If you want to know you did the right thing, but the steps you need to take to find that out could disrupt the entire life of someone else, should you still try to find out? Would you be justified in doing what you think you need to do?
I don't know how much longer I can stand to watch this unfold without knowing whether I was right or not.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Love and Picket Signs
Each year, thousands of Christians gather in Washington DC and walk, picket signs and protests held high, to the steps of Capitol Hill in what is now called the "March For Life," an anti-abortion protest. Hundreds of pro-life groups lend their support for this protest, taking this as an opportunity to say that the life of the unborn is just as sacred as the life of those born and that those who support "choice" are clearly in the wrong.
This is a common image painted of most Evangelical Christians: picket signs held high and condemnation flowing from their tongues. Though not OFTEN touched on in previous years, it has become more evident in recent films and documentaries the world's view of the church: condemnation. Often, the extreme ends of Christianity get to speak (Westboro Baptist Church, who picket the funerals of soldiers, is the first example coming to my mind), but it's not often that the happy medium (if there is one) gets to speak its mind. Therefore, the church is lumped together with the condemning attitudes of a few as a result of not only protests such as the one mentioned above, but also a severe lack of social action to change the problem.
I'm touching on the pro-life issue in light of recent discussions with friends on the matter. I have to question how many Christians who claim to be pro-life really are for a couple reasons:
1) How many Christians who are willing to buy pro-life stickers to put on their cars or who will travel down to DC each year to protest Roe vs. Wade are actually willing to be a part of the solution? This is a dream of mine to accomplish at some point: I want to go down to DC with two chairs, a table, a list of crisis pregnancy centers in the Northeast region, and a pen, and begin asking people to sign up to volunteer at these places, just to see how many people I get willing to do that. I can't imagine I'd get many. You see, when one protests, one must be ready to actually do something to help the problem, and there are plenty of solutions to abortion. Things like helping a young mother take care of her unexpected child. volunteering for a crisis pregnancy center, donating things like diapers and formula so that young mother (whom you would have condemned for aborting the child she couldn't take care of) can care for her child properly, or even (SHOCKING) helping out at Planned Parenthood, who at least makes information about contraceptives available and teaches people able sexual health (something churches are downright afraid of anymore.
My point here is being part of the solution, not just complaining about the problem. If we just spend our time yelling at people going into clinics that they're going to Hell, we've completely missed Christ's message. Christ would take that woman aside and offer to help take care of the child she doesn't want. In fact, that's exactly what he does. He loves the mother just as much as the unborn, and I think Christians miss that often. We're supposed to be Christ's hands and feet, why aren't we reaching out and loving those who are in the situation of an unexpected pregnancy? They need the love of Christ just as much as the unborn child in their womb.
2) This is more of an opinion thing, and definitely a debate for another day, but I find it quite hypocritical for someone to be pro-life and pro-war. The two don't mix. If you value the life of the unborn so much (which, I want to emphasize, I do) then why don't you value the life of your fellow man? What makes the unborn child's life so important in comparison to the life of a grown man? Doesn't Christ love him too?
Those are my thoughts for today. I'll develop the second one further sometime, if I find the time.
This is a common image painted of most Evangelical Christians: picket signs held high and condemnation flowing from their tongues. Though not OFTEN touched on in previous years, it has become more evident in recent films and documentaries the world's view of the church: condemnation. Often, the extreme ends of Christianity get to speak (Westboro Baptist Church, who picket the funerals of soldiers, is the first example coming to my mind), but it's not often that the happy medium (if there is one) gets to speak its mind. Therefore, the church is lumped together with the condemning attitudes of a few as a result of not only protests such as the one mentioned above, but also a severe lack of social action to change the problem.
I'm touching on the pro-life issue in light of recent discussions with friends on the matter. I have to question how many Christians who claim to be pro-life really are for a couple reasons:
1) How many Christians who are willing to buy pro-life stickers to put on their cars or who will travel down to DC each year to protest Roe vs. Wade are actually willing to be a part of the solution? This is a dream of mine to accomplish at some point: I want to go down to DC with two chairs, a table, a list of crisis pregnancy centers in the Northeast region, and a pen, and begin asking people to sign up to volunteer at these places, just to see how many people I get willing to do that. I can't imagine I'd get many. You see, when one protests, one must be ready to actually do something to help the problem, and there are plenty of solutions to abortion. Things like helping a young mother take care of her unexpected child. volunteering for a crisis pregnancy center, donating things like diapers and formula so that young mother (whom you would have condemned for aborting the child she couldn't take care of) can care for her child properly, or even (SHOCKING) helping out at Planned Parenthood, who at least makes information about contraceptives available and teaches people able sexual health (something churches are downright afraid of anymore.
My point here is being part of the solution, not just complaining about the problem. If we just spend our time yelling at people going into clinics that they're going to Hell, we've completely missed Christ's message. Christ would take that woman aside and offer to help take care of the child she doesn't want. In fact, that's exactly what he does. He loves the mother just as much as the unborn, and I think Christians miss that often. We're supposed to be Christ's hands and feet, why aren't we reaching out and loving those who are in the situation of an unexpected pregnancy? They need the love of Christ just as much as the unborn child in their womb.
2) This is more of an opinion thing, and definitely a debate for another day, but I find it quite hypocritical for someone to be pro-life and pro-war. The two don't mix. If you value the life of the unborn so much (which, I want to emphasize, I do) then why don't you value the life of your fellow man? What makes the unborn child's life so important in comparison to the life of a grown man? Doesn't Christ love him too?
Those are my thoughts for today. I'll develop the second one further sometime, if I find the time.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
One at odds
There are times where I submit myself to the will of God. In those times, I find that I'm only kidding myself.
There are other times where I find myself at odds with God. In those times, I find that I'm being real with myself.
Today, it is the latter.
There are other times where I find myself at odds with God. In those times, I find that I'm being real with myself.
Today, it is the latter.
Monday, October 20, 2008
On Being Nonviolent
I've been getting this question a lot lately. Is it really so confusing? People seem compelled to ask "Pat, you're nonviolent? So, if I hit you, you wouldn't do anything back?" Is it really so hard to believe that someone could really say "No, I wouldn't hit you back. In fact, I'd turn the other cheek so you could hit the other one."
I guess in today's society it is strange to commit to complete nonviolence, considering the self-centered view people take. It's not uncommon for people to be opposed to things such as war, but when it comes to their own person or people close to them, then you're in trouble. You better start running, because they'll tear your head off if you so much as touch them, their girlfriend, their mother, etc. It's just understood that war is bad, but that random person who attacks you deserves to die.
The word pacifist has some pretty bad connotations to it as well. The best examples people can think of are the Amish and Mennonite communities that seal themselves off from society as much as possible and simply don't act in the face of violence or oppression. Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for the Mennonites. I know for a fact that Mennonite communities are full of the most loving, caring people on Earth, and many others will testify to their compassion for anyone who comes to their door, but the problem with this kind of pacifism is that it isn't really pacifism. All that the Amish are doing is being passive. There's no action behind their core beliefs. In reality, they're just as bad as the warmonger who seeks to wipe out whole nations, because they do nothing stop him.
As far as I can tell, Jesus didn't preach either of these ways. My pastor spoke on the subject of nonviolence this past Sunday, explaining the context of Matthew 5:38-44, and what Jesus meant when He said "Do not resist an evil person." After checking into what he said (a habit I hope every Christan would employ after the service on Sunday), I found what he said to be accurate, and I thought I would share with you what he had to say, as well as my own opinion.
Matthew 5:39; "But I tell you do no resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
This had some interesting connotations in Christ's day. In their culture, just as in some third world countries today, your right and your left hand were used for different purposes, specifically when it came to eating. You ate with your right hand, and you can imagine what you did with your left. Because of this, if someone offended you, you were only allowed to hit them with your right hand. If you hit them with your left, you could be kicked out of town for up to 10 days. It's also important to note the styles of hitting. If you backhanded someone, it was a way of saying to them "I'm better than you. You're just scum." To get backhanded was a serious insult. Christ's people, the Jews, at this time were under oppression from the Roman empire, and Roman soldiers (and other Gentiles) would often treat them with such contempt and scorn. They'd spit on them and backhand them as a way of saying "You are inferior to me."
Here's where it all connects. Since you could only hit with your right hand, and to backhand somebody was to insult them, that meant that the right cheek was getting slapped. When Christ said "turn the other cheek" it's assumed he meant to turn the left. There was only one way, then, that they could be hit, and that's with the open palm of the right hand. This was still a sign of disrespect, but on the level that you were equal with that person. When people would turn the other cheek, then, it would say to the assailant "You can try to take my dignity,my humanity, but you cannot have it. You will treat me like an equal."
Pacifism isn't a passive way of living; it's active. By being nonviolent, you're making an example of the person being violent towards you. You expose their own wrongdoing.
It's the same idea with 5:41. "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Roman soldiers carried around a lot of equipment in their time which could get heavy, and as a way of pushing their authority on others, they would make someone else carry their pack, just to show that they were superior, but they could only make them do it for a mile. How much would it say to that soldier if a man said to him "oh it's cool. I can take this for another mile." It's not necessarily to get them in trouble (to lie about it would go against God's commands), but it showed that soldier that no matter what he might make that person do, he won't take their dignity, won't destroy the love they have for them.
Loving our enemies is one of the most active things we can do as Christians. We can't do that by dropping bombs on them, nor can we love anyone by not doing anything. We must be active lovers as Christians. This is why I consider myself a pacifist. Now, being raised in America, I've never had much persecution to face. I'll admit this. It's easy for me to take this stance. However, we even need people promoting peace here in America, where it's our tendency to lash out against those who might try to hurt us. And this goes beyond physical harm. It means being peaceful in our speech, peaceful in everything we do. Just because I don't take a swing at someone doesn't mean I can hurt them with words, or by some other way bring them down. No, I need to be peaceful in every aspect of my life. It means so much to love our enemies, but we can't be selective in how we love them either.
Anyway, that's why I'm nonviolent.
I guess in today's society it is strange to commit to complete nonviolence, considering the self-centered view people take. It's not uncommon for people to be opposed to things such as war, but when it comes to their own person or people close to them, then you're in trouble. You better start running, because they'll tear your head off if you so much as touch them, their girlfriend, their mother, etc. It's just understood that war is bad, but that random person who attacks you deserves to die.
The word pacifist has some pretty bad connotations to it as well. The best examples people can think of are the Amish and Mennonite communities that seal themselves off from society as much as possible and simply don't act in the face of violence or oppression. Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for the Mennonites. I know for a fact that Mennonite communities are full of the most loving, caring people on Earth, and many others will testify to their compassion for anyone who comes to their door, but the problem with this kind of pacifism is that it isn't really pacifism. All that the Amish are doing is being passive. There's no action behind their core beliefs. In reality, they're just as bad as the warmonger who seeks to wipe out whole nations, because they do nothing stop him.
As far as I can tell, Jesus didn't preach either of these ways. My pastor spoke on the subject of nonviolence this past Sunday, explaining the context of Matthew 5:38-44, and what Jesus meant when He said "Do not resist an evil person." After checking into what he said (a habit I hope every Christan would employ after the service on Sunday), I found what he said to be accurate, and I thought I would share with you what he had to say, as well as my own opinion.
Matthew 5:39; "But I tell you do no resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
This had some interesting connotations in Christ's day. In their culture, just as in some third world countries today, your right and your left hand were used for different purposes, specifically when it came to eating. You ate with your right hand, and you can imagine what you did with your left. Because of this, if someone offended you, you were only allowed to hit them with your right hand. If you hit them with your left, you could be kicked out of town for up to 10 days. It's also important to note the styles of hitting. If you backhanded someone, it was a way of saying to them "I'm better than you. You're just scum." To get backhanded was a serious insult. Christ's people, the Jews, at this time were under oppression from the Roman empire, and Roman soldiers (and other Gentiles) would often treat them with such contempt and scorn. They'd spit on them and backhand them as a way of saying "You are inferior to me."
Here's where it all connects. Since you could only hit with your right hand, and to backhand somebody was to insult them, that meant that the right cheek was getting slapped. When Christ said "turn the other cheek" it's assumed he meant to turn the left. There was only one way, then, that they could be hit, and that's with the open palm of the right hand. This was still a sign of disrespect, but on the level that you were equal with that person. When people would turn the other cheek, then, it would say to the assailant "You can try to take my dignity,my humanity, but you cannot have it. You will treat me like an equal."
Pacifism isn't a passive way of living; it's active. By being nonviolent, you're making an example of the person being violent towards you. You expose their own wrongdoing.
It's the same idea with 5:41. "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Roman soldiers carried around a lot of equipment in their time which could get heavy, and as a way of pushing their authority on others, they would make someone else carry their pack, just to show that they were superior, but they could only make them do it for a mile. How much would it say to that soldier if a man said to him "oh it's cool. I can take this for another mile." It's not necessarily to get them in trouble (to lie about it would go against God's commands), but it showed that soldier that no matter what he might make that person do, he won't take their dignity, won't destroy the love they have for them.
Loving our enemies is one of the most active things we can do as Christians. We can't do that by dropping bombs on them, nor can we love anyone by not doing anything. We must be active lovers as Christians. This is why I consider myself a pacifist. Now, being raised in America, I've never had much persecution to face. I'll admit this. It's easy for me to take this stance. However, we even need people promoting peace here in America, where it's our tendency to lash out against those who might try to hurt us. And this goes beyond physical harm. It means being peaceful in our speech, peaceful in everything we do. Just because I don't take a swing at someone doesn't mean I can hurt them with words, or by some other way bring them down. No, I need to be peaceful in every aspect of my life. It means so much to love our enemies, but we can't be selective in how we love them either.
Anyway, that's why I'm nonviolent.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Dragonflies
Dragonflies dance about the tall grasses
on a muggy, thick summer's eve, diving
from greatest heights, catching prey in flashes
of daring grace, teasing a boy lying
on the hill, envious of exclusive
gifts as these. Bound to the earth, he begs god
to lift him to the sky. Intrusive
as deities are, making men from clods
of mud and being so imposing on these
clueless creatures, he simply told him to
wait his turn, for it had once been decreed
that all souls would fly one day, should he do
his part and sit patiently. The boy found
god's plan cruel and left, still bound to the ground.
One of the greatest things I've ever experienced is falling asleep underneath the shade of a pine tree on a warm, summer evening. It refreshed me for the evening, and cleared my mind to make room for the inspiration that gave birth to the sonnet above. In a way, I used the poem to vent, but I would hope that one could gain great insight from what I wrote.
Now, it's clearly been awhile since I've posted anything, but I would hope that I could sum up easily where I am at this time. I'm in my junior year at VFCC, and I find myself up to my neck in work and activities, constantly running around, and yet, there are times where I find I am able to get away and rest for a period just to clear my head. It was in this time (and another time, later that evening) that I confronted God with how I felt. I couldn't help but feel held back from the things I had asked for, and it was becoming frustrating. Had I not been patient? Had I not been diligent? Why do you taunt me in this way, God?
I shouldn't have to clarify, but this is no faith crisis, just a matter of annoyance. Naturally, God essentially said to me what he said to the boy, though, unlike the boy, I find myself still being patient. Thankfully, my diligence was not called into question (I think God chuckled a little bit there). All the same, God's timing is never ours, and I think it takes a lifetime to learn that. I'm quite tired of people telling me to be patient when they can't be patient themselves, but, at the same time, they're right about it. Patience is somewhat important in following Christ, because we won't always see clear direction, and we will be stumbling about in the dark. God and His word guide us in the dark, but only a step at a time, as if He wants us to enjoy that time with him. Typing this now, I'm in no position to tell anyone to be patient (the lunch line alone frustrates me), but working towards that is a goal each Christian ought to set. Pushing ahead, being headstrong, come after being patient.
on a muggy, thick summer's eve, diving
from greatest heights, catching prey in flashes
of daring grace, teasing a boy lying
on the hill, envious of exclusive
gifts as these. Bound to the earth, he begs god
to lift him to the sky. Intrusive
as deities are, making men from clods
of mud and being so imposing on these
clueless creatures, he simply told him to
wait his turn, for it had once been decreed
that all souls would fly one day, should he do
his part and sit patiently. The boy found
god's plan cruel and left, still bound to the ground.
One of the greatest things I've ever experienced is falling asleep underneath the shade of a pine tree on a warm, summer evening. It refreshed me for the evening, and cleared my mind to make room for the inspiration that gave birth to the sonnet above. In a way, I used the poem to vent, but I would hope that one could gain great insight from what I wrote.
Now, it's clearly been awhile since I've posted anything, but I would hope that I could sum up easily where I am at this time. I'm in my junior year at VFCC, and I find myself up to my neck in work and activities, constantly running around, and yet, there are times where I find I am able to get away and rest for a period just to clear my head. It was in this time (and another time, later that evening) that I confronted God with how I felt. I couldn't help but feel held back from the things I had asked for, and it was becoming frustrating. Had I not been patient? Had I not been diligent? Why do you taunt me in this way, God?
I shouldn't have to clarify, but this is no faith crisis, just a matter of annoyance. Naturally, God essentially said to me what he said to the boy, though, unlike the boy, I find myself still being patient. Thankfully, my diligence was not called into question (I think God chuckled a little bit there). All the same, God's timing is never ours, and I think it takes a lifetime to learn that. I'm quite tired of people telling me to be patient when they can't be patient themselves, but, at the same time, they're right about it. Patience is somewhat important in following Christ, because we won't always see clear direction, and we will be stumbling about in the dark. God and His word guide us in the dark, but only a step at a time, as if He wants us to enjoy that time with him. Typing this now, I'm in no position to tell anyone to be patient (the lunch line alone frustrates me), but working towards that is a goal each Christian ought to set. Pushing ahead, being headstrong, come after being patient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
