Unfriendly Business

Because I have not been particular about accepting requests in the world of Facebook, I have friends in the realm of social media from different political persuasions and religious backgrounds. It's been a fascinating discovery process. In the beginning of my Facebook journey, I thought it would be interesting, maybe even fun, to exchange ideas and express differing opinions about politics. To be reminded how we, those of us who are Americans, have so much to be thankful for and how there are core values on which we agree, common ground, if you will. Silly me for thinking that.

What I have found is that some of my "real life" friends who hold different political views and who happen to cross over into the world of social media aren't interested in thought-provoking conversations or finding common ground. They are interested in posting one meme after another blasting whichever "side" they oppose. And they quickly fall into personal attacks and name-calling when anyone questions where they have obtained their information or dares to disagree. Not in all cases, mind you, but common enough that anyone who is reading this will know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have recently discovered I have apparently lost a Facebook friend over one comment I made on one of her posts a few weeks back. I'm not on Facebook enough to know I had been "unfriended," but I realized when I saw her at an event a couple of days ago, I have evidently been unfriended in the world in which we live and breathe. After I got the cold shoulder from her when I saw her, I checked Facebook, and sure enough, we are no longer friends. This is a woman I've known for at least 20 years, gone as a friend because I dared question a negative political comment she made. That seems like a shame doesn't it?

Interestingly, this unfriending business is not a problem with my friends of different religious backgrounds. Some of my friends do not identify themselves as Christians, and yet, they are much more tolerant, reasonable and pleasant than many of my Christian friends who lean toward a particular political persuasion. Recently, a Christian friend of a friend said it was "just plain truth" that I have a "manipulative liberal mind." I actually thought that was pretty funny, especially in the context of the conversation, but she wasn't laughing.

I've been pondering the solution, and even though it seems like the coward's way out, rather than unfriending I'll be hiding many "friends" from my timeline. I imagine my posts are hidden from many timelines already, so we will have effectively unfriended each other and now all we're doing is helping Facebook gather our personal information for its own gain.

I've never thought friendship was of great value if all we do is tell each other what we want to hear.  Friendship seems like it is a way to grow and learn and find camaraderie. For sure there will be our good friends with whom we do agree on most things, but friendship and civility are possible, even when we don't agree on everything. And for those who call themselves followers of Jesus, that kind of friendly unity isn't really a matter of choice; it's a command, regardless of where we stand politically.

Living in the Moment

I believe Jesus lived in the moment. He taught that our focus should not be on tomorrow but on today, the now, the present time. It does not appear he had to force himself to get out of bed every morning to slog through one more day just to get by to make it to the weekend. Recognizing that his time on earth was short, he valued every moment, viewing each hour as an opportunity for work, fellowship and fun, remaining fully present (mind, body, spirit) in every situation, relationship and interaction. All we're assured of in life is the very moment in which we're living. We should not squander the present by bringing the future into every waking thought.

This can be an especially tough time of year to abide by this mentality for those who are tired of winter and ready for spring. With every cool and cloudy day that passes, impatience for spring intensifies. I know there are some for whom cold weather is physically painful due to arthritis or other ailments, and that is understandable, but it seems this is perhaps more than offset by those who suffer from allergies, and other miserable conditions associated with warmer weather. My suspicion is that even more than longing for the delights of springtime, many are looking for a "perfect" day. That day when it's 72 degrees outside, with an unclouded sky, when no problems arise, no aches and pains assail us and no one is unpleasant to be around. Like Goldilocks, we want everything to be "just right."

That sort of perfect day exists mostly in fairy tales. If it does come along once or twice every twelve months or so, does that pinnacle keep us joy-filled for the rest of the year? Or does it serve to make us disappointed the majority of the time because our high expectations are not met? Rather than those rarely attained, idealized days, I believe every day can be perfect in its own way. The kind of perfection I'm thinking of comes from living in the moment. Deciding, as Ralph Waldo Emerson did, to "Write it on your heart that every day is the best day in the year." 

No matter the weather, no matter what befalls me, no matter what or who I find irritating, I must remind myself that my attitude is my choice. I alone allow my situation to ruin my day or not. If it's a circumstance I cannot change, the weather, for example, it does not have to control me or my mood. If there's a situation I can change, I must decide whether I should change it or live with it and find joy in the midst of it. Either way, any way I look at it, I do know, for me personally, I am blessed truly beyond measure. I want the knowledge of this fact to drive my existence, serving as a reminder to make the choice to make every moment matter.

Sin and the Law - Part II

Some readers of my blog know that it is usually a re-posting of a column I write for the West Plains Daily Quill. After my "Sin and the Law" column appeared in The Quill (see Feb. 22 religion page or my Feb. 24 blog post), a letter was sent to the editor, in which the writer presented his reasons for disagreeing with my comments which had centered on my confusion over why certain sins, as defined by scripture, are targeted by some Christians to be against the law of the land when other sins are overlooked.

Online subscribers of The Quill can read the full text of the letter on page 7 of the March 7 edition, but in his letter, the writer asserted that I implied, “Christians should not talk against sin or try to get laws made.” First, I ask did Jesus tell us to “get laws made?” Second, I certainly believe anyone, Christians and non-Christians, should be able to say whatever they want, in accordance with freedom of speech.

One area where the writer and I agree is that sin is damaging. Where we likely disagree is that I believe scripture is meant to show Christians the way to be happy and blessed when we follow the mandates of the New Testament, (by not sinning) rather than as an instrument of meting out judgment against others. 

Certainly Christians are instructed to share the gospel with others outside our faith. However, forcing non-Christians to abide by biblical law is simply not a concept Jesus promoted. If New Testament scripture can be found, in context, which points to Jesus saying his teachings should become the law of Rome, the government of his day, I would like to see the reference. 

Aside from that, my main point in the column in question is: If Christians are to identify certain sins which should be against the law of the land, how is it decided which sins to target? The letter writer avoids directly answering this question.

In my original post, I did not mention specific issues, but the writer does. He talks of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which prohibits same-sex marriage and is rather ironically named, in my opinion. It is a prime example of my expressed confusion. If marriage is to be defended, can we permit divorce? About half of all marriages, including those between professing Christians, end in divorce. If marriage needs defending, perhaps, bear with me, we should start with banning divorce.  

We can’t outlaw divorce, some might say, there are legitimate reasons for it. Let us accept that premise. Divorce becomes legal only in the case of a spouse being abused or cheated on. I believe those would be the only legitimate reasons in scripture for getting divorced. (There is never, I repeat never, a legitimate reason or scriptural defense for committing adultery. Those being cheated on have recourse. Those doing the cheating do not. God does not ever give Christians permission to have affairs. Although, thankfully, he offers forgiveness when they do.) What if we try to “fix” the underlying adultery issue which causes divorce, by passing laws?

Shall we go back to the days of “The Scarlet Letter” and make adultery a crime? If adultery is against the law, can we assume individuals will stop cheating on their spouses? Actually, we can already surmise the answer would be “no,” as adultery is already a crime in about half the states in the union, but it is one of the least-enforced offenses on the books. (The letter writer presents a list of laws which he asserts “our so called leaders” have determined “do not have to be enforced.” Included in his list: DOMA, voter fraud, immigration, perjury, "some drug laws" and gun laws.) He did not include adultery in the list. Maybe he thinks adultery should be criminalized, but I contend it’s a good thing adultery laws are not enforced, because the jails would be filled up in a hurry.

How and why can Christians target same-sex marriage but not divorce and adultery? This is an example of how the letter writer's reasoning plays out when taken to its extreme. 

I have also gone to an extreme to make a point. I obviously do not think divorce, or adultery for that matter, should be against the law. I have friends and family members who have been divorced and are now remarried. Several of them, in fact, who were before and are since in the ministry. I know it has been agonizing for them to go through the process, but I would not deny them the freedom to choose the path they believe is best for them, for whatever reason. (Although there is a pretty good case to made, based on New Testament scripture, that those who are divorced should not be in leadership positions in the church.)

And I have friends who are homosexuals who want to choose a path they also believe is best for them. How can we, in good conscience, look at how the Church behaves and try to claim the moral high ground by denying anyone the chance to wed, and then, add insult to injury by saying we are defending marriage? 

The letter writer says, "I think that we are now in a position where we need some laws to protect moral values."

It brings me to my second point. If morality is legislated, who gets to write the laws? Do Christians decide for everyone else? Do we convene a panel of sadducees and pharisees? Does the letter writer get to decide? What about me? I can make a pretty good case for what should be against the law, based solely on scripture, but I doubt he would agree with my ideas.

For example: Jesus said to love our enemies, bless and pray for them, and “turn the other cheek.” In Romans 12:20-21, we are told, “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” The “coals” we are to heap on the heads of enemies are not bombs, we are to heap good on them. That would seem to be a reasonable argument to ban war, from a biblical view, wouldn’t you think? Maybe we should pass laws immediately ceasing all hostilities and shutting down the huge war machine in the U.S.

And if we try to incorporate the teachings of Jesus in his “Sermon on the Mount” into the law of the land, we’re all really sunk, because at the very least, the following could easily be criminalized: being angry at a “brother;” calling someone a fool; not only committing adultery, but “looking lustfully” at women; praying in public (that’s an interesting one, isn’t it?) and having a savings account, just to name a few.

My goal is not to try to claim that I am right and the letter writer and those who share his views are wrong. My goal has always been, by expressing my opinions in this space for the past several years, to make us all think. Specifically, to make those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus think about how we have arrived at what we believe. I am often concerned that our Christian views have been too much influenced by sources other than the teachings of Jesus.

Seriously, Guns and Jesus?

The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

For anyone who believes this means there should be no "rules" at all when it comes to ownership, I say that's fine. I'll even go so far as to say more regulation might not even save many lives. The issue is mostly political wrangling.

However, don't try to convince me that our right to bear arms, our lust for unrestricted gun ownership, has anything to do with the teachings of Jesus.

In verifying something in a news release sent to my place of employment (The West Plains Daily Quill) this week, I discovered a group which claims gun control measures are unconstitutional  AND unbiblical. For those who believe, "history shows, gun control is a direct path to tyranny," as this group does, that's a matter to be discussed as American citizens. If the American citizens who hold these beliefs are Christians, that's their business, but not relevant to the issue.

Trying to connect gun issues to the teachings of Jesus: nauseating.

Sin and the Law

It is a confusing time to be an American Christian. Or at least it should be, especially when it comes to views about sin. It's fascinating how biblical teachings have evolved into a theology which takes the emphasis off how harshly we judge ourselves and places the focus on making sure others are not "living in sin."

Perhaps (and this is a big perhaps) if our thoughts are strictly to help others by revealing to them the error of their ways, so they can enter into a life of blessing, it would be more understandable. But we witness daily a huge segment of Christian society which seems to have as its goal eradication of sin in others simply because the sin is seen to be offensive. I am unconvinced this is what Jesus had in mind.

Jesus taught the concept of unconditional love, a phrase which is heard in many Christian circles, most often as it applies to God's mercy in dealing with us. Is that message lost in translation when we look at others? Do we ask for unconditional love but refuse to give it?

We see some trying mightily to address certain "sin" issues through the law. How did particular sins get chosen to be targeted? 

Without exploring the history of the "seven deadly sins" in Christian tradition, they are usually recognized as: lying, wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy and gluttony. Those concepts are supported by scripture and join other Old and New Testament lists of sins which include things such as adultery, divorce, fornication, idolatry, sorcery, hatred and revelings.

Certainly there are sins which are currently against the law which should be outlawed in civilized society -- murder and perjury come to mind in that category. But should greed, for example, be against the law? If not, why not, when stealing is a crime? Jesus made it clear he intended for his followers to give of their resources to help others. It is difficult to deny that helping those in poverty is one of the major commands of scripture. This is one reason why it’s a confusing time for Christianity in America because we are a country which, by law and governmental practice, embraces greed in the name of capitalism, while at the same time is becoming less tolerant of helping those in need.

Back to what sins should be against the law. The solution does not seem to be the need for more laws against a few subjectively defined sins. (An example: Why are divorce and adultery legal -- with no campaigns by Christians to ban them -- while gay marriage is such a heated target? Another example: Some very limited efforts have been made to address the sin of gluttony through legislation. But limiting the size of sugary sodas and other food which helps make us fat is seen as a "liberal effort" to take away our personal rights. Am I the only who finds this confusing?) The standards of Jesus transcend what can be legislated. Additionally, if a “Christian nation” can’t abide by the teachings of Jesus out of simple devotion to him, there isn’t any reason to believe everyone will do what’s right out of fear of a fine or imprisonment. 

A little more focus on our own sins and a little less glaring spotlight on the shortcomings of others is also a good place to start.

A Significant Life

I recently read a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi which has continued to be on my mind for several days, "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." It is a simple statement which seems to me to capture pessimism, optimism and realism all at once.

Calling attention to the insignificance of our actions might make one wonder if there is any point in trying to make a difference or change the world around us. The overwhelming nature of so many problems, in society, in government, in religion, can often be discouraging, can make it seem as though individuals are powerless when it comes to having a positive impact. This way of thinking leads many to conclude there isn't much point in trying to do the right thing.

But then is the notion that we have to try anyway, that optimistic spark that makes us believe good can overcome evil, that the actions of one person, no matter how small, do matter. Jesus expressed this message in his teachings. For example, he said in Matthew 10:42 whoever "gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." A cup of water doesn't seem like much, but that should not stop us from offering it. 

Optimism and pessimism aside, the reality of the statement, for me, is that our actions, large and small, have consequences, produce results. Our lack of action also has consequences. 

Ghandi was one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. The methods he used to bring about change in his native India were unconventional, borne not out of power associated with great wealth or a mighty military, but of acts of non-violent protest, of fasting, of seeking to bring together different religions. His struggle was against the mighty British Empire and against a pervasive caste system which singled out certain members of society as "untouchables." Many of his methods would be viewed, particularly today, as insignificant against seemingly insurmountable odds and yet, he did not let that stop him from trying. And by trying, he changed India.

A lesson for the rest of us in this is that his life was not lived according to theories, empty doctrine or grand theology. He practiced simple principles, realizing the importance of even seemingly insignificant acts.

My Own Red Shoe Issues

My Aunt Berta passed away this week. Had she lived until July 2, she would have been 97 years old. She was one of the most religious people I have ever known, and frankly, I struggle with how I feel about the kind of religion she practiced. She told me one time, "I remember back when there were only black shoes and brown shoes. When they started making red shoes, I thought wearing red shoes was a sin." She laughed, and said, "Isn't that funny?"

Yes, I did think it was funny, but I also had to muse at all the other things she continued to think were sinful which really don't have any basis for being labeled as such according to New Testament teachings. For example, not only did she believe women are supposed to only wear long dresses, but   her modesty standards demanded arms were not to be seen, either...only long sleeves were acceptable. Most jewelry as adornment was not permissible, but wearing broaches and pins on sweaters and coats was okay. Long hair and beards on men are a no-no, even though her apartment was adorned with lovely "portraits" of Jesus with flowing locks and well-trimmed facial hair. Tattoos? Forbidden!

I hesitate to write these things about my aunt because it might sound as though I'm judging her. However, I try not to judge because she was sincere in her beliefs, and it is a dilemma for all believers, I think, to find a way to live in the world according to our own earnest perception of God and his requirements of us. I know many think the Bible is all "black and white" with no grey areas, but that just isn't true. Those areas in the Bible which are not clearly defined are how we tend to get caught up in distracting details, the kind of details Jesus doesn't appear to have been all that concerned with.

The larger issues of love, understanding and compassion must be what unite us. Unity is what Jesus prayed would be the trademark of his followers. We have allowed the details to fragment us to such an extent that unity is definitely not what the Christian world is known for. What a shame, and beyond that, I believe our lack of unity is perhaps the biggest sin of all. When we can't work together because our specific opinions don't line up, we are not serving Jesus effectively. Our bickering amongst ourselves is not, to say the least, appealing to those outside our faith.

I do not follow the same path my aunt followed and many Christians don't agree with the path I've chosen, but that's okay, and that's my point. It seems many of us have certain needs in what we believe will allow us to remain close to God, but those needs don't necessarily apply to others. The fact is just like a red herring in literature, we all have "red shoe" issues in our beliefs, those things which distract us from the actual teachings of Jesus and can lead the church in the way of strife and discord. My aunt and I (sometimes, sharply) disagreed on certain things, but she taught me many lessons over the years. For me to continually seek to understand what kind of red shoe issues I'm hanging onto is my Aunt Berta's greatest legacy to me.