortion.
Make no mistake: I believe that abortion is a sin. I am appalled by the statistics related to legal abortions in the United States, and long to see it eradicated as a practice. I believe that, as a nation and a culture, we all have blood on our hands and ought to be regularly on our knees in repentance.
But if our agenda for dealing with the sin of abortion is simply to make it illegal, we’ve ignored the sin behind abortion. In short, we’ve become Pharisees-- who were utterly concerned with the appearance of righteousness, but inwardly were indifferent.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. ~Matthew 23:23
What about the sin of immorality that led to many of the pregnancies that were aborted? What of the sins of selfishness and lazyness that drove some to abort because a pregnancy-- let alone a baby-- would be too much of an inconvenience? What about the sin of those around an aborting mother, who allowed or even drove her to believe that abortion was her best option? What about the sin of a culture that leaves so many children languishing in foster care and orphanages because we won’t step up to adopt? What about the sin of a world that tolerates a highly-sexualized culture-- even participates in and encourages it-- that persuades children to take sexual relations so casually?
There is great sin involved in abortion. Be assured of this: if we do not attend to the litany of sins wrapped up in abortion, we will not reduce abortion substantially simply by making it illegal. Abortion wasn’t invented in 1973, and it wouldn’t be eliminated by the passing of legislation.
But if we fell the idols of abortion, we create an environment where abortion is reduced or even eliminated because it isn’t necessary. Women and men alike take sexuality seriously enough to not engage in it lightly, and they take responsibility for their actions if she does get pregnant by not aborting (and by giving the child up for adoption if they cannot properly care for him or her). The culture around them supports this out of an inherent value of all life, and few children who need adopting aren’t adopted, few mothers who need spiritual, social, and financial support lack it. No one who faces the struggle of being pregnant at a young age or out of wedlock becomes a pariah, because all acknowledge that their sins are just as severe-- and yet neither do they go without loving accountability.
What if abortion was essentially eliminated from our culture because there was no need for it?
It can happen if we learn to think and act like disciples, rather than political activist culture warriors.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A strategy for taxing vehicles
More and more U.S. citizens are owning up to the fact that fuel-inefficient vehicles are a bad idea. Some have long maintained that they are poor stewardship, and as gas prices have climbed (and even as they have settled back down, a little) many others have joined that position.
Thus, I offer the following modest proposal to solve several problems at once:
So, for example, a farmer, general contractor, or other laborer who uses a pickup truck for his daily work would qualify for exemption and would pay no tax. A family with more than two children that owns a minivan would qualify for exemption and would pay no tax. A working musician whose performances require him/her to carry gear in a full-sized van would qualify for exemption and would pay no tax. And if any of these can demonstrate that multiple such vehicles all fit the exemption qualifications (a farmer with more than one working truck on his farm, for example), all would be exempt. Commercial vehicles would automatically be exempt.
Furthermore, any individual or family who preferred a larger vehicle such as an SUV or a pickup truck would be free to own one, or as many as they would like-- they would simply have to pay a tax for it. Those who want them for recreational purposes would likewise be free to have as many as they want, provided they pay the taxes. (The exception of cars and trucks registered as antiques is not a threat to the integrity of the concept, since such registration includes a mandated limit on mileage driven per year.)
The tax would need to be a high enough rate-- $200 or $250 annually, perhaps-- that would deter folks from casually or thoughtlessly buying a gas-guzzler. Every year, the MPG rate should increase by a mile or two, to “encourage” the auto makers to improve on the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.
The proceeds from this tax should be split three ways:
It might not be a perfect system, but I think it would be a good move.
*The average Miles per Gallon (MPG) of passenger cars in 2006 was 22.4, while “other 4-wheeled vehicles” averaged 18.0 that year. Since that was two years ago and the average, it is safe to assume that most cars and even trucks would qualify for this exemption initially.
Thus, I offer the following modest proposal to solve several problems at once:
An annual federal property tax should be assessed on vehicles that fit criteria deeming them fuel-inefficient.
Here’s how it would work:
- All vehicles would immediately be subject to the tax. (Any vehicle may qualify for exemption based on a set of criteria-- see below.)
- Any vehicle with a fuel efficiency rating of 20 MPG or higher* would automatically be exempt. This rating would increase on a regular basis (more on this in a bit).
- Any vehicle that is registered as an antique would automatically be exempt.
- Any driver may also qualify for exemption of one or more vehicles, as long as he/she can demonstrate that circumstance require them to drive that vehicle (more on this in a bit).
- Any driver may also qualify for exemption of one or more vehicles, as long as he/she can demonstrate that the vehicle was used for carpooling to work for a certain percentage of the mileage driven.
So, for example, a farmer, general contractor, or other laborer who uses a pickup truck for his daily work would qualify for exemption and would pay no tax. A family with more than two children that owns a minivan would qualify for exemption and would pay no tax. A working musician whose performances require him/her to carry gear in a full-sized van would qualify for exemption and would pay no tax. And if any of these can demonstrate that multiple such vehicles all fit the exemption qualifications (a farmer with more than one working truck on his farm, for example), all would be exempt. Commercial vehicles would automatically be exempt.
Furthermore, any individual or family who preferred a larger vehicle such as an SUV or a pickup truck would be free to own one, or as many as they would like-- they would simply have to pay a tax for it. Those who want them for recreational purposes would likewise be free to have as many as they want, provided they pay the taxes. (The exception of cars and trucks registered as antiques is not a threat to the integrity of the concept, since such registration includes a mandated limit on mileage driven per year.)
The tax would need to be a high enough rate-- $200 or $250 annually, perhaps-- that would deter folks from casually or thoughtlessly buying a gas-guzzler. Every year, the MPG rate should increase by a mile or two, to “encourage” the auto makers to improve on the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.
The proceeds from this tax should be split three ways:
- Up to ⅓ would fund an annual tax credit for drivers of high-MPG vehicles such as scooters, hybrids, and electric cars (50 MPG or more). The remaining amount would be divided evenly between the other two efforts:
- ½ would subsidize gas costs to keep prices affordable, so that the economy isn’t affected so drastically as it was over the past year.
- ½ would support government-funded research into alternative fuels and renewable energy sources.
It might not be a perfect system, but I think it would be a good move.
*The average Miles per Gallon (MPG) of passenger cars in 2006 was 22.4, while “other 4-wheeled vehicles” averaged 18.0 that year. Since that was two years ago and the average, it is safe to assume that most cars and even trucks would qualify for this exemption initially.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Bits & Tidbits, election-day style
- Sound words on how to think about what happens tomorrow from Dave Burchett (author of When Bad Christians Happen to Good People). If you read only one of these, read this one.
- Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed has an open response to a letter about “can a Christian support Obama?”
- Here’s a helpful list of suggestions for standing in line while waiting to vote, from Mac|Life magazine, of all places.
- This video has been making the rounds-- good words by John Piper:
- And here is a critical response from Justin Taylor, Publisher of Crossway Books.
- If you’re looking for a write-in candidate, Internet Monk has invited suggestions (and gotten a good number of responses).
Understanding the undecided vote
I’ve heard or read a number of people who are simply mystified by the relatively large “undecided” category of voters in this election. Beyond mystified, actually-- many of them scoff at the idea of being undecided at this point.
My guess is that the race won’t be quite as close as the “undecided” numbers suggest-- in other words, we’re not in for another 2000 marathon, I’m betting. (And for what it’s worth, a full 20% of voters were undecided as late as September 2000.)
Most of the scoffers are either single-issue voters, straight-ticket devotees, or those who love to believe the spin, rumors, and lies. Anytime I hear, “he [or she] scares me” I realize I’m dealing with a scoffer-- and probably one who has put political movement (above all else, including God’s sovereignty) forth as the hope for our future security and happiness.
The real surprise (though most of the scoffers don’t think of it in this way) is how many voters are undecided because they are finding their normal categories for decision-making challenged or even turned upside-down. But considering these gives answer to the question, “why still undecided?” Here’s a glimpse of what I mean:
Given these points, I don’t have difficulty understanding the undecided voter’s ambivalence. What about you-- do you have any thoughts about it?
My guess is that the race won’t be quite as close as the “undecided” numbers suggest-- in other words, we’re not in for another 2000 marathon, I’m betting. (And for what it’s worth, a full 20% of voters were undecided as late as September 2000.)
Most of the scoffers are either single-issue voters, straight-ticket devotees, or those who love to believe the spin, rumors, and lies. Anytime I hear, “he [or she] scares me” I realize I’m dealing with a scoffer-- and probably one who has put political movement (above all else, including God’s sovereignty) forth as the hope for our future security and happiness.
The real surprise (though most of the scoffers don’t think of it in this way) is how many voters are undecided because they are finding their normal categories for decision-making challenged or even turned upside-down. But considering these gives answer to the question, “why still undecided?” Here’s a glimpse of what I mean:
- Categories of faith: this could be seen as a “neither,” “both,” or “really? him?” category. Senator Obama is a professing believer, and has spoken openly about his Christian faith. Senator McCain is, at best, tight-lipped about whatever faith he professes (some will say that his choice of Governor Palin was a direct appeal to the faith-based vote). Even if you doubt the sincerity of Senator Obama’s profession-- or worse, believe the misinformation about him being an alleged closet-Muslim-- that, at best, makes him and Senator McCain even on what is typically a category where the Republican candidate has strength. (As an aside: I think President George W. Bush has done a lot to erode this as a Republican stronghold. While I don’t doubt his faith, he has been inconsistent, at best, in applying his faith to the decisions he has made.)
- Categories of role: I think almost everyone has assumed that the first woman elected to be president or vice-president would be a political liberal-- thus, most Christians were comfortable that they could oppose the politics behind the leader, and not have to speak to the gender or role issues. Governor Palin turned that on its head, stepping forth as a professing evangelical Christian AND a Feminist (she’s a member of Feminists for Life) and breaking all of the stereotypes. Now Christians are forced to decide: do they really oppose Feminism? Do they inherently oppose a woman in leadership? Can they be consistent in voting for a ticket that could put a woman in the Oval Office, while still maintaining that she mustn’t hold an ecclesiastical office? There are no easy answers here, but I think most Christians who hold a complementarian view about women’s roles recognize that they have a difficult decision in supporting the McCain/Palin ticket.
- Categories of ability: There’s no doubt that Senator McCain has more experience and preparation to serve as president, by far: distinguished military service, multiple decades in national politics, and broad and deep familiarity with foreign policy (and the people involved) add up to an impressive resumé, and Senator Obama cannot hope to compete at this level. However, Senator McCain faces an obstacle of inability that his experience has no sway over: perception, both domestically and internationally. Given that the perception of Senator McCain is that he would essentially represent a continuation of current policies-- which have been increasingly unpopular-- he is facing something of a lame-duck posture, whether he is actually that close to President Bush’s policies or not. On the other hand, Senator Obama is seen worldwide (and, for the most part, within the U.S.) as a break from status quo and a pursuit of true change. Couple that with Senator Obama’s support with congress, which will probably increase in number of Democrats, and whatever ability Senator McCain has is balanced out.
- Categories of issue: Yes, some of the single-issue topics polarize the candidates. On abortion, for example, there is little doubt that Senator Obama supports legislation that protects abortion rights, while Senator McCain is a strong opponent of abortion (and its legalization). On other issues, however, what should be important to Christians is not necessarily a shared priority with Senator McCain. Education and poverty, for example, don’t really rank as significant issues with Senator McCain, but Senator Obama has highlighted both as areas of priority. Even on the abortion issue, Senator McCain’s lack of substance on poverty undercuts the viability of any progress there, since a decrease in abortion will certainly amount to an increase in social need. Isolating the issues doesn’t help the voter understand which candidate is a better one. The media hasn’t helped, with some painting Obama as a socialist (he’s not), while others declare McCain as a warmonger (he’s not).
- Categories of tradition: Some voters are beginning to question the assumption that the “right candidate” will automatically equal the advancement of their political agenda. After 20 years of Pro-Life presidents in the White House, the legality and restriction of abortion is roughly the same as it was 30 years ago. With health care taking a prominent place in the election process for the past 20 years, the reforms that have been advanced by subsequent presidents have not made much headway in improving care or making it more affordable. Many of the undecided voters seem to be favorable to looking past these sorts of issues (what have been “traditional” deciding points for elections) and at other factors.
- No “good” candidates: More than anything I’ve heard this season, the comment I’ve gotten the most is, “I’ll have to pick the lesser of two evils.” This seems utterly unsatisfactory when it comes to how we pick our next president. My sense from the undecideds I’ve talked to is that their consciences are heavy about this attitude, and they have been holding out for further input that might shape the idea of “good” or “bad” perceptions of the candidates-- or inwardly debating a write-in.
Given these points, I don’t have difficulty understanding the undecided voter’s ambivalence. What about you-- do you have any thoughts about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)