Defining or Re-defining Marriage

What is marriage?

It’s a question we thought we’d never have to ask less than a generation ago.  But, now, here we are, discussing, debating, asserting, and pontificating on the meaning and definition of marriage.

Part of the problem is our tendency toward “reductionism” = explaining something in its most basic and simplest terms, resulting in a distorted understanding of its true and perhaps more complicated nature.  This tendency perhaps comes from our modern-day requirement to reduce everything to a catchy sound bite, twitter feed, or text comment, as if one, two, or a few words can say all that needs to be said on a matter.

For example, here is a sound-bite definition of marriage: “Marriage is a sacred institution, established by God.”  And, as a Christian, a definition I happen to agree with.  However, it’s not complete.  Marriage is also a social institution, a social contract, if you will.  And by that I mean that it involves the state (government), economics, the law, and therefore politics as well.

Our government is not a Theocracy.  A Theocracy is a form of government in which God’s law is supreme and God has direct rule over the people.  According to the New Testament, this kind of direct rule by God, where God’s law reigns supreme, will not happen until Christ’s second coming, at which time He will then usher in the Kingdom of God/Heaven.  This is why, in my humble opinion, Christians ought to drop their anti-gay marriage agenda.

Conservative right-wing Evangelical Christians are sending the wrong message and are exerting time, energy, and resources toward the wrong ends.  It’s as if they are trying to force God’s Kingdom Rule upon humanity, or at least upon U.S. Citizens, here and now, regardless of heart, soul, and spirit transformation.  Such efforts neither help in the spreading of the Gospel nor in the establishment of God’s Kingdom here on earth.  In fact, if anything, it does the opposite by hardening people’s hearts against Christ’s message of hope, love, and salvation in Him.  Whatever happened to the traditional Biblical principle that we are in the world but not of the world, as intimated by Jesus Himself (see John 17)?

How is it that Evangelical Christians have become the Pharisees of the 21st century?  When the average person on the street thinks of a Christian they do not think, “Someone who is peaceful, kind, generous, loving, forgiving, and merciful.”  Rather, they think, “A Christian is an angry, self-righteous, mean-spirited bigot who wants to force everyone to conform to their idea of right and wrong.”  Today’s Christians seem to be more concerned with outward conformity to their idea of right and wrong than with a message of hope, love and salvation, justice, mercy, and grace for their fellow human beings, which was the same problem that the Pharisees had when Jesus walked on earth.

Back to the definition of marriage: Marriage is both a divine AND human institution—yes it is more complex than a reductionist sound-bite definition might care to admit.  Let God worry about the divine part.  As for the human side of it, the social contract aspect, we Christians need to remember that it is not our job to become judge, jury, and executioner over all whom we believe (rightly or wrongly) are in moral error: “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.” [John 3:17]  Let us quit condemning gays to an eternal hell (or a hell on earth for that matter), and begin to love them into heaven, regardless of their marital desires or status.

The Implications of a Resurrected Jesus

Ever wonder about death?  What’s on the other side?  Is there life after death?

Of course you have.  Who hasn’t?

Ever wonder about good and evil, and just deserts, guilt and innocence, a Final Judgment?

Would you pass a Final Judgment with flying colors—or should I say, with the color of purity, all white and squeaky clean?  That is, do you have a perfect record, spotless and without blemish?

Of course you don’t?  Who does?

There’s only ONE person in human history that has ever claimed any right or authority to proclaim, teach, or give insight on such things, and that is Jesus—a raised from the dead Jesus, the only ONE with a perfect record—no fault, no guilt, no sin, no wrongdoing—perfect in every way.

Think about it.  If Jesus had not risen from the dead, why did Christianity grow so fast and have such an impact, an impact not only upon the Roman Empire of its early days, but upon World Empires even down to our present day?  Think of the impact of Christianity upon the former Soviet Union.  Think of its impact upon present day China.

He is Risen!?

No, it is not good enough to say that the Apostles and Disciples stole his body and lied about his resurrection, or to say that Jesus literally did not die on the cross to begin with.

His followers bore witness.  They died claiming that they had indeed seen, touched, spoke with and ate with a real, literally and physically resurrected Jesus.

There is really no better way to explain the power and impact of faith-in-Christ down through the ages, but for his resurrection: He is not dead, he is living.  He is no mere historical memory; he is a living presence in the hearts of billions.  His name has power.  His truth changes minds.  And His spirit transforms lives.

Of course, today there are many Churches and numerous Denominations and umpteen factions upon factions of Christian congregations, each practicing their own particular form of Christianity.  Christians don’t all agree; not very surprising considering human nature.  But there still remains this one unifying factor: the belief that Jesus is not dead—He is Risen!  And, by virtue of his resurrection, He is proven to be both Lord and Savior of humanity.  Christianity is that basic and that simple.

Okay, you may not like his followers.
    For that matter, many fellow believers do not like each other.

True, you may not like the church.
    Admittedly there are many strange and weird congregations calling themselves the church of Jesus.

Indeed, you may disdain the behavior, practices, and attitude of self-righteous Christians who think they’re God’s favored.
    You may appreciate the fact that Jesus had plenty to say about self-righteous holier-than-thou types, and it wasn’t good.

The one thing you shouldn’t do is ignore Jesus Himself.
    After all, Jesus Himself expects to be taken seriously.  And, if you truly respect Him, you will.

However, if you do take Jesus seriously, I mean really and truly seriously: That Jesus meant what He said and taught; that Jesus did what He did, on purpose.  And you then try to understand, from Jesus point of view, why He chose to die at the hands of the Roman government (when He supposedly had the power to avoid such a death).  And then you consider His promise that He would rise from the dead and would return again.

Well, then what?  What are the real implications of Jesus words and actions?

I dare you to confront Jesus on His own terms.  I guarantee that you won’t be the same, once you do.

Heretical Thoughts on Democracy

In America, Democracy and Capitalism are sacred.  That is, it’s heresy to question either.

Heresy = an opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine; or, any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

“We’re defending Democracy” is always our rallying call for entering a war: “We must maintain our Freedom!”  We say.  Note: we often use these words, “Democracy” and “Freedom,” interchangeably.

For example, fighting for Democracy and Freedom was our justifying rationale for starting and maintaining the war in Iraq: “We’re freeing Iraq from a cruel and vicious dictator; we’re giving the Iraqi people a chance to have a free and democratic government!”  This rallying call became especially important after discovering that Saddam Hussein really did NOT have weapons of mass destruction.  But, ten years later, we’re now asking, “Was it worth it?  Do they have a real and viable democracy?  Are they really free?  Why are we entangled in this mess, still?  What went wrong?”

What we are too polite to ask is, “How could our leaders, the President, Congress, the Senate, as well as highly visible and influential Media talk-show hosts at the time, have been so mistaken, so naïve and foolish, and so shortsighted and blind as they were, to have gotten us in this mess in the first place?”

To this day, there are those who will in effect say “Yes it was worth it.  We made no mistake; I’d do it again in a heartbeat.”  Imagine that, thousands of lost lives and a financial cost of almost a trillion dollars later and they’d still say, “Yes, it was worth it.”

Such a response only proves my point.  And the point is this: to question, challenge, or doubt certain aspects or actions respecting our capitalistic and democratic beliefs is tantamount to heresy, and heretics are usually burned at the stake (literally or figuratively).  And so, when it comes to our beliefs about Freedom, Democracy, and Capitalism, e.g., we turn a blind eye with unquestioning faith and suspend all critical analysis.  And our politicians know this.  That’s why, when they want our support, they carefully phrase their causes and their actions in American Civil Religious terms such as “Freedom Fighter,” “Patriot Act,” “In Defense of Liberty and Democracy” etc., and then wrap themselves around the American Flag when so doing.

Now here is my heretical point.  Our particular form of Democracy is not necessarily the best form of government for all peoples in all places at all times.  Besides that, there is no such thing as a pure form of democracy anyway.  Here’s another heresy: We don’t want to admit that it was our shear arrogance—about capitalism, about freedom and democracy, and about our own strength—that entangled us in this resource-depleting and life-draining Iraqi war, and that we are a weaker nation because of it.  (For example, China is now poised to become the number one economic power in the world, moving ahead of the U.S., in just a few years.)

There are two fundamental weaknesses to a democratic system: (1) voters are easily duped, i.e., their votes can be easily bought and sold by this or that (false or misleading) persuasive ad.  And (2), voters can be stubbornly obstinate, shortsighted, and selfishly wrong or misguided; i.e., they’ll vote for immediate gratification while avoiding serious complicated issues, by pushing them off into some vague and distant future, refusing to accept hard and difficult solutions to weighty and difficult problems, until it’s too late.

Tax Season and The Art of Taxing

It’s tax season.  Woohoo!

Okay, let’s get real.  We hate paying taxes.  Yet, taxes are a necessary…, no, not evil, a necessary good.  It’s the way a healthy society thrives.

We need good government with good and just laws.  We need a good justice system, military system, educational system; we need good public roads, land, water and air care, and yes, even a good healthcare system.  Government is necessary.  It’s for our good.  And to have this, we need to pay taxes—everyone.

As we all know, there are two sides to government money, the spending side and the taxing side.  They should balance.  It seems they seldom do.   When it comes to government, there always seems to be a shortage of money and overtaxing.

Here’s the problem short and simple: representatives are not elected to deal with the big picture, to do what’s best for the nation as a whole.  They’re elected to take care of their own—local and special interest groups—those who give to their election and re-election campaigns.

Secondly, we ourselves, the average voter on the street, are also not interest in what is best for the nation as a whole.  For example, it may be a wise and good thing for the nation as a whole for the government to cancel certain contracts that feed directly into what Eisenhower called the nation’s military industrial complex; but those who would lose their jobs if this were done, will have none of that and will immediately vote out any representative who would dare think of it.  In short, our real voting attitude goes something like this; “To hell with what’s good for the nation, I want what’s good for me and mine.”

Another problem is the egregiously complicated tax code.  The more complicated a tax system is, the more potential there is for its abuse and misuse.  Not to mention the potential for just plain ole unintended mistakes.

Perhaps our representatives, when adding, changing, or renewing our tax laws, should ask the following questions:

• Does this tax law keep things simple and uncomplicated?  That is, can anyone with a simple High School education understand its requirements so as to easily comply with its expectations?

• Is it inclusive enough; that is, does it spread the tax burden in such a way that the majority of taxpayers are paying it, so as to not unfairly favor special interest groups?

• Then there is the question of social and economic justice.  With respect to the second question above, there is the delicate issue of differences in ability and opportunity.  Those who have more, may indeed have to pay more, while those who have little or nothing may require a helping hand.  Thus a core question is this: is this tax law a fundamentally just one, fair and balanced?

A strong democratic government must have a healthy tax code.  That is, it needs to be short and simple, and should spread the tax burden as fairly as possible—not favoring the rich and powerful—while also being considerate of those who have little or nothing.

It really shouldn’t be that difficult to come up with a fair and just tax code.  But then again, as Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, “What is Truth,” implying that Truth is next to impossible to define let alone know; we might also ask, “What is Economic Justice?” which seems just as impossible for us to define and know—though Jesus reply to Pilate suggests that it is our own willful and stubborn hearts that keep us from knowing the Truth (and, I might add, keeps us from realizing true economic justice).

Job Application: Must Disclose Personal Facebook Pages! Is This Right? Is This America?

Should businesses have the right to demand from their employees and prospective employees that they be given free access to employee’s private and personal Facebook pages and other social media accounts, before being hired, or to maintain one’s employment once hired?  If so, does this not amount to Corporations becoming the ubiquitous Big Brother—always watching, giving no privacy, stripping down personal boundaries?

Are we becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of Total Surveillance—George Orwell’s Big Brother is watching you—presumably for the good of Society, not to mention the good of the State and Company?

For the sake of safety and security, might we not be giving over too much?  Don’t businesses and corporations already have enough power?  Why should they also be given carte blanche access to an employee’s personal life via their Facebook or twitter accounts—access to casual everyday connections, personal though strangely public, communication between family and friends where we are supposedly free to ‘let our hair down’ and ‘be ourselves’?

“If I have nothing to hide, why should I worry,” one might say.  I say, let’s not be naïve.  Individuals have strong opinions, passionate likes and dislikes, and can negatively react towards thoughts and ideas that do not fit their viewpoint.  Corporations, companies, and businesses are no different.  Do we really think that there is no chance that we might not lose a job, fail to gain a promotion or obtain a transfer to a better position as a result of something we may have said on Facebook?  Oh Wait!  It’s already happened.  Been there, done that.  A school teacher loses her job for making pejorative and negative comments about her students on Facebook, out of exasperation.  Can you relate?  Anyone have sympathy for her?

We have a bad day at work, the boss was severely unjust and even oppressive; we say as much on Facebook—to our close friends, family members.  The next day, we’re called into the office.  We’re sacked.  Is this just?  Is it right?  Is there no place within our modern day social-media context where we can safely express our feelings, speak our thoughts, even admit our anger at someone, without repercussion for doing so?  Do we not have a right to social-media privacy, or is that just too much of an oxymoron for us to handle?

What about statements we may have made or may make about politics, about politicians that we like or dislike?  Is it right that we should fail to obtain a job because the company to which we submitted an application also required us to divulge our personal Facebook page, and thus they discover we support politicians who do not support said company with favored tax-break laws?  Is this just?  Is this real freedom of speech?  Is it freedom at all with Business Big Brother watching over us like that?

Of course, criminals, murderers, thieves, enemies and terrorists, they work best at night, behind dark shadows, that is to say, secretively, undercover, incognito, anonymously, on the sly, cloaked in layers of lies.  So we need some transparency and openness.  But we need it on both sides.  The power to know, to see, to uncover, and to force disclosure cannot be all one sided, as if corporations and big business are all innocent and squeaky clean while only lone Individuals are the sole threat to society.  Corporations can abuse and misuse privy information as much as any individual can.

Thus, it seems to me that our lawmakers should give some thought as to limiting how much businesses, companies and corporations can demand access to employee’s Facebook pages, twitter accounts, and so-on, especially as a front-end hiring procedure.  Unless, we really do think that Total Surveillance is the way to go, and we are thus willing to give up all right to privacy, forego all personal boundaries, and discard real freedom of speech.

National Sequester and the Blame Game: Who’s Fault Is It

There are always two sides to a story.  And, if it is about guilt, one side is never absolutely innocent or completely in the wrong.  And so, yes, Democrats AND Republicans are at fault.  Both parties must share the blame for our nation’s financial problems—but not equally.

The fact is that guilt is seldom, if ever, shared equally between two opposing parties.  One side usually tips the scale in the measure of stubbornness, recalcitrance, uncooperativeness, hate, spite, or meanness, or whatever.  In this case, I believe the Republicans are the ones being unjustifiably hardnosed and pigheaded about negotiating.

As I see it, the Republicans in Congress have been more or less inflexible from the get-go.  They want to make Obama look as if he’s the evil, pinched-nosed, obdurate fixated one.  He’s not.  I hear Obama calling for real, rational, and reasonable spending-cuts AND increased means of adding revenue by shoring up tax-loop-holes for the wealthy, for example.  But the Republicans in Congress will have none of it.  Claiming that they’ve already given-in some, they now want to see only cuts!  And we, the average middle-class guy living on Main Street, must pay for it.  That is neither reasonable nor considerate.  Indeed, they now seem glad that the fiscal cliff sequester is here and are downplaying its potential negative effects on the economy.

Most American’s believe Obama’s approach is in fact reasonable and acceptable.  So why are the Republicans in Congress not respecting the majority of Americans?  They say that they stand for a true democracy.  They say that they are for the people.  They say that they are only thinking of what is best for America.  But their actions speak otherwise.  For whom are they really working?  Big money, the powerful, the super-wealthy, who?!

Furthermore, speaking to my brothers and sisters in the Lord, I wonder why so many support the congressional Republican financial agenda when the Bible makes it very clear that we are to be mindful of the poor and needy?  Rightwing Christian Republican conservatives speak so passionately about bringing back moral order, with respect to things like abortion, gay marriage, etc.  Yet, regarding moral issues, the worst that Jesus said for example, regarding the woman caught in adultery was, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the one to cast the first stone” and Woman where are those who condemn you?  Neither do I condemn you.  Go and sin no more.  [See John 8:1-11]  But as to the rich, wealthy, and powerful Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.”  Go figure!  [See Matthew 19:16-24]

Note also Micah 6:8, "And what does the Lord require of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."  Likewise in Zechariah: “Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.  Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor.  Do not plot evil against each other.”  [See Zechariah 7:1-14]

Social Media, Free Speech, and New Anti-Harassment Laws

Free Speech is costly, but worth the expense.  We should never underestimate its value.  It’s the one thing a free nation cannot afford to lose.

Our new social-media matrix is testing the limits and boundaries of free speech.  Email, texting, IM, Skype, You Tube, blogging, Twitter, Facebook, streaming video, smart phones, iPads, and so-on, provide us with quick and immediate ways to stay in touch, communicate, have a say, get the word out, make a statement, express ourselves; which also can get us into a whole lot of trouble.

Most adults have long learned that if one speaks first and only thinks afterwards, one will often regret what one has said.  However, young, energetic, excited, and in-the-moment youth tend to do exactly that—do first and only afterwards consider the consequences.  When mom or dad asks with intense frustration, “Why did you do that, what were you thinking?!”  The most honest answer a teen could probably give in response is something like this:  “I don’t know why I did it.  I wasn’t thinking at all.  I just did it.  I did it because I felt like it; it just felt right at the time.”

Now add the new power that social-media gives to our youth today: the power to ‘harass’ fellow classmates, or even teachers for that matter, by posting fake photos, assigning anonymous Facebook pages with slurring and insinuating falsehoods and slanderous innuendoes, leading to malicious gossip.  WORD POWER!  By now we have all heard stories of vicious, biting, mean-spirited and slanderous Facebook postings about a person, which directly or indirectly led to that same person taking his or her own life.

Suddenly, Local and State Legislators are feverishly writing new social-media harassment laws to reign in such behavior and pronounce immediate and severe harsh consequences to these social-media hooligans.  In some States students will now be accountable if their online speech are the cause of physical or emotional harm, or causes a fellow student to fear such harm.  They will be punishable if their online messages or comments create a hostile environment for a fellow student in the school.  The intent is good.  Sounds fair and just, but can these laws go too far and suppress our basic and fundamental first amendment right of free speech?

This new communication dynamic forces us to address both the cost and the value of Free Speech: What it is, and what it is not; and, when the line has been crossed between the two, what are the proper and just consequences for having done so.  We can only hope that there is balance, justice and fair play, on both sides of the equation.

For example: Should schools have the ability to “take action” against an offending student, if their communication was done off school grounds?  If a student is caught “defaming” a teacher online, “just for fun, a mere teen-age prank,” how severe should legal or criminal punishment be, if any?  What if the content of a particular posting about an individual is true but personal, and obviously made public with malicious intent?  Should the person who put it “out there” be censored for saying something that is in fact true, regardless of intent?  What is the nature of speaking the truth in such a context?

As is always the case, Legislatures, and others in authority positions, tend to overstep or fall short.  Many times, school authorities either underreact, “Boys will be boys, they were just fooling around, no harm done”; or they overreact, “We have a zero tolerance policy in this school, and you will be punished by the full extent of the law for this violation, period!”  It seems that it is very difficult to find a balanced mature response between these two kinds of knee-jerk reactions.

School bullying, especially by means of the new powerful social-media channels, needs to be nipped in the bud.  But legislative laws must not overreach.  The First Amendment right of Free Speech must be maintained, though it may be costly to do so.  We must move forward with careful and deliberate intentionality in both protecting one another, especially our youth, from vicious and malicious cyber-media bullying, but we must also be just as protective of our right to free speech, for it is the lifeblood of a truly free society.