I am always moved by the poignancy and significance of Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:37-38. Jesus was coming to terms with the reality that his hopeful, life changing message of God’s kingdom on earth was going to be refused by the power structure of his day. One can sense his deep sorrow when he said of the establishment, “[Once again you are going to] kill the prophets and stone those sent to you.”
So it is in every generation. True change agents are brutally treated by those entrenched in power. They will verbally and physically attack and employ any means to silence the voices of change, even if they have to make martyrs out of them. A generation ago it was Martin Luther King. Before that it was Abraham Lincoln and so many others down through history—including Jesus.
Often, as was the case in Jesus’ day, it is the religious establishment that most aggressively opposes progress. I’ll never forget the hostile stance the mostly white conservative Christian circle I was raised in took toward Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Shame!
The overriding theme of our time is change. It is an echoing crescendo in the public square, the halls of congress, political arena, corporate board rooms and religious circles. You can feel it everywhere. There is growing discontent with the status quo. Something is going on that I haven’t felt since the peace and civil rights movements of the ‘60’s.
Tragically, those movements faltered and ran aground because of the loss of key leaders and the infighting, rebellion, hedonism and violence that filled the vacuum. They fell far short of their ideals. In the aftermath our nation plunged into decades of scandal and greed that have diminished us as a nation.
Once again, young people and change minded folks of all ages are rising up and saying to the entrenched powers, “We want a better world than you have given us. Your old policies of the past have failed.” And, once again, the establishment is ready to destroy any serious voice of change.
Many of us are praying for societal transformation. I am convinced God is in the process of answering our prayer. Let us continue to pray that the leaders of change are kept safe and given the full chance to be heard. Some of them are sent from God.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A WORD TO VALUES VOTERS
I am unapologetically anti-flood and drought. I believe God wants me to oppose these affronts to our survival as a civilization. The toll on human life brought about by floods and droughts such as we have seen in Louisiana or Indonesia or in Sub-Saharan Africa must be stopped. My personal values require that I not compromise with anyone who tolerates such life taking horrors. Therefore, I demand that laws be passed banning all flood and drought forecasts.
How ridiculous you might say. But in reality some of us have behaved in exactly this manner when it comes to various so called values issues upon which we have taken a stand. I offer it as a parable of what happens when “values” go political.
Politicians and media types are powerless to change values. To win our vote candidates may promise to uphold our values, but the truth is they have about the same chance of bringing about meaningful change as would a weather reporter speaking out against floods. Values have been at the forefront of several successive election cycles and virtually nothing has changed. At the end of the day, politicians prefer to have values issues they can use to mobilize the voters more than solutions which are totally beyond their control.
Values issues are always complex. Take the prolife position as an example. Can I be considered genuinely prolife if I oppose abortion on demand but not preemptive war on demand? Is it hypocritical to say I want to protect life in the womb because it is helpless if I celebrate as victory for our side the successful bombing of a poor neighborhood where the enemy was but also housed innocent women and children who were equally helpless against such fire power? Can one be truly prolife and support any policy intentionally expecting and allowing “collateral damage?”
Shouldn’t my defense of life be consistent whether it is in or out of the womb? Can one claim to be prolife and passively do nothing to stop genocides and famines going on in places like Africa? Can I claim to value life and at the same time buy products from nations with abysmal human rights records because they are a bargain and it is good for business?
We all have a set of values. And well we should. Let’s make certain, however, we’re not being exploited by politicians and political parties. If I allow a politician to emotionally manipulate me and capture my vote before I have worked through all the complexities and broader implications of the issues, I’m a dupe.
Meteorologists can’t stop floods. Washington won’t bring an end to abortions. The values of a society can only be changed one heart at a time. When I cast my vote this time I intend to look beyond political slogans and party platforms and vote for the candidate who best represents in the most consistent and far reaching manner all the issues I care about. Judging from the present crop of candidates I’ll probably have to hold my nose as I enter to voting booth and make a choice.
How ridiculous you might say. But in reality some of us have behaved in exactly this manner when it comes to various so called values issues upon which we have taken a stand. I offer it as a parable of what happens when “values” go political.
Politicians and media types are powerless to change values. To win our vote candidates may promise to uphold our values, but the truth is they have about the same chance of bringing about meaningful change as would a weather reporter speaking out against floods. Values have been at the forefront of several successive election cycles and virtually nothing has changed. At the end of the day, politicians prefer to have values issues they can use to mobilize the voters more than solutions which are totally beyond their control.
Values issues are always complex. Take the prolife position as an example. Can I be considered genuinely prolife if I oppose abortion on demand but not preemptive war on demand? Is it hypocritical to say I want to protect life in the womb because it is helpless if I celebrate as victory for our side the successful bombing of a poor neighborhood where the enemy was but also housed innocent women and children who were equally helpless against such fire power? Can one be truly prolife and support any policy intentionally expecting and allowing “collateral damage?”
Shouldn’t my defense of life be consistent whether it is in or out of the womb? Can one claim to be prolife and passively do nothing to stop genocides and famines going on in places like Africa? Can I claim to value life and at the same time buy products from nations with abysmal human rights records because they are a bargain and it is good for business?
We all have a set of values. And well we should. Let’s make certain, however, we’re not being exploited by politicians and political parties. If I allow a politician to emotionally manipulate me and capture my vote before I have worked through all the complexities and broader implications of the issues, I’m a dupe.
Meteorologists can’t stop floods. Washington won’t bring an end to abortions. The values of a society can only be changed one heart at a time. When I cast my vote this time I intend to look beyond political slogans and party platforms and vote for the candidate who best represents in the most consistent and far reaching manner all the issues I care about. Judging from the present crop of candidates I’ll probably have to hold my nose as I enter to voting booth and make a choice.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Choose wisely, Grasshopper.
It’s really a question of attitude and thought process. I have a choice.
I can decide to listen to the part of me that prefers to retreat into retention of what was. Or, I can lean into an expectation of better things to come. Fearing encroachments from unknown threats that may lurk in the darkness of tomorrow, I can build protecting and controlling walls. Or, I can put my face into the exhilarating breeze of change and go for it.
The wisdom of the Bible strongly favors one of these approaches over the other. Of the legendary models of faith written about in Hebrews chapter 11, it states: “If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead they were longing for a better country...” They heroically did not strive to conserve the past.
These folks don’t have all the answers. In fact, they are said to operate in the realm of the unseen-hoped-for-but-not-yet-realized. By nature they are risk takers and adventurers. They listen to the inner voice that says, “Yes, you can,” refusing to be governed by fears that say, “No, you can’t.” One approach is vigorous and optimistic. The other is grumpy, negative and overly cautious.
The Bible celebrates those whose outlook makes them generous, not hoarders; welcoming, not excluding. They see enemies as potential friends, rather than evil combatants. They give freely when others withhold. Some choose to live with arms extended outward in open embrace. Others pull their hands into their vest and extend only a cold shoulder. According to the scriptures, the givers gain while the hoarders lose (See Proverbs 11:24-25).
For 2008 I have set before me the goal of being quick to identify the voice born of fear that calls me back into self protective behaviors of a controlling, overly cautious nature. In matters of personal growth and relational health that voice, I have discovered, is almost always a liar. I've been duped by it too many times. Instead, I hope to develop ears for the voice of hope that welcomes tomorrow and believes the best is yet to come and actively participate in making it so.
I can decide to listen to the part of me that prefers to retreat into retention of what was. Or, I can lean into an expectation of better things to come. Fearing encroachments from unknown threats that may lurk in the darkness of tomorrow, I can build protecting and controlling walls. Or, I can put my face into the exhilarating breeze of change and go for it.
The wisdom of the Bible strongly favors one of these approaches over the other. Of the legendary models of faith written about in Hebrews chapter 11, it states: “If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead they were longing for a better country...” They heroically did not strive to conserve the past.
These folks don’t have all the answers. In fact, they are said to operate in the realm of the unseen-hoped-for-but-not-yet-realized. By nature they are risk takers and adventurers. They listen to the inner voice that says, “Yes, you can,” refusing to be governed by fears that say, “No, you can’t.” One approach is vigorous and optimistic. The other is grumpy, negative and overly cautious.
The Bible celebrates those whose outlook makes them generous, not hoarders; welcoming, not excluding. They see enemies as potential friends, rather than evil combatants. They give freely when others withhold. Some choose to live with arms extended outward in open embrace. Others pull their hands into their vest and extend only a cold shoulder. According to the scriptures, the givers gain while the hoarders lose (See Proverbs 11:24-25).
For 2008 I have set before me the goal of being quick to identify the voice born of fear that calls me back into self protective behaviors of a controlling, overly cautious nature. In matters of personal growth and relational health that voice, I have discovered, is almost always a liar. I've been duped by it too many times. Instead, I hope to develop ears for the voice of hope that welcomes tomorrow and believes the best is yet to come and actively participate in making it so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)