An article on Yahoo News regarding the desire of the religious left to counter the influence of the religious right in the upcoming 2006 elections triggered some thoughts. First, a personal note: I have a BA in political science from Alderson-Broaddus College and an MA in political science from Ohio University. At OU, my specialty was political philosophy but I have my creds in US politics as well. (In the 2004 presidential election, I actually called each state correctly and even the margin, 3%.)
What is largely misunderstood by almost everybody is why the traditionally religious (Catholic, Protestant and Jewish) tend to favor political conservatism. The assumption is that this voter bloc (actually a complex series of overlapping voter blocs) is moved by hot-button issues: same-sex marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and so forth. The truth is far more basic and complicated.
The traditionally religious embrace delayed gratification and "the long view" as the cornerstone of making right decisions. So does political conservatism. The heart of political conservatism is delayed, not immediate gratification, coupled with a conviction that immediate gratification is deeply corrupting not only to individuals, but to nations as well.
The Yahoo articles cited above notes, "Exit polls in the 2004 White House election showed Bush had a big edge among regular churchgoers while Democrat John Kerry' had strong backing among those who said they never attend." As recently as the 1970s, there was no significant difference between the parties in terms of religious fervency.
There were three events which changed that. First, George McGovern was the Democrat nominee for President in 1972, and he ran on a platform of immediate gratification (immediate withdrawal from Vietnam.) Second, a self-identified "born again" Christian, Jimmy Carter was the sucessful nominee of the Democratic Party in 1976, elected by a surprisingly small margin after the Watergate meltdown. In retrospect, that was the last time evangelicals and other traditionally religious people supported a Democratic nominee. Carter proved to be both a disaster as President and cosmically unlucky. (This is said by one who cast his ballot for him twice.)
The final event was the election of Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980. While Reagan did not possess the evangelical bone fides of Carter, including a failed marriage, Reagan embodied the idea of delayed gratification in his policies and in his demeanor. "Reagan Democrats" gradually made the transition over to the GOP not so much on specific issues (which the Gipper could articulate so well) as on the Reagan ethos.
The effort on the part of the religious left to offset the religious right is unlikely to succeed not so much on the basis of specific policies as much as on the much deeper long-view, delayed gratification issue.
I know this column is a departure from the usual fare of Durable Data; I hope you found it helpful. You can leave your comments below. If you are recieving this by email, it is posted at www.durabledata.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Friday, July 21, 2006
Why Am I Not Surprised?
Just give us the same rights, say same-sex couples, and we'll prove to you that we're just like straight people. So the divorce is "just like straight people", right? Wrong. The average same- sex marriage in the Netherlands is 18 months. The same Dutch same-sex marriage partner had an average of six sexual partners outside the marriage. Just like straight people? I think not. It's not as if we don't have a laboratory (Europe) where this has been tried. It has been a disaster, and does indeed affect all marriages, including the God-ordained marriage of opposite sex couples by further degrading this necessary pillar of society.
Same-sex marriage pioneers separate
Thu Jul 20, 10:35 PM ET
BOSTON - The lesbian couple whose lawsuit led to legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have announced they have separated.
"Julie and Hillary Goodridge are amicably living apart," Mary Breslauer, a local political consultant, said Thursday night on their behalf. Breslauer declined to comment on how long they had been separated or whether the couple planned to divorce.
The Goodridges were among seven gay couples whose lawsuit helped thrust Massachusetts into the center of a nationwide debate on gay marriage. The state's Supreme Judicial Court issued its narrow 4-3 ruling in November 2003 in their favor — saying gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.
The Goodridges were married May 17, 2004, the first day same-sex marriages became legal under the court ruling, by a Unitarian Universalist minister. Their daughter, Annie, now 10, served as ring-bearer and flower girl.
Now, Breslauer said, for Annie's sake, the Goodridges want privacy.
The child figured prominently in the Goodridges' case. When Julie Goodridge gave birth by cesarean section, there were complications. Hillary Goodridge, at the time having no legal relationship with mother or child, said she was barred several times from seeing her daughter and partner.
"Even though their number one priority was their daughter," Breslauer said, "marriage makes her also their legal obligation. Their daughter is more protected because they are married."
Julie Goodridge declined to comment, saying Breslauer was the family's acting spokeswoman. Hillary Goodridge did not return a telephone message left at a business listing Thursday night.
"The plaintiff couple in this case are real people with real lives. They're not immune from life's ups and downs," Breslauer said. "Certainly over the course of time there will be same sex couples that separate just as happens in other marriages."
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_separation
Same-sex marriage pioneers separate
Thu Jul 20, 10:35 PM ET
BOSTON - The lesbian couple whose lawsuit led to legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have announced they have separated.
"Julie and Hillary Goodridge are amicably living apart," Mary Breslauer, a local political consultant, said Thursday night on their behalf. Breslauer declined to comment on how long they had been separated or whether the couple planned to divorce.
The Goodridges were among seven gay couples whose lawsuit helped thrust Massachusetts into the center of a nationwide debate on gay marriage. The state's Supreme Judicial Court issued its narrow 4-3 ruling in November 2003 in their favor — saying gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.
The Goodridges were married May 17, 2004, the first day same-sex marriages became legal under the court ruling, by a Unitarian Universalist minister. Their daughter, Annie, now 10, served as ring-bearer and flower girl.
Now, Breslauer said, for Annie's sake, the Goodridges want privacy.
The child figured prominently in the Goodridges' case. When Julie Goodridge gave birth by cesarean section, there were complications. Hillary Goodridge, at the time having no legal relationship with mother or child, said she was barred several times from seeing her daughter and partner.
"Even though their number one priority was their daughter," Breslauer said, "marriage makes her also their legal obligation. Their daughter is more protected because they are married."
Julie Goodridge declined to comment, saying Breslauer was the family's acting spokeswoman. Hillary Goodridge did not return a telephone message left at a business listing Thursday night.
"The plaintiff couple in this case are real people with real lives. They're not immune from life's ups and downs," Breslauer said. "Certainly over the course of time there will be same sex couples that separate just as happens in other marriages."
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_separation
Thursday, July 20, 2006
And Now, For Something Completely Different...
I write a column for the local monthly paper, Temple City Life. My August column (due today) is below, just for fun.
UNCOMMON SENSE
With Glenn Layne
To Boldly Go…to Temple City
It’s been called the most famous split infinitive in the English language: “To boldly go where no man had gone before.” You remember split infinitives, right? The bane of High School English teachers, the split infinitive is when you insert a word between the “to” and the “go.” I read somewhere that the reason that split infinitives are supposed to be so evil (pronounce that “eeeee-vil”) is that infinitives cannot be split in Latin. In Latin, infinitives are always one word (for example educere, to educate). The old rule way, if you can’t do it in Latin, you can’t do it in English either!
Most modern grammarians aren’t as hard core on split infinitives, and I have a feeling that the famous Star Trek split infinitive may have something to do with it. Yes, unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the last 45 years, you know about Star Trek. But do you know the Temple City connection to Star Trek? Attention Temple City Historical Society!
Most of what I’m about to share comes from the book Star Trek Creator (David Alexander, 1994), which is the authorized biography of Gene Roddenberry. As an authorized biography, it glosses over some of Roddenberry’s very deep flaws—especially his womanizing, something his first wife could not abide, but which his second wife, Majel Barrett (also know as Nurse Chapel and Lwaxana Troi, from her TV roles) did.
Born in 1921 El Paso, Texas, Roddenberry spent his boyhood in the Los Felix neighborhood of Los Angeles where his family had moved so his father could pursue a career with the LAPD. Gene took classes in police studies at LA City College and headed that school's Police Club.
In that role, he liaised with the FBI, thanking them for sending speakers and securing copies of the FBI Code and publications for club use, and attempted to take fingerprint records of the college community for the FBI's Civil Identification Division.
He later transferred his academic interest to flight and qualified for a pilot’s license. When the war broke out, Roddenberry joined the US Army Air Corp. He flew many combat missions in the Pacific Theater and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.
After the war, he was a commercial pilot for Pan Am for a time. He received a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts following a crash in the Syrian Desert, while on a flight to India.
Roddenberry left Pan Am to pursue writing for television in Los Angeles. He fell back on his early training as a policeman and joined the LAPD. He served the LAPD from 1949–1956.
Here’s where the Temple City connection comes in. While Roddenberry was flying for Pan Am (and living on the east coast), his parents moved out to the wide open spaces of the suburbs, to the new town of Temple City. David Alexander gives the exact address: 2710 Green Street. Now there is a Green Street, but no modern home has that address, so I suspect that some re-numbering has occurred. Gene and his first wife, Eileen, moved in with his parents to the house on Green Street in 1948.
Apparently, life in Temple City agreed with the younger Roddenberrys. Gene and Eileen moved into another house in Temple City a few years later. Again, David Alexander gives the exact address, 9855 Key West Street, which is indeed on the map, and yes, I was curious enough to drive over and have a look. Alexander says that the little house was at least partially built by Roddenberry and his father. This would be his home until 1964, the same year in which the original pilot for Star Trek would be filmed. Then he would move—where else?—to Beverly Hills.
Long before Star Trek became a reality, Roddenberry was writing scripts for many of the popular television series of the 1950s, such as Have Gun, Will Travel. Working in television had been his plan since leaving Pan Am; he worked his way up in the LAPD to become a public relations officer and a speech-writer for Chief Parker. He also managed to get himself assigned as a liaison between the LAPD and the entertainment industry.
If you follow the timeline, that means that Star Trek was born in the mind of Gene Roddenberry while living in Temple City. Why, maybe we need a plaque on the house on Key West: “Home of Gene Roddenberry, and Birthplace of the World Famous Star Trek Television and Motion Picture Series.” Maybe we need a Roddenberry Square and a Captain Kirk Avenue. Think of the commercial possibilities: Mr. Spock’s Science Academy. Mr. Scott’s Industrial Repair. Uhura’s Cell Phones. You get the idea. (Please note: tongue plated firmly in cheek.)
And now, as Paul Harvey would say, you know the rest of the story.
UNCOMMON SENSE
With Glenn Layne
To Boldly Go…to Temple City
It’s been called the most famous split infinitive in the English language: “To boldly go where no man had gone before.” You remember split infinitives, right? The bane of High School English teachers, the split infinitive is when you insert a word between the “to” and the “go.” I read somewhere that the reason that split infinitives are supposed to be so evil (pronounce that “eeeee-vil”) is that infinitives cannot be split in Latin. In Latin, infinitives are always one word (for example educere, to educate). The old rule way, if you can’t do it in Latin, you can’t do it in English either!
Most modern grammarians aren’t as hard core on split infinitives, and I have a feeling that the famous Star Trek split infinitive may have something to do with it. Yes, unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the last 45 years, you know about Star Trek. But do you know the Temple City connection to Star Trek? Attention Temple City Historical Society!
Most of what I’m about to share comes from the book Star Trek Creator (David Alexander, 1994), which is the authorized biography of Gene Roddenberry. As an authorized biography, it glosses over some of Roddenberry’s very deep flaws—especially his womanizing, something his first wife could not abide, but which his second wife, Majel Barrett (also know as Nurse Chapel and Lwaxana Troi, from her TV roles) did.
Born in 1921 El Paso, Texas, Roddenberry spent his boyhood in the Los Felix neighborhood of Los Angeles where his family had moved so his father could pursue a career with the LAPD. Gene took classes in police studies at LA City College and headed that school's Police Club.
In that role, he liaised with the FBI, thanking them for sending speakers and securing copies of the FBI Code and publications for club use, and attempted to take fingerprint records of the college community for the FBI's Civil Identification Division.
He later transferred his academic interest to flight and qualified for a pilot’s license. When the war broke out, Roddenberry joined the US Army Air Corp. He flew many combat missions in the Pacific Theater and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.
After the war, he was a commercial pilot for Pan Am for a time. He received a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts following a crash in the Syrian Desert, while on a flight to India.
Roddenberry left Pan Am to pursue writing for television in Los Angeles. He fell back on his early training as a policeman and joined the LAPD. He served the LAPD from 1949–1956.
Here’s where the Temple City connection comes in. While Roddenberry was flying for Pan Am (and living on the east coast), his parents moved out to the wide open spaces of the suburbs, to the new town of Temple City. David Alexander gives the exact address: 2710 Green Street. Now there is a Green Street, but no modern home has that address, so I suspect that some re-numbering has occurred. Gene and his first wife, Eileen, moved in with his parents to the house on Green Street in 1948.
Apparently, life in Temple City agreed with the younger Roddenberrys. Gene and Eileen moved into another house in Temple City a few years later. Again, David Alexander gives the exact address, 9855 Key West Street, which is indeed on the map, and yes, I was curious enough to drive over and have a look. Alexander says that the little house was at least partially built by Roddenberry and his father. This would be his home until 1964, the same year in which the original pilot for Star Trek would be filmed. Then he would move—where else?—to Beverly Hills.
Long before Star Trek became a reality, Roddenberry was writing scripts for many of the popular television series of the 1950s, such as Have Gun, Will Travel. Working in television had been his plan since leaving Pan Am; he worked his way up in the LAPD to become a public relations officer and a speech-writer for Chief Parker. He also managed to get himself assigned as a liaison between the LAPD and the entertainment industry.
If you follow the timeline, that means that Star Trek was born in the mind of Gene Roddenberry while living in Temple City. Why, maybe we need a plaque on the house on Key West: “Home of Gene Roddenberry, and Birthplace of the World Famous Star Trek Television and Motion Picture Series.” Maybe we need a Roddenberry Square and a Captain Kirk Avenue. Think of the commercial possibilities: Mr. Spock’s Science Academy. Mr. Scott’s Industrial Repair. Uhura’s Cell Phones. You get the idea. (Please note: tongue plated firmly in cheek.)
And now, as Paul Harvey would say, you know the rest of the story.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Why the Theo-Left Has Nothing to Fear from the Medley Letter
Yesterday's letter from Dr. Roy Medley has the theo-left in the ABC in a tizzy. And it has confused the moderate-conservative mainstream. Into the breach we enter with a little Medley-exegesis.
SETTING: Valley Forge is scared to death that conservative regions such as ABC of the West, IND, OH, WV, etc., will follow the example of PSW. So, the strategy is to talk conservative. Head 'em off at the pass, boys.
Dear American Baptist:
The following call is being issued as a continuing part of our implementation of policies adopted by the General Board. I call it to your prayerful attention.
A Call for American Baptists to Live Lives of High Moral and Ethical Responsibility
I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called… (Ephesians 4:1)
A life centered in Christ makes Christ the model and is worthy of replication (Philippians 3:10). There are many dimensions to the Christ-centered life including—but not limited to—integrity, stewardship, compassion, spiritual practices, and sexual discipline (Ephesians 6:13). In various times and ways American Baptists have spoken to these aspects of the life of discipleship.
While not the most important discipleship issue in the New Testament, nor our highest priority of ministry lest we focus on one set of sins above others that afflict us such as racism, greed, sexism and gluttony, nonetheless, sexual concerns increasingly dominate our attention (Romans 1:28). We live in a culture obsessed with sex. We see evidence of sexual abuse every day. We are stunned at the reports of sexual impropriety by persons in caring professions (1 Corinthians 6:18). Many persons have been victims of these abuses. The result is an environment of deep suspicion regarding the sexual integrity of persons in authority. In this context, the matter of homosexual practices continues to divide American Baptists.
Hmm, that's stating the obvious. Of course, sexism is ranked as worse than adultery, a nod to the theo-left that's a bit humorous. Overall, this is a continuation of RM's typical can't-we-all-get-along ditty.
The official position of American Baptist Churches USA is that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” and that marriage is intended to be “between a woman and a man” (Ephesians 5:31).
This is my personal belief, as the General Secretary of ABCUSA, but more so, it is my responsibility to uphold this as the official position of the General Board of ABCUSA. This has been implemented in the admission of official exhibitors at the ABCUSA Biennial, chaplain endorsements, and in the staffing practices of the staff accountable to me.
Well, duh, again, nothing new. Why does the theo-left think there's anything here at all?
Not only do I strive to live a life centered in Christ with moral integrity, I expect the same from my staff, and I call upon all American Baptists to live exemplary lives of the highest ethical responsibility in all matters, including matters of sexuality.
This is an oblique reference to that which cannot be named: namely, that there have been a number of ranking ABC leaders who have, shall we say, been indiscreet. RM says, cease and desist! That should make the ground shake.
Further, I call upon all American Baptists to practice Christ-like compassion (Colossians 3:12) and care for all of God’s people in our families, our communities, and our churches. The redeeming love of Jesus Christ must be extended to all persons, and there is no place for hate, violence, or injustice (Philippians 4:8).
Finally, I call upon all American Baptists to practice a life of prayer, purpose (Philippians 1:21) and passion (Philippians 3:13) in our lives together. We must pray with and for one another, share our purpose in Christ, and practice passionate care and regard for one another. In this way we bear witness to Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:1-11).
Yours in Christ,
Rev. Dr. A. Roy Medley
General Secretary
The theo-left has NOTHING to fear or even care about RM's missive. And the Biblically informed conservative churches and regions should not be in the least impressed by it. RM is a nice guy, but remember: the idea is to have a letter on hand to use to shut up conservatives. Expect no implementation. Expect National Ministries especially to quietly undermine it.
You can compare this to Lincoln and the Border States during the Civil War. In RM's world, the PSW is the South (in full rebellion) and the conservative regions can't be ticked off too much, even though you think that they're a bunch of yahoos.
SETTING: Valley Forge is scared to death that conservative regions such as ABC of the West, IND, OH, WV, etc., will follow the example of PSW. So, the strategy is to talk conservative. Head 'em off at the pass, boys.
Dear American Baptist:
The following call is being issued as a continuing part of our implementation of policies adopted by the General Board. I call it to your prayerful attention.
A Call for American Baptists to Live Lives of High Moral and Ethical Responsibility
I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called… (Ephesians 4:1)
A life centered in Christ makes Christ the model and is worthy of replication (Philippians 3:10). There are many dimensions to the Christ-centered life including—but not limited to—integrity, stewardship, compassion, spiritual practices, and sexual discipline (Ephesians 6:13). In various times and ways American Baptists have spoken to these aspects of the life of discipleship.
While not the most important discipleship issue in the New Testament, nor our highest priority of ministry lest we focus on one set of sins above others that afflict us such as racism, greed, sexism and gluttony, nonetheless, sexual concerns increasingly dominate our attention (Romans 1:28). We live in a culture obsessed with sex. We see evidence of sexual abuse every day. We are stunned at the reports of sexual impropriety by persons in caring professions (1 Corinthians 6:18). Many persons have been victims of these abuses. The result is an environment of deep suspicion regarding the sexual integrity of persons in authority. In this context, the matter of homosexual practices continues to divide American Baptists.
Hmm, that's stating the obvious. Of course, sexism is ranked as worse than adultery, a nod to the theo-left that's a bit humorous. Overall, this is a continuation of RM's typical can't-we-all-get-along ditty.
The official position of American Baptist Churches USA is that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” and that marriage is intended to be “between a woman and a man” (Ephesians 5:31).
This is my personal belief, as the General Secretary of ABCUSA, but more so, it is my responsibility to uphold this as the official position of the General Board of ABCUSA. This has been implemented in the admission of official exhibitors at the ABCUSA Biennial, chaplain endorsements, and in the staffing practices of the staff accountable to me.
Well, duh, again, nothing new. Why does the theo-left think there's anything here at all?
Not only do I strive to live a life centered in Christ with moral integrity, I expect the same from my staff, and I call upon all American Baptists to live exemplary lives of the highest ethical responsibility in all matters, including matters of sexuality.
This is an oblique reference to that which cannot be named: namely, that there have been a number of ranking ABC leaders who have, shall we say, been indiscreet. RM says, cease and desist! That should make the ground shake.
Further, I call upon all American Baptists to practice Christ-like compassion (Colossians 3:12) and care for all of God’s people in our families, our communities, and our churches. The redeeming love of Jesus Christ must be extended to all persons, and there is no place for hate, violence, or injustice (Philippians 4:8).
Finally, I call upon all American Baptists to practice a life of prayer, purpose (Philippians 1:21) and passion (Philippians 3:13) in our lives together. We must pray with and for one another, share our purpose in Christ, and practice passionate care and regard for one another. In this way we bear witness to Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:1-11).
Yours in Christ,
Rev. Dr. A. Roy Medley
General Secretary
The theo-left has NOTHING to fear or even care about RM's missive. And the Biblically informed conservative churches and regions should not be in the least impressed by it. RM is a nice guy, but remember: the idea is to have a letter on hand to use to shut up conservatives. Expect no implementation. Expect National Ministries especially to quietly undermine it.
You can compare this to Lincoln and the Border States during the Civil War. In RM's world, the PSW is the South (in full rebellion) and the conservative regions can't be ticked off too much, even though you think that they're a bunch of yahoos.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Why I Don't Fret: A Response to His Barking Dog
Over at Dennis McFadden's blog, my friend is fretting about the health and vitality of the reborn ABC of the Pacific Southwest, Transformation Ministries. With all due consideration to Dennis, I thought it would be good to say a few words about why I don't fret.
1. Dale Salico is a more than competent leader and administrator. Give him time to get the word out to churches. The fact that over 80% of delegates votes aye on April 29 is a testimony to his effectiveness and the support he has among the pastors of the region. The fall conference in Alhambra (Dennis' home church) will be a great time of affirmation, unity and renewed purpose.
2. Transmin's Board will be just as representative as under the PSW moniker, and more missionally focused than ever.
3. Yes, we are indeed entering a post-denominational era. This won't be easy, but I am convincved we have sufficient cohesion to hold together.
4. But the most compelling reason is that we have not yet reached a place of stasis. Other regions of the ABC, I am convinced, will separtate from the national body. When that happens, and it will, a new national fellowship of somekind will surely develop. We are still in the transitional era, and what will be is not yet clear.
1. Dale Salico is a more than competent leader and administrator. Give him time to get the word out to churches. The fact that over 80% of delegates votes aye on April 29 is a testimony to his effectiveness and the support he has among the pastors of the region. The fall conference in Alhambra (Dennis' home church) will be a great time of affirmation, unity and renewed purpose.
2. Transmin's Board will be just as representative as under the PSW moniker, and more missionally focused than ever.
3. Yes, we are indeed entering a post-denominational era. This won't be easy, but I am convincved we have sufficient cohesion to hold together.
4. But the most compelling reason is that we have not yet reached a place of stasis. Other regions of the ABC, I am convinced, will separtate from the national body. When that happens, and it will, a new national fellowship of somekind will surely develop. We are still in the transitional era, and what will be is not yet clear.
It Will Not Be Enough
DD is back after some vacation and a drought of bloggable stuff. The drought is over. A press release today regarding the reorganization of the ABC triggers this simple response: It Will Not Be Enough. DD's policy on what is needed is clear and will now be repeated:
1. Abolish the Office of the General Secretary.
2. Abolish the General Board.
3. Liberate the Missions Societies (AKA as Program Boards).
Valley Forge delenda est!
1. Abolish the Office of the General Secretary.
2. Abolish the General Board.
3. Liberate the Missions Societies (AKA as Program Boards).
Valley Forge delenda est!
Monday, July 03, 2006
Denomination to Valley Forge Leaders: Hit the Road, Jack and Don't Come 'Round No More, No More
A tip o' the hat to a great reporting done by Dwight Stinnet over at http://abcviewsfrommiddle.blogspot.com/. (He'll probably get in hot water for my praise--sorry). Buried in his reporatge is this bombshell, based on the survey done by the ABC this Spring:
27% believe that our national leaders are providing strong and effective leadership on the most important issues facing our denomination while 57% do not.
54% believe that our national leaders are failing to effectively address the needs and concerns of 21st century congregations 29% do not.
In the real world (AKA outside of the Wholly Donut) this is what's known as an abject failure of leadership. The PSW crisis is the most visible example of this failure, but not the only. Guys, hit the road.
Valley Forge delenda est!
27% believe that our national leaders are providing strong and effective leadership on the most important issues facing our denomination while 57% do not.
54% believe that our national leaders are failing to effectively address the needs and concerns of 21st century congregations 29% do not.
In the real world (AKA outside of the Wholly Donut) this is what's known as an abject failure of leadership. The PSW crisis is the most visible example of this failure, but not the only. Guys, hit the road.
Valley Forge delenda est!
Now That's a Great Title
Some people don't like Bill Gates because they are he puts bugs in his OS (hence Windows 95, 98, Mill, XP, MICKEYMOUSE, etc.) Now he's positioning himself as THE MAN WHO WILL SAVE THE WORLD WITH ALL THAT MONEY. Here's another, startling, take...
The Hell of Gates Shall Not Prevail
07/03/06
In what seems like a well-scripted one-two punch of the culture of death, the world's two richest men have dazzled our fawning media and society with their dangerous magic in the past several weeks.
The sequential announcement of the pending retirement of Bill Gates from Microsoft and the gift of some $40 billion from Warren Buffett to the Gates' foundation ought to strike fear in the heart of every unborn baby in the world. This is truly an unprecedented event: the world's second richest man giving the bulk of his immense fortune to the world's richest man for the singular purpose of population control. Wow.We ought not to forget who these two men are. It was Warren Buffett who funded the deadly abortion drug RU-486 and has sent suction machines to the Third World to make sure that the poor would not proliferate in his eugenic vision of a white-dominated world. He has an unfiltered bias toward population control and abortion.
Mr. Gates is hardly less of an anti-lifer though his philanthropy tends to be better-disguised. He dedicates millions to Planned Parenthood and their abortion machine. He funds condom-distribution efforts, youth education and "reproductive health" schemes all of which are disguised in compassionate terms as AIDS programs and women's rights initiatives. Needless to say, chastity is not his main concern. He is still young and has made it clear that his second career will be expending these vast resources in generous anti-life measures; he is a formidable force to reckon with. There is nothing that fuels the anti-life movement more than money. It exists, perhaps symbolically so, on filthy lucre, and with this one mammoth financial windfall I believe the abortion-promoting elite have pushed the already-imbalanced life vs. death battle beyond the point of no return. With Buffett's billions Gates may be, in a strictly worldly sense, unstoppable. The culture of life simply cannot compete with this kind of money. And this is precisely the point where the pro-life movement has needed to be for a long time: the point where all strictly human solutions are rendered impotent and we have no choice but to turn to an even greater power than the combined fortunes of the world's two richest men. Simply put, they have money, we have God; which means we live in hope for the definitive solution to this mess and they live in fear of a stock market crash. While we can never cease our human efforts to labor on behalf of the poorest of the world's poor, the unborn, neither can we pretend that our best efforts towards a worldly solution to the anti-life movement will be sufficient. Only God can win this fight, presuming our cooperation. He is not impressed by the wealth of men; in fact, He scoffs at it. He is impressed, however, with humility, and wants us on our knees every spare moment while we work for the unborn. Prayerful humility reminds us where our strength lies. It is not in money or in our efforts or cleverness. It is in Him. The prayers of the faithful will eventually undo the culture of death in much the same way that the prayers of the faithful toppled the institutions of Communism. We must always, in all ways and at all times make it our priority to buffet the gates of death with assiduous prayers for deliverance from this present darkness and trust that the hell of Gates shall not prevail.
Fr. Tom Euteneuer is president of Human Life International.
Source: http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=33561&vm_id=&action_type=get_results&quiz_id=1143&typeid=1&answer=3938&submit1=submit#quizpoll
The Hell of Gates Shall Not Prevail
07/03/06
In what seems like a well-scripted one-two punch of the culture of death, the world's two richest men have dazzled our fawning media and society with their dangerous magic in the past several weeks.
The sequential announcement of the pending retirement of Bill Gates from Microsoft and the gift of some $40 billion from Warren Buffett to the Gates' foundation ought to strike fear in the heart of every unborn baby in the world. This is truly an unprecedented event: the world's second richest man giving the bulk of his immense fortune to the world's richest man for the singular purpose of population control. Wow.We ought not to forget who these two men are. It was Warren Buffett who funded the deadly abortion drug RU-486 and has sent suction machines to the Third World to make sure that the poor would not proliferate in his eugenic vision of a white-dominated world. He has an unfiltered bias toward population control and abortion.
Mr. Gates is hardly less of an anti-lifer though his philanthropy tends to be better-disguised. He dedicates millions to Planned Parenthood and their abortion machine. He funds condom-distribution efforts, youth education and "reproductive health" schemes all of which are disguised in compassionate terms as AIDS programs and women's rights initiatives. Needless to say, chastity is not his main concern. He is still young and has made it clear that his second career will be expending these vast resources in generous anti-life measures; he is a formidable force to reckon with. There is nothing that fuels the anti-life movement more than money. It exists, perhaps symbolically so, on filthy lucre, and with this one mammoth financial windfall I believe the abortion-promoting elite have pushed the already-imbalanced life vs. death battle beyond the point of no return. With Buffett's billions Gates may be, in a strictly worldly sense, unstoppable. The culture of life simply cannot compete with this kind of money. And this is precisely the point where the pro-life movement has needed to be for a long time: the point where all strictly human solutions are rendered impotent and we have no choice but to turn to an even greater power than the combined fortunes of the world's two richest men. Simply put, they have money, we have God; which means we live in hope for the definitive solution to this mess and they live in fear of a stock market crash. While we can never cease our human efforts to labor on behalf of the poorest of the world's poor, the unborn, neither can we pretend that our best efforts towards a worldly solution to the anti-life movement will be sufficient. Only God can win this fight, presuming our cooperation. He is not impressed by the wealth of men; in fact, He scoffs at it. He is impressed, however, with humility, and wants us on our knees every spare moment while we work for the unborn. Prayerful humility reminds us where our strength lies. It is not in money or in our efforts or cleverness. It is in Him. The prayers of the faithful will eventually undo the culture of death in much the same way that the prayers of the faithful toppled the institutions of Communism. We must always, in all ways and at all times make it our priority to buffet the gates of death with assiduous prayers for deliverance from this present darkness and trust that the hell of Gates shall not prevail.
Fr. Tom Euteneuer is president of Human Life International.
Source: http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=33561&vm_id=&action_type=get_results&quiz_id=1143&typeid=1&answer=3938&submit1=submit#quizpoll
Look, Up in the Sky: It's the Son of Man!
Superman Returns -- and So Should the Church
Dr. Marc T. Newman
(AgapePress) - He is the son sent to save humankind. He is beaten, ridiculed, denied by those closest to him, and nearly gives his life in an attempt to save billions from death. Okay, I'll admit, the parallels are there if you are looking for them. One critic hailed the new hero of Superman Returns as Jesus Christ Superman -- a play on the rock opera from the 70s. But the mundane side of Superman's life seems to make identifying him with Jesus a stretch. Unless you are a disciple of Dan Brown's, that Superman was married (albeit briefly) to Lois Lane in Superman II presents a problem, and that he requires an alter-ego (Jesus did not hide who He was) suggests a bad fit.
But the single, most important non-starter in trying to apply the moniker of Savior of the World to Superman is that he strayed from his mission -- at least temporarily. There is no doubt that Superman is emblematic. But I would like to argue that, at least in Superman Returns, he has more to teach about the mission of the Church than the nature of the Christ. Superman Returns serves as a microcosm of what can occur when the Church abandons its mission to the world: it leads to bitterness and emboldens evil. However, the movie also suggests fruitful ways for the Church to re-engage.
For those interested in using the movie Superman Returns to examine why people reject the Gospel and what a good initial Christian response might look like, www.MovieMinistry.com has prepared an outreach Bible study that uses the film to kick off discussion and drive people to the Scriptures: Does the World Need a Savior? Do You?
Abandoning the MissionWhen critics compare Superman to Jesus, one piece of evidence they provide is that his father, Jor-el, has sent his only son, Superman (Kal-el*) to Earth to be "the light" that shows people "the way." Yet when astronomers discover remnants of Superman's home planet, Krypton, his curiosity is piqued and, without a word, Superman leaves the Earth he was sent to save. Jesus never abandoned His mission to satisfy His curiosity. But this lesson in Superman Returns could easily serve as a cautionary tale to the Church. God has commissioned the Church to use its time, talent, and resources for evangelism and good works -- to cooperate with God in saving the world. Unfortunately, the Church, like Superman, often becomes distracted.
For example, as researcher George Barna has pointed out, only a sliver of Christians tithe, and many churches have refocused much more of their spending on themselves by way of facilities and church programs than they do on evangelism, outreach, and missions. Gene Edward Veith, reporting in WORLD Magazine in 2005, notes that the church designates only two percent of its income to missions. We would be embarrassed to know what percentage goes to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and aid the sick -- activities which, along with the Great Commission to spread the Gospel, were explicitly commanded by Christ of His followers. The Church cannot abandon the mission with impunity. We ought to expect a backlash.
The Embittered Abandoned
The only reason given by Superman for leaving his job so abruptly, without preparing anyone for his departure from the field, was that giving notice would have been personally uncomfortable. Deserting hurting people is a sure way to embitter them. In response to Superman abdicating his responsibilities, Lois Lane (reporter for Metropolis' Daily Planet) writes a Pulitzer Prize-winning column about how the world doesn't need Superman. Upon his return, she says to his face, "The world doesn’t need a savior, and neither do I." The lesson? Abandon the battle long enough and people might conclude they are better off without you.
It is not true, of course. In a world wracked by overwhelming evil only the foolish would deny the need of a savior. But when the world sees those commissioned to reach out to them looking inward instead, they cannot help questioning the sincerity of those who claim to save. Terry Mattingly reports on a story in John and Sylvia Ronnsvalle's book, Behind the Stained Glass Windows: Money Dynamics in the Church, which reveals much about the attitude that has soured some on the Church and salvation. People's discomfort with change, the authors note, often trumps the mission of the Church. A couple of men, in one case study, accosted their evangelistic pastor, one saying, "We want you to stop talking about inviting other people into this church. There are too many new people now. We don't know half the people who come here and there are new people in leadership positions."
Some of the most comfortable places in the world are museums. Everything is climate-controlled to ensure that the artifacts inside don't change. Personal comfort is a great model if you are trying to preserve the past, but a lousy one if you want to advance the Kingdom. Jesus taught His disciples to leave their own comfort behind and to seek out those that others had rejected.
Emboldened Evil
In addition to embittering Lois, Superman's departure emboldened evil. While Superman was on Earth doing his job, his nemesis, Lex Luthor, was safely behind bars. But when Superman leaves to satisfy his curiosity about his dead world, Luthor schemes in the land of the living to escape his bonds. Luthor is not merely a criminal; he has pretensions toward godhood. But his parole is granted because Superman is not available at the hearing to speak against Luthor's release. Taking advantage of Superman's absence, Luthor has plenty of time to ferret out the Man of Steel's secrets and become a potent adversary.
Edmund Burke once argued that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." When the Church becomes obsessed with her own desires, plans, and programs and forgets her commission to combat evil by evangelizing sinners and doing the good works that God has set before her, then evil triumphs. If the Church will not share the Gospel, demonic alternatives will rise to give the lost false hope. If the Church abandons the arts, the arts come to reflect an evil purpose. If the Church abandons medicine, we get abortion on demand and euthanasia. When the Church abandons the poor, we get eugenics programs and one-child-only national policies. When the Church is disengaged, the world does not stand still. And when we return, we cannot expect evil to give way without a fight.
Strategy for Re-Engagement
Superman Returns is as good at suggesting recovery as it is about diagnosing the problem. Once Superman gets a grip on what he has done, he apologizes and re-engages. Good re-enters the fray against titanic evil. The idea that good overcomes evil is not merely a sop to wishful thinkers. It is a truth deeply ingrained in humanity. Superman Returns relies on the universality of that feeling to work. The film also recognizes the need for sacrifice to attain the good end. This movie is not about cheap forgiveness and easy victories.
Christians, particularly those in the affluent West, might well begin re-engagement by apologizing for the fields we have abandoned in pursuing our own personal peace. We are not each responsible for every fight -- none of us are "faster than a speeding bullet" -- however, we all ought to be fighting somewhere. Breast-beating should be short in duration -- there are still battles before us. Sacrifices must be made as we re-prioritize our time, talents, and treasure to reflect those of the Great Commissioner. By leaving the dead to bury the dead, by not looking back once we have put our hand to the plow, by engaging our culture with God's Good News, we can further God's Kingdom and beat back the usurping forces of the evil one -- a super analogy from one of the first big films of the summer.
Marc T. Newman, PhD (marc@movieministry.com) is the president of MovieMinistry.com -- an organization that provides sermon and teaching illustrations from popular film, and helps the Church use movies to reach out to others and connect with people.
© 2006 AgapePress
*Is it just coincidence that this is Hebrew for "voice of God"?
Dr. Marc T. Newman
(AgapePress) - He is the son sent to save humankind. He is beaten, ridiculed, denied by those closest to him, and nearly gives his life in an attempt to save billions from death. Okay, I'll admit, the parallels are there if you are looking for them. One critic hailed the new hero of Superman Returns as Jesus Christ Superman -- a play on the rock opera from the 70s. But the mundane side of Superman's life seems to make identifying him with Jesus a stretch. Unless you are a disciple of Dan Brown's, that Superman was married (albeit briefly) to Lois Lane in Superman II presents a problem, and that he requires an alter-ego (Jesus did not hide who He was) suggests a bad fit.
But the single, most important non-starter in trying to apply the moniker of Savior of the World to Superman is that he strayed from his mission -- at least temporarily. There is no doubt that Superman is emblematic. But I would like to argue that, at least in Superman Returns, he has more to teach about the mission of the Church than the nature of the Christ. Superman Returns serves as a microcosm of what can occur when the Church abandons its mission to the world: it leads to bitterness and emboldens evil. However, the movie also suggests fruitful ways for the Church to re-engage.
For those interested in using the movie Superman Returns to examine why people reject the Gospel and what a good initial Christian response might look like, www.MovieMinistry.com has prepared an outreach Bible study that uses the film to kick off discussion and drive people to the Scriptures: Does the World Need a Savior? Do You?
Abandoning the MissionWhen critics compare Superman to Jesus, one piece of evidence they provide is that his father, Jor-el, has sent his only son, Superman (Kal-el*) to Earth to be "the light" that shows people "the way." Yet when astronomers discover remnants of Superman's home planet, Krypton, his curiosity is piqued and, without a word, Superman leaves the Earth he was sent to save. Jesus never abandoned His mission to satisfy His curiosity. But this lesson in Superman Returns could easily serve as a cautionary tale to the Church. God has commissioned the Church to use its time, talent, and resources for evangelism and good works -- to cooperate with God in saving the world. Unfortunately, the Church, like Superman, often becomes distracted.
For example, as researcher George Barna has pointed out, only a sliver of Christians tithe, and many churches have refocused much more of their spending on themselves by way of facilities and church programs than they do on evangelism, outreach, and missions. Gene Edward Veith, reporting in WORLD Magazine in 2005, notes that the church designates only two percent of its income to missions. We would be embarrassed to know what percentage goes to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and aid the sick -- activities which, along with the Great Commission to spread the Gospel, were explicitly commanded by Christ of His followers. The Church cannot abandon the mission with impunity. We ought to expect a backlash.
The Embittered Abandoned
The only reason given by Superman for leaving his job so abruptly, without preparing anyone for his departure from the field, was that giving notice would have been personally uncomfortable. Deserting hurting people is a sure way to embitter them. In response to Superman abdicating his responsibilities, Lois Lane (reporter for Metropolis' Daily Planet) writes a Pulitzer Prize-winning column about how the world doesn't need Superman. Upon his return, she says to his face, "The world doesn’t need a savior, and neither do I." The lesson? Abandon the battle long enough and people might conclude they are better off without you.
It is not true, of course. In a world wracked by overwhelming evil only the foolish would deny the need of a savior. But when the world sees those commissioned to reach out to them looking inward instead, they cannot help questioning the sincerity of those who claim to save. Terry Mattingly reports on a story in John and Sylvia Ronnsvalle's book, Behind the Stained Glass Windows: Money Dynamics in the Church, which reveals much about the attitude that has soured some on the Church and salvation. People's discomfort with change, the authors note, often trumps the mission of the Church. A couple of men, in one case study, accosted their evangelistic pastor, one saying, "We want you to stop talking about inviting other people into this church. There are too many new people now. We don't know half the people who come here and there are new people in leadership positions."
Some of the most comfortable places in the world are museums. Everything is climate-controlled to ensure that the artifacts inside don't change. Personal comfort is a great model if you are trying to preserve the past, but a lousy one if you want to advance the Kingdom. Jesus taught His disciples to leave their own comfort behind and to seek out those that others had rejected.
Emboldened Evil
In addition to embittering Lois, Superman's departure emboldened evil. While Superman was on Earth doing his job, his nemesis, Lex Luthor, was safely behind bars. But when Superman leaves to satisfy his curiosity about his dead world, Luthor schemes in the land of the living to escape his bonds. Luthor is not merely a criminal; he has pretensions toward godhood. But his parole is granted because Superman is not available at the hearing to speak against Luthor's release. Taking advantage of Superman's absence, Luthor has plenty of time to ferret out the Man of Steel's secrets and become a potent adversary.
Edmund Burke once argued that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." When the Church becomes obsessed with her own desires, plans, and programs and forgets her commission to combat evil by evangelizing sinners and doing the good works that God has set before her, then evil triumphs. If the Church will not share the Gospel, demonic alternatives will rise to give the lost false hope. If the Church abandons the arts, the arts come to reflect an evil purpose. If the Church abandons medicine, we get abortion on demand and euthanasia. When the Church abandons the poor, we get eugenics programs and one-child-only national policies. When the Church is disengaged, the world does not stand still. And when we return, we cannot expect evil to give way without a fight.
Strategy for Re-Engagement
Superman Returns is as good at suggesting recovery as it is about diagnosing the problem. Once Superman gets a grip on what he has done, he apologizes and re-engages. Good re-enters the fray against titanic evil. The idea that good overcomes evil is not merely a sop to wishful thinkers. It is a truth deeply ingrained in humanity. Superman Returns relies on the universality of that feeling to work. The film also recognizes the need for sacrifice to attain the good end. This movie is not about cheap forgiveness and easy victories.
Christians, particularly those in the affluent West, might well begin re-engagement by apologizing for the fields we have abandoned in pursuing our own personal peace. We are not each responsible for every fight -- none of us are "faster than a speeding bullet" -- however, we all ought to be fighting somewhere. Breast-beating should be short in duration -- there are still battles before us. Sacrifices must be made as we re-prioritize our time, talents, and treasure to reflect those of the Great Commissioner. By leaving the dead to bury the dead, by not looking back once we have put our hand to the plow, by engaging our culture with God's Good News, we can further God's Kingdom and beat back the usurping forces of the evil one -- a super analogy from one of the first big films of the summer.
Marc T. Newman, PhD (marc@movieministry.com) is the president of MovieMinistry.com -- an organization that provides sermon and teaching illustrations from popular film, and helps the Church use movies to reach out to others and connect with people.
© 2006 AgapePress
*Is it just coincidence that this is Hebrew for "voice of God"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)