September, 2009

general / politics — 1 Comment
26
Sep 09

distance

There is perhaps nothing more polarizing than the one dimensional political system that exists in this country.  Every issue on which there is disagreement is disagreed upon to the ultimate degree.  In my last post, I talked about the fact that the quintessential conservative and liberal positions are by definition as far away from each other as possible.  I think the same can be said about positions on any topic on which there is disagreement.  Each issue gets divvied up – one view to the right, the other to the left.  As we seek to typify our particular stance, we move along the single dimension.

To the left or to the right.

In fact, every time we make any decision that is at all political, we can only move along this dimension.  We either move towards a conservative view and away from the liberal stance or vice versa – some say we’re marching “towards” socialism.

I would also argue that this tendency has begun to drift into our daily interactions.  We have the false notion that life is experienced as an endless progression of dichotomies; things are either black or white.

This is never ever the case.  It is not practical.  It is not reality.

Rob Bell in his video “Everything is Spiritual” talks about the problems in seeing things in one dimension.  I would highly recommend it and have a copy if any one wishes to borrow it.  But fundamentally he is saying that when we approach issues from a single dimension we lose a lot of the breadth and depth surrounding what are realistically complex issues.  It is not possible to view the much debated health-care reform as black and white, or left and right.  There are so many dimensions and perspectives and positions yet we insist, collectively and subconsciously that we need a left and a right solution.

And as we automatically assume the approach of our “party affiliation” we distance ourselves as far as possible as our “non-enemies-who-are-perceived-as-enemies.”  And we wonder why they can’t or won’t see things from our single perspective.

(This would be a killer description if I go create some 3D animation here….)

May we always try to find more perspectives in more dimensions as we attempt to understand the issues that we have to deal.  May we be OK with moving towards those who oppose us – realizing that we are not enemies and have mutual interests.  And, may we also understand that moving towards and promoting the extremes are beneficial to no one.

general — 1 Comment
25
Sep 09

quintessential

If you believe in the capitalist system then you have to erase from your whole worldview ‘What does somebody need?’ … it’s not about need. — Rush Limbaugh, Jay Leno Show, Sept 25, 2009.

This quote reiterates a thought that I’ve alluded to here before – I’ve written about idealism but this thought from Rush really helped me put some things in perspective.

Let me start by saying this: I am not a Rush fan in any sense of the word. I’ve tried listening to his radio show not because I lean so heavily right (I definitely do not) but because, in an effort to fully understand the context of different issues that are important to me I know it’s important to entertain opposing viewpoints from all along the scale. Under normal circumstances I can’t stay tuned in very long because Rush often resorts to cynicism, name-calling, and fun-making among other forms of hyperbole.

However, while still Rush, he was somewhat disarmed or out of his element while on The Jay Leno Show. During a discussion about capitalism during which Jay had said that he believes in the capitalist system and that success is not indicated entirely by profit, Rush responded with the quote above.

What was clear to me then, was that Rush’s position is that quintessential capitalism and conservatism ought to be the goals for this nation: a system that, arguably, includes aspects such as the smallest possible government, complete un-regulation of the market. Further, it it seems to be that any deviation from that pursuit is counter productive. There are two points here. I’ll deal with one now and once in a separate post.

  1. Quintessential anything is at best counterproductive, and at worst impossible (now)
  2. Our system of opposing ideologies results in the highest possible degree of polarization (later)

Let’s get back to Rush…

He is pursuing quintessential capitalism. Such a system is marked in his words by opportunity and rewards and complete freedom. In this system the winners win and losers lose. The rich become richer and to poor become poorer. This pursuit of the quintessential, though, removes opportunity from the market. The poor no longer have the opportunities available to them – there is no leveled playing field – instead the poor are attempting to run up an ever-increasing slope. It is as though the richest are aboard the sinking Titanic, clinging to the stern as the ship begins it’s vertical nose dive beneath the waves. The poor, left on deck have nothing to hold on to as angle increases and fall into the freezing water.

The opportunity that is preached gets swallowed up by the system that intended to provide it.

Similarly, of course, quintessential “liberalism” would suggest that everybody be rewarded for the efforts of some subset of the population, among other things. This too is inappropriate as it acts as a disincentive to pursue anything. Why should I bust my hump if it will get equally doled out to the masses?

My point is simply this: that the march towards either of the end-points of this scale is not ideal.

But it seems as though we as a people feel that that’s exactly what we should be doing: marching as far away from those with whom we disagree. More about this polarizing effect in a coming post. We seem to think that in order to best make our point, we have to be as aligned with one or the other.

The practical effect of this is easy to see – even when it makes sense to regulate the insurance agency we can’t come to an agreement because the quintessential right to which are aspiring says “Absolutely not – free market rules!!!” while the quintessential left says “ONLY if it’s public and not an option.” To those in the middle, looking to the left and the right for support see only others’ backs as they march away from the middle ground to their ideological forts of isolation and contempt.

And this is ideal?

general / life — Comments Off
20
Sep 09

passive

During lunch today, I spoke about how my experiences in life have given me “permission” to be passive.  I’ve written about this before (read my entry from a couple of years ago), however it’s always interesting to revisit these thoughts to see how things may have changed, how I may have changed.

Since first having these insights, I’ve realized that this tension exists in so many parts of our lives and I’ve been trying to actively live my life by learning about myself, making decisions that reflect the person that I am, the values that have been developing in me, etc.

This has been most evident recently in my interactions with others.  Whereas before my self-analysis has revolved around decisions directly related to my own person (jobs, marriage, etc) I’m now beginning to see how I’m continuing in my passive ways at it relates to building relationships.

It has far more often than not been the case for me that because I’ve looked “the part” relationships have “just happened.”  In many cases, these relationships were often shallow but were convenient.  This is not to say that these relationships were of lesser value, just built on a passive foundation and were not long-lasting.  As time, distance, or difference began to separate these relationships, they were not actively preserved because they were not actively pursued in the beginning.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), it is very much the case that many of my experiences now require the opposite to be true.  In other words, to begin relationships, I have to begin to make decisions about which type of relationships (and perhaps people) I want to pursue.  Who are the people and what are the characteristics that I want to introduce to or reinforce in my life?  Even further, I need to “make the first move” in building these relationships – I need to strike up conversation.

This is a foreign concept for me.  I enjoy being around people, but as with the employment opportunities and other issues referenced in my 2007 post, my relationships have almost exclusively been built passively – out of convenience, or proximity.  Again, this is not to say that I do not value these relationships.  Rather, this highlights the fear and ignorance with which I am approaching new relationships.

Perhaps there is a lack of confidence, a fear of rejection.  I can’t rule them out.

Most likely though, I simply don’t know how to make friends.

But I’m learning.  I know it’s a problem and I know what to do to rectify the problem.

Now, it’s a matter of finding the motivation.

general / life — 2 Comments
19
Sep 09

value

It may be self-evident that all men are created equal.  Unfortunately, this belief leaves a lot to ambiguity. There are a few posts on this blog that have been written to try to encourage people to think about human-ness, human rights, and humanity in general.  I believe, as the late Senator Kennedy did that the health care issue, and many others, are primarily a question of morality.  There are, however, a lot of social, economical, and moral overtones sounding just about the tonic of “equality.”

As with my ignorance towards the many interpretations of the “We” in “We the people…” I have always assumed that if all men are created equal then that means that all men ARE equal – and that’s clearly a misinterpretation or a miscommunication.  It may be that the founding fathers meant the latter and did a poor job of writing it.  Or, it may be that I’ve done a poor job of comprehending it.

A third option, of course, is that we’re thinking about this far too hard…

But, the questions remain:

  • Are all men and women created equal?
  • Do all men and women retain the same intrinsic value throughout their life?

There are so many perspectives from which to view this.  However, I continue to contend that human’s have an innate moral tracking that gives some basis for morality, for some definition (however loose) of right and wrong, of good and better and best, and that we have some hunger and thirst for social interaction and, perhaps, even society.

That’s the perspective I’ll use.

First, let’s look at this matter of equality: on what grounds are humans equal?

Saying that all men are created equal is essentially an expanding of John Locke’s Tabula Rasa (blank slate) theory.  Not only are all people equal in that there is a blank (or at least equally written on) mental slate that experience will write on, but we can expand this to include physical, social, and all of the -als that humans experience.

But our first problem is already self-evident.  All people are not equally able.  Some newborns have issues that may be major or minor; that could cause life-long inequality or could be just a temporary stumbling block.  So then is equality instantly fleeting?

And another.  One of the adjacent beliefs with Tabula Rasa is that nurture plays a major role.  Given differences in parenting styles, circumstances, experiences, and happenstances, there are no two people that have equal opportunity and preparation for life.

Perhaps there is another way to approach this question: does equality speak instead to a person’s worth or value?  Is each child assigned arbitrarily and unconsciously some monetary value that can accrue interest or lose value as they grow, experience life, make choices, etc?

The key here is to note that this value is completely subjective.  To illustrate – if you could “pay” to be saved from a burning building, would you pay more for a skydiver, an IT professional, or a fire-fighter? How would that change if you fell out of a plane?

I believe this is how our free-market society operates – this, too, is self-evident.  Whether it’s insurance companies that look for which risky or money-losing plans to drop for their portfolio or advertising companies targeting some demographic (superbowl commercials anyone?)  As long as you’re worth something to someone.

What is painfully obvious here is the greed and selfishness that bubbles at the surface of all of these discussions – from health care reform to missile defense shields to entitlement to talk radio.  Because of the way with which profit and value are intertwined with our lives, it is so easy to mask human life with an identification number and relegate that number to the “worthless” pile.

You know, we have built into our social fabric means for dealing with individuals that harm other individuals by  damaging them emotionally, or by taking their things or their life; by devaluing other’s lives. But on a corporate level we assess values with the intestinal fortitude of an insurance adjuster.

When there is profit to be had, beware of falling prices.

What does that say about the character of a country?

general / life — Comments Off
15
Sep 09

ego

In one moment of unplanned (but most likely planned) impulse, Nimrod West has validated a point that I have been wanting to emphasize.  His idiocy is my exclamation point.  For those, who aren’t aware, while Taylor Swift was accepting her award at MTV’s video music awards, a grade A douche bag jumped up on stage and so eloquently said :

Yo Taylor. I’m really happy for you. I’m gonna let you finish but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time!

With this in its proper perspective, I’m not going to shed any tears for Taylor or be embarrassed for Beyoncé.  These people are entertainers and while it was awkward, it certainly is not the end of any of their worlds.

A few days ago in a post entitled overboard, we discussed the idea that unbridled individualism is as bad as free-reigning “socialism” or collectivism.  In fact, the basic idea was that extreme anything is not good.  As with so much in our daily experience we set up these opposing camps of ideology and we scurry to find cover with those like us.  The result is a dichotomy – two distinct points rather than a scale joining one extreme to the other.

It is trivial to find examples of the rampant individualistic tendencies that we exhibit.  Whether we look to Bernie Madoff and his ponzi scheming or the number of tables for two that are half empty in any coffee shop or restaurant, we have been told that we can excel with what we have each been given.

Certainly it is politically correct to say that all man and woman kind are created equal.  That has been reiterated for years – in schools, and churches, and government.  This may be up for debate, but what is certainly not up for debate is that from before the time we are born we begin to be valued quite differently.  We are classed by demographics: by age group, and household income, and risk, and ability, and gender, and socioeconomic status, and race.  Advertising money gets spent on groups that will allow the greatest returns.  Insurance companies assess our value based on risk – and determine which patient groups (i.e. portfolios) are worth saving and which are worth dropping.  Our current economic condition will see some folks (with good credit) being treated like kings, and others like riff-raft.

If we’re not careful we begin to internalize these evaluations.  I’m subtly aware of the fact that I’m worth less to advertisers now than I once was and as my age and waistline creep upward my “worth” goes down.  We begin to figure out ways to increase our value – by dieting and spending and living as if consequences didn’t exist.

And we begin to make these evaluations of others.  Many things are framed primarily by “What’s it worth to me?”  or “What can you do for me?”  Others worth becomes blazingly apparent – by their looks and their choice of vehicle and their neighborhoods.

Finally, as preschoolers often are asked to line themselves up by height from shortest to tallest, we find our place in the line of worthless to emperor of the world.  We can look to one side to see the worth that we have to aspire to and to the other side to see those who are much less valuable than ourselves.  As preschoolers we often have disputes about who exactly is taller and who is standing on their tippie-toes.

And who’s voice is the loudest.

And who’s opinion most ought to be heard.

And heeded.

And that is where Kanye enters our story.  While I don’t want to pigeon-hole him as just another self-aggrandizing “jackass” (The president’s words, not mine!), it is easy to see this as a sign of the larger issues that are often ignored because we often just don’t care.  Kanye decided that what he had to say, his thoughts and opinions, were more important than anything else going on at that moment.  More important than a seventeen year old entertainer getting recognition for her work was Kanye’s gospel that someone else deserved to win.

And when we cut people off in traffic because our schedule is more important than anyone else’s, or we lose our composure when dealing with customer service representatives on the phone, or we yell our opinions to drown out the all others, or we sit safely in our ideological base camps we put us above all others.

Some would say that is what you have to do to get ahead in this world.

It may be that we need to do something different to move this world ahead.

faith / general / life — 2 Comments
9
Sep 09

worry for nothing

Recently I’ve been reading “The Furious Longing of God” by Brennan Manning.  In it, he says this:

…I’ve decided that if I had my life to live over again, I would not only climb more mountains, swim more rivers, and watch more sunsets; I wouldn’t only jettison my hot water bottle, raincoat, umbrella, parachute, and raft; I would not only go barefoot earlier in the spring and stay out later in the fall; but I would devote not one more minute to monitoring my spiritual growth.  No, not one.

A funny thing happens when you come to know the freedom that being in touch with Jesus offers: you can potentially be overrun with guilt.  There is a checklist that may seem to descend from the sky (though, I now realize this checklist comes from somewhere very different) that outlines each of the many things that you have to do if you are to truly experience and relate to God.  You have to pray, and read your Bible, and confess your transgressions, and do a good deed everyday, and study, and sing, and reflect.

Herein lies one of the problems with Christianity as it is expressed in 2009.  There is so much to do that we miss the great intention behind it all:

Cease striving and know that I am God.
Psalm 46:10 (NASB)

Yes: a life being lived modeled after the way that Jesus lived his will involve self-improvement.  It is a good thing to read scripture in order to understand the way that people thought and processed things in and out of connection with God; to take the good, and the bad, and the confusing and incorporate these things into our own lives.  It is good to spend time in prayer.  Relationships are the means by which real change takes place and a relationship with God is no different.  Doing good is good.  Confession is good.

But when the redeemer becomes taskmaster, when guilt overpowers freedom, a core component of the whole system is jeopardized.  God’s intention has never been “Keep ‘em occupied so they don’t have time to bother me.”  Instead, God’s intention is that as much as is humanly possible we live in a type of union with Him.  Not performing for him.  Not doing his bidding and returning to the bell-tower a la Quasimodo.  Just being confident in His love, in the security of His relationship with you.

Manning finishes up this thought-process with this:

What would I actually do if I had to do it all over again?  Heeding John’s counsel, I would simply do the next thing in love.

As a person of faith, I struggled for a long time with wanting to look the part which involved doing all the things that were expected.  I know I’m not alone in this.  I saw certain things as bad and (*gasp*) unholy.

We can “do” ourselves in.  Don’t misread what I’m saying – I know that “belief” and “action” are as integral to each other as breathing is to life.  But preoccupation with the irrelevant minutiae of our spiritual lives is counterproductive to living like Jesus lived.

So, may you live with the confidence that Jesus is in the processing of reinvigorating your soul with life; that during this process, there are people that He wants you to meet and interact with, things that He wants you to do that bring just a little bit of heaven to earth; that he never intended for you to become preoccupied with the endless pursuit of self-improvement; and that He wants you to stop your striving, and know He is God.

life — 3 Comments
8
Sep 09

overboard

a friend of mine recently said this:

I think that when constitution says “We the people” it does not mean some collective, but rather a group of individuals. There are costs and benefits to this idea of individuality in governance by the people. One of the costs is that we have to either handle issues on our own OR create our own groups to deal with the issue.

I have to admit that I had never thought the words “we the people” to mean a group of individuals.  “We” to me has always meant many people together in some set of circumstances: we partied all night; we took a wrong turn at Albuquerque; do you remember where we parked?

We are all in this together.

So this newfound interpretation of “we” took me back a few steps.  I’d never assumed it to mean “We were all waiting at the DMV” – together in essence, but only in the sense that we were all in the same physical location.

What took me back is that this is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of “we.”  While my humans-making-humanity-better idealism says that we cannot exist in a vacuum, perhaps in reality we can.

As I thought some more about this individualism a few more pieces started falling into place for me.

Firstly, this individualism that is so highly favored and accepted based on the “we the individuals” is on the other end of a scale from a something that resembles what we’ve popularized as “socialism” – “we the collective.” Socialism itself is actually an economical system – not a political system as seems to be the general understanding.  Instead, the other end of our scale will be collectivism.  In any event, individualism in the broadest sense favors individual rights above the rights of community – my rights are more important to me than yours.  In check, it promotes self-reliance and independance.  Approaching extremes, individualism promotes a “selfishness” mentality, a protect-the-empire-of-self-at-all-costs mentality.

Secondly, this individualism is evident when contrasted against other people groups.  A perfect illustration centers around the H1N1 pandemic.  It has been reported on NBC as well as other networks about how some Asian travelers wear masks when they are sick in order to prevent passing the virus on to others.  In contrast, western travelers wear masks to prevent themselves from becoming infected.  The very stance of how individualists live their lives is quite different from that of collectivists.

Finally, as with much of life, we can’t live approaching either of these extremes.  Approaching “extreme” individualism we cannot “create our own groups to deal with the [issues]” because true individualists would say “That’s not my problem!”  Now as a one-time Psychology graduate, I know that Self-actualization is an important part of life – finding your individual identity is crucial to a mentally-healthy existence.  At the same time, I believe strongly that at the very core of humanity is a need for interconnection.  It is the reason that thousands of years ago humans organized themselves into tribes: not completely out of selfish ambition (though I’m sure that more hunters meant larger kills and bigger returns on investment) but rather to benefit the community (risking your life chasing down an elephant was more dangerous that blowing a dart at a two-toed sloth).

Ultimately, as I’ve said before, we are not enemies here.  It would serve us well – as individuals and as a people at large – to learn just a little from those around us.  While “We are all Individuals!” and “We can think for ourselves!” (Yes, that was a Monty Python reference) we mutually benefit when we are a people and not a group of persons.

health care / politics — 1 Comment
6
Sep 09

what we’ve learned so far

The debate about health care in my experience thus far has had lots of teachable moments a kin to the President’s Beer Summit. I’ve learned a lot:

  • It’s easy to let opinions get drowned out by name calling and insults,
  • Some argue that there is much more at stake than just health care (an unfortunately major part of this debate is over socialism and America’s move towards it if this bill is passed and whether the founding fathers intended it to be this way or how they would have handled it),
  • When you’re prepared with research and facts it makes you a better arguer,
  • Many people aren’t prepared with research and/or facts,
  • Most of all, polls show that America does think that something is wrong with the healthcare system and that the vast majority of us feel that affordable health care for everyone is a good thing – we differ just on the method by which that should come about.

So what do we do with this knowledge.

  • Cut out the name calling – my wife had a saying for a long time: “Sarcasm kills communication.”  It’s true.  We can add that name calling, insults and badly placed fusions of entertainment and enlightenment to the exact same thing.  Approach the debate with a clear head.  To be frank, I have had to remind myself that people on the right aren’t bad – sorry, just being honest.
  • Realize that some people do think there is more at stake than health care. Do I think that America is becoming a socialist nation?  Not on your life.  Why?  America is the “wealthiest” nation in the world for a reason.  No one is brain dead enough to really mess with that formula.  Is the move to a public option a move towards socialism? I don’t believe so for a minute, but I can see how it could be spun that way.  It’s much like calling saying humans are moving towards becoming martians because we’ve been to space a time or two.  The expanse that the nation would have to travel to get from where we are to what socialism actually is is simply too great.
  • Be prepared.  Read.  Consume the information and deal with what it actually says….. don’t let you enlightenment be fuzed with entertainment.  Too much at stake  (the bill: PDF – it’s really not that bad, Socialism, capitalism, FACTCHECK.org)
  • You know what….we’re not enemies here.  Please remember that.  Even though I think this health care bill could do more good for this country than bad, and even though you may think the opposite way, we are still not enemies.  We are as much not enemies as this country is not becoming socialist.  Enemies are the people that wish you harm.  We want the same things – we just need to agree quickly on how to make that happen.

So, that’s what I’ve learned so far.  I know I have a lot more learning to do.

faith / general / health care — Comments Off
3
Sep 09

human’s rights

Yesterday, I laid out what I thought it meant to be human. At the core of life, if you ask me, are relationships (we should value and be engaged in relationships) and a desire for self-/corporate-actualization and improvement. There are lots of aspects of being human beings but arguably these are the most uniquely human.

In order to tackle the question of whether or not we should be pursuing universal health care, we need to figure out if humans deserve health care.

What are human rights?

What are humans entitled to because they are human?  There are many different perspectives everything from we have no more rights than animals on the planet to we have complete and total reign over every resource around us.  As with everything, there has to be some reasonable middle ground.

On personal levels, we sometimes hear that human rights are those things that only God gives you and only God can take away.  So let’s think about what a few of these could be.

  • life
  • ???

I’m up to one.

Some of us believe “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  I don’t have an objection to this other than to say I don’t know where we can find proof of this.  I believe that if you add ” . . . within certain boundaries” after each of those things, then that’s probably a little closer.

Modern day nations have tried to put some definitions to this concept too.  Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the US has a Bill of Rights, and even the UN has the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I’m sure many other nations have similar documents.  Each have a slightly different perspective – it’s interesting to compare and contrast the Canadian and UN charters with the US Bill of Rights, by the way.  None of them have consensus on what the rights of a human are – and the priorities are noticably different.

I’m going to assume that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as it was drafted by several different nations, is most representative of the generally accepted list of human rights.

After article 1 which says that are humans are equal and should act towards each other with a spirit of brotherhood, it says this:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Here’s a paraphrase of what they list as human rights….

  • life, liberty and security of person
  • no slavery or torture
  • equal as persons before the law
  • no arbitrary arrest/confinement
  • impartiality in determining rights and before tribunals
  • presumed innocence
  • no arbitrary interference with privacy
  • freedom of movement into and out of their country
  • right to asylum in other countries and a right to nationality
  • marriage
  • right to own property individually and in association with others
  • freedom of though, consciousness, and religion; expression and opinion
  • peaceful assembly
  • participation in government
  • social security (here’s the full text of article 22: Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.)
  • right to work
  • right to leisure
  • standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family (again, full text: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.)
  • right to education
  • right to participate in cultural community
  • social/international order

The declaration finishes by saying that we all have duties and responsibilities to the communities in which they live and that these rights are inalienable.

Now, I don’t necessarily agree that all of these are rights necessarily – I think privileges at some point come into effect.  I don’t know that we have the “right” to leisure necessarily – it may be more of a privilege of being able to work and earn resources.  But I think this is an excellent jumping off point for the rest of our discussion.

I will say this: while I don’t necessarily believe that “free health care” is a human right, I do believe that  affordable access to sufficient health care is.  I also believe a couple of things about how this affordable health care should be provided, though granted not with any particular solution.  I believe that we have a responsibility to contribute to the improvement of our communities by giving out of our immense, incredible, unprecedented wealth so that others who are otherwise unable can be taken care of.

To this point, I’ve not spoken much of faith – though, as “everything is spiritual” I don’t think it’s hard to see the parallels.  Helping others live healthy productive lives makes the world a better place – which is what Jesus’ peeps are supposed to be doing.  I think there is a good case that the Bible teaches a lot about the responsibilities of of individuals and nations alike to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Now, I know where this leads…. what about those who choose to not provide for themselves.  I don’t want to ignore that, but I don’t want to deal with it right now.  Next time: more about nations ensuring that human rights are taken care of. Decided against this…I’m not a theologian and there’s so much about nations in the Bible that I don’t understand…probably wouldn’t be responsible.


faith / rerun — Comments Off
2
Sep 09

heaven v. hell

rerun: This was first posted on my old blog on March 23, 2008.

It’s been a while since I’ve waxed philosophically here. Mostly I haven’t been thinking philosophically much – not sure why.

Let’s just say that I’m emerging from a long, dry spell.

I’ve been thinking about heaven and hell.

It’s something that I’ve written about before and something that I’ve definitely continued to think about. I guess it all started with the Brian McLaren and his writings – Generous Orthodoxy and the “A New Kind of Christian” series in particular. Then there’s Rob Bell too.

At Watershed lately, they’ve been talking about the questions that some of the peeps there have had. It was part of the “Quandary” series. So it’s been back in my mind.

We’ve got this dichotomous view of heaven and hell. Black and White. Or, we’d like to think it’s black and white. We also have this view that heaven and hell is a “something to come later” concern. All this combines and results in a group of people that try to convince people that they’re wrong and need to “turn or burn.”

Here’s what I’ve been thinking.

First: Heaven and Hell are present realities. They happen in various amounts and through various means every day. There are some big things we can cite – Darfur does far too much to increase the amount of hell that we encounter. At the same time there are countless moments of heaven on various scales that make the kingdom of heaven a little more of a reality. Jesus talked about the Kingdom of heaven being at hand – being present. Our job is to make that a reality.

Secondly: Rather than being a dichotomy, heaven and hell represent endpoints on a scale. I don’t want to get to scientific with this – all I mean is that if we think about the kingdom of heaven (that is a reality where things are as God intends them to be) as being one endpoint and the kingdom of hell (that is a reality where thigns are exactly the opposite of what God intends them to be) then the things that happen here place us somewhere on the scale between heaven and hell.

Thirdly: We can AFFECT where we are on that scale. The decisions that we make and the actions that we take culminate in such a way that can move mankind towards one of those endpoints (either heaven or hell). We can choose to bring heaven to earth or to bring hell to earth. In practical terms, when we choose to be kind to our neighbors that are far too loud late into the night (not that I have any experience with that) we bring heaven to earth. When we choose to sit and talk with a homeless man rather than just pass them by or maybe just blindly throwing them a couple of bucks, we bring heaven to earth. In the same way, we can choose to bring hell to earth by choosing to do things that are less than what we know we should be doing.

All that to say I wish we could stop thinking about hell as a place that “sinners are condemned to” and start thinking about how heaven “is a place where people act as though every one is a child of God; where His love for them is greater than our condemnation of them.”

It’s dangerous to think this way – or at least threatening. People think that you’re universalist and that you’re throwing out what it says in the scripture. In reality, I feel like it’s holding more closely to it. There’s no judgment – that’s not my role. I’m doing to others as I would like them to do for me. I’m loving my neighbor regardless of who they are. I still think there’s a “right” way to live. It’s not heretical.

Anyway – just thoughts.

← Older Entries