Yearly Archives: 2009

Future of Christian Eschatology

My pastor, on his blog, referred his dedicated readers to a blog by Scott McKnight, who has begun a series on “The Future of Christian Eschatology” (the End Times). It’s a five-part series which is going to run throughout this week.

I’m not usually one to read such stuff. Back in high school in Lake Havasu City, Ariz., I got all wrapped up in End Times hype (those were the days of Hal Lindsey’s “Late Great Planet Earth,”), and when I realized it was messing me up, I pretty much abandoned interest in the subject. 

I’ve always prided myself on doing my own thinking, reaching my own conclusions, and I trace a lot of it back to that time in high school, when I decided, “This is what my church leaders are preaching, but I’m not so sure.” I didn’t abandon a pre-trib view (then), but I did swear off End Times literature. I don’t think I’ve read an End Times book since then. 

Besides,  I envision the world being a whole lot more messed up than it is now before Christ crashes back into the picture (like some post-apocalyptic Mad Max or zombie movie). So I’m figuring (as if I know) that The Return won’t even happen in my lifetime. Saves a lot of fretting.

Anyway, I really enjoyed McKnight’s first installment, and will be going back to read the rest. He takes a post-trib viewpoint, contrary to Jenkins and Lahaye. Actually, it might be interesting if they wrote a new series based on a post-trib view, with Christians going through the tribulation. Think of the millions of additional dollars they could make? Though, as McKnight says, people don’t want to hear that view. They want to hear the “safe” scenario.

Share Button
Comments Off on Future of Christian Eschatology

Book: “This Beautiful Mess”

mess.JPG

To me, the most interesting chapter of “This Beautiful Mess,” by Rick McKinley, was chapter 11, “We Must Go Through Hardships.” He talks about strategic suffering, suffering as a choice in order to accomplish something for Christ.

He says Christians in the West don’t understand what it means to suffer for Christ. And when somebody does actually suffer–get kidnapped in another country, for instance–they come home with a book deal. “The American church doesn’t produce martyrs; we produce celebrities.” Very interesting thought.

But in other parts of the world, suffering for Christ is a way of life, and they identify with what Paul endured in Acts.

He tells a great story about being with other Christians and talking about Cuba. Someone in the group heard that the Cuban church was led mostly by women, and they desperately needed medical supplies. But how could they get supplies into a mostly closed country?

“Celestin, our friend from Rwanda, spoke up. ‘What wold happen if you took medical supplies to Cuba to your sisters there?’

“‘You would get arrested,’ I said. Someone else began to explain to Celestin the embargo and other legal roadblocks. But Celestin interrupted….

“‘Wouldn’t that preach?….Wouldn’t that preach to the world if you got arrested while taking medical supplies into Cuba for your sisters?’

“At that moment I felt like I had taken a baseball bat in the ribs. I’d been hit with the dangerous side of the kingdom….Clearly my creativity for the gospel ended at the point of suffering.”

We have it so doggone safe in America. We have our freedoms, our Constitutional protections. If persecuted for our faith, we can sue for damages. None of us suffer for Christ, not really. We endure some slights, maybe, but it’s not worthy to be called suffering.

Paul suffered, and he did it strategically. He intentionally went to places where he might very likely get beaten or stoned–and often he was. For Paul, and for many Christians around the world, it’s not safe to be a Christian. It’s a dangerous calling.

Here are a few more thoughts from McKinley’s chapter:

  • “In Celestin’s life I see so much beauty and a willingness to suffer in the mess for the sake of his King. I, on the other hand, am the guy who doesn’t want to go to India because I could get an upset stomach.”
  • “I have felt superior to those who suffer. It’s an ugly truth. I have subconsciously assumed that their suffering is due to their inferiority—that they have pulled a sort of second-class seating assignment in God’s big, blue kingdom bus.”
  • “We are brothers and sisters, not Western CEOs and Third World employees.”
Share Button
Comments Off on Book: “This Beautiful Mess”

Pam and Molly Going At It

Share Button
Comments Off on Pam and Molly Going At It

Book: This Beautiful Mess

mess.JPG“This Beautiful Mess” was written by Rick McKinley, pastor of Imago Dei church in Portland, Ore. That’s one of those creative, postmodern-ish churches that traditional evangelicals aren’t sure what to do with. They’re doing innovative things, more interested in relationships and empathy than in institution-building. And they have some great things to tell us about what Christianity is really all about. We need to listen and learn. I try to do both.

McKinley’s book talks about “the Kingdom.” Not Saudi Arabia, but the Kingdom of God. Parts are good, parts not so good. But I enjoyed it. Most chapters end with some free verse by poets I’ve never heard of, and some are excellent.

Here is a good quote:

“Pastors and lay leaders love to talk about advancing the kingdom, about building the kingdom. It’s as if Jesus said, “My kingdom is a pile of lumber on the truck in heaven, and I need you boys and girls to get a hammer and help me nail this thing together.”…When Jesus talked about the kingdom, he never talked about us building it or advancing it….The kingdom IS. That’s it. Jesus does not need you or me to nail it together.”

He says we’re not building something, but merely living in something that already exists. We embrace the kingdom. God is sovereign in this kingdom, and he’s got everything under control. Our inadequacies won’t cause it to crumble.

“I don’t see my life now as one in which I advance the kingdom of God. It is advancing all by itself….The kingdom is a dimension I acknowledge, I live in, I participate in….It is a lot less like building the business of Christianity and a lot more like slipping into the matrix of Jesus.”

These were some very interesting thoughts for me.

Share Button
Comments Off on Book: This Beautiful Mess

AWKWARD!

toilets.jpg

Share Button
Comments Off on AWKWARD!

A Perspective on Solving the Money Crisis

I found a quote by Will Rogers which gives me hope:

“If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?”

Share Button
Comments Off on A Perspective on Solving the Money Crisis

We Say One Thing, People Hear Something Else

Larry Osborne says it’s frustrating when “my audience and I are using the same words but different dictionaries.” He gives two examples.

Tolerance. He says it used to mean letting people be wrong. Now it means recognizing that everybody is right. So when he preaches about being tolerant of people who hold different views on issues like gay rights, his audience hears, “We need to realize that their views are valid.”

Faith. It used to mean the belief that God would come through, somehow. Now, people think of faith as just an attitude of optimism. So instead of using “faith,” Osborne is using the word “trust,” which makes sense to me.

Just some interesting observations about our changing world.

Share Button
Comments Off on We Say One Thing, People Hear Something Else

Rush Limbaugh, the God of Conservatism

rush_limbaugh300.jpgRush Limbaugh keynoted the final session of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). With 8500 attendees, it was CPAC’s larger attendance ever. For want of alternatives, Rush is the de facto leader of American conservatism.

I read through CPAC’s three-day agenda. Lots of opportunity for griping about Democrats and the state of America in general. Practically nothing about religion. Evangelicals comprise an important part of the Republican base, but they were absent from CPAC. A little case of getting taken for granted, I suspect. 

Young evangelicals, and prodigal older ones like myself (did I just call myself “older”?), have different priorities than CPAC.  I can name a lot of conservative evangelical friends and acquaintances who, like me, switched from their Republican roots and voted for the vision presented by Obama (this time).

Sure, some feel so strongly about abortion and gay marriage that they will vote Republican solely because of those issues, and I’m okay with that. But younger evangelicals also care deeply about issues of poverty, justice, AIDs, and peace–issues that CPAC, and Rush Limbaugh, ignore.  So if CPAC’s agenda is any indication, they are in denial about the true state of American conservatism, and are headed toward additional drubbings in national elections. They want more of the same, and that’s not where the young evangelical base is heading.

But back to Rush, the voice of conservatism. Is he really someone conservatives should adore and bestow undying allegiance every weekday afternoon? The CPAC crowd hung on his every word and cheered his rants. But consider the type of man he is. Character should matter to Christians.

  • Rush has been divorced three times, certainly a wonderful example of  conservative values. He and his third wife lived in separate houses throughout their ten-year marriage (he requested the divorce). 
  • He blamed Elizabeth Edwards for her husband’s affair, basically saying she should have used her mouth to talk less and to give him oral sex, which he says is what her husband wanted. He snickered while saying this, thinking himself clever, evidently. (Watch it on YouTube, though it’s embedded in a Keith Olberman segment).
  • While American soldiers were dying to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, and while Iraqis risked death to exercise their newfound right to vote–what was Rush doing? He was encouraging his Republican listeners to vote for Hilary Clinton as a prank on the Democrats, a way to keep the primary race going. He made a mockery of what, in America, is practically a sacred right–the freedom to vote your conscience. What a horrible example to people in other countries, to say that your vote is something to just throw away for fun. Is that what our soldiers die to protect? But Rush went even further. “The dream end of this…is that this keeps up to the Convention, and that we have a re-creation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here.” I find this despicable. 
  • After years of condemning illegal drug use (he has said, “If people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.”), he was found to be illegally buying prescription painkillers. Can you spell HYPOCRITE? 
  • He’s a college dropout.
  • Rush obtained a military 4F exemption during the Vietnam era because of two conditions: a high school football knee injury (his coach remembers no injuries), and an “inoperable pilonidal cyst,” which is basically a pus-filled abscess between the buttocks muscles (an ironic disability, since Rush’s career is spent sitting down before a microphone). 
  • In his radio show, he shows little interest in truth. For instance, he once mocked Obama’s Senate record, saying, “You look at his record in the Senate, you won’t find a Senate bill with his name on it.” But a simple search turns up 152 bills and resolutions that he spnosored and another 427 that he cosponsored during his first year in the Senate, and that he sponsored 130 bills and resolutions during his second year. Rush’s fans don’t do fact-checking.
  • He comes from a family of lawyers (grandfather, father, and brother). Draw your own conclusions. 
  • Every day he sows division. That’s his schtick–us vs. them, Republicans vs. Democrats, good vs. bad. In America, we don’t need more division. Republicans don’t have a corner on truth, and they certainly don’t have a corner on morality.
  • He makes $45 million a year, but has said of the official poverty line, “$14,400 for a family of four? That’s not so bad.” Rush’s view of people in poverty is lightyears from Christ’s view.
  • Rush once told a black caller to “take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”
  • He mocked Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease on air and claimed  Fox sometimes doesn’t take his medicine to exaggerate the effects of the disease. “He is moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act.”
  • He described the abuse at Abu Ghraib as equivalent to “hazing, a fraternity prank.”
  • He was the first person to publicly announce, on air, the name of the underage teenage Congressional page who had received sexually explicit emails from Republican Congressman Mark Foley, and suggested that the boy led Foley on.
  • He’s a Methodist, which may or may not mean his religious views are liberal.

Rush is driven by his sense of pure ideology. In his CPAC address, he said he hopes Barack Obama’s policies fail. These policies may or may not work. But they are designed to end the recession and prevent a full-scale depression, restore health to the global financial markets, save and create jobs, stop major industries from going under, end two wars, bring healthcare to 45 million people currently going without, and end the unbiblical preference for the concerns of the rich rather than of the poor. 

On a personal note, the President would like my 401K to stop tanking (after 30 years of investing in my pension fund, all of the gain has been eliminated). So yeah, I’d like to see Obama’s policies succeed.

But not Rush. It would be a crushing blow to his ideology. And ideology is all-important. It trumps national interests. In Rush’s world, it’s better for a depression to occur than for liberal views to prevail. 

What kind of American roots for his President to fail? Especially in the face of the current global crisis? But that’s who Rush Limbaugh is. That’s who millions of conservatives adore. And that’s why I, and millions of other evangelicals, are fleeing from the grips of the conservative establishment, seeking alternatives more compatible with our faith.

There, I feel better.

Share Button
Comments Off on Rush Limbaugh, the God of Conservatism

The Plight of the Gitmo Ulghurs

Some churches in Toronto banded together to sponsor Anwar Hassan, an ethnic Ulghur imprisoned at Guantanamo. The US has ruled that he’s not an enemy combatant, but he fears he’ll be persecuted if he returns to his original homeland of China.

The churches applied to sponsor Hassan as a refugee and support him for one year, to at least get him out of Gitmo. The process is underway.

Hassan was among 17 Uighurs captured in Pakistan in 2001 and then sold to US forces (the Gitmo detaines represent millions of dollars of investment; Pakistanis sold many men, both guilty and innocent, to US forces). Other Ulghurs were rounded up elsewhere. Hassan had been living in Afghanistan with thoughts (delusions, actually) of someday rising up against the Chinese government. He fled to Pakistan when the US bombed his village.

The US recognized early on that the Ulghurs had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Initially, they were milked for information about China. Then, to gain Chinese support for the invasion of Iraq,the Pentagon declared that all of the Ulghurs were members of the East Turkestan Independence Movement (based on the Ulghurs’ name for their homeland), and were therefore terrorists. Chinese interrogators were even allowed to come to Guantanamo. 

And so, the innocent Ulghurs have languished in Gitmo for eight years. Several of them were declared “not enemy combatants,” but the Pentagon changed that to “No longer enemy combatants,” a way to cover themselves. 

The State Department has searched for a country to take in the Ulghurs, but can’t find any willing to suffer the displeasure of China. Several Ulghurs, three days before a US appeals court was scheduled to hear their case for wrongful imprisonment, were taken from Gitmo and deposited in a UN refugee camp in Albania. Yes, Albania. They had already been forcibly separated from their families. Now, how in the world do you get out of Albania?

The Ulghur commuity in the United States has offered to support the detainees with housing, language and job training, and whatever else they need. In October, a US federal court ordered that the Ulghurs be resettled in the US, but an appeals court (stocked with Bush appointees) overturned that decision, saying only the President had the authority to order their release.

The Bush Administration fought efforts to resettle the Ulghurs in the US, claiming they posed a threat to the US.

“I think it’s all about saving face,” says Sabin Willet, a US lawyer who has been working on behalf of the Ulghurs. “If these guys get to the United States, people are going to interview them and put them on television, and then Americans will find out who’s really been at Guantanamo, and that will shock them. Right now most Americans believe that people at Guantanamo must be bad guys. So I think the Bush administration is determined to keep that truth from the public.”

Certainly there ARE bad guys at Gitmo. But not all of them.

The Bible demands that Christians seek justice. I’m hoping my country can come through on this. When justice is brought to the innocent, God is pleased.

(There is a lot of information on the internet about the plight of the Ulghurs, including here and here.)

Share Button
Comments Off on The Plight of the Gitmo Ulghurs

Nancy Pelosi, Up and Down

Whack-a-mole–that’s what John Stewart said about Nancy Pelosi’s constant up-and-down during Tuesday night’s speech. Almost as bad as some church services. Joe Biden was thinking, “Lady, will you sit still?” I figured somebody put together a YouTube compilation, and sure enough….

And if you want more, check out Jeanie Most’s wonderful piece for Headline News. She’s one of the true treasures in today’s news, a modern-day Charles Kuralt. Love her stuff. (Rachel Maddow even did an amusing piece.)

By the way, Mr. President–no earmarks? Really? The $4-8 billion in earmarks (depending on what you include) is a drop in this huge bucket. But still….

Roll Calls reports that the President tried to minimize earmarks, but ran into a Congress that didn’t care to listen. “Obama pressed the lawmakers to keep earmarks out of spending bills but was resisted… Democratic leaders defended the practice, insisting that it was Members’ constitutional right to insert them on behalf of constituents’ projects that they deemed worthy, that Congress had markedly reduced the practice, and that earmarks represented 1 percent of spending.”

Two of the Swampland bloggers reported for Time on the earmark debate. Governing is about compromise, people say. To get this bill passed, the President no doubt had to bend. But it was no doubt a learning experience, and I trust that as he goes along, he’ll be able to manage the strong-willed Congressman a little better. I don’t expect him to have it figured out the first time.

Share Button
Comments Off on Nancy Pelosi, Up and Down

Receive Posts by Email

If you subscribe to my Feedburner feed, you'll automatically receive new posts by email. Very convenient.

Categories

Facebook

Monthly Archives