Archive for category Politics
The blue became a perp;
Just a man before work;
Eight minutes? Eight minutes!
“I can’t breathe . . .”
Blue, release that knee.
Watching the aftermath,
Other blues scared to death;
A nervous wreck –
Gotta serve and protect –
Men and women with families
Standing, walking in solidarity;
Order, humility, modesty, civility
Blessings these are to humanity.
Blues, we need you;
We really, really do.
Signs in procession
On a peaceful mission
Shadows of the dead
Reminding the Heads
Of State, we can’t wait . . .
No, we can’t wait;
We can’t breathe.
No more asphyxiation
Woe to our nation!
“In the dust of the streets,
Lie the young and the old”;
Both women and men have fallen
Pirates come a callin’
Reveling in the sadness
Destroying the years
Of work belonging to our neighbors
Anarchists and looters doin’ favors?
Pirates cheat and steal;
They do not a nation heal.
Spiral, spiral, will you stop?
Violence, anger, murder, threats,
Politicians hedge their bets;
“Election Day is coming soon!”
But can they heal so great a wound?
Dividing wall of hostility stands erect;
No mortal human can correct;
Not ANTIFA, BLM, or ACLU
Nor Govs, POTUS, or Blues
Peace of another kind
Is required for such a time.
Our soul is sick; it’s evil;
We swim in hate, ‘cause the hate’s within.
Everyone wants to “win, win, win.”
The evil’s in us people.
All want justice; none can provide.
Ebbs and flows the election tide.
Peace and justice longs the heart
Before our union’s torn apart.
Look within we will, we must,
But all we’ll find is creation’s dust.
Upward must the gaze now look
To the one on himself he took
Debts and sins and iniquities
Canceling them out upon the tree.
Reconciling not only to deity
But also wide to humanity
Cross-shaped peace for you and me
Tears down walls of hostility
Common ground establishing
Where sinners free come gathering;
A new Spirit we need and can receive,
If part of this new humanity you choose to be.
He implants peace within the dust;
Spirit and Word within remakes us.
O Revival! How long must we wait?!
O America! I pray it’s not too late.
[The Union students] talk a blue streak without the slightest substantive foundation and with no evidence of any criteria . . . They are unfamiliar with event the most basic questions. They become intoxicated with liberal and humanistic phrases, laugh at the fundamentalists, and yet basically are not even up to their level.
In New York they preach about virtually everything; only one thing is not addressed, or is addressed so rarely that I have as yet been unable to hear it, namely, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the cross, sin and forgiveness, death and life [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 99].
In my desire to vote with a clear conscience and a sincere faith and in my desire to help Christians to be thoughtful voters, I have looked into the topic of abortion in order to discover the history of each candidates’ position on the matter. I have commented briefly about the Christian perspective on abortion in a previous post. I will not rehash that discussion here, although the comment section is certainly open to discussing that topic.
Now let me share this as well. My source for gaining an understanding of what each candidate has said and how each candidate has voted is this: http://www.ontheissues.org. The website seems to present information from a neutral position in order to fairly inform the voter; however, if someone has substantial, provable information otherwise, I would hear it.
First, consider Romney. I invite you to look historically at his voting record on abortion, his quotes concerning abortion, and the timeline that On the Issues provides. My brief an initial summary is this. Over the last two decades, Romney claims to have shifted personally from a moderate pro-choice position to a moderate pro-life position. Neither his former nor his current position should be labeled extreme from what I understand and read. This is his personal position. However, what is not as clear is his public position. While he states that the reversal of Roe v. Wade would be a great day in America, he also states on numerous occasions that he thinks that the federal government should stay out of the conversation on abortion. Thus, conservatives who expect Romney to go “guns-ablazin'” into the White House and move the federal government to make substantial changes with regard to abortion are jaded. He is truly a conservative, which means that he believes that smaller government is better and that the federal government should not be legislating things that touch the personal lives of Americans – such as this personal decision of a family and their physician. States, local governments, doctors, and patients should figure this out on their own. What’s interesting is that both Gingrich and Santorum called out Romney for this approach at the state level in Massachusetts.
Consider incumbent President Barack Obama. There are no secrets here. I learned that he seems to favor preventative approaches to unplanned pregnancies; however, his personal and public pattern regarding post-conception approaches to ending pregnancies can only be described as murderous. As part of the Democratic party, he views the role of federal government very differently than Governor Romney. Obama believes that the federal government must legislate in order to provide freedom for the American people; for Obama, this includes legally securing a woman’s right to choose life or death for an unborn child in almost any circumstance. Further, he is on record as standing against protective rights for babies born alive after failed abortion attempts.
So, Romney is personally converted to a pro-life stance, and somewhat neutral in the public arena of federal legislation, in hopes of leaving such decisions in the hands of citizens and possibly local governments. Obama’s personal and public positions are located far left on the liberal spectrum. He believes the federal government must secure the right to choose for the individual citizen. So, the real difference here seems to be the difference between Romney and Obama and the role of the federal government and its involvement in the abortion issue.
Here’s a helpful question, I think. With his neutral stance on the federal government’s role on this issue, will Romney overturn any previous legislation that he feels attributes too much power to the federal government on the abortion discussion? Will it be a battle to which he commits?
In addition and for those interested, you can read the position of the Mormon LDS on abortion here: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=63c139b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD.
Please pray for God’s mercy on our nation. We have become murderous, violent, and numb in our quest for convenience – both in our hearts and in our actions. We need a fresh wind from God to blow through our nation more than anything.
On September 23 the parents heard their son preach on a theme central to him throughout his life, supporting the accurately earthly, incarnational aspect of the Christian faith against the Gnostic or dualistic idea that the body is inferior to the soul or spirit. “God wants to see human beings,” he said, “not ghosts who shun the world.” He said that in “the whole of world history there is always only one really significant hour – the present. . . . [I]f you want to find eternity, you must serve the times.” His words presaged what he would write to his fiancée from his prison cell years later: “Our marriage must be a ‘yes’ to God’s earth. It must strengthen our result to do and accomplish something on earth. I fear that Christians who venture to stand on earth on only one leg will stand in heaven on only one legged too.” In another letter to her he wrote that “human beings were taken from the earth and don’t just consist of thin air and thoughts” [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 80-81].
Anyone who has gone through graduate school can feel the truth of this statement:
It is quite a remarkable experience for one to see work and life really come together – a synthesis which we all looked for in our student days, but hardly managed to find. . . . It gives the work value and the worker an objectivity, a recognition of his own limitations, such as can only be gained in real life [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 80].
As ever, Bonhoeffer cagily maintained a certain distance. He wished to learn from the old master, but would preserve his intellectual independence. In the end he would not choose church history. He respected that field, as he demonstrated by mastering it, to Harnack’s delight, but he disagreed with Harneck that one must stop there. He believed that picking over the texts as they did, and going no further, left behind “rubble and fragments.” It was the God beyond the texts, the God who was their author and who spoke to mankind through them, that fired his interest [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 62].
By September he made his decision: he would write his doctoral dissertation under Seeberg after all, but it would be on a subject dogmatic and historical. He would write about the subject he had begun puzzling over in Rome, namely, What is the church? It was eventually titled Sanctorum Communio: A Dogmatic Inquiry into the Sociology of the Church. Bonhoeffer would identify the church as neither a historical entity nor an institution, but as “Christ existing as church-community.” It was a stunning debut [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 63]
I myself find the way such a decision comes about to be problematic. One thing is clear to me, however, that one personally – that is, consciously – has very little control over the ultimate yes or no, but rather that time decides everything. Maybe not with everybody, but in any event with me. Recently I have noticed again and again that all the decisions I had to make were not really my own decisions. Whenever there was a dilemma, I just left it in abeyance and – without really consciously dealing with it intensively – let it grow toward the clarity of a decision. But this clarity is not so much intellectual as it is instinctive. The decision is made; whether one can adequately justify it retrospectively is another question. “Thus” it happened that I went [to Barcelona] [brackets mine] [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 70].
He attended one Armenian-Catholic service that seemed “stiff and devoid of new life.” He felt that Roman Catholicism was moving in that direction but observed that there were “many religious establishments where a vital religious life still plays a part. The confessional is an example of this.” He exalted in much of what he saw. But he did not feel led to embrace Catholicism as a convert. An acquaintance he met in Rome tried to convince him, but Bonhoeffer was unmoved: “He would really like to convert me and is quite honestly convinced of his method. . . . Following these discussions, I find I am once again much less sympathetic to Catholicism. Catholic dogma veils every ideal thing in Catholicism without knowing that this is what it is doing. There is a huge difference between confession and dogmatic teachings about confession – unfortunately also between ‘church’ and the ‘church’ in dogmatics.” He considered the union of both churches: “The unification of Catholicism and Protestantism is probably impossible, although it would do both parties much good” [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 56.
In my own study and experience, I have discovered three things in relation to this. First, many who leave Protestantism for Roman Catholicism are looking to experience God in a way in which they can be scholastically free and connected to the ancient faith. However, as Bonhoeffer observed, spiritual vitality is absent. Beware of dead dogma, traditions, and icons wherever they may be.
Second, don’t forget that both Protestants and Roman Catholics share the heritage of the Church prior to the Reformation. Neither one owns the previous history.
Third, a key difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions is their approach to doctrine. RC’s take an expansive approach to doctrine; that is, the apostles meant for us to expand upon what was revealed to them. Protestants take an explanatory approach to doctrine; that is, the Church should explain and attempt to make clear what was revealed by God to the apostles. Of course, there is some overlap here rather thank clean line; however, the philosophies are clearly observed in each tradition.
[In contrast to the Roman Catholic Church] the Lutheran and Protestant traditions were less connected to the great classical past and could therefore veer toward the heresies of Gnostic dualism, of denial of the body and of the goodness of this world. But here in Rome the mingling of these two worlds was everywhere [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 54].
I’m beginning to wonder if I will ever get off page 54!