Oh Tonsured One

Coptic Christians Protest in Front of Jim Cooper's Office in Nashville on Tues

2010-01-19T14:03:00.006-06:00

A group of Coptic Christians, and their supporters protested for several hours in front of Tennessee Congressman (D) Jim Cooper's Nashville office (as well as the site of a coffee shop and the main Nashville Public Library) late morning/early afternoon on Tues. 01-19-2010. They were protesting a lack of U. S. response to the murder of Christians in Egypt and the lack of equal treatment of Muslims and Christians in there. They chanted for for "justice," "No More Christian Blood," and other chants, all while carrying signs, religious symbols, and cardboard coffins to represent those killed (who were pictured on the "coffinns". Although this observer did not here Cooper's name mentioned (granted, it was difficult to understand all the chants,) at least one reoccurring chant was a call for action from President Obama.

Posted by The Tonsured One

The 95% Dillusion

2010-01-01T23:42:00.008-06:00

I have recently heard several "sermons" (in some cases literally sermons, in others lectures or authoritative papers, the type I give or write myself) to the effect that there are various phrases and clichés that need to be eliminated from our vocabulary. One is "thinking outside the box" and another is a form of either "we can't because we've never done it before" or "no one does it that way." Interestingly, one phrase suggests thinking and doing things differently from others, and the others suggest conformity. The lecturers consistently (something I find ironic in light of the fact that their arguments themselves seem to be inconsistent) state that when people use the phrases, they are generally being hypocritical in the one case (e.g. by thinking outside the box they mean thinking as they themselves think, regardless of how others think, not thinking in new unique ways,) or close minded regarding new approaches (as in we should do things the way we all have done it in the past.) In each case, it was not truly the phrases that the lecturers railed against but the concepts behind them.

From a logical point of view, I find this difficult to swallow. It makes as little sense to say we need to avoid both promoting thinking differently than the majority (even if we limit the scope of that difference to conformity to our own beliefs,) and always conforming to the majority, as it does to suggest we always adhere to both concepts. I do not know for sure the reasons for the arguments the homilists use, but they make little sense, at least when proposed by the same individuals in single sermons. The arguments seemed to boil down to the beliefs that we should avoid saying no to new experiences because of fear of the new, and that those who go against the stream often are just trying to do things differently for their own reasons. I suspect that there was supposed to be a middle ground argument, that it was alright to go against the stream for the right reasons, but in none of the cases I refer to was this argument ever made. Just "stop claiming to think outside the box" and "stop saying think inside the box."

The real irony for me is that the speakers/writers have all used the arguments that the criticized in their lectures as examples of undesirable attitudes in arguments (or, rather, to avoid arguments) with me. My work in cloud computing, social media, collaborative communication, history and archives has been dismissed as something that was "a fad, too much influenced by the popular culture, just going along with the crowd," on the one hand, and as something that should be dismissed out of hand because 95% of other churches/organizations/business do not do things that way on the other. In short, my ideas do not bear considering because they are both too mush the product of the way everyone else is thinking and because no one else does it that way. Back to the old quote: "Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore; it's too crowded!".

Oh, for my Christian preacher friends who tell me we do not need to institute some of these programs because 95% of the other churches they know about do not do them:

a) I have seen and experienced pretty convincing evidence that you are not up to date on such things. In more than one of my jobs and professional organization activities, I have discovered that there is a growing demand among local churches for this type of work. Those of us who work above the local church level as advisers to others have a hard time keeping up with the demand for our consulting services. The fact that such activities as records management and archives have been brought into the general world of litigation practices have increased the need for local churches to follow specific practices in history, archives, and use of the Internet. The number of churches to successfully implement these things is still fairly small, but these issues have been and are being addressed at all levels of several confessions and denominations, our own included. The statement that "95% do not do things that way" is demonstrably incorrect.

b) Should the (95% number have been correct, it is also likely that close to 95% of the churches of which I know do not have committed ministries to win disciples for Christ in their own immediate communities. Even should that number be lower, do you suggest that we use the same criterion for determining if we want to establish a more committed evangelism effort in the church? "Well, we could try to reach out to the un-churched, even those who have not heard the Gospel, in our neighborhood, but 95% (or 85%, 75%) of churches don't really do that in a committed way, so there is no reason for us to!"

Well, at least that would be consistent.

The Tonsured One

Christmas eve worship in Madison, (Nashville) TN

2009-12-21T22:32:00.000-06:00

Christmas eve worship in Madison, (Nashville) TN
Try City Road Chapel.

How Will They Know Him?

2009-12-14T21:49:00.005-06:00

When I was growing up, I went to church. Most folks I knew did, at least in my youngest days. As I got older I met people who went to synagogue, worshiped in some other sort of way as part of another religion, were believers but not church-goers, were non-believers, or even non-believers but still church-goers. During this time, however, even those who did not believe had some inkling of the Gospel, or at the very least the story of the Nativity of Christ. It was on television, in the music, in the paper, in the town square, even in the schools. One was not required to believe, but it was difficult not to at least know. At least in the United States.

In this day and age, in the name of being "open-minded" and inoffensive, we do not openly discuss Christianity. It is not just enough to not believe, we must try also not to know. We don't talk of Christ's birth or the celebration of what was originally a Christian holy day. [Oh, I am aware that there were festivals and celebrations at the time when we celebrate His birth long before the Christians came. I am aware that there is evidence, of varying quantities and validity, that many of the symbols and rituals we dearly love and participate in as Christians may have had pagan origins. The fact of the matter is that the celebration of the holiday (from "Holy Day") of Christ's Mass endured into modern times as a Christian celebration.] It was not and is not, exclusive and may be celebrated in a secular fashion, and as is true of Easter or various saint's days; (although St. Patrick's has become almost entirely secular for those not of the Roman church, I find it refreshing that I have heard a handful of Protestant groups discussing religious aspects of the good man's life in March instead of drinking green beer.) No, what was always around to be learned, whether believed or not, has been pretty much exorcised from the general society unless one is already part of a believing family.

So. Where does that leave us as Christians? I have been pointing out for several years in my church that there are people who not only do not believe, but do not know the story of Jesus and God's love. A visitor to our Sunday School class (but a member of the congregation) also told of experiences she had with children who did not know the story. The class was generally astounded that children didn't even know, but why should they have been? Where would they have learned of it?

If a child does not grow up in a Christian family, where will he or she hear about the Gospel? At school? Not likely. On television? Hmmm, could be, but Sponge Bob doesn't seem to wear his Christianity like an outer garment. From their peers? Since their peers have more or less access to the same information sources, the answer to that one should be obvious. Video games? Not many. I know! They'll just come inside our church doors and ask us! Not.

We have a new generation coming into the world. Some of it is here already. Our teens understand computers in ways we adults do not. They don't remember LPs. They have cell phones glued to their ears and text like we use to talk on the phone. But these are not the ones that I speak of. They were not born into this world of instant-communication-with-anyone-anywhere. They were immersed in it at a young age, but it is the youngest children, and those about to be born, will not even remember the CD. To them, communication through electronic media, the "Net" or whatever replaces it, will be second nature. Distance and time will either mean little or at least have radically different meanings than they do to us. The amount of physical presence necessary to establish and maintain relationships will change, at both great cost and great gain.

This world is encroaching on ours even now, through those who are still young enough to accept and use it. It is much like learning a second language. Someone who is exposed to one at a very early age may learn to think in it and thus speak it as a native speaker. Those who learn it later in life must think in their native tongue and then translate, while older folk just don't understand. But those who learn it, and only it, think in and communicate in it first and foremost. This is their native communication. Electronic media, or its successor, will be the native "tongue" of the youngest generation and is at least one of the preferred "tongues" of many of those who are younger than I but still not as young as the youngest.

So I am back to my original question. How will they know Him? How will future generations hear of my Lord if not through TV, school, general society, music, etc.? Is there some place, some way, that we can let them know our story, see our faith and lack of faith, ask us questions, debate us, come to know us and be known by us, all in a language and medium they understand and are comfortable in? Or should I just wait for them to come through the church doors to ask me to explain a story that, incidentally, they have never heard?
I need to think hard on this one, I guess. Not.

The Tonsured One

Bethlehem Spoke

2009-11-30T19:20:00.004-06:00

This is an interesting concept:

"We’ve seen him do good guys and bad guys, folks we can relate to and those to whom we cannot relate, but I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that this is the first time Ray has portrayed a centuries-old town. At least around here."

I have heard sermons that sounded as if they came from centuries-old buildings, but having done a bit of speaking myself, I shouldn't throw stones. (Is there a pun in there?)

I have often heard folks say things such as, "If those walls could speak, what stories they could tell." Makes you wonder what stories could be told by the walls of various tombs in the Bible, including those of Lazarus and Christ.

The Tonsured One

Dog-Like Intensity

2009-11-23T19:50:00.003-06:00

Guest blogger "Fluffy's Mom" asks me to add a short post for her.

Her husband often comments on the intensity of the stare that he receives from their dog when they eat, the dog hoping for a morsel to fall within her reach. If he looks back, her intensity increases, to the point where her excitement almost overcomes her. She shakes, wags her tail, moves her feet up and down, but never takes her eyes off the man or the food.

"Fluffy's Mom" wonders what our lives would be like if we kept our eyes as focused on Christ as the dog does on her husband's food. The husband, in turn, wonders what our lives would be like if a mear glimps of Christ looking back caused us to increase our intensity of gaze and to fill with excitement to such a point that we were almost unable to stand it.

Since we know that Christ is always looking back, my guess is that the ball is in our court.

Several of us, tonsured and otherwise.

Social Media and the Church Number 1 (I think)

2009-10-30T06:47:00.005-05:00

There was an interesting post on the Methodist communication blog (here) the other day by the General Secretary of UM Communications, Larry Hollon. It was in Q&A format, though since he is listed as author I assume it was not really an interview. (If I am wrong, please correct me and I will update.)

I note that Rev. Hollon endorses taking new steps to “re-engage with the younger generation.” He notes, quite correctly, that there is much competition in the communication world for the attention of young folk. He says that, in the short term anyway, we should engage in social media to reach these folk. I couldn’t agree more. I am not sure, however, that we mean the same thing when he and I say “short term.”

I agree that personal, physical interaction is the best way to bring folks to Christ, but I suspect that the nature of on-line social networking will change to such a degree that it won’t be an issue of whether we use that as a stop-gap way to reach young folk until we get them in the door of the church. I think we will find that there will be a more advanced version of social networking that will replace the current one. This one may offer more interaction than previous versions and perhaps both do a better job of meeting needs and prove a bigger challenge to those who would pry its users from it and into the doors of a physical church. This may need to be a longer term solution than Rev. Hollon beleives.

I also suspect that as people become more used to social media, it will seem more common place, and many folks will crave the human touch that we, as yet, cannot experience by any means than being in actual presence with one another. Yet, social networking does offer ways to interact with folk that may not be reached at all. It is not true that the good is the enemy of the best. The enemy of the best would either be the worst or “nothing.” When discussing alternative ways of dealing with people, we often act as if the choice is between the best (such as people attending Sunday school, joining small groups and participating in corporate worship) and the good (such as people meeting online, discussing their faith in chat rooms and worshiping alone in their house or through interactive Internet.) I believe, from discussing things with quite a few friends from a group to which I belong and who primarily interact with church through the Internet, that the real choice is often between the best and nothing. These men and women will not set foot through a church doorway, (and having heard their stories I tend to understand why,) and it will be the Internet or nothing. Before they were online it was nothing.

I have had several discussions with pastors who I suspect would not agree with UM Com’s views, as they believe that “in-the-door” is the only way. I cannot tell if Rev Hollon is just being cautious or if he believes that the only use of social networking is a tool to reach kids and then let more traditional means take over. What he does not comment on is the fact that trends (see Pew research) are also moving in a direction of increased use of these networks by older age groups and by businesses. These media, or the ones that replace them, will likely be as prevalent as the telephone, television and e-mail are today. While, as I said, it may be that when such things become more common place folks will crave the closeness of human beings, they may use the Net to arrange those connections.

I also expect that many will see the on-line relationships as very real. I don’t see myself in that category, at least not to the extent others might, but neither do I agree with those that think God is too small to work through the Internet. The soldier on the other side of the world, the agoraphobic or bed-ridden person who relates through the Internet, the person living in a snowbound town or a country where they have no worship place; I tend to believe that the Holy Spirit will intervene and bring them closer together. And if for them, why not for others?

The Tonsured One

God at the Grocery

2009-10-10T18:24:00.008-05:00

[Guest Blogger, She-Who-is-Smarter-Than-She-Looks (she bears other titles) takes a stab at her first blog post on The Tonsured One's site.]

I had an experience the other day that has set me thinking. You know, one of those little throw-away moments that then worms into your subconscious and works there, until you are forced to pull it to the surface again and acknowledge it, examine it, turn it this way and that, see what it really is.

I was at Publix (my favorite grocery store, where the employees actually know and practice the meaning of the words Customer Service) and I was in the checkout line. Another lady was already being checked out in front of me. There seemed to be some hold-up in the process (that happens every single time I go to any store-as soon as I get in the line it comes to a screeching halt.) Anyway, I began to glance idly through a magazine, not really paying attention to the other people. I sort of caught that the lady checking out was trying to write a check for a sum greater than the amount of her order, but that since it was a pretty large amount, the cashier wasn't sure how to proceed. A manager was called, and she showed the cashier how to enter what info was needed and the whole transaction then flowed along. Now, here was the interesting part: I heard the cashier, a lovely middle-aged woman, say “Thank you for coming through my line today, and being patient with me. Every time someone comes through, I learn something new, and I gain experience. So thank you.” The other woman left with her groceries and the cashier turned to me and thanked me also for being patient with her. She checked me out,was certainly pleasant the whole time, and I left. When I came home, I told my husband the story, and he suggested that I blog about it. I didn't really think it was worthy of writing about, but now that it has worked on me, I may see some other meaning I didn't see on the surface before. I thought about the cashier and what a novel and refreshing approach to life and her job she showed. The lady was in her middle years but obviously still was eager to learn and experience new things, and she realized she had to work a bit to really learn them.

What if I applied that same approach to my life? What if I started every day with a prayer for God to teach me something new, instead of my usual prayer of please let me get through the day without a catastrophe. Because I am afraid of pain and confrontation, a lot of my prayer time with God is spent in supplication for “an easy time.” I've been blessed with a good life, good opportunities, a good education, and most of all, people who love me. What courage would it take to pray every day “Please send me a new, difficult challenge today so I can learn from it.”? Our faith journey must be just that, a journey, and not every journey goes as planned.

James 1: 2-4 says “My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing.” I want to learn the lessons without doing the hard work to learn them. I have heard many times to be careful what I pray for, because God may actually give it to me. Maybe first I need to pray to God for courage, the courage I need to really ask to be truly close to Him and His will. I know He is just waiting for me to ask.

She Who Must Be Obeyed (My husband made me sign this that way)

Fear and Loathing at the Church Council Meeting*

2009-09-18T17:12:00.003-05:00

[*This is a narrative. For those who are not of a generation to catch it, there were several books by Hunter S. Thompson named Fear and Loathing in... This title is intended as parody in some respect, and is not meant to express any belief that there was "loathing" at the Church Council meeting, though there was perhaps some “I really would just as soon be somewhere else.”]

I was not looking forward to the Church Council meeting. There had been an ongoing project, several years in the making with much work done in recent months, to evaluate the use of our building in light of a diminished budget, and it had spawned rumors, misunderstandings and hard feelings. Previous meetings on the subject had the inevitable cases of people hearing what they wished to hear, regardless of what was said. Some folks would interrupt others to state things along the lines of “what you are saying then is...” when it was obviously not what was being said, or when it was at least obvious that the first speaker had not said enough that anyone else could make any interpretation of their statements. Folk fell back on technicalities in rules of order (usually misstating them) or used “over the top” (in my arrogant opinion, of course) rhetoric. It might as well have been a political rally. Each approached the meetings with the unfailing belief that they were morally right; an odd belief in my mind when one is talking about building use as opposed to moral or theological issues. I have thought in the past that if we were to get as passionate about our one-on-one relationship with Christ as we seem to get about our one-on-one relationships with our building, our worship music or our meeting time (a passion that is also dependent on one-on-one relationships with the local sports teams’ schedules,) we might be happier and have better insight into how to serve God in response to the love we would then feel. Ah, well.

I’m not wanting (or maybe I am, alas) to stow thrones (if you’ve heard the old joke, throw stones if you haven’t) since I get passionate about my beliefs and causes as well. This was just not such a time. It did not matter to me one iota if the roof was fixed first, ramps were worked on, classes were moved, classes were not moved, elevators built with doors opening into walls or empty space (sort of an inside joke here, sorry) or whatever. We did not have the money for everything and we had several groups who felt that they were best qualified to decide how what we did have should be spent. Fine. I was there because, a) I was a member of the council and, even with no strong opinion on the priorities of use of the funds, I should be there, and, b) I had promised to record the meeting. But I was not happy to be there. I would back whatever decision the rest made and felt like I had no dog in the fight. (Have I used enough metaphors yet? Well, this isn’t over by a long shot.)

Then a wonderful thing happened. A member of the council, for want of a better name we will call him “Jim”, proposed that we use the money we had in our capital funds to fix an urgent need, a new roof, then that we stop, step back, and look at the entire church building in consultation with an expert or experts, and determine what we truly needed and what God wanted us to do. We would then raise the capital funds for the needs that came out of that decision process. He listed many suggestions of things we might want to do, but acknowledged that we might amend the motion later to delete or add items. He had suggested an architect or engineer as expert, but admitted during discussion that a more general consultant in use of the building might be fine. He essentially said, “Lets figure out what we want to do, get the money and do it right!”

This, in my view, was one of the first times since I have been on the council that a motion had been made that had a component that would allow an outside consultant to help us with our long and short term visions for the church, visions that in theory were God inspired, and match our work on the physical components of the church with its spiritual. The motion allowed a lot of room for adaptation and “Jim” even moved that the motion should have to be passed twice, with consultation with the congregation occurring between the two considerations. I found it a wise and inspired solution to several problems we have been having, not the least of which seems to be that the church is ours first and God’s second. You see, “Jim” had prefaced his motion with an acknowledgment that it was God’s house, and the rest of the motion was tied to that. I was excited.

My passion was short lived, however. People in the council quickly found problems with the process that had actually been answered by the motion. Some feared that we would have problems with consulting an engineer or architect, although the motion specified a “professional: engineer, architect, etc.” This would have suggested to me that they had not really listened to the motion, except that these words were presented in writing. Others felt that we were required to use the funds we had collected on specific projects, something that could be shown to not be necessarily the case either. Even it this last were true, there was nothing in the motion that prohibited it, rather the motion would such use of funds part of a larger, more holistic approach to our work and stewardship. Almost totally ignored were the underlying premises of the motion that were stated in the preamble, that we were talking about God’s house and making decisions based on fear. The first words I heard in response were that we needed to worry about what would happen if we didn’t have the funding in place before we decided to make the decision. I then heard fear that it would be a big commitment and take too long, despite an acknowledgment that we probably should have taken this route to begin with. While many of the arguments against the proposal may (note emphasis, please) have been valid if considered dispassionately, they were presented only as things of which to be frightened. As such, emotions were already running high when responses came to the arguments. People were calm enough in their speech, but it seemed to me that fear was the governing criteria for discussion. My passion for the meeting ebbed as I developed my own fear that the motion would not be seen as a serious step on a new course for the church, it would likely never even be considered as a part of any viable course.

As people decided the focus needed to stay on how we prioritized our current spending and leave the idea of integrating our mission and building use into another day, “Jim” moved to table his motion. During all this several folks tried parliamentary procedural tricks to move things to where they wanted them, in the process showing they did not know Robert’s Rules regarding calling the question or tabling a motion, but I said nothing. The passion was gone. We were back to squabbling over whose views should win. I already knew that to some in that room it was more important to win than be right; I had actually heard the statement made.

I always wonder why God chose to make his church out of people, because no matter what, they insist on acting like people. I know it is because he loves us and craves our love given in a way that we are likely incapable of giving Him, at least as we are. But when I watch people try to manipulate the church’s boards to get their way, which they assume is God’s, I know in my heart they are wrong. God does not put deceit or manipulation in our hearts to accomplish his purpose. When I hear an impassioned plea from a couple of members, 25% the “losing” side, that we support the decision of the body, only to hear others say they were going to go try to find out if the vote was legal so maybe it could be set aside, I feel a bit let down. Of course, they are certain I am wrong. I wonder if they know it in their hearts as well?

On the other hand, there was a beginning of an idea that maybe we could do greater things than we had been doing, if we set aside fear, do them for God’s glory and with Christian love. “Jim” has only been a member of the church for a short time, yet he has risen as a natural and respected leader. Maybe the time wasn’t ripe for this. Maybe this was the sowing of a seed, maybe a mustard seed. Maybe I will find I have a passion for these things again as I once did, and still do for some areas of ministry. Who knows? God bless you “Jim.”

And as Tiny Tim said, “God bless us; every one.”

The Tonsured One

EVENT: SINGFEST AT THE STROTHER MEETING HOUSE-Nashville

2009-09-10T22:46:00.001-05:00

Event Announcement. Strother is the reassembled log house that hosted the first meeting of a Methodist Conference west of the Alleghenies in 1802, Francis Asbury presiding .

SCARRITT BENNETT CENTER

1008 18^thAVENUE SOUTH

NASHVILLE, TN

JOIN US!

SINGFEST AT THE MEETING HOUSE

Sunday, Sept. 20 at 4PM

A free outdoor concert on Scarritt-Bennett’s lawn at the historic Strother’s Meeting House

Bring blankets and lawn chairs and enjoy the music of:

CHOIRS: Edgehill United Methodist Church, East End United Methodist Church,

Unity Missionary Baptist Church GROUPS: Altonettes, Joe Lee Trio, Kindling Stone and more

SONG LEADER: Marilyn Thornton, Emery United Methodist Church, Murfreesboro

PIANIST: Steve Lindsey, Edgehill United Methodist Church

There will be lots of congregational singing of familiar hymns

In the event of rain, Singfest will be held in Scarritt-Bennett Center’s Fondren Hall

Fruits of the Spirit = Seeds of the Spirit

2009-08-08T06:46:00.000-05:00

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." --Galatians 5:22-23

I always here this verse quoted, correctly of course when one considers the context, as demonstrating the effects of, or the signs of, or the results of, the Holy Spirit acting in our lives. So far so good. Then I sit in Sunday School and listen to someone demonstrate the order from the context (first the Spirit, then the fruits) by asking "what is fruit?" The answer is invariably that it is the product of the tree, the bush, the vine, whatever. Again, true enough.

The analogy of the fruit, though not continued in Galatians, can be taken farther. The fruit protects and nurtures the seed. It is the vehicle for the seed that in turn once again brings about the tree, the bush, the vine, whatever. When I ask in class where the tree comes from, the response is from God. Well, true, but is it not also true that God uses these fruits to create the situations that open the way for the Holy Spirit, and indeed do the not also nurture the spirit (small "s") of human beings? In short, the verse is just the beginning, as one understands when reading the entire letter. It is not enough to say "I have the Spirit so I have, or should have, the fruit." It is important also to cultivate the fruit so that it may be used by God to bring forth a new plant, and new fruit.

Random Thoughts.

The Tonsured One

News/Event: Prayers and Praying-Specific Case

2009-07-20T20:26:00.004-05:00

[This is a specific story based in a specific time. Prayers for all concerned are welcome, but please note the date of these events were in the week of July 15-20th (or so,) 2009. Please do not start a chain letter that will continue the story as if in real time for years to come. God and his miracles do not have an expiration date, but prayers for specific events often do. Otherwise, they become urban legends and ignored. We certainly do not want that!]

This story comes to us through BobbyBobby, a member of my church and very close brother in Christ. A friend of his, whom he loves as a brother, has a 38 year old son, married with children (including one about 6 months old.) The friend, David, runs a coffee kiosk in an atrium where a hospital and doctors office building meet. He also hosts a weekly prayer group where folk gather together to pray for all manner of issues in the sight of all who care to watch. Apart from the value of the prayers themselves, the prayer group has had a great impact on folk as a witness, and many have drawn strength and comfort from seeing the people on their knees.

Wednesday or Thursday (July 15 or 16) David's son, also David (Dave?) suffered from a couple of seizures. Scans showed a brain tumor and the doctors did not think it looked good. On a scale of 1-4 (4 being the worst) they placed it at a 2.5-3, meaning they expected cancer and permanent damage at the very least. The prayer group went into action and sent out word to prayer warriors. I know that several Twitter groups and e-mail lists included the prayer requests and a few thousand people at least received the request to pray. We have no idea how many actually did, but many must have responded.

The operation on Friday was 6-8 hours long. The doctors got most of the tumor and it was benign. The doctors were very pleased, and although they said there are some tendrils left, the prognosis is excellent. They had said there might be some paralysis after the operation, but that night Dave was sitting up talking to his children and the next day walking. The doctors said on Saturday that they would keep Dave in rehab for a couple of weeks, but we were all glad that such a small price had to be paid when his life had been in the balance. Today (Monday) they have changed the plan, saying he would either be going home today or tomorrow (they know which day, I just have forgotten.) He will be doing his rehab at home, praise God! He still needs prayers, as recovery will likely be painfil and difficult, but what a Blessing!

I never cared whether a person believed miracles were the result of direct intervention on the part of God or brought abought by his miraculous forethought in giving us the science and the people who are gifted enough to use it, they are miracles just the same. I never cared whether a person believed that prayers bring about a change in the plans of God, send some sort of message of support and love to those in need, or just put us where we ourselves belong spiritually because we are doing what Jesus taught us to do. Prayers are powerful just the same.

Oh, and the side story. Or is it the main event? The night before surgery some of Dave's friends got together to support him and shave his head for surgery. There were folks all around praying. One of Dave's friends was a young man who had not accepted Christ. Afterward, he went home and talked to his mother, (I believe I was told he cried some; I think I would have,) and told her that he had accepted Jesus. Keep the blessings coming!

There is no circumstance so evil that God cannot or will not bring some good out of it. The trick is learning to see that good so we can have peace amid the storm. There is no power in heaven or on earth that can tear us from the love of God or his grace. To believe otherwise is to believe that there is a power greater than the love-sacrifice Jesus made for us.

God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good. Praise be to God. Amen.

[Please note that I may have made an error of a day or 2 in the timeline, and I apologize if I have confused the versions of Dave and David's names. If the mistakes I make today are no greater, God is certainly guiding my steps.-The T.O.]

The Tonsured One and BobbyBobby

Thoughts on Christians and Politics #1

2009-06-29T19:34:00.007-05:00

I have been reading a book on the role of the Christian in politics and discussing it with friends. One thing that fascinates me is how many people a) misunderstand (in my opinion) the role we have in government in this country and its relationship to our ability to live as Christians, b) seem to confuse the professed aims of government and politicians with our obligations as Christians, and c) fail to understand the historical role of individuals and non-governmental societies in helping those in need. I obviously cannot address all of these in any great depth in this post, but will start with these observations.

First, regardless of whether you believe that this country was founded on Christian principles or not, the founding document of the nation is the U. S. Constitution. The Declaration was a founding document, the unifying document of the Revolution that led to the new nation, but the Constitution is by definition what constitutes the form of government we have and is the foundation of that government. It is a living document in the sense that it continues to inspire and affect the people of this land, it is not a living document in the sense that it changes and adapts to every change in social values that may come along. Its very nature makes such a thought absurd. Besides the fact that a foundation is not much of a foundation if it is ever-changing, the document spells out specifically what rights the government may or may not exercise and restricts the majority from imposing its will on the minority at the expense of its rights. (Don't forget that the amendments are part of the Constitution.) It also acknowledges, not grants rights. "The right to... shall not be infringed," not "the right to... is granted." A document that protects the individual from a tyranny of the majority cannot change at the whim of culture through the dictates of that very majority!

As Christians, we support freedom to exercise our rights, acknowledging them as coming from God. We may strive to persuade others to join us in creating laws or a social atmosphere that will help protect those rights or influence behavior, but never at the expense of denying those rights. God gave us free will, which includes the ability to do stupid and even evil things. As members of society we choose to protect people from having their rights trampled by stupidity and evil, but we draw the line at trying to destroy free will and impose our own (or, at least we should.) If God didn't do it, how can we? God chose the path that protected our freedom, even allowing us to kill his son. God loves freedom. Trying to use politics to right wrongs by violating people's freedom in favor of desires of others is, in and of itself, evil. Or at best poor and un-Godly judgment.

b) The Methodist Church as an organization has on more than one occasion equated raising taxes with reducing poverty, opposing war on evil with promoting peace, allowing the violation of laws without consequences with mercy, and making large segments of society fit a statistical mold with justice. Besides the fact that history shows such methods flawed at best (we have been raising taxes for generations yet I keep hearing the poor are getting poorer, for instance) such concepts of justice are rooted in a totally secular vision. Only God determines what is “just” in the large scale of things, and he promises us grace and mercy, not justice. We don't get what we deserve, thank God.

Men can argue about what is just and right, but for the most part the methods used to try to reach our earthly standards of these concepts are not rooted in scripture. Like our rights, given to us by God, our responsibilities, also God given, cannot be taken away by or abdicated to a government or group. I have yet to find a scripture that says "For I was hungry and you selected a committee to take money from other people and give a portion to me, I was thirsty and you voted for someone who said he would give me drink (along with 30 unrelated amendments,) I was sick or in prison, and you held a concert to raise money to pay someone to visit me, and you deducted it on your taxes." We are to work as individuals to help others know God and overcome the obstacles of this world, with Christ's help. Of course we function as a body in Christ, but only so much as we voluntarily allow ourselves to be admitted to that body. We choose to do it. We choose to use the resources we have been given. The more resources we have at our disposal, the greater our opportunity and ability to do this.

But if the government doesn't do it no one will, right? That brings us to:

c) In spite of what my little brother tells me, there are ample records to show that we did not let people die in the streets before we declared war on poverty and started raising both taxes and the number of people enslaved by the welfare system, we did not let our parents and sick, mentally and physically handicapped family members die in gutters before we decided that Social Security and government supported institutions were better places for them and could do a better job of making decisions about their care than those of us with our thought processes clouded by love. There were not a greater percentage of people dying in botched, back-alley abortions than died in other surgeries versus today’s statistics. There were exceptions of course, but for the most part we took care of folks at least as well as we do today, given the changes in standard of living. There were benevolent societies that provided opportunities for individuals to pool their resources and take care of medical and burial expenses, societies that took care of widows and orphans, and organizations that fed, clothed and often housed the poor.

Many of these were secular in format, though often manned by believers. The churches, synagogues, and the few other religious institutions of those days also helped both their members and non-members. Life was harder then, to be sure, but that was true for the rich as well.

There is also a basic assumption among some that the government plans will be successful. When someone says that something must be done about health care, what makes them think that the current crop of politicians have any credentials that qualify them to make decisions that will meet that end?

I find it fascinating that many people feel that the absence of government intervention will bring about greater poverty, pain and suffering. For one thing, as noted earlier, as government has grown, the claim is that poverty has also grown. Perhaps shrinking the one would shrink the other. Besides, if only half the people who vote for tax increases, special social programs, or various means to bring about "justice" were able to take what they pay in taxes (half of those who actually pay taxes, that is) and spend it directly on the poor, they would make a larger financial impact than all the social programs we currently have just by bypassing the inefficiency of the government . Besides, they would be acting as individuals helping individuals, or part of the body helping the body, which might have a greater impact than all their money spent through proxies. Surely if they believe they are part of a great majority that believe in these programs they can expect that at least half their folk would put their money where their collective mouths are?

Bottom line: As Christians, we believe in helping others. I'll argue with folks about what really constitutes help in another time and place, but Jesus told us to do it, not to elect or appoint proxies to do it for us. God gave us free will and certain rights to be free, and as Christians we should not put ourselves in his place and try to restrict that will and those rights. Oh, one more thing, Jesus told us to spread the gospel to the world, making disciples, not to let the world give us its version of a gospel and make us its disciples. Culture does not dictate what our God-given rights and responsibilities are, nor can it take them away.

These opinions are my own. They may or may not be yours. I can live with that.

"The Tonsured One"