2012 » SteveDennie.com - Miscellaneous inconsequential musings from Steve Dennie

Announcing My Engagement, 23 Years Ago

Posted on February 21, 2012 by Steve
Posted in It's My Life

From 1981-1993, I was editor of our denominational magazine, and wrote a monthly column called “Randompokes.” I used my May 1989 column to announce my engagement to Pam. I came across the column last night while doing research for a history book. I thought readers might get a kick out of it.

When it comes to my love life, the United Brethren church is filled with false prophets.

I’ve been dating this girl for three-and-a-half years. Her name is Pam Mize, HC Class of ’84, and she’s a staff accountant for a firm in Fort Wayne (halfway to CPAdom, and maybe all the way there after she takes the exam again this month). Three-and-a-half years is a long time to date the same person, and it’s a pretty good indication that there is a certain amount of mutual attraction.

So, everyone has assumed that we’re perfect for each other, that we should get married, that we will get married, that it is our destiny preordained from Creation, that the angels will rejoice and sing hosannas as soon as I pop the question. Which, being interpreted, means:

The sum total of Humanity has been trying to get me married off.

The false prophets arise at holidays. Like Christmas. Every December, people predict that I will put a ring under Pam’s tree. “I just know he’ll give her a ring this year.”

Ditto for Valentines Day, Easter, Pam’s birthday.

“Steve’s going to propose this time. I’m certain of it. I can feel it.”

Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Halloween.

“This is it. He’s going to propose.”

Labor Day, Columbus Day, Secretary’s Day, Groundhog Day.

“The time is right. I just know it’ll be this holiday.”

Woe unto you false prophets! You have been proven wrong again and again, yet you persist in your ways! A truckload of woes be upon your doorstep!

My coworkers, friends, and relatives were devastated when, once again, Christmas and New Year’s passed, and Pam’s finger remained diamondless. They were so sure the time was right. Presidents’ Day faded, and they pinned their hopes on Valentines Day.

“It’s Valentines Day for sure. Gotta be! I predict.”

On Valentines Day, various people asked me:

“Is this the day you make your announcement?”

“This would be a great opportunity to ask Pam to marry you.”

“You’re going to propose today, aren’t you?”

My standard answer: “Not a chance.”

Everyone predicted that I would propose on Valentines Day. But I refused to be predictable.

I waited until the next day.

That’s right Steve Dennie, confirmed and contented bachelor, staunch defender of the single life, is going to tie the knot, take the plunge, bite the dust, go for it. July 22. This final prophecy will be fulfilled, and then Christ can return….

Christians pretend to endorse singleness, and praise singles for the large amount of time they give to ministry and service. But once an eligible opposite enters the picture and marriage becomes a possibility, people suddenly change tunes. Forget about contented singleness and devotion to ministry. Marriage is a higher calling, a “blessing from God.” It’s better.

With this emphasis, too many people get married to marriage. They desire the state of marriage because they think—and everyone around them confirms—that marriage is necessary in order to be complete, fulfilled, happy, accepted. It is status quo. They want marriage so badly that they’ll make compromises and take shortcuts in order to “ascend” to marriage. The result is a lot–a lot–of bad marriages within the church. And because of our unhealthy exaltation of marriage, we have only ourselves to blame.

Too often, marriage is a result of two incomplete singles joining to form an incomplete marriage. I attended college with a lot of people like that. I decided a long time ago that I would avoid such persons. If I married, it would be to someone who had learned to be happy and productive as a single.

That’s Pam. She doesn’t need me. She has her own career, her own identity. Like me, she is a complete single in Christ.

I have greatly enjoyed being single. In fact in some ways I am being dragged clawing and screaming into marriage, because I treasure all the benefits of singleness.

I love not having to work my schedule around anyone else. I don’t have to be home at 5:30 because supper is ready, and don’t have to report to anybody if I’ll be late.

I love being able to devote so much of my time to my career. I can work until the early morning hours or even pull an all-nighter to meet a deadline, and I don’t have to feel guilty about neglecting anyone at home, because there isn’t anyone at home (except Maddie, my cat, and she sleeps all the time, so what does she care?).

I love eating what and when I want to eat with nobody around to scold me for not eating my vegetables.

I love solitude. For some singles, solitude translates into loneliness. But it fits my temperament

I love being able to prioritize job and church above family, since there isn’t any family.

I love not being responsible for anyone else’s well-being and happiness. Eliminates a lot of pressure and worry.

I love being perfectly content with a merely above-adequate home, with fairly good furniture and bare walls. Nobody else’s pride is at stake. It’s just me and Maddie, and we’re both easy to please.

I love being able to spend an entire evening reading a book or watching a couple good movies.

I love going into town on the spur of the moment to eat or shop or see a movie—without checking to see what another person wants to do.

I love being detached from the materialistic rat-race. Some people say singles are more self-centered, because they have only themselves to worry about. But I think that’s rubbish. From what I’ve seen, Christian singles are generally far less caught up in things than married people. We like nice clothes and nice (littler) cars, but that’s about it. Many, instead of spending money on spouse and children, give a larger proportion of their income to the church and others; ditto for their time.

These years of singleness have been wonderful years of growth and service. But God is directing me down a different path now, and though there is some clawing and screaming, there is also plenty of pulling and “Take me, I’m yours.” On July 22, I will make a lateral move, exchanging my single life for an equally good married life, during which I will continue growing as a person and as a Christian.

I know what you’re thinking: “Maybe Steve shouldn’t go through with this wedding. It doesn’t sound like he’s too crazy about the idea.”

Don’t get me wrong. I am crazy about getting married, because I’m crazy about Pam. I love her deeply. It’s a love built on common interests, shared values, commitment to Christ, and an intense friendship which evolved and matured over a period of five years. Plus a whole lot of “I can’t live without you.”

I’m in love with the single life, but I’m also in love with a girl named Pam. The twain met, and the girl won. And I’m not complaining.

Comments Off

Notes on Agendas and an Abortion Forum

Posted on February 17, 2012 by Steve
Posted in It's My Life

In doing some research last weekend for a book I’m writing, I came across a note in our denominational magazine about an award one of my articles won back in 1987. The article, “Notes on an Abortion Forum,” took second place in the General Article category of the Evangelical Press Association’s annual awards contest. The General Article category typically had more entries than any other category, usually major feature articles. First place was a tie between Campus Life and Leadership Journal, and third place went to Moody Monthly, so I felt in good company.

“Notes on an Abortion Forum,” a lengthy article, remains one of the best articles I’ve ever written. In the 25 years since, I’d like to think I’ve written many articles that are better. But only a couple come to mind, and I’m not sure they’re better. I won two more awards from the EPA the following year, but those pieces pale in comparison to “Abortion Forum.”

I’d forgotten about the judges’ comments on “Abortion Forum.” Those comments were published in the magazine, in that note I ran across last weekend. In a totally self-serving tribute to myself, a congratulatory pat on my own back, here are those comments:

“It is even-handed, calm, and reasoned on a subject that makes many of us–and, I suspect, many of the author’s United Brethren readers–over-emotional and even irrational. The writer’s crisp, clean writing style presents the story of this abortion forum with the same dramatic tension that must have been in the air that night–short sentences, breath-catching silences, and pauses. I felt as if I were there. Given the topic and the denomination, I was, frankly, expecting the narrative to slide into a strong anti-abortion tirade at some point. That it never did was a pleasant surprise. The author rightly sensed that not every anti-abortion argument has to be shrill and vituperative. The writer’s skillful blend of the meeting’s highlights and his own private thoughts make it just as strong and persuasive.”

I received the award at a banquet in Washington DC. Receiving the award in front of my peers was fun. But my enduring memory of that night is the keynote message from Chuck Colson. One statement has stayed with me, and I’ve applied it many times to people who don’t share my priorities.

Colson said he was often criticized for not getting strongly involved in fighting abortion. He agreed that it was a terrible evil. However, he said, God gives different people different agendas. The agenda he’d been given was prison ministry, and he had thrown himself fully into that agenda. He applauded those who crusaded against abortion. But, he said, “That’s not the agenda God gave me.”

I found that very insightful. I took home an award that night, one I’m proud of. I re-read “Notes on an Abortion Forum” every few years, when I come across it; yeah, it’s good, very good. But Chuck Colson’s words stuck to me at a deep level, and often remind me to ask, “What is God telling me to do? What has he made me passionate about? What is my God-given agenda?”

2 Comments

Book: “Savages,” by Don Winslow

Posted on February 15, 2012 by Steve
Posted in Books

Don Winslow’s novels, I can say after reading four of them, have these things in common: a southern California setting, very well-defined and distinctive characters, snappy dialogue, plots that aren’t predictable but tie up everything at the end, and first-rate wordsmithing.

Such was, as I expected, the case with “Savages,” Winslow’s contribution to crime literature in 2010. It’s not my favorite Winslow book. That still belongs to “The Winter of Frankie Machine,” my favorite book of 2010. But “Savages” is a close second, better than “The Dawn Patrol” and “The Death and Life of Bobby Z,”, and it deserves every kudo it gets:

“This is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid on autoload”–Stephen King.
“Pure kamikaze…mega-cool.”–Janet Maslin.
A “marvelous, adrenaline-juiced roller coaster of a novel.” Sarah Weinman
“Super hip, wildly funny, supremely smart and sexy.”–Joseph Wambaugh
“Razor sharp plot twists, a cast of ruthless antiheroes….”–Janet Evanovich
“Blisteringly original.”–Jon Land

Ben and Chon are laid-back partners in a major marijuana operation based in Laguna Beach. They grow the best dope money can buy, using seeds Chon brought back from Afghanistan which were expertly altered by Ben’s genius botanical skills. Ben, the head of the operation, abhors violance. Whenever he can, Ben takes off for Africa or Indonesia or elsewhere to engage in humanitarian or environmental philanthropy. Not your stereotypical ruthless drug lord. Like I said, Winslow draws distinctive characters.

The ruthless part belongs to Chon, a former Navy SEAL. He’s a good guy, but has no aversion to violence. He is described as having “Post-Traumatic Lack of Stress Disorder.” Distinctive character Number 2. People don’t mess with the peaceable Ben, because they don’t want to tangle with Chon.

And then there’s O (short for Ophelia), the wild-child girl they both love, and who loves them both, forming a fairly strange but workable triangle. Distinctive character, distinctive relationship.

The Baja Cartel, headed by a pragmatically ruthless woman named Elena, wants to take over Ben and Chon’s operation. To force the issue, they kidnap O. Ben (especially) and Chon prefer to avoid violence, but here, it’s just not possible. And it goes from there.

The point of view shifts among the various characters, but primarily Ben, Chon, O, Elena, and Elena’s merciless strongarm, Lado. Ben and Chon will do anything to get O back. That pretty well sets the course for the novel.

The writing style is choppy, unlike the other Winslow novels I’ve read. Choppy in a good way. Very short chapters, occasionally nothing more than a word or two. Sentences that drift off without a period. Scenes suddenly put in the form of movie script dialogue. Avante garde stuff, but not too much so–not to the extent that it’s difficult to follow, pretentiously artsy, or just wierd.

Winslow tucks nuggets of humor, pop-culture references, and creative turns of phrases into nearly every nook and cranny. As a writer who appreciates really good writing, I didn’t want to skip or skim, because I might miss something brilliant. It’s as if, with every sentence, Winslow pondered, “How can I make this sing?”

For the faint of heart: the book is laced with profanity, sex, extreme violence (beheadings and more), and drugs. Ben, the good-hearted marijuana genius, is the only character with redeeming qualities, and with him it’s definitely a mixed bag.

This book was a pleasure to read (though it didn’t read like any of his other books). Not just because of the roller-coaster plot, or the engaging characters, but because Winslow took such care in putting words together. The writing alone entertained me.

I guess, bottom line, the book is about a relationship–Ben, Chon, and O. It didn’t end where I thought it would end. Not even close. But when I turned that last page, I knew I’d just finished something very, very special.

Comments Off

Moses: a Tale of Two Ascents

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Steve
Posted in Religion

I read Exodus 19 the other night, and found something curious.

Just before God gave Moses the 10 Commandments on Mount Sinai, he told Moses to make sure the people stayed back from the mountain. God didn’t want them even touching the foot of the mountain.

Then God told Moses to come to the top of Mount Sinai. We’re talking 7500 feet, a mile-and-a-half straight up, but many many miles of hard walking to get to the top. Moses went.

When Moses gets there, still huffing and puffing from the climb, God says, “Go back down and tell the people to keep their distance from the mountain.”

Huh?

“I already did that,” Moses said. “We put limits on how close they could come.”

But God said, basically, “Go down and tell them again.”

You can imagine Moses being exasperated. “But I’m an old man. Do you realize how hard it was for me to get to the top of this doggone mountain? It took me days to get here.”

“I know,” says God. “But that’s what I’m telling you to do.”

“Can’t you tell them yourself? Aaron’s down there. Tell him to pass along the message.”

“No, Moses, I want you to go tell them personally. Tell the people to stay back, and then right away come back to the top of the mountain. I’ll be here waiting. And this time, why don’t you bring Aaron with you.”

The chapter concludes, “So Moses went down to the people and told them.” And chapter 20 says that while Moses was receiving the tablets, “The people remained at a distance.”

Of course, they were also making a Golden Calf. Maybe Moses should have added, “And while I’m gone, don’t go making no idols. I’m just sayin’.”

1 Comment

Book: “Fun & Games,” by Duane Swierczynski

Posted on February 1, 2012 by Steve
Posted in Books

I knew without a doubt that I would love “Fun & Games” (June 2011). I’d already read three other books by Duane Swiercyznski, all action-packed and very twisted in a fun-funny way. “Fun & Games” fit right in with the rest, and satisfied all my expectations. As I expected.

Charlie Hardie, an tough but damaged ex-cop with a lot of personal demons, has spent the last three years house-sitting all around the country. Someone pays him to watch their house while they’re gone, usually a few months, and he spends the time getting drunk, watching classic movies, and basically vegging out. Something happened three years ago that threw him into a deep, deep funk. (Obviously, we’re gonna learn what happened.)

His latest gig takes him to a swank house in the Hollywood foothills. But somebody beat him there–an actress named Lane Madden who, that morning, was nearly killed by a secret guild of assassins known as The Accident People. They conduct their hits like it’s a film production, with everything scripted out and a believable narrative. Very obsessive in that way.

Lane, who escaped and took refuge in this house, initially thinks Hardie is one of Them. But then they find themselves under siege, with a three-person team of The Accident People surrounding the house.

And it goes from there. It’s a little bit madcap, quite unpredictable, always fun. Movie references abound. A perfect melding of plot, characters, and locale.

Out of the blue, Swiercyzynski throws in a brief chapter which he titles “Interlude with Mildly Famous Killers.” We’re now in Barstow, Calif., and the first line reads, “The psychopaths came out of the desert, looking for some breakfast.” They take control of a quickstop, apparently aiming to kill the few people inside. And then we go right back to Charlie and Lane…knowing that, somehow, we’re going to be reunited with those psycopaths, but not having any clue as to how it will happen.

During the course of the book, we learn Lane Madden’s backstory (involving Blonde Viking God) and why she’s being targetted. And, of course, we learn what scarred Charlie Hardie.

I’ve been a fan of Swiercyznski for several years, since reading “Severance Package,” a very unique book set almost entirely in a claustrophic office suite and involving some kind of government killers who are being decommissioned. Later I read “The Wheelman,” and more recently, the quirky “The Blonde.” Nobody creates plots and premises like Swiercyznski. He’s a one-of-a-kind.

“Fun & Games” is entirely in that vein, except that it’s book one of a planned trilogy. There comes a point, a ways from the end, where I go, “Wow, I didn’t see that coming.” Then the book ends with another surprise, and we’re all set up for the next book, which is called “Hell and Gone.” It’s available now, published in October 2011. I’m not sure I can wait very long.

Comments Off

Book: “Smoked,” by Patrick Quinlan

Posted on January 29, 2012 by Steve
Posted in Books

I found Smoked (2006) at Half-Price Books, and I more than got my money’s worth. Three years ago, bombmaker Smoke Dugan made off with $2.4 million, and his employers want it back. He disappeared, but now has been located in Maine.

Denny Cruz, a proficient hitman who is having second thoughts about his chosen profession, is sent to capture Dugan. Accompanying him, against his wishes, are two other killers who may or may not have been told to also kill Cruz–Cruz isn’t sure. They capture Dugan, he escapes, and then the fun begins.

Lola Bell, Dugan’s karate-loving girlfriend, gets dragged into the plot, as does Lola’s roommate, mousy librarian Pamela. Two hapless pornographers, through an unrelated incident with Lola, in which she got the best of them, also get involved.

Smoked is told through shifting points of view, always third-person. A single scene may be told from several different perspectives. There is one marvelous scene, a shootout, in which Dugan, the three hitmen (with Lola in tow), and the pornographers all converge from different directions. We see the action from every one of these seven persons’ eyes. We watch as one man walks over to another man lying on the ground, preparing to shoot him, and then the point of view shifts to another person, and we see what happens next through that person’s perspective.

It works very well, mainly because Quinlan does such a good job of defining interesting characters. Each of these characters are real, believable persons, and you grow to like each one in their own disturbed way.

You can’t predict what’s going to happen. Everyone gears up for a particular event or confrontation, but then something happens and the plot veers in another direction. There is plenty of humor, plenty of action, and Quinlan keeps your attention. Smoked is a little bit Carl Hiaasen and a little bit Duane Swierczynski.

This was Patrick Quinlan’s debut novel. He has since written several more books since. I’ll keep on the lookout for them.

Comments Off

Those FoxNews Blondes

Posted on January 26, 2012 by Steve
Posted in TV

Roger Ailes, head of FoxNews, has a real thing for blondes.

He has three basic requirements for female correspondents and anchors:

You’re blonde.
You’re white.
You look good wearing a very short skirt and sitting on an open couch, chair, or stool. (Because Roger’s certainly not going to put you behind a tasteful desk.)

Imagine two women sitting outside Roger Ailes’ office, waiting to be interviewed for a job at FoxNews. One is a blonde in a short skirt. The other is a brunette wearing…well, it doesn’t matter what she’s wearing. You know who’s getting the job.

Yes, you’ll occasionally see a Hispanic, and there’s Michelle Malkin to represent Asians. Roger Ailes lets them keep their dark hair. But with few exceptions, if you’re a white woman and your name is not Sarah Palin, he requires that you be blonde, or at least heavily highlighted.

I have trouble telling the FoxNews women apart. They all tend to look like Megyn Kelly.

Roger’s predilections apparently don’t bother conservative women viewers. Hey, he’s a powerful guy and a champion of conservative values, so he can hire whoever he wants. And the correspondents themselves don’t mind being objectified. Though I imagine it gets uncomfortable sometimes sitting rigidly on that couch, knowing you don’t dare move your legs until the next commercial break.

In the photo (click to enlarge): Some of the blondes over the years at FoxNews and Fox Business Channel. Row 1 (top row): Juliet Huddy, Ainsley Earhardt, Jamie Colby, Jill Dobson, Molly Hennenberg, Molly Line, Paige Hopkins, Ginger Williams, Nicole Petallides. Row 2: Dana Perino, Megyn Kelly, Molly Line, Alisyn Camerota, Lis Wiehl, Margaret Hoover. Molly Falconer, Alicia Acuna, Melissa Francis. Row 3: Martha McCallum, Jennifer Eccleston, Lauren Sivan, Jane Skinner, Sandy Rios, Janice Dean, Meredith Whitney, Brooke Alexander, Sandra Smith. Row 4: Courtney Friel, ED Hill, Ann Coulter, Gretchen Carlson, Marianne Rafferty, Elizabeth Prann, Lisa Bernhard, Claudia Cowan, Gerri Willis. Row 5: Heather Childers, Heather Nauert, Cheryl Casone, Donna Fiducia, Monica Crowley, Jenna Lee, Lind Vester, Rita Cosby, Louise Pennell. Row 6: Shannon Bream, Greta Von Sustern, Laura Dhue, Caroline Shively, Laura Ingle, Amy Kellogg, John Gibson, Glenn Beck, Steve Doocy.

5 Comments

Musings about the Joseph Story

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Steve
Posted in Religion

I’m doing the One Year Bible readings (works great on my Nook), and am just finishing Genesis.

We’ve all heard countless sermons about Joseph’s miraculous rise to the Number Two spot in Egypt. But I’ve never heard a sermon from Genesis 47, which tells how he carried out his job during the famine years.

By this time, his family has settled in Egypt, in the land of Goshen–the best land in Egypt. I imagine other families were expelled from Goshen to make room for Jacob’s clan and all their herds. That probably made some people mad, people capable of holding multi-generational grudges (not unlike today’s Palestinians).

(By the way–I wonder if Joseph and the brothers ever told Jacob what had really happened. About Joseph being sold into slavery, rather than being killed by an animal. I’ll bet they agreed, “Hey, Dad’s an old man. He can’t handle hearing this,” and that Jacob never learned the true story.)

Anyway, when the 7 years of famine struck (after the 7 good years), Joseph had enough food stored up to feed the Egyptian people. But he didn’t just give it away. No, he made them pay for it. Even though they had already grown it.

First, Joseph took their money, until they didn’t have any more to give. Then he took their livestock as payment, until, as the Bible says, Pharoah owned all the horses, sheep, donkeys, goats, and cattle in the land. When they had no more livestock to trade for food, he took their land. The people, understandably, freely gave up everything to get food. When they had no more assets to give, they gave themselves as slaves.

In the end, Joseph had pretty much nationalized the whole Egyptian economy. He controlled the food supply, owned every piece of land, owned all the livestock, and owned the very people as slaves. Everything now belonged to Pharoah. And Joseph had made it happen.

Throughout this, God’s direction is never mentioned, nor did Joseph give glory to God in any way. The reason, I’m sure, is that God didn’t want anythng to do with it. That’s not the way God wants people to govern.

Again, I’ve never, not once, heard a sermon even mention this. Kind of hard to explain to kids, how this is the same guy with the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.

But consider Joseph’s dilemma. With his family in the land, Joseph lost much of his own freedom. He couldn’t act out of principle. Not anymore. Because if he displeased Pharoah in any way, not only might his own life be forfeit (like that poor baker’s), but so might the lives of all of his family. He had to protect them, and that meant doing whatever it took to appease Pharoah.

I imagine this weighed heavily on Joseph. He knew that, when he was out of the picture, his family–whom he had brought to Egypt, and sheltered, and provided for–would be in grave danger. That’s why he talked to them about returning to Canaan once he was gone.

Exodus tell us that a king “who knew not Joseph” came to power. Maybe some of this king’s friends or relatives were among those former Goshen-dwellers whom the Israelites displaced, and they wanted revenge. Exodus 1 says enemies engaged in fear-mongering about these immigrants, saying they were becoming too numerous and might help overtake the country (sounds like Americans talking about Hispanic or Muslim immigrants). And fear worked. Whereas the whole rest of Egypt had been enslaved under Joseph, now the Jews–Joseph’s people–became slaves. Payback.

Just some interesting musing about the potential backstory.

3 Comments

Having the Liberal Label Forced Upon You

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Steve
Posted in Politics

The “liberal” label applies to a lot of issues which, to me, Christians should be in favor of.

Every Democratic president gets pummeled by Republicans as “the most liberal president ever.” There is always some supposedly independent organization with a scoring system which tracks voting records on specific issues, and uses that score to determine just how liberal or conservative you are. So President Obama is being decried as the most liberal president ever, as well as the most fascist, socialist, and Islamic president ever.

But there are legitimate and often biblical reasons for Christians to hold views which Republicans blast as godless liberalism. This really vexes me. Because if you hold any views which aren’t endorsed by FoxNews and Rush, you’re labeled a heretical liberal. And I reject that label.

Do you stick up for the poor, like Jesus did? You’re a liberal.
Are you concerned about taking care of the environment? You’re a liberal.
Are you angered about factory farming and other cruelty to animals? You’re a liberal.
Do you oppose the death penalty? You’re a liberal.
Do you think religion should be left to parents and kept out of schools? You’re a liberal.
Are you against the three-strikes crime rule? You’re a liberal.
Do you believe there’s a place for affirmative action? Liberal.
Do you think unions, with their mixed bag of pros and cons, do have a legitimate role? Liberal.
Do you support embryonic stem cell research? Liberal.
Do you believe in restrictions on assault weopons? Liberal.
Do you oppose torturing prisoners of war? Liberal.
Do you think the US should keep its international agreements? You’re a liberal.
Do you oppose corporal punishment of children? You’re a liberal.
Do you feel the United Nations has a valuable role in our world? Blatant liberal.
Do you favor decriminalizing marijuana? You’re a liberal.
Do you advocate organic farming? You are such a liberal.
Do you think green technology is a good thing? You’re a liberal.
Concerned about the growing gap between the super-rich and everyone else? You’re a liberal.
Do you believe Wall Street should be regulated to prevent recklessness which harms our economy? You’re a liberal.
Do you favor net neutrality–leaving the internet as it is now, as opposed to giving internet providers broad new powers? You’re a liberal.
Are you against the military Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell policy? You’re a liberal.
Do you believe the government should fight discrimination against women and minorities? You’re a liberal.
Do you believe food stamps meet a legitimate need? You’re a liberal.
Do you believe the government should provide consumer protection regarding food, drugs, child safety, and other things? You’re a liberal.
Do you believe global warming is happening, and is largely caused by man? You’re a liberal.
Do you advocate rehabilitating prisoners, rather than just punishing them? You’re a liberal.
Do you believe that the government needs to raise more revenue to meet its obligations? Liberal.

I know conservative evangelicals who hold all of those views. I personally hold most of them, and in many cases, for solid biblical reasons. So I’m a liberal? A godless liberal? (As the right-wing media characterizes people who hold such views.) That just burns me up. Especially since I take so seriously how the Bible speaks to issues.

Who decided those are liberal views? Why isn’t concern for the environment a conservative cause? Or deep concern for the poor? Or consumer protection? Why do so many Christians oppose those stands? Although I prefer voting for a Republican, if it means electing someone who will oppose all of those views listed above–well, their case will need to be very compelling.

This is why I reject being either a Democrat or a Republican. Romans 12:2 says, “Do not conform to the pattern of this world.” When I take on the Democrat or Republican label and loyally adopt their approved issues and candidates, I am conforming to a pattern of this world–something not determined by God, but by man.

I reject the way issues are pigeon-holed as either liberal or conservative. While my roots and sentiments are Republican, I totally refuse to hold views just because that is the accepted Republican view. If I believe a viewpoint is rooted in Christian values, I’m not going to believe otherwise just because Republican gurus advocate something different, no matter how they rationalize it.

No way do I want to identify as a Democrat. I do oppose a number of “liberal” issues (particularly in the pro-choice arena). And yet, I side with President Obama and Democrats on a great many issues, and for reasons in line with my faith (rather than with ideology). According to man-made definitions, that makes me a liberal. I really hate that. But if my religious convictions require that I be called a “liberal,” so be it.

4 Comments

The Republican Sabre-Rattling about Iran

Posted on January 23, 2012 by Steve
Posted in Politics

Perhaps my main fear about electing Gingrich or Santorum, and to a lesser extent Romney, is that they’ll get us into a war with Iran. They’ve been sabre-rattling like crazy. I have few doubts that Gingrich or Santorum would start a war. They just seem to really really REALLY want to attack Iran. I think (hope) Romney’s sabre-rattling is just pandering to the Republican base.

We don’t need to return to the Cowboy posturing of the Bush administration. Can you imagine if the Bushies had gotten Bin Laden, how grandly they would have strutted their stuff? Obama has done a little of that, but has been quite restrained–mostly just going about prosecuting the war with more focus than Bush ever did, and keeping the braggadocio in check.

The Daily Beast ran a great article by Peter Beinart about the candidates’ war-mongering rhetoric, and their past support for the Iraq war. It’s a good reminder of what kind of people we’re electing.

We really don’t need a war with Iran. We need cool heads about this.Obama will get us out of Afghanistan. Republicans will keep us there, might get us back into Iraq, and will probably start something with Iran. Scary stuff to me.

On a related note: A good article by Victoria Toensing about Newt’s philandering.

Comments Off

Yearly Archives: 2012

Announcing My Engagement, 23 Years Ago

Notes on Agendas and an Abortion Forum

Book: “Savages,” by Don Winslow

Moses: a Tale of Two Ascents

Book: “Fun & Games,” by Duane Swierczynski

Book: “Smoked,” by Patrick Quinlan

Those FoxNews Blondes

Musings about the Joseph Story

Having the Liberal Label Forced Upon You

The Republican Sabre-Rattling about Iran

Receive Posts by Email

Recent Posts

Categories

Facebook

Monthly Archives