Mare's Mess

I finished reading "What's So Amazing About Grace" by Philip Yancey this week. Not a great book, but it did impact me and I'd recommend it. A few thoughts from the book that I came away with.

"The world can do almost anything as well as or better than the church. . . You need not be a Christian to build houses, feed the hungry, or heal the sick. There is only one thing the world cannot do. It cannot offer grace."

Yancey recounts the story of a preacher who struck up a conversation with a prostitute who was homeless, sick, and unable to buy food for her 2 year old daughter. She had been doing wretched things with her daughter to bring in money for her drug habit. The preacher asked her if she had ever considered going to a church for help. She replied, "Church! Why would I want to go there? I already feel horrible about myself. They'd just make me feel worse." Admittedly, Christians aren't known for their grace. Yet it's the only thing we can provide that the world can't.

"Think of the impact if the first thing radical feminists thought of when the conversation turned to evangelical men was that they had the best reputation for keeping their marriage vows (ed. - yancey had just pointed out that the rate of divorce among evangelicals is about the same as the national average) and serving their wives in the costly fashion of Jesus at the cross. Think of the impact if the first thing the homosexual community thought of when someone mentioned evangelicals was that they were the people who lovingly ran the AIDS shelters and tenderly cared for them down to the last gasp. A little consistent wholesome modeling and costly servanthood are worth millions of true words harshly spoken."

Christians have become so politically motivated that I think winning in public policy has become more important than servanthood. Christ didn't say, "Legislate your neighbor to act as yourself." And he didn't say, "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and then let HIM feed the poor." We seem to want the government to do the work God has called US to do.

I'm not just pointing fingers here because I'm certainly not known for my service to those in need or loving my neighbor as myself or feeding the hungry. Most of us are awfully lame as Christians and really don't deserve to call ourselves such. Yet God still loves us and forgives us and is always willing to give us another chance. That's what's so amazing about grace.

Found this on Common Grounds Online and thought it was funny. (Here's part 2) My favorite:

If you see a Gold’s Gym t-shirt and then think that a “God’s Gym” t-shirt would be really cool…you might be an evangelical.

There were a couple I didn't get (what IS a DTR?) so I must not be an evangelical. I'm trying to think of my own additions to the list but I'm not that clever yet today. Anyone?

The first time I read “The Three Minute Abortion Debate” it was a little uncomfortable because at one time I was the insufferable liberal. And yes, I did sound that stupid when arguing about abortion with someone. You can’t really blame me. There is no logical conclusion to the pro abortion argument. That’s why “pro choicers” end up dancing around the subject by bringing up how “pro lifers” care more about unborn kids than born ones and how “pro lifers” are such hypocrites. These things may or may not be true, but they are simply diversions from the real issue -- why is it OK to kill a baby?

Let me offer some examples of the brilliantly illogical things you hear from pro abortionists:

“It’s just a clump of cells”

So are you, can I kill you?

“What about all the poor women who will die as a result of unsafe and unclean back alley abortions?”

What about all the poor boys and girls who die as a result of “safe and clean” abortions and end up in back alley trash cans every day? At least if a woman has an illegal back alley abortion, that’s her choice. The boys and girls have no choice in the matter. I thought you liked choice! Unfortunately, the choice to kill someone who’s existence we find annoying isn’t one of the freedoms we have in this country.

“It is possible that a fetus is unable to perceive pain at any time during pregnancy.”

Can I drug you until you’re unable to feel any pain and then kill you? Why not? It’s probably painless.

“Children who are unplanned are more likely to be abused, and children born unwanted face increased risks of poor health, poverty and neglect.”

I have one word for you – adoption! If you don’t want the kid – for goodness sake, give it to someone who is dying to have one. As Bruce Bethke said, there is no such thing as an unwanted child in America today. There are people waiting in line for years to adopt. And it’s amazing how many are willing to take drug addicted babies, babies with major health problems and babies of any race. Most adoptive parents are willing to pay all the medical expenses incurred by the birthmother and many will compensate for wages missed while carrying the child.

But, let’s say adoption wasn’t an option. Is death really a better fate than possible abuse, poor health, poverty and neglect? If so, let’s round up all the abused, sick, poor, and neglected kids today and put them out of their misery. We can give them drugs so it will be painless!

I’m sure I’ll think of more ridiculous abortion utterances, and maybe I’ll add them when I do. If I’ve insulted you, I’m truly sorry because I can totally relate to your groundless sense of righteous indignation. But maybe I’ve made a dent in the indoctrination you’ve suffered. It took people like me to finally pull my insufferable self out of the fog, and I’m glad to provide that same service for others.

God made you or he didn't.

If he did, your little human life is, and has been, touched by the divine. If this is true, it would be true of all humans, not only some. And so--again, if it is true--each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect.

Someone sent me a link to a commentary by Peggy Noonan which started with this quote. It was written in regards to Terri Schaivo. I couldn't help but be reminded that many of the people who are so adamant about saving her life and who would agree whole-heartedly with the above quote in this context also support the death penalty. Can someone please help me out here? I'm serious. Is each human life precious and of infinite value - or is that just true until we mere mortals decide it isn't?

I had posted this link on a friend's blog but realized that I hadn't ever posted it here. This is was originally a speech given at some Libertarian convention. The speakers/writers give their reasons why their Christian beliefs coincide more closely with libertarianism than liberalism or conservatism. I thought it was really interesting and thought-provoking, so check it out.

After all my online pro-life rants, I found myself posting this comment on Matt's blog:

If someone is hurting or taking my kids and my only way of stopping them is
to kill them, you can be sure I would – in a heartbeat. Not sure HOW I’d go

about doing that, but I would if I had to.

When I re-read what I'd written, I have to admit that I was taken aback. Had I just said I would kill someone? After proclaiming that killing someone is a sick act? I won't go into all the background behind this comment, but now I had some thinking to do. If you consider what Jesus taught; loving your enemies, praying for those who persecute you, and turning the other cheek; it's hard to reconcile even self-defense. I had never put much thought into the idea before and just assumed that defending yourself or others was justified. I know our court's and our culture justify self-defense, but does Christ? I don't know.


I did just a little online research to find what Christians had to say about this. I have to say, those who defended the idea of self-defense (or defense of others) had pretty weak arguments. They used mostly Old Testament passages - not that I think the OT is completely irrelevant, but it's annoying how people pick and choose OT scriptures which back up their ideas, but then choose to disregard 90% of the commandments in it. The New Testament passages were pretty vague. They pointed to one where Christ told the disciples to get themselves swords (don't know the complete context as I didn't have time to go back and read the entire passage) so he must have been condoning their right to self-defense. But there is some disagreement among Christians as to whether or not this was meant to be taken literally. One Christian writer even went so far as to say that it is immoral to stand by while someone is being raped or murdered and not defend them, but they gave no scriptural backing for this belief. I guess I think this is true too, we are called to help those in need. But does this extend to killing if need be? In one essay the writer even quoted Jesus in John 15:13 "The greatest love is shown when people lay down their lives for their friends." This was supposed to uphold the principle of using violence in defense of others. Yet it doesn't say "The greatest love is shown when you kill someone to save your friends." Just that you're willing to lay down your life. Jesus laid down his life and he didn't defend himself so this verse doesn't seem to make much sense in this argument. And then there was the whole, "If Christians lay down and let evil people win then the world will be run by evil people." There's definitely logic in that, but there was, once again, no scriptural backing for that mindset. And there are non-violent ways to resist our enemies without killing them.


The writers who expressed the opinion that it is wrong for Christians to kill under any circumstances gave much more compelling arguments. Not much more than the principles I stated earlier. How do you love your enemies by killing them? Jesus even instructed Peter to put back his sword when Peter was trying to defend Jesus. He went on to say that, "All who live by the sword will die by the sword." (Matt. 26:52) And it's hard to deny what Jesus is saying when he says,

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell
you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with
him two miles." (Mat.5:33-41).

And Paul says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil... not "an eye for an eye". . . On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." in Romans 12.


There were actually more scriptures against violence, but I'm not going to take the time to post them all. I think the ones I've given are pretty convincing. And I actually went into this search hoping to find some defense of self-defense. I was surprised that I wasn't able to find it. And I hadn't remembered Jesus actually refuting the eye for an eye philosophy, but now that I found it I'm certainly going to remember it as I hear capital punishment advocates throw that one around quite a bit.



So what does all this mean? I have to admit that my world is a bit shaken. I'm grateful to have men and women in the military who are willing to give their lives to protect me, but can I condone their killing of our enemies? I don't know. I'd still kill someone to protect my kids if I had to. God and I will just have to hash that one out later if need be. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe so.

Bet you didn't expect me to ever say that! But add Robertson's declaration from an April, 2000 NY times story as my third reason why Christians should not support the death penalty.

Declaring that the death penalty discriminates against members of
minorities and poor people who cannot afford competent lawyers, the

televangelist Pat Robertson recently called for a moratorium on
executions.

Jerry Falwell (boo hiss), on the other hand, was quoted that same month as saying, "While courts do make mistakes, I do not believe the mistake level is at the point where we need to rethink our whole system." I'd like to know why not. In 2000, Illinois Gov. George H. Ryan imposed a statewide moratorium on executions after 13 death row inmates there were found to have been wrongly convicted. I wonder how many it would take before Falwell thought it was time to rethink the system. I guess 13's not so bad. Not so good if you're one of the 13.



So in summary, Pat Robertson is way cooler than Jerry Falwell. I bet Jerry's never even prayed a hurricane away.

Came across this article by Bruce Bethke and thought it was a thing of beauty. I could make lots of comments about it, but I'll just let it speak for itself.

Too late. I've been corresponding with a dear friend in regards to my inflammatory post about Christians and the death penalty. This conversation has led me to want to clarify my position.


My main argument against the death penalty is that we are human. We have and will make mistakes when it comes to convicting people of crimes. Knowing this, if we continue to support the death penalty I think we are guilty of murder. If one innocent person is executed, we are murderers. The Bible talks a lot about the death penalty. The Bible talks about a lot of things that Christians today certainly don't embrace. Do you still think we should stone rebellious children? Should we put to death people who work on the Sabbath? If a man has sex with a woman and her mother, should all three be burned alive? I'm sure Christians would say absolutely not. Yet if we're going to have the death penalty because "the Bible says," then this is how the Bible says we should do it. Contact your legislator now and let's bring the country back to God. The point being, since we don't hold to these instructions from God anymore, why do we continue to hold on to capital punishment at all?


I have to give the most weight to Jesus's words when trying to find the answers in the scriptures. I think he made his opinion pretty clear when he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." People are going to have their own ideas about what Jesus meant by this (and I'd love to hear them), but in my humble opinion, he's saying, "You are mortal and sinners, just like this woman. You are in no position to be making life and death decisions like this until you are sinless and all-knowing, like me." God is capable of being a fair and righteous judge because he knows all the facts when making his judgements. We aren't even close.


My secondary argument against the death penalty is the whole "eye-for-an-eye" bologna. Should we then rape rapists for their punishment? No, because rape is a sick act and we would be sick people to rape rapists. Similarly, I think killing is a sick act and we are sick when we kill killers.


But besides those two things, I'm all for the death penalty.


Hmmmmm. What should I take on next? Why does the holiest Christian holiday have a pagan name? Why I gave up Lent for Lent? Why are there so many lame worship songs? No, I won't even go there!

We have more stuff to add to our collection. Maly has been bugging us to get her a video game system so she can play games on the TV. She has friends who have them and she always loves to play them. She still had some birthday money and so we helped her put that aside and then she could add to it each week when she got her allowance and when she had enough she could buy one. We started looking at Ebay and found some units for $35-45. Then Matt mentioned to his students that we might be in the market for a video system in the near future and one student offered to sell him his old Nintendo 64 for $10. It also came with Donkey Kong. Maly had that much so he got it for her. She is loving it. Matt and the kids had to make a run to the used game store and she also picked up a new game called Rampage 2 that she bought. Then some friends dropped by when they heard about the new system and brought her a Mario Karts. We're finding that the video time is definitely going to be limited, but we're also finding it to be a great motivator to get them to do things we want them to do - and not do things they shouldn't be doing.


The day after she got her Nintendo, Maly was sucking on a piece of a balloon that had popped. I told her not to suck on that. She asked me why and I told her she could choke. She asked me what would happen if she choked and I told her she could die.
Her response, "But I want to see Jesus!"

"You can see Jesus another day. I want you here for a while longer."

She says, "And I do have my new video games to play!"

I've had several ideas for things I wanted to blog about this week. Many of them would require more research than I'm able to put in to do them justice so I've scrapped the idea. But I've got to release my pent-up frustration so I'm giving some mini-rants here with little or nothing to back them up, but I'm still getting my shots in.


The following are things that make me crazy:


- Christians who support the death penalty. The gall to call yourselves pro-life, when you clearly are not, is hypocricy at it's worst. I can't stand ideology that makes Christians look like unthinking, cold-hearted and hateful people.


- Similarly, people who call themselves "pro-choice" when in most instances they don't want people to have the right to choose at all. They'd rather the government make many choices for you. As hypocrital as the "pro-life" title. Why is it "my body, my choice" when it comes to abortion, but the same doesn't hold true for wearing helmets and seat belts. How can you people possibly live with yourselves? Pick a principle and stick with it!


- People who are afraid of the government becoming Big Brother. They don't want the government invading our privacy, but then turn around and want this same government that they apparently distrust so much to be Big Daddy and to run (or heavily regulate) every major institution in our society. Let's keep the distrust alive! Keep Big Brother and Big Daddy at bay.


- People who complain that the Right is trying to push their moral agenda down our throats while trying to do the same with their agenda. I have a little more respect for conservatives on this issue because at least they'll admit they're trying to force their morals on us - where the Left would never in a million years admit that that's what they're doing.


Here's a quote from one of the most controversial and intelligent bloggers I know (and I know at least a half dozen of them), Vox Day:

It seems some people - most people - never learn. History teaches that the government you control today is the government that those you fear most will control tomorrow. Every muscle that you enjoy flexing today is one that will eventually be used to punch you in the face.

If we decide we want the government to carry out moral agendas, then we have no room to complain when the other party takes control and pursues their own.


- People who point to the Constitution when making their arguments, yet blatantly ignore half of it on any given day.


- This one goes along with my last gripe. I heard the KC Star TV reporter on a local radio show the other morning. He was complaining about the FCC's fight for decency on the airwaves and claimed it was really a 1st amendment/free speech issue. Then he turned around and said that if the FCC is really interested in doing something good for society it should do something about all the commercials we have to endure when listening to or watching what's on the air waves. At first I thought he was just making a joke, but then he went on to talk about how there used to be a law limiting the amount of commercial time a station could broadcast in an hour (16 min., I believe). He thought this was a good idea and should be reinstated. Wait a minute! Weren't you just singing the praises of free speech? When someone owns a station and they decide what they want to broadcast on that station, isn't that a free speech decision? Typical liberal response. Cloak yourself in the first amendment, unless it's speech that annoys you.


That's all I have time for today. But never fear. There's much more anger teeming under the surface of this sweet, innocent face that has yet to reveal itself. I'll unleash more wrath on another day, but now I have to go play with my children.

Maly is full of questions. She bombards me with them constantly. I try to answer her questions to the best of my ability, but when I'm not sure how to answer her I'll just tell her, "I don't know. We'll have to ask God that one when we see him." One day the kids asked me when they'll see God to ask him these questions and I had to tell them, "Probably when we die." So now, whenever Maly asks me a question and I answer, "We'll have to ask God about that," Will feels the need to throw in, "When we die." So even though it's very morbid, we've gathered quite a few questions to ask God. I started writing them down so we wouldn't forget them and here are some of the ones we've documented.


I sometimes start out trying to answer:
Maly - How old is God?

Mom - God isn't any age because he's been around forever.
Maly - How has he been around forever?

Mom (quickly realizing this is way out of her realm) – I don’t know. We’ll have to ask God that one when we see him.


It’s confusing for a kid when we say that God made everything and then they comment on how well he made our house. I’ve explained that God didn’t make our house but he made the people who made our house and he made the trees used to make our house. This is all very confusing, so I now just say, "Yep he did do a good job, didn’t he?" My favorite question along these lines is, "Why did God make pop so good?" Couldn’t answer that one so we’ll pose it to God - when we die.


Other assorted questions for the man on high:


Why do people start out little and get bigger?
Why did you make tornadoes?

If you’re bigger than the sky, why don’t you bump your head on it?


We’ll keep adding to the list and I’ll keep you updated on our questions to ask God. . . when we die.

This issue isn't necessarily timely, but it's been on my mind for months now and I haven't had an outlet to let my thoughts out - UNTIL NOW! (lightening, thunder, maniacal laughter)


Do we really need a constitutional amendment to keep marriage between a man and a woman? A constitutional amendment? First of all, the Social Studies teacher in me would like to point out that marriage falls under the domain of state government so it should be up to each state to decide. But since the federal government has decided over and over again for some time now to get involved where it shouldn't, I'll let that go and just explain why this amendment is a really bad idea in and of itself.


The idea for said amendment is backed by what's known as "the religious right" - it seems they want to protect the sanctity of marriage in this country. What no one seems to be saying is that marriage, as carried out by the government, is not a sacred institution. It's a state function - like getting your driver's license. Two pagans can get married and even have a pagan ceremony. Couples can run off to Vegas for a quicky wedding and get married, giving it as much thought as what they'll wear the next day. Clearly, not everyone who marries is forming a holy covenant with God. Christians know this and yet I bet the thought never occurred to anyone to create an amendment to protect it. . . until now. This is where we have to admit that Christians are a bit freaked out by homosexuals. We never gave a flying fig what two people got legally married until people of the same sex wanted to. No wonder Christians are so often viewed as bigoted and hateful. Now all of a sudden we've got to keep marriage holy? State marriage has never been holy.


The justification I've heard some Christians make for such legislation is that if homosexuals are allowed to legally marry then it will make that lifestyle appear acceptable. Do we really want Uncle Sam telling us what is moral behavior and what isn't? I think adultery is reprehensible. It is selfish, cruel, and it often destroys families. Will I teach this belief to my kids as they grow up? Yes. Do I need such behavior outlawed to back me up? No. Do we want laws against sex outside of marriage, or lying? I don't, but it's not because they are acceptable behaviors. It's just none of the government's business. The role of the government should be to protect people's rights, not to tell us how to live our lives. I'm not even sure how the government got into the marriage business, but I don't think it's a legitimate governmental function. I guess that's a post for another day.


My recommendation to Christians - be more concerned about the marriages being performed in our churches than the ones the government is performing. These marriages should be holy covenants. As far as state marriages, unless we really want to make every legally-marrying couple sign a contract stating that their union is a holy covenant between them and God then we really aren't trying to protect the sanctity of marriage. We're just being bigoted and hypocritical.


How's that for getting things started? Don't worry. Liberals will be frequent objects of my scorn in the future as well.