How much risk

I’m in the middle of a biography of Bonhoeffer and as I’m reading about his decision to return to Germany when he could have stayed safe in the US, I’m struck by something.

Picture the person who best exemplifies a progressive Christian, then imagine them faced with a decision that involved them knowingly heading into a situation filled with hardship and personal risk.  Then imagine them spending days digging deep into scripture (meditating on it) with the conviction that God will speak to them through scripture and give them guidance.    Then imagine them choosing the path of maximum personal danger.

I look at folx like Shuck, McLaren, etc in that position and decide how likely that is.

Also, the comparison between the “German Christians” twisting of scripture reminds me of some of the more creative efforts of progressive Christians.

And there was much rejoicing

I've noticed a trend.  I've noticed it more from the left than the right, but I suspect that it's probably prevalent on both sides.

This trend is that when asked for proof of a particular claim, the response is to point to polling data.   Now, I realize that there is some scientific method behind the creation of polls and the interpretation of polls, but also that they aren't free of bias.  Also, as we saw around the 2016 election, they aren't necessarily right.

So, what are we to make of this poll?

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/gallup-poll-race-relations-see-double-digit-increase-since-trump-entered-white-house/

It pretty clearly goes against the prevailing narratives, and what the media tells us. But, what if the narratives and the media are wrong and the polling data is correct? I suspect the knee jerk response would be to dismiss the poll or the polling organization, but it's Gallup, which historically has been highly regarded. But, if it is possible to dismiss this poll, doesn't that open the door to dismiss any and all Gallup polls in the future? 

Finally, what's interesting to me, is the numbers. Even if Gallup is off by a percentage point or two, the trend suggested by the numbers is so contrary to the popular narrative that it deserves more study.

Although I haven't written much about it, this is similar to the recent data that suggests that for the first time since it's been possible to track, that we have reached a tipping point and the majority of the world population is not classified as poor. Assuming that these two things are True, why aren't we seeing celebrations? 

As with many things, I have some thoughts, but I'll leave them out of it for now.

This is the kind of thing...

“So I’m a coon & an uncle tom BUT

•I want to lower our single motherhood rate

•I want us to stop aborting our babies

•I’m supporting policies that lower the poverty rate and increase employment rates

•I support Prison Reform

•I vote for a President who puts America first!”

Jamal Harris

“I’m black and think for myself. The Left hates me because of it. The right embraces me because of it. 

Who are the real racists?”

CJ Pearson 

This is the kind of thing that I’m seeing more and more often, that makes me wonder if the narrative is accurate.

21 Million

A woman asked Mayor Pete about room in the (inclusive) DFL for those who are pro-life.  She indicated that there were 21 million pro-life voters in the DFL.   Obviously Mayor Pete, and the platform folks, said "No, there isn't room for you unless you abandon your deeply held principles.".   Or words to that effect.

So, if you hope to be the DFL nominee, who wants to run against the worst candidate the GOP has fielded in ages, are you really in a position to tell 21 million voters, "Thanks, were good without you."?

This points to a problem I've seen coming in  the DFL for a while.  The party that prides itself on inclusion has too many factions that are opposed to each other.   For example, organized labor (as opposed to public sector unions) has traditionally been solidly in support of the DFL.   Yet the DFL commitment to virtually unrestricted immigration and the increasingly radical environmental movement, seems to leave the AFL-CIO folx out of luck.     Although, not a big constituency, we're already seeing the LGBT (especially the T) conflict with the feminists.   Obviously the party can't be in complete support on virtually unrestricted abortion for any reason up to the moment  of (or after) birth, and accommodate those who identify as pro-life.

If I were a member of a labor union,  I think I'd be asking the DFL "What have you done for me lately?".

It's interesting that we are seeing some degree of growth (or at least visibility and vocalness) in the GOP of constituencies that have traditionally supported the DFL, (Jews, POC, and gays).   Probably not enough to move the needle much, but enough to raise questions about the DFL lock on these groups.

As someone who is interested in politics, it’ll be interesting to see how a party that welcomes groups with opposing interests, survives when they don’t allow room for compromise.

Hillary got 65,853,514 votes in 2016 and lost.   Are y’all sure you want to tell 21 million voters that they don’t have a voice or place in your party?

Heresy! If you’re a progressive.

“Using vulgar terms or middle fingers neutralizes the argument of a Christian fighting for human rights. We will win long term by taking the moral & verbal high ground, not swearing down those who disagree.”

Impeachment

While I have very little problem with Trump being removed from office for good reasons, the impeachment raises some questions.

1.  Doesn’t beating Trump in the upcoming election solve the problem in the most expeditious and least divisive manner possible?

2.   I’d hope that we can all agree that the Hunter Biden thing, has the appearance of influence peddling, and just generally appears corrupt.   Given that, isn’t it appropriate to investigate real or apparent corruption or to ask that corruption be investigated regardless of the potential benefit to the person asking?  When one adds in Biden requesting the removal of the prosecutor, and the large donations to the Clinton slush fund, it seems that a good prosecutor could make a case for an investigation or indictment.

3.  It seems like the senate could find Trump “guilty”, yet decide that removing him from office isn’t the appropriate punishment.    Wouldn’t that kind of defeat the purpose?

4.  If the determination to have witnesses is made, then it certainly seems to open the door to putting the Bidens on the stand, as well as others who will either mitigate the current case, or significantly raise the possibility of  “reasonable doubt”.


I’ve been channel surfing and have noticed that seemingly fewer outlets are broadcasting the trial this week as opposed to last week.   It seems to me that by only covering the “prosecution” case more extensively than the “defense” case is slanting the coverage in favor of the DFL.    It’s almost as if it’s intentional.    I realize that it’s probably simple money, that Dr Phil probably draws more viewers, than impeachment.   But, it’s an interesting theoretical conversation, especially for over the air broadcasters.    It also calls any poll results into question, as a number of potential respondents might not have access via over the air TV.   (Admittedly it’s probably a small number, but depending on how the sample is constructed).

I’d suggest that if you’re licensed by the FCC, then you either need to broadcast all of the hearings, or none of the hearings.    You know, like the equal time rule applies or something.

Remember when...

All the Trump haters bitched about him not providing aid to PR after the hurricane, well they’re all silent as the multiple warehouses full of relief supplies not distributed by the government of PR keep showing up.

I’m flabbergasted,

CHIEFS

Going to the Super Bowl!

ROI

Planned Parenthood invests $45 million in electing DFL candidates in 2020, hoping to continue on the government dole to the tune of $500 million a year in government handouts.

I guess that asking why you get government handouts when you’ve got $45 million to puss away is probably in bad taste.    Probably shouldn’t ask if there’s any quid pro quo or paying for votes involved either.

But, that’s quite an ROI.

First it was sacrificing children for golden idols...

“I am on my way to Planned Parenthood to purge the two parasites that somehow implanted into my uterus despite me being on the pill.

I can't fucking wait to stop being nauseous and throwing up and being unable to keep water down. I can't wait to be rid of this hyperemesis gravidarum that destroyed my Christmas and ruined my NYE and is ruining my life. 

I can't fucking wait to be done with the anxiety of knowing these things are in my uterus and knowing that I will not have to birth dribbling horror goblins, will not have disgusting leaking tits, will not go home from the hospital in a nappy and with a sitched up vagina, I will not have post-partum depression or be left disfigured with stretch-marks. My relationship with my SO will not be ruined. 

I am dedicating this double fetus purge to the anti-choice movement because no matter how hard you try, you will not force us to be your handmaids. HAPPY 2020!.“

The left used to think that abortion should be safe legal and rare, now we have women literally sacrificing their children on the alters of the gods of convince, body image, and relationship.

Not all bad.

“The gospel is both vertical and horizontal.  Any "gospel" that is good enough for heaven but not good enough for earth is inadequate.  Just as any "gospel" that's good enough for earth but not good enough for heaven is inadequate.  Let's live and preach a robust gospel.”

Every time I think I should delete Twitter, or just purge who I follow, something like this pops up and makes me think.

Random Tweets

“My first ever vote will be for Donald Trump. I don’t care if that makes me a “race traitor.””

“Same here. Became a citizen in 2018, look forward to casting my first ballot for DJT. I don’t care if that makes me a “racist.””

“Understand this: I support Trump because I want to.

If you don't like that then that sounds personal.”

I support the president and there's nothing you can do about it🤷🏽‍♂️“

“I'm constantly asked how i could support President Trump. Look around you, this country is THRIVING like never before. Put your totally irrational, and unjust hate aside.

How could you NOT support him?”

This is what we’re seeing from youth people of color.   Based on some of the responses young, conservatives of color usually get, their concerns aren’t misplaced.

I’ve never considered this.

“Why would God boast that people from every tribe, tongue, and nation will gather around his throne unless our ethnicity as cherished, eschatological, and united through the blood of the lamb is a manifestation of his glory? Colorblind theology denies a key element of Eschatology.”

I’ve had some moments of worship which have given me a tiny glimpse of the picture of believers of all tribes and tongues worshiping God.   But I’ve never really looked at it from this perspective before.    

Michelle who?

Someone named Michelle Williams apparently did something worthy of. Golden Globe award recently.   As part of her acceptance speech she waxed rhapsodic about how she wouldn’t have achieved her success without the liberating wonders of unrestricted abortion.

In essence, she was willing to sacrifice her child for a golden idol.  

Naive or hypocritical?

I saw something on FB this morning that illustrated how leftists think about the world.

It’s a post about a public television program about getting to know people from other countries.   The headline is that we’re less likely to bomb people if we get to know them.

Now, I’ll start with the obvious fact that this is true.   I will guarantee that you could go to any country on earth and find nice people.   You can find wonderful people, who you would want the absolute best for.   That’s not a debate, but it’s also a naive and foolish approach to foreign policy.   But more than that it’s hypocritical.

First naive.   While I’m sure there are absolutely wonderful people in Iran who don’t deserve anything but opportunities to live long peaceful lives, unfortunately they aren’t in control.  The people who control Iran, and the people who support them, are a whole different matter.   Exactly how friendly can you get with people who chant “Death to America” and who think that the west is “Satan”?    Do you really think you can develop a friendship with someone who would see you killed for being s Christian?    Even stranger, is the fact that these progressives ignore the fact that Iran treats what they consider protected classes of people horribly.   American progressives apparently can’t have a civil discussion with a Trump supporter, but think they should be buddies with people who subjugate women, kill homosexuals, and attack those who don’t agree with them.

Now hypocritical,   Somehow we never see these kinds of posts when Israel is blanketed with rocket and mortar attacks.   Or when people from these countries strap on an explosive vest and blow up innocents.  The fact that these types of posts ignore so much of the reality of these conflicts and try to
make the poster look good, really isn’t helping the situation.  It’s also strange that these types of things never showed up during the P-BO administration.   It’s almost like it’s only about trying to attacking Trump for doing less that his predecessor.


I completely agree that we are less likely to have conflict with people we’ve come to know and have relationships with, but ignoring the reality at play in our world just so you can post something of FB to show how great you are, seems like a recipe for disaster.

What do y’all sing?

Recently there's been quite a bit of conversation about music in worship and what's appropriate.  In theory it could be an interesting conversation, but that kind of depends on what your intent is when you gather.

However, what really intrigues me is what people sing in progressive churches, or how they interact with what they sing.

For example, I've played at a church for the past 10 years or so that is on the theologically liberal side of the mainline denominational spectrum.   As a general rule they've stuck with a mix the CCLI top 25,  some oldies but "goodies" from the contemporary vaults, and the hymns that most of us know.    The question I always wanted to ask is, "Do y'all actually believe the theology that you're singing about?".

I see three main categories that get used in church.     These are my categories, they are broad, general, and not exhaustive.

Hymns

Contemporary/P&W

Secular music

Each of these has some sub genres.

With hymns, you have the following.

The "classics", the ones that combine good theology with a good melody and that have been around for quite a while.

The rest of the oldies.  These are hymns that haven't quite gotten as popular as the first category.  Either the theology is bad, the writing is bad, they aren't particularly singable, or something else that relegates them to the B team.

The new hymns.   Many of these have been written to advance a progressive/inclusive theology, or agenda.   Most of the ones I've been exposed to contain poor theology, are virtually un singable, and unknown.

With contemporary/P&W there is also quite a wide range of options.

Like the hymns, there are a number of these songs that have good theology, are singable, and connect with people.  I'd include contemporary hymn arrangements here as well.

Also like the hymns, there are a large number of these songs that range from mildly bad theology to incoherent or heretical theology.   There are some that go down the progressive/inclusive road.  And, there are some that just flat out stink.  

Finally, there is secular music.

First, we have classical music (some of which isn't technically secular), jazz, swing and other primarily non vocal musical genres.

Second, we have pop,rock, country, etc which are primarily vocal genres.


In my opinion, I would suggest that the following are pretty much universally appropriate for worship.

The classic hymns, the B team hymns with good theology, The contemporary/P&W with good theology, the non vocal secular pieces all seem to be compatible with what most people with a reasonably Orthodox (not Greek) theology would consider the purpose of a worship service.

I would also suggest that there is room for some secular music, under certain circumstances.

I can’t help but wonder how the folx who’d rather use secular music instead of Christian music in worship services decide what music to use and where they draw the line of what’s appropriate.


But, after all of that, we're left with wondering what music to churches use in the, for example, don't believe that God exists?   Or if they don't believe that Jesus wasn't anything special?   What if they don't believe that Jesus actually died on a cross and wasn't actually resurrected?   I could go on, but I think you get my point.

Do these churches just sing songs that don't agree with their theology and give them a different meaning?   Do they just sing the ones that agree with their theology or are vague enough that it's impossible to tell?    Do they just pull in secular songs? Do they pull in secular songs that sound spiritual in some vague general sense?   I do know that they'll sometimes change the words to remove anything too offensive.

While I don't want to speak for everyone at the church I mentioned earlier, I'll suggest that it's a little jarring to sing something then hear the pastor contradict what you just sand when he preaches.

I've had to pick music for worship in a few different circumstances, and I can say that I've put a lot of effort into making good choices and trying to keep the focus on God and not on the people upfront.  I just don't see how the folx that lead at those churches do it.

 

Is it?

Scripture tells us we should pray for those in government, and I suspect that a lot of us don’t do so.  But, is it problematic to lay hands on and pray for a politician when they are in a group of people who  are interested in doing so?

UMC

As someone who watched the PCUSA try to navigate the situation where a significant number of churches wanted to leave the denomination,  I'm looking at the UMC solution as a step forward.

Instead of forcing churches who wanted to avail themselves of the "gracious separation" policy to go through all sorts of things, including paying what was essentially a ransom or engaging in protracted legal battles, the UMC went a different direction.

It is refreshing to see this sort of thing handled in a civil and respectful manner.  Well done.

This sounds interesting

https://winteryknight.com/2020/01/04/wayne-grudem-debates-richard-glover-on-the-bible-poverty-and-foreign-aid-4/


This is a post, with links, to a debate about how best to lift nations out of poverty from a Biblical standpoint.

It's based around a book by Wayne Grudem "The Poverty of Nations" and a critique of the book by Richard Glover.

I intend to get the book and give it a read.  It certainly sounds like it would be worthwhile.  It also sounds like it would go along with some other things I've read about poverty recently.  

The Golden Rule

If treating others as you’d like others to treat you is a good idea, and I believe it is,  how should you treat those who treat you poorly?

One answer is that if they treat you poorly, then they are clearly inviting you to treat them the same way.

The other is to hold to the spirit of the rule, and don’t give in to the temptation.

Things on Social Media

In the couple of weeks before Christmas and on Christmas itself, I noticed 4 interesting topics filling my social media.


The first was the outrage over the song "Mary Did You Know".   I've always thought that there is some value in exploring the humanity of Jesus, especially His youth and how his parents dealt with Him.   I think that this particular song is a valid and interesting way to explore that.   Clearly Mary knew that Jesus was unique and that He was born for a higher purpose.  Yet, is it so unrealistic the think that what she knew and felt might have been influenced by the fact that she raised Him.  Is it wrong to assume that Mary couldn't have predicted the specifics of Jesus' life and ministry?  I guess in our new "woke" world, it's wrong for a man to write and sing a song like this.  Of all of the things to get bent out of shape over, this one just doesn't see worth the effort.

The second thing is the predictable yearly insistence that Jesus was a refugee.   This has been dealt with over and over but it keeps coming back.   Let's be clear.  Jesus' family was in Bethlehem because of a census taken in order to increase taxes (some how the increase tax parallel never gets made).  They were forced to temporarily leave their home by the government along with literally everyone else.  They were faced with a temporary situation where there were more people in town for the census than there were available places to lodge.   So far, this doesn't make them refugees.  Then, years later, they leave one Roman province for another Roman province because Jesus life is threatened by Herod.   Once Herod dies, they go back home.   In only the most shallow and superficial ways can this be twisted into support for leftist political policies on immigration.      http://www.wwutt.com/2019/12/was-jesus-refugee.html

I saw a number of my self righteous, progressive friends sharing an article that supports their decision not to embrace that Santa part of Christmas.   I've always seen this as a decision that each Christian family should make for themselves, with little or no reason to make that decision public.   Apparently, I was wrong.  According to a piece at "Motherwise", this is a big deal.   It's all pretty judgemental, but couched in  passive aggressive, "non judgemental" language.   Look, any time you tell your kids that their friends parents are "lying" you're being judgemental.   I'm willing  bet, that these folks aren't 100% honest with their kids either.    I guess what got me thinking was the need or people to tout their virtue by bragging about a decision that should be private and individual all over social media. 

Finally, on Christmas morning we woke up the the news that an old hotel turned into housing for the homeless has caught fire and was destroyed.  We were greeted with please for people to donate clothes, shoes, diapers, etc quickly.   As my family and I were searching the internet to find out where we could go buy diapers on Christmas, and what specifically they needed, we found out that they had been overwhelmed by the amount of donated items and that they were asking people to stop bringing stuff.  What a great story of individuals responding to a tragedy in an overwhelmingly generous fashion.

Post Christmas

The Sunday after Christmas, our pastor used the text from Luke 4 that so many on the left like to use to ground their social justice agenda.  But he went beyond the place where the SJW's cut off and that puts a different perspective on things.

"¹⁴ Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. ¹⁵ He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
¹⁶ He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, ¹⁷ and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

¹⁸ “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
¹⁹     to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”^[f]

²⁰ Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. ²¹ He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”"

I can't help but notice that the first thing Jesus does, is to start teaching at the Sabbath services at the synagogues  throughout the region.  It's almost like Jesus is acknowledging that gathering regularly to worship God is a good thing that He endorses.

Now, a couple of things stuck out to me in this familiar passage, primarily what is the focus of this prophecy.    He starts out focusing on God and Himself.   The focus of the passage isn't on the poor, the prisoners,  the blind, or the oppressed.   It's on Jesus, and His role.   Now,  that whole freeing prisoners,  helping the poor, giving sight to the blind is great.  It fits with the political messiah that the Jews were looking for and that's all good.   But, when He claims that He's here to institute the year of Jubilee, and that He's the fulfillment of the prophecy, the crowd gets restless.   

"²⁴ “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. ²⁵ I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. ²⁶ Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. ²⁷ And there were many in Israel with leprosy^[g] in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
²⁸ All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. ²⁹ They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. ³⁰ But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way."

Surely, the crowd in the worship service didn't get so upset that they were going to throw Jesus off a cliff because He was talking about engaging in some social justice work.   Were they really mad because he was going to help the poor, free the captives, and heal the blind?   Is that really what had them trying to throw Him off a cliff?   Or could it be that Jesus, "Joseph's boy" claiming to be the fulfillment of prophecy was the problem.    Maybe His claim of being the Messiah was what got them going?  He didn't fit in their box.

But, beyond that, let's look at what the SJW's also leave out.  What about the rest of the prophecy.

" ² to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
    and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
³     and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
    instead of ashes,
the oil of joy
    instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
    instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
    a planting of the Lord
    for the display of his splendor.

⁴ They will rebuild the ancient ruins
    and restore the places long devastated;
they will renew the ruined cities
    that have been devastated for generations.
⁵ Strangers will shepherd your flocks;
    foreigners will work your fields and vineyards.
⁶ And you will be called priests of the Lord,
    you will be named ministers of our God.
You will feed on the wealth of nations,
    and in their riches you will boast.

⁷ Instead of your shame
    you will receive a double portion,
and instead of disgrace
    you will rejoice in your inheritance.
And so you will inherit a double portion in your land,
    and everlasting joy will be yours.

⁸ “For I, the Lord, love justice;
    I hate robbery and wrongdoing.
In my faithfulness I will reward my people
    and make an everlasting covenant with them.
⁹ Their descendants will be known among the nations
    and their offspring among the peoples.
All who see them will acknowledge
    that they are a people the Lord has blessed.”

¹⁰ I delight greatly in the Lord;
    my soul rejoices in my God.
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
    and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest,
    and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
¹¹ For as the soil makes the sprout come up
    and a garden causes seeds to grow,
so the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness
    and praise spring up before all nations."

Well, all of a sudden we get a slightly different view of why Jesus came.   I'm guessing that things like "day of vengeance of our God",  "feed on the wealth of nations",  boasting of "their riches", "double portion" of inheritance,  being clothed in the "garments of salvation" and the "robe of righteousness", don't really fit with the SJW box they'd like Jesus to fit into.

Now, I'll be fair and admit that it's possible that the SJW's didn't know that the Luke 4 passage didn't even contain the entirety of the first two verses of the Isaiah prophecy  (I know they didn't have the chapter and verse breaks then).  I'm willing to grant that this is all new to them.    But, now that it's out there, it kind of changes the view of what Jesus was announcing.

Given the fact that most observant Jews in the first century had a much better grasp of their scriptures than most of us, it is hard to make the argument that Jesus was excerpting slightly over 1 verse from an extended and detailed prophecy, because His audience would have largely been able to fill in the rest.   Further, if you excerpt that snippet and combine it with "today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing", then it becomes self refuting.  Clearly we aren't seeing prisoners released, blind folks healed, or the poor receiving any help right then.    In fact, we see very little of those sorts of things during Jesus earthly ministry.    

As has been pointed out multiple times in multiple places, this is the problem you get when you arbitrarily sever scripture from it's context.