With less than two weeks until election day (November 8th, despite what Mr. Trump believes), we can know some things with relative certainty:
There will NOT be an electoral deadlock. Clinton already has 252 of the 270 electoral college votes needed to win.
Trump will not be the "outsider" white knight his supporters believed him to be. There isn't a scenario where he takes the states needed to win. He's going to lose Florida. He's going to lose Pennsylvania. He's going to lose North Carolina. Polls are only still reflecting a "tight race" because the media needs their ratings to stay up through November 8th. Their advertisements depend on it.
Clinton WILL BE the President of the United States for the 2016 - 2020 term. Whether you or I like it or not, it's going to happen. In all likelihood, she will win in a landslide not seen since Obama vs McCain in 2008.
Gary Johnson WILL NOT be President...
Evan McMullin WILL NOT be President...
And that is precisely why you should vote for either of them.
I think we can all agree, American Politics need to change. Those running the show now are unapologetically divisive, unapologetically corrupt, and are unabashedly seeking the power of those offices above all else. This campaign has shone a spotlight on the cesspool that our political parties have become. We have fallen so far from what our country was intended to be. I imagine the founders would take us out behind the tavern and beat us mercilessly. The abolitionists, suffragists, and civil rights icons would weep at what their efforts have yielded.
America needs change, and the only way that happens is for the 220 million eligible voters in the United States to force a change through the ever-debilitating electoral process.
Why should you STILL VOTE for Gary Johnson? (or Jill Stein)
Because this is the most safe election to do so. A vote for Gary Johnson will not swing the election one way or the other.
Because if Gary Johnson gets 5% or more of the popular vote, the two party system will have to deal with a Libertarian party that will have access to the same funding they do, and will not have to waste time registering in all 50 states for ballot access.
Because the verifiably corrupt mainstream media (Thanks Wikileaks) will have to admit publicly that people are dissatisfied with both major parties, disappointed with those candidates, and voted accordingly. That 5% number is everything. It's so important that the MSM has teamed up this morning to inform all of us that Gary Johnson is "tanking" in the polls. Their polls. The polls that they manipulated to keep Gary out of the debates. Those polls. Simply put, if Gary Johnson gets anywhere near the 5%, it will be reported as 4.8% or 4.9%. That's why it's time to make a statement. With 7-8% of the Popular vote, they will be forced to take notice.
Third parties will be emboldened to step up their game over the next 4 years and come back with more money, more supporters, more media presence, because they'll have a shot to break the American political duopoly once and for all. And it will shut up everyone who mindlessly parroted the idea that "A third party vote is a wasted vote", telling them "Go fuck yourself. No it isn't."
Why should you STILL VOTE for Evan McMullin? (if he's on your state ballot)
The rationale is different than voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. McMullin won't get 5% of the Popular Vote, and even if he did, it wouldn't change anything, because he is running as an Independent.
But Evan can win Utah, and frankly, he needs to. The moment ONE STATE goes to someone other than the Red shill or the Blue shill, the moment those electoral college votes go to someone NOT NAMED TRUMP OR CLINTON, the system will be blown wide open. People will once again believe what has been true all along, that a vote of conscience, of reason, of morals, and of ethics has value in America. Those votes turn in to victories, and those victories make a real difference toward the betterment of our great nation.
So get out there. Stump for the underdogs. Vote for the losers that deserved to win. Use your vote to throw a huge middle finger or double palm-pound (ala Ross Gellar) at the Rs and Ds and the news agencies propping them up. This HAS TO BE THE YEAR. They gave us two terrible candidates, and it's up to us to make sure they never make that mistake again. We have a chance to make a real difference, and it is our civic duty to make the most of it.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Why I'm Still Voting for Gary Johnson, and Why You Should Too
On the day of the third and final presidential debate for the 2016 presidential election, and I'm amazed at all of the corrupt revelations that we've beheld so far...
* It was revealed that the polls which determine eligibility to participate in presidential debates are biased in favor of the major party candidates. These polls exclude demographics such as independent voters and voters under 35.
* The Commission on Presidential Debates is a bipartisan agency whose goal is to restrict third party interference in presidential debates. Even when served with a petition with over a million signatures, they flatly refused to include Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in the presidential debates, despite calls from prominent legislators, pundits and news agencies to do so.
* The Democratic Party fixed the primaries in favor of their heir apparent, Hillary Clinton. The DNC chair was fired only to be immediately rehired by the Clinton campaign. Bernie Sanders never had a chance.
* The Democratic Party worked with major news outlets to pump up Trump's primary bid in an effort to ensure a Hillary Presidency.
* The Veritas Project recently released undercover video and audio showing that the Democratic Party willfully commits voter fraud in order to win elections.
* Julian Assange and Wikileaks have dumped a treasure trove of information highlighting Hillary Clinton's political misdeeds (perjury and treason to name a few) as well as her political invincibility thanks to relationships with the leadership at the Justice Department and President Obama himself.
* It has been revealed that Donald Trump has used campaign donations to bolster his own businesses and those of his children.
* Mr. Trump was exposed as the misogynist pig we all believed him to be in the now infamous "Trump Tapes". His racism and sexism are simply unmatched in all of the American Political Landscape.
And the list goes on and on and on. And yet, somehow, these are still the only two candidates who will be at the podiums tonight. We have seen with crystal-clear certainty that the political system in the United States is corrupt to the core. And while that is disheartening, I'm still not giving up. Here's why: Gary Johnson can still be elected President in case of an electoral deadlock. And most importantly, he can easily secure 5% of the popular vote which would promote the Libertarian Party to "major party" status in 2020. This would automatically include them on the ballots in all 50 states, would release federal funding for their national campaign, and in so doing would finally challenge the two party system which has proved incapable of representing the will of the people.
Some people want to see the "glass ceiling" for women shattered. Me? I want to see the two party political system toppled. If this year in politics has taught us anything, its that the Republican and Democratic Parties aren't interested in or capable of putting forward the best candidates to be the greatest servant of the Constitution or the citizens of the United States of America.
I'm still voting for Gary Johnson (even if my political platform more closely resembles Evan McMullin, or past traditional candidates like Mitt Romney). And I'm calling on you to do the same. Please consider my reasoning below, and share it with any who are still on the fence about who to vote for in November.
1. Gary Johnson is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. These are the same political beliefs as a majority of Americans, especially when examining the positions of millennial voters. Simply put, the next generations of voters are already Libertarian, they just don't know it yet.
2. The Libertarian platform is one of balance and liberty, deferring many social issues to States' rights to govern their citizens. This empowers citizens to enact change on the local and state levels of government.
3. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are going to adopt a Congressional Term Limit Amendment to the Constitution, as most of them are career politicians. Gary will, on the other hand.
4. Gary Johnson would move quickly to remove US presence from wars which we have no business fighting (Syria civil war, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen), preferring to use the US Military to protect the United States and support our allies.
5. Hillary Clinton should not be allowed to hold public office. Donald Trump should not be allowed to hold public office. The only way to ensure neither do is to vote for Gary Johnson.
6. A plurality of Americans are Independent (43%), and deserve more than two political parties to represent them on all levels of government. The centrist Libertarian Party is best poised to do that immediately.
7. Gary Johnson is the only candidate on all 50 state ballots who has successfully governed US citizens, and whose plan to cut taxes and balance the budget extend beyond the theoretical.
8. Hillary Clinton is a far-left progressive. Donald Trump is a far-right nationalist. Neither represent the vast majority of American Voters.
9. Prior to this election, you hadn't heard of Alleppo, the capitol city of Libya, either. To demonstrate this fact, I'll point out that you likely didn't recognize just now that I misspelled Aleppo. Furthermore, you probably didn't notice that Aleppo isn't the capitol Libya, but Syria; it's this whole other country. And lastly, you probably missed that Aleppo isn't Syria's capitol, but Damascus instead.
10. Gary Johnson wants to decriminalize marijuana as a Class/Schedule 1 drug. And while many have tried to write him off as a "Pothead" for this reason, they fail to recognize that his proposed change would result in many overturned prison sentences for personal possession, benefitting the African American and Latino communities most, since they are disproportionately imprisoned for these offenses. It would reduce the overall prison population, which would in turn reduce the federal cost of prison programs. And finally, it would pave the way for privatized medical marijuana. The medicinal and economic benefit of this change simply cannot be overstated.
For things to change in America, we don't need "outsiders" joining the major parties. We need to install a party who isn't yet corrupted by all the power and greed of Washington. To do that, we need to vote for Gary Johnson.
As President, he can and will bring about real change (without all the scandals). It's time for another option. It's time to vote Libertarian.
* It was revealed that the polls which determine eligibility to participate in presidential debates are biased in favor of the major party candidates. These polls exclude demographics such as independent voters and voters under 35.
* The Commission on Presidential Debates is a bipartisan agency whose goal is to restrict third party interference in presidential debates. Even when served with a petition with over a million signatures, they flatly refused to include Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in the presidential debates, despite calls from prominent legislators, pundits and news agencies to do so.
* The Democratic Party fixed the primaries in favor of their heir apparent, Hillary Clinton. The DNC chair was fired only to be immediately rehired by the Clinton campaign. Bernie Sanders never had a chance.
* The Democratic Party worked with major news outlets to pump up Trump's primary bid in an effort to ensure a Hillary Presidency.
* The Veritas Project recently released undercover video and audio showing that the Democratic Party willfully commits voter fraud in order to win elections.
* Julian Assange and Wikileaks have dumped a treasure trove of information highlighting Hillary Clinton's political misdeeds (perjury and treason to name a few) as well as her political invincibility thanks to relationships with the leadership at the Justice Department and President Obama himself.
* It has been revealed that Donald Trump has used campaign donations to bolster his own businesses and those of his children.
* Mr. Trump was exposed as the misogynist pig we all believed him to be in the now infamous "Trump Tapes". His racism and sexism are simply unmatched in all of the American Political Landscape.
And the list goes on and on and on. And yet, somehow, these are still the only two candidates who will be at the podiums tonight. We have seen with crystal-clear certainty that the political system in the United States is corrupt to the core. And while that is disheartening, I'm still not giving up. Here's why: Gary Johnson can still be elected President in case of an electoral deadlock. And most importantly, he can easily secure 5% of the popular vote which would promote the Libertarian Party to "major party" status in 2020. This would automatically include them on the ballots in all 50 states, would release federal funding for their national campaign, and in so doing would finally challenge the two party system which has proved incapable of representing the will of the people.
Some people want to see the "glass ceiling" for women shattered. Me? I want to see the two party political system toppled. If this year in politics has taught us anything, its that the Republican and Democratic Parties aren't interested in or capable of putting forward the best candidates to be the greatest servant of the Constitution or the citizens of the United States of America.
I'm still voting for Gary Johnson (even if my political platform more closely resembles Evan McMullin, or past traditional candidates like Mitt Romney). And I'm calling on you to do the same. Please consider my reasoning below, and share it with any who are still on the fence about who to vote for in November.
1. Gary Johnson is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. These are the same political beliefs as a majority of Americans, especially when examining the positions of millennial voters. Simply put, the next generations of voters are already Libertarian, they just don't know it yet.
2. The Libertarian platform is one of balance and liberty, deferring many social issues to States' rights to govern their citizens. This empowers citizens to enact change on the local and state levels of government.
3. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are going to adopt a Congressional Term Limit Amendment to the Constitution, as most of them are career politicians. Gary will, on the other hand.
4. Gary Johnson would move quickly to remove US presence from wars which we have no business fighting (Syria civil war, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen), preferring to use the US Military to protect the United States and support our allies.
5. Hillary Clinton should not be allowed to hold public office. Donald Trump should not be allowed to hold public office. The only way to ensure neither do is to vote for Gary Johnson.
6. A plurality of Americans are Independent (43%), and deserve more than two political parties to represent them on all levels of government. The centrist Libertarian Party is best poised to do that immediately.
7. Gary Johnson is the only candidate on all 50 state ballots who has successfully governed US citizens, and whose plan to cut taxes and balance the budget extend beyond the theoretical.
8. Hillary Clinton is a far-left progressive. Donald Trump is a far-right nationalist. Neither represent the vast majority of American Voters.
9. Prior to this election, you hadn't heard of Alleppo, the capitol city of Libya, either. To demonstrate this fact, I'll point out that you likely didn't recognize just now that I misspelled Aleppo. Furthermore, you probably didn't notice that Aleppo isn't the capitol Libya, but Syria; it's this whole other country. And lastly, you probably missed that Aleppo isn't Syria's capitol, but Damascus instead.
10. Gary Johnson wants to decriminalize marijuana as a Class/Schedule 1 drug. And while many have tried to write him off as a "Pothead" for this reason, they fail to recognize that his proposed change would result in many overturned prison sentences for personal possession, benefitting the African American and Latino communities most, since they are disproportionately imprisoned for these offenses. It would reduce the overall prison population, which would in turn reduce the federal cost of prison programs. And finally, it would pave the way for privatized medical marijuana. The medicinal and economic benefit of this change simply cannot be overstated.
For things to change in America, we don't need "outsiders" joining the major parties. We need to install a party who isn't yet corrupted by all the power and greed of Washington. To do that, we need to vote for Gary Johnson.
As President, he can and will bring about real change (without all the scandals). It's time for another option. It's time to vote Libertarian.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Defenses for the Trump Tapes
College was a wonderful place. If I, or anyone for that matter, spoke up with a thought that wasn't developed fully, professors would ask questions to help. And in a classroom setting, we got to challenge each other's ideas.
The most awkward and most important classroom experiences happened when we would say something so off-the-wall that the professor would flatly refuse to entertain it, and choose instead to call the idea what it is ... Stupid. I graduated in 2006, and back then, we didn't have "safe spaces", so we were forced to have to wrestle through ideas that made us uncomfortable because they contradicted our previously constructed worldview. It was a wonderful time.
You know what isn't wonderful? Social media. Unlike a college classroom, people can say pretty much anything, and then curate a friend's list that cheers them on, and utterly ignore dissenting views.
For the last week, I've had a news feed that has been crammed full of bad logic surrounding the now infamous "Trump Tapes", in which Trump brags about kissing and groping beautiful women simply because he's famous, so they let him. Some of the strangest posts have come in defense of Mr. Trump's words, actions, and continued candidacy after-the-fact. So I thought it best to challenge a lot of these ideas. And please, if you want to challenge mine, feel free in the comments section. Unlike some, I don't shy away from being contradicted.
Let's have some fun.
"Trump's 'locker room talk' and the behavior it exposed shouldn't be a big deal because..."
... Bill Clinton did worse.
Worse? I don't know about that. He certainly did the same. He used his power and influence to sexually proposition women, and if all accusations are taken into account, some were consensual and others were not. But what does that have to do with Donald Trump?
If you remove Bill Clinton out of the picture, Trump still sexually assaulted women, and felt it was so normal that he was bold enough to brag about it to a TV show host. Clinton's actions don't excuse Trump's, or somehow open the way for him to keep running for president. If Clinton's affairs and sexual indiscretions came to light before his presidential bid, I suspect he would have had the good sense to bow out.
Donald Trump acted out of his own character and perversions. It doesn't matter if other people did the same or worse. He's still a dirty old man.
... the Supreme Court nominations are all that matter.
So let me get this straight - Trump supporters are so scared of Hillary's pro-choice platform that they are willing to turn a blind-eye to a letch groping and harassing women at will, before, during and after his presidency, as long as he promises to appoint the Supreme Court Justices who share their ideology and will legislate their particular morality? Really?
What exactly about Trump gives his supporters any confidence that he will keep his word? He hasn't; not in his business dealings, not with his contractors, not with his wives, not in the debates ... he is as big of a liar as anyone in Washington. So why in God's name does anyone actually buy what he says, rather than seeing him for what he is - a man who will say anything to get elected?
It isn't righteous, moral, ethical or logical to say "We are comfortable with Trump sexually assaulting women as long as he helps us save unborn babies."
... Fifty Shades of Grey was popular.
Whoo boy, this one has been all the rage. Listen, I get that most Christians haven't read the books or seen the movies, and those who have wouldn't be bold enough to even admit it. So because they don't know what the book is about, it boils down to, "the book is naughty, and Trump is naughty, so give him a break." I can minimalize too, and it makes as much sense. Let's give it a shot: "Jesus never sinned, and the tree in my front yard has never sinned, so the tree in my front yard is Jesus." (I'm being sarcastic, fanatics, stay off my lawn)
First of all, it's a terrible parallel. Here are just a few of the most important differences between Christian Grey and Donald Trump:
Christian Grey is fictitious, Donald Trump is, unfortunately, an actual person.
Christian Grey is single, Donald Trump was and is married.
Christian Grey required consent, Donald Trump did not. "I don't even ask, I just kiss. They let you do anything. Just walk up and grab them by the p*ssy."
Christian Grey is not running for President of the United States, while Donald Trump, unfortunately, still is.
See, if Donald Trump WASN'T running for President, this would be a much smaller issue, though the offense would be just as repugnant. Then he's just another rich, powerful tycoon trying to live out his perverted little fantasies. But the moment he decided he wanted to be President, he voluntarily opened himself up to the scrutiny he's receiving, and rightly so. And while many Presidents have not been honorable during their time in office, that doesn't mean we should expect less than honorable men and women to pursue the office. And we, the people, need to insist with our votes that lesser men and women, like Donald Trump, step aside, so that their shame won't become all of ours.
Listen, "Taken" was a popular work of fiction enjoyed by many women. That doesn't mean that women inherently approve of being kidnapped, sold into the international sex trade, or raped. To say our culture shouldn't be offended at Donald Trump's lewd advances because a briefly popular book talked about BDSM makes exactly zero sense.
... America is sinful and depraved, so we shouldn't be surprised now.
This is about the most hypocritical things I hear being said. In saying the above, the one defending using this rationale implies:
Leaders shouldn't be held to a higher standard.
Believers can choose to crucify Clinton for her failings but are allowed to write off those displayed by Trump.
The sins of one (or many) pardons the sins of another.
None of the above are Biblical. It's that simple.
... he apologized.
I'm going to do another blog on this soon, because I think people sincerely believe that the only requirements of an apology is to use the words, "I'm sorry". That's sad.
So Donald Trump said the words, "I'm sorry". There are juuuuuuuuuust a few things that completely negate his "apology". Here's the short list:
He did it in a national statement in order to put the scandal behind him.
He immediately shifted the focus to Bill Clinton.
He didn't actually address any of the women who he admittedly harassed.
He blamed the media for exposing the tape.
I, through being mentored and married, have learned what a real apology looks like. Folks, this ain't it. He said the words, because that's pretty much what he does - say words that he thinks people will believe. He doesn't mean or even remember most of the words he uses, because they are so very voluminous. If he were sincerely remorseful, apologetic and repentant, he would be able to use all those many words to convey it. Unsurprisingly, he didn't.
... he is a new Christian, so we can't hold him to high standards.
The New Testament is clear on this: don't promote new believers to positions of authority or prominence, because they would be tempted beyond what they can handle and fall into the sin of pride. It goes on to say that those who would serve the church ought to exemplify certain marks of character before being appointed.
If American Christians really cared about the welfare of Donald Trump's soul, they would encourage him to drop out of the race (and his very public lifestyle) to allow him to start bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. But as you may have guessed, they don't care about his soul. They only care about having a say in the legislation of a powerful man who can help them enforce their own moral standards on their society.
... all guys talk that way.
No, they don't. Granted, some guys talk that way. Maybe guys in a strip club. Not in locker rooms (at least not high school, college, gyms, or the YMCA). Not at water coolers. Not via messenger. Not via text.
Good men speak respectfully of women. And even the men who are comfortable enough to objectify women do so about women with whom they consensually "scored" with. Vile, evil men brag about sexually assaulting women. It's really that easy.
... Hillary Clinton did worse to Bill's mistresses.
Again, as with Bill Clinton, Hillary's treatment of Bill's accusers and mistresses does not excuse Trump's.
And perhaps you don't remember how riled up the religious right got when Bill confessed to having an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He was put up for impeachment. The news wouldn't let it go. They blasted him for going to church and holding a Bible. It was ugly. Where was all the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" talk back then? It seems as though the church would rather play Pharisee than Jesus in the narrative of the woman caught in adultery. Stone Bill. Pardon Donald (without even having the courtesy to implore him to "go and sin no more"). What a shame.
... Obama is bad.
This tape was from 2005. Obama was elected in 2008. Stop it.
You disagreeing with Obama's policies has literally nothing to do with the validity of Trump's misdeeds.
... the liberal media is biased.
Is a lot of the media both liberal and biased? Yes of course they are! And while I'm not excusing that, it's also important to point out that some media is also conservative and biased. Unfortunately, the news is not what it used to be. In my father's generation, the media's duty was to report the events and facts of the day, and they trusted the people to interpret it accordingly. That is no longer the case. News agencies are little more than storytellers. And that is unfortunate.
So, of course those liberal news agencies are trying to assassinate the character of Donald Trump in favor of Hillary Clinton. But here's the thing, and you can't really get around it: Donald Trump is providing the ammunition. He has been churning it out for his entire adult life. To put it more explicitly, if he didn't want people attacking him about his treatment of women, he shouldn't have treated women this way. It's not complicated.
It's important to note at this point that we know a great many things about Hillary Clinton because of the biased media as well. We know about her health issues. We know about the Clinton foundation. We know about Benghazi. We know about the Democratic national convention. All of these things have been reported because of the conservative media. That doesn't make them wrong.
So while the media may be making a big deal about Donald Trump's words and deeds, he's the one sending the tweets. He's the one making the speeches. He's the one scheduling the interviews. He's the one censoring his taxes. At the end of the day, he is simply reaping what he has sowed ... and he doesn't like it.
The most awkward and most important classroom experiences happened when we would say something so off-the-wall that the professor would flatly refuse to entertain it, and choose instead to call the idea what it is ... Stupid. I graduated in 2006, and back then, we didn't have "safe spaces", so we were forced to have to wrestle through ideas that made us uncomfortable because they contradicted our previously constructed worldview. It was a wonderful time.
You know what isn't wonderful? Social media. Unlike a college classroom, people can say pretty much anything, and then curate a friend's list that cheers them on, and utterly ignore dissenting views.
For the last week, I've had a news feed that has been crammed full of bad logic surrounding the now infamous "Trump Tapes", in which Trump brags about kissing and groping beautiful women simply because he's famous, so they let him. Some of the strangest posts have come in defense of Mr. Trump's words, actions, and continued candidacy after-the-fact. So I thought it best to challenge a lot of these ideas. And please, if you want to challenge mine, feel free in the comments section. Unlike some, I don't shy away from being contradicted.
Let's have some fun.
"Trump's 'locker room talk' and the behavior it exposed shouldn't be a big deal because..."
... Bill Clinton did worse.
Worse? I don't know about that. He certainly did the same. He used his power and influence to sexually proposition women, and if all accusations are taken into account, some were consensual and others were not. But what does that have to do with Donald Trump?
If you remove Bill Clinton out of the picture, Trump still sexually assaulted women, and felt it was so normal that he was bold enough to brag about it to a TV show host. Clinton's actions don't excuse Trump's, or somehow open the way for him to keep running for president. If Clinton's affairs and sexual indiscretions came to light before his presidential bid, I suspect he would have had the good sense to bow out.
Donald Trump acted out of his own character and perversions. It doesn't matter if other people did the same or worse. He's still a dirty old man.
... the Supreme Court nominations are all that matter.
So let me get this straight - Trump supporters are so scared of Hillary's pro-choice platform that they are willing to turn a blind-eye to a letch groping and harassing women at will, before, during and after his presidency, as long as he promises to appoint the Supreme Court Justices who share their ideology and will legislate their particular morality? Really?
What exactly about Trump gives his supporters any confidence that he will keep his word? He hasn't; not in his business dealings, not with his contractors, not with his wives, not in the debates ... he is as big of a liar as anyone in Washington. So why in God's name does anyone actually buy what he says, rather than seeing him for what he is - a man who will say anything to get elected?
It isn't righteous, moral, ethical or logical to say "We are comfortable with Trump sexually assaulting women as long as he helps us save unborn babies."
... Fifty Shades of Grey was popular.
Whoo boy, this one has been all the rage. Listen, I get that most Christians haven't read the books or seen the movies, and those who have wouldn't be bold enough to even admit it. So because they don't know what the book is about, it boils down to, "the book is naughty, and Trump is naughty, so give him a break." I can minimalize too, and it makes as much sense. Let's give it a shot: "Jesus never sinned, and the tree in my front yard has never sinned, so the tree in my front yard is Jesus." (I'm being sarcastic, fanatics, stay off my lawn)
First of all, it's a terrible parallel. Here are just a few of the most important differences between Christian Grey and Donald Trump:
Christian Grey is fictitious, Donald Trump is, unfortunately, an actual person.
Christian Grey is single, Donald Trump was and is married.
Christian Grey required consent, Donald Trump did not. "I don't even ask, I just kiss. They let you do anything. Just walk up and grab them by the p*ssy."
Christian Grey is not running for President of the United States, while Donald Trump, unfortunately, still is.
See, if Donald Trump WASN'T running for President, this would be a much smaller issue, though the offense would be just as repugnant. Then he's just another rich, powerful tycoon trying to live out his perverted little fantasies. But the moment he decided he wanted to be President, he voluntarily opened himself up to the scrutiny he's receiving, and rightly so. And while many Presidents have not been honorable during their time in office, that doesn't mean we should expect less than honorable men and women to pursue the office. And we, the people, need to insist with our votes that lesser men and women, like Donald Trump, step aside, so that their shame won't become all of ours.
Listen, "Taken" was a popular work of fiction enjoyed by many women. That doesn't mean that women inherently approve of being kidnapped, sold into the international sex trade, or raped. To say our culture shouldn't be offended at Donald Trump's lewd advances because a briefly popular book talked about BDSM makes exactly zero sense.
... America is sinful and depraved, so we shouldn't be surprised now.
This is about the most hypocritical things I hear being said. In saying the above, the one defending using this rationale implies:
Leaders shouldn't be held to a higher standard.
Believers can choose to crucify Clinton for her failings but are allowed to write off those displayed by Trump.
The sins of one (or many) pardons the sins of another.
None of the above are Biblical. It's that simple.
... he apologized.
I'm going to do another blog on this soon, because I think people sincerely believe that the only requirements of an apology is to use the words, "I'm sorry". That's sad.
So Donald Trump said the words, "I'm sorry". There are juuuuuuuuuust a few things that completely negate his "apology". Here's the short list:
He did it in a national statement in order to put the scandal behind him.
He immediately shifted the focus to Bill Clinton.
He didn't actually address any of the women who he admittedly harassed.
He blamed the media for exposing the tape.
I, through being mentored and married, have learned what a real apology looks like. Folks, this ain't it. He said the words, because that's pretty much what he does - say words that he thinks people will believe. He doesn't mean or even remember most of the words he uses, because they are so very voluminous. If he were sincerely remorseful, apologetic and repentant, he would be able to use all those many words to convey it. Unsurprisingly, he didn't.
... he is a new Christian, so we can't hold him to high standards.
The New Testament is clear on this: don't promote new believers to positions of authority or prominence, because they would be tempted beyond what they can handle and fall into the sin of pride. It goes on to say that those who would serve the church ought to exemplify certain marks of character before being appointed.
If American Christians really cared about the welfare of Donald Trump's soul, they would encourage him to drop out of the race (and his very public lifestyle) to allow him to start bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. But as you may have guessed, they don't care about his soul. They only care about having a say in the legislation of a powerful man who can help them enforce their own moral standards on their society.
... all guys talk that way.
No, they don't. Granted, some guys talk that way. Maybe guys in a strip club. Not in locker rooms (at least not high school, college, gyms, or the YMCA). Not at water coolers. Not via messenger. Not via text.
Good men speak respectfully of women. And even the men who are comfortable enough to objectify women do so about women with whom they consensually "scored" with. Vile, evil men brag about sexually assaulting women. It's really that easy.
... Hillary Clinton did worse to Bill's mistresses.
Again, as with Bill Clinton, Hillary's treatment of Bill's accusers and mistresses does not excuse Trump's.
And perhaps you don't remember how riled up the religious right got when Bill confessed to having an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He was put up for impeachment. The news wouldn't let it go. They blasted him for going to church and holding a Bible. It was ugly. Where was all the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" talk back then? It seems as though the church would rather play Pharisee than Jesus in the narrative of the woman caught in adultery. Stone Bill. Pardon Donald (without even having the courtesy to implore him to "go and sin no more"). What a shame.
... Obama is bad.
This tape was from 2005. Obama was elected in 2008. Stop it.
You disagreeing with Obama's policies has literally nothing to do with the validity of Trump's misdeeds.
... the liberal media is biased.
Is a lot of the media both liberal and biased? Yes of course they are! And while I'm not excusing that, it's also important to point out that some media is also conservative and biased. Unfortunately, the news is not what it used to be. In my father's generation, the media's duty was to report the events and facts of the day, and they trusted the people to interpret it accordingly. That is no longer the case. News agencies are little more than storytellers. And that is unfortunate.
So, of course those liberal news agencies are trying to assassinate the character of Donald Trump in favor of Hillary Clinton. But here's the thing, and you can't really get around it: Donald Trump is providing the ammunition. He has been churning it out for his entire adult life. To put it more explicitly, if he didn't want people attacking him about his treatment of women, he shouldn't have treated women this way. It's not complicated.
It's important to note at this point that we know a great many things about Hillary Clinton because of the biased media as well. We know about her health issues. We know about the Clinton foundation. We know about Benghazi. We know about the Democratic national convention. All of these things have been reported because of the conservative media. That doesn't make them wrong.
So while the media may be making a big deal about Donald Trump's words and deeds, he's the one sending the tweets. He's the one making the speeches. He's the one scheduling the interviews. He's the one censoring his taxes. At the end of the day, he is simply reaping what he has sowed ... and he doesn't like it.
Monday, October 10, 2016
The Time Has Come for Christians to Stop Voting Anti-Abortion...
This election cycle has arguably been the strangest in history. In one corner, we have a career politician whose legacy is riddled with scandals and lies. In the other, a hot-headed businessman with no filter or ethics to speak of, business or otherwise.
And while I could, like the rest of the country, wonder how we got here; how our choices have devolved to such a degree, there is another question that has been a pebble in my shoe: Why have many Christians stood by Donald Trump as their standard bearer?
So rather than trying to figure it out behind the scenes, I decided to ask that question early and often. A great many of my friends are conservative, and Christian, and a part of the Evangelical or Charismatic traditions. The result of my poll was consistent; the answers have all maintained a common rationale: Trump is the Republican candidate, and as such is "Pro-life", and will appoint several Supreme Court Justices over the next 4 years who will oppose abortion. All of Trump's other indescretions, both past and present, are justified, rationalized, minimalized or completely ignored for this fact.
I have my doubts about the legitimacy of Trump's "pro-life" stance, but that's beside the point. What has me perplexed is this one question: is abortion the only thing Christians care about? And is the Church by and large actually just anti-abortion, rather than pro-life? While that last statement may seem like a comparison of synonyms, it is anything but. Simply put, which lives are conservatives "Pro", I mean, beside unborn children?
The homeless?
Children born into poverty?
Single parents taking care of those children?
Female victims of sexual assault?
Orphans?
Refugees?
Which lives matter to conservatives? All of the above? Any of the above? Is the liberal accusation true, that conservatives only care about life prior to birth?
So to answer this question, I did what I always do. I did research. Here is what I discovered:
615 thousand - The number of US abortions in 2015
12% - the percentage which abortions in America have declined during the Obama administration.
1982 - the year when the abortion rate peaked post-Roe v Wade
5,647 - The number of US adoptions in 2015
12 million - the number of single parents in America
9.6 million - the number of single mothers in America
13.1 million - the number of malnourished children in America
564,708 - the number of homeless in America
15,000 - the number of women and children being sold into sexual slavery and exploitation in the US
4.5 million - the number of women and children being sold into sexual slavery globally, annually
85 thousand - The number of refugees settled in the United States in 2015
3 million - The number of refugees settled in the United States since 1975
1 million - Number of new immigrants in 2014
81 million - Number of immigrants and immigrants' children living in the United States
And my favorite take-away: If all of the aborted babies from 2015 were born to families that could not support them or did not want them, it would take 109 years to adopt them all.
The
Now you may be asking to yourself, "What do those numbers have to do with abortion?". I'll answer, but first, a resolute statement: I am opposed to abortion. I believe what was intended during Roe v Wade to be a last-resort action to protect victims of rape, incest, and life-threatening conditions has become a procedure often used for convenience. I believe abortions are a heartbreaking loss of life, and look forward to the day when they are no longer necessary.
Now back to the question: Why do the above numbers matter? Because they all represent American lives, but these groups seem to get a great deal less press from the conservative right than abortion. Case in Point: Donald Trump.
Here we have a man who is on his third marriage, representing the party of traditional family values. We have someone who has bragged about his own sexual assaults representing the party of propriety and discretion in the bedroom. We have a man who has, as a businessman, has used bankruptcy and loopholes to avoid paying debts ant taxes representing the party of fiscal responsibility. We have someone who is comfortable insulting POWs and Gold Star families representing the party who claims to stand for the military and their families.
And yet, with all of his ineptitude, Christians still support him because he said he is pro-life.
But let's forget about Trump, if only temporarily, to ask the real question which MUST be addressed by the American Church if they have any hope of keeping a voice in our culture: Are you pro-life, or merely anti-abortion? I ask, because it seems clear enough that if you hate and are afraid of refugees, you aren't pro-life. If you believe that adoption is someone else's responsibility, you aren't pro-life. If you believe that single parents and the homeless just need to stop being lazy, you aren't pro-life. If you support the death sentence, you aren't pro-life. If you tithe to a church without any concern about how much of their budget goes to helping widows, orphans, and the hungry, you aren't pro-life. If you don't concern yourself with the sex trade that is driven by our favorite pastimes, you aren't pro-life. And above all these other things, if you don't take time to consider what will happen to all these other groups when 600 thousand new lives are added to our population annually, you aren't pro-life. You may be anti-abortion, but that simply isn't enough anymore. The unborn are not the only ones in our society that are voiceless. It's time to advocate for more than the unborn.
We need to be the voting bloc that stands for all life, unborn included. We need to love more. We need to do more. And we need to insist that those who would desire to lead us be committed to the same. Think about it. Pray about it. Then vote for the candidate whose policies and past track record advocate for the lives of every American, and beyond that, every human soul. Given his words, deeds and reputation, though, I can assure you ... It isn't Donald Trump.
And while I could, like the rest of the country, wonder how we got here; how our choices have devolved to such a degree, there is another question that has been a pebble in my shoe: Why have many Christians stood by Donald Trump as their standard bearer?
So rather than trying to figure it out behind the scenes, I decided to ask that question early and often. A great many of my friends are conservative, and Christian, and a part of the Evangelical or Charismatic traditions. The result of my poll was consistent; the answers have all maintained a common rationale: Trump is the Republican candidate, and as such is "Pro-life", and will appoint several Supreme Court Justices over the next 4 years who will oppose abortion. All of Trump's other indescretions, both past and present, are justified, rationalized, minimalized or completely ignored for this fact.
I have my doubts about the legitimacy of Trump's "pro-life" stance, but that's beside the point. What has me perplexed is this one question: is abortion the only thing Christians care about? And is the Church by and large actually just anti-abortion, rather than pro-life? While that last statement may seem like a comparison of synonyms, it is anything but. Simply put, which lives are conservatives "Pro", I mean, beside unborn children?
The homeless?
Children born into poverty?
Single parents taking care of those children?
Female victims of sexual assault?
Orphans?
Refugees?
Which lives matter to conservatives? All of the above? Any of the above? Is the liberal accusation true, that conservatives only care about life prior to birth?
So to answer this question, I did what I always do. I did research. Here is what I discovered:
615 thousand - The number of US abortions in 2015
12% - the percentage which abortions in America have declined during the Obama administration.
1982 - the year when the abortion rate peaked post-Roe v Wade
5,647 - The number of US adoptions in 2015
12 million - the number of single parents in America
9.6 million - the number of single mothers in America
13.1 million - the number of malnourished children in America
564,708 - the number of homeless in America
15,000 - the number of women and children being sold into sexual slavery and exploitation in the US
4.5 million - the number of women and children being sold into sexual slavery globally, annually
85 thousand - The number of refugees settled in the United States in 2015
3 million - The number of refugees settled in the United States since 1975
1 million - Number of new immigrants in 2014
81 million - Number of immigrants and immigrants' children living in the United States
And my favorite take-away: If all of the aborted babies from 2015 were born to families that could not support them or did not want them, it would take 109 years to adopt them all.
The
Now you may be asking to yourself, "What do those numbers have to do with abortion?". I'll answer, but first, a resolute statement: I am opposed to abortion. I believe what was intended during Roe v Wade to be a last-resort action to protect victims of rape, incest, and life-threatening conditions has become a procedure often used for convenience. I believe abortions are a heartbreaking loss of life, and look forward to the day when they are no longer necessary.
Now back to the question: Why do the above numbers matter? Because they all represent American lives, but these groups seem to get a great deal less press from the conservative right than abortion. Case in Point: Donald Trump.
Here we have a man who is on his third marriage, representing the party of traditional family values. We have someone who has bragged about his own sexual assaults representing the party of propriety and discretion in the bedroom. We have a man who has, as a businessman, has used bankruptcy and loopholes to avoid paying debts ant taxes representing the party of fiscal responsibility. We have someone who is comfortable insulting POWs and Gold Star families representing the party who claims to stand for the military and their families.
And yet, with all of his ineptitude, Christians still support him because he said he is pro-life.
But let's forget about Trump, if only temporarily, to ask the real question which MUST be addressed by the American Church if they have any hope of keeping a voice in our culture: Are you pro-life, or merely anti-abortion? I ask, because it seems clear enough that if you hate and are afraid of refugees, you aren't pro-life. If you believe that adoption is someone else's responsibility, you aren't pro-life. If you believe that single parents and the homeless just need to stop being lazy, you aren't pro-life. If you support the death sentence, you aren't pro-life. If you tithe to a church without any concern about how much of their budget goes to helping widows, orphans, and the hungry, you aren't pro-life. If you don't concern yourself with the sex trade that is driven by our favorite pastimes, you aren't pro-life. And above all these other things, if you don't take time to consider what will happen to all these other groups when 600 thousand new lives are added to our population annually, you aren't pro-life. You may be anti-abortion, but that simply isn't enough anymore. The unborn are not the only ones in our society that are voiceless. It's time to advocate for more than the unborn.
We need to be the voting bloc that stands for all life, unborn included. We need to love more. We need to do more. And we need to insist that those who would desire to lead us be committed to the same. Think about it. Pray about it. Then vote for the candidate whose policies and past track record advocate for the lives of every American, and beyond that, every human soul. Given his words, deeds and reputation, though, I can assure you ... It isn't Donald Trump.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
16 Reasons to NOT Vote for Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson and William Weld are going to be participating in a CNN Town Hall hosted by Anderson Cooper tonight, and while I have strongly supported the Johnson/Weld ticket against the backdrop of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I would be remiss if I didn't at least try to depict the other side of the discussion.
So I have developed this list of 16 solid reasons why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson (including some which explain why they shouldn't be allowed in the Presidential Debates).
1. Both Democrats and Republicans have shown that they are perfectly capable of governing our country without need for a third party.
If the last 35 years have taught us anything, it's that the two major parties know how to operate harmoniously for the good of the people.
2. When dealing with two extreme civic philosophies, compromise and middle-ground are rarely helpful.
Who would want to live in a world that tried to break people up into more groups than just "Us" and "Them"? That's crazy talk.
3. The goal of elections is to get one party or the other in control of all branches of government. Libertarians would only mess that up.
We don't need no stinking checks and balances.
4. The world needs to hear more of what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have to say about each other.
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of civilized political dialogue. I wish they'd tell us how they really feel already. If we could only get them on social media...
5. Mainstream media, in general, can be trusted to provide us with all options and perspectives, and they are merely leaving Johnson out as a benefit to us.
I mean, what else would their motivation be to leave out a third party candidate from most national polls, especially when those polls are the test of whether or not a third party candidate is allowed to debate? Save the conspiracy theories, the media is just looking out for us.
6. Both Trump and Clinton can be trusted to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Let's be real - you don't need to read it to get the gist.
7. Either Trump or Clinton would make a responsible and trustworthy Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military and guardian of its secrets.
How hard could it be? I mean honestly.
8. Lawyers like Clinton and tycoons like Trump understand the American way much more so than an avid outdoorsman, triathlete, Ironman, cyclist and mountain climber like Johnson.
Who hasn't hiked Everest, Elbrus, Denali, Kilimanjaro, Aconcagua, Vinson, and the Carstensz Pyramid? Come back when you've really accomplished something with your life, Gary.
9. Clinton and Trump, at 68 and 70 respectively, are facing retirement and need more money in the form of taxpayer-funded presidential pension plans.
We need to take care of our elderly. Social Security just ain't what it once was. I pity the thought of either of them having to tap into their retirement accounts.
10. Both Bill Clinton and Melania Trump are champions of moral fiber and will represent our country's family values well.
Come to think of it, I think it would be good to get those two together behind closed doors for afternoon tea sometime.
11. Dr. James Dobson didn't write a brief and vague endorsement of the rumor of the possibility of his conversion.
If Dr. Dobson isn't willing to go on record about Johnson's Lutheran faith, it doesn't exist. Obviously.
12. Balancing budgets simply isn't the American way.
We need a president who is personally familiar with either bankruptcy or hedge fund management ... hopefully both.
13. When trying to elect a president based on "making history", we should use gender, race, and having no political experience to speak of as criteria.
Third party candidates to the back of the line.
14. Who in their right mind would elect as president someone who, until this election cycle, hadn't hardly been heard of by anyone.
What's next? A community organizer?
15. Johnson holds a personal belief that prostitution is safer when it is legal and regulated.
Infinitely worse morally than owning a strip-club, or a casino in Vegas that accommodates prostitutes, and certainly worse than a candidate who prostitutes themselves to corporations in exchange for votes.
16. People love Income Taxes. And Property Taxes. And Sales Tax. And Taxes on Use. And Consumption Tax.
Reducing individual taxes is a terrible idea. It's the Federal Government that's having a hard time putting a roof over its citizens' heads, putting food in its citizens' mouths, paying its bills, its debts or its employees. The government needs our help.
That last one wasn't sarcastic. Just sad. Very sad.
So I have developed this list of 16 solid reasons why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson (including some which explain why they shouldn't be allowed in the Presidential Debates).
1. Both Democrats and Republicans have shown that they are perfectly capable of governing our country without need for a third party.
If the last 35 years have taught us anything, it's that the two major parties know how to operate harmoniously for the good of the people.
2. When dealing with two extreme civic philosophies, compromise and middle-ground are rarely helpful.
Who would want to live in a world that tried to break people up into more groups than just "Us" and "Them"? That's crazy talk.
3. The goal of elections is to get one party or the other in control of all branches of government. Libertarians would only mess that up.
We don't need no stinking checks and balances.
4. The world needs to hear more of what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have to say about each other.
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of civilized political dialogue. I wish they'd tell us how they really feel already. If we could only get them on social media...
5. Mainstream media, in general, can be trusted to provide us with all options and perspectives, and they are merely leaving Johnson out as a benefit to us.
I mean, what else would their motivation be to leave out a third party candidate from most national polls, especially when those polls are the test of whether or not a third party candidate is allowed to debate? Save the conspiracy theories, the media is just looking out for us.
6. Both Trump and Clinton can be trusted to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Let's be real - you don't need to read it to get the gist.
7. Either Trump or Clinton would make a responsible and trustworthy Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military and guardian of its secrets.
How hard could it be? I mean honestly.
8. Lawyers like Clinton and tycoons like Trump understand the American way much more so than an avid outdoorsman, triathlete, Ironman, cyclist and mountain climber like Johnson.
Who hasn't hiked Everest, Elbrus, Denali, Kilimanjaro, Aconcagua, Vinson, and the Carstensz Pyramid? Come back when you've really accomplished something with your life, Gary.
9. Clinton and Trump, at 68 and 70 respectively, are facing retirement and need more money in the form of taxpayer-funded presidential pension plans.
We need to take care of our elderly. Social Security just ain't what it once was. I pity the thought of either of them having to tap into their retirement accounts.
10. Both Bill Clinton and Melania Trump are champions of moral fiber and will represent our country's family values well.
Come to think of it, I think it would be good to get those two together behind closed doors for afternoon tea sometime.
11. Dr. James Dobson didn't write a brief and vague endorsement of the rumor of the possibility of his conversion.
If Dr. Dobson isn't willing to go on record about Johnson's Lutheran faith, it doesn't exist. Obviously.
12. Balancing budgets simply isn't the American way.
We need a president who is personally familiar with either bankruptcy or hedge fund management ... hopefully both.
13. When trying to elect a president based on "making history", we should use gender, race, and having no political experience to speak of as criteria.
Third party candidates to the back of the line.
14. Who in their right mind would elect as president someone who, until this election cycle, hadn't hardly been heard of by anyone.
What's next? A community organizer?
15. Johnson holds a personal belief that prostitution is safer when it is legal and regulated.
Infinitely worse morally than owning a strip-club, or a casino in Vegas that accommodates prostitutes, and certainly worse than a candidate who prostitutes themselves to corporations in exchange for votes.
16. People love Income Taxes. And Property Taxes. And Sales Tax. And Taxes on Use. And Consumption Tax.
Reducing individual taxes is a terrible idea. It's the Federal Government that's having a hard time putting a roof over its citizens' heads, putting food in its citizens' mouths, paying its bills, its debts or its employees. The government needs our help.
That last one wasn't sarcastic. Just sad. Very sad.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Why I'm Voting For Gary Johnson (And Why You Should Consider Doing So, Too)
My name is Ryan, and I am a moderate conservative; a religious one at that.
While not a member of any party, I have overwhelmingly voted for Republican candidates. George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. McCain in 2008. Romney in 2012. Senators, Representatives, both state and federal. I live in NC and voted for McCrory.
So when I tell you that I'm not voting for Trump, even in the face of his running against Hillary Clinton of all people, you need to understand how radical of a deviation this is for me.
I will be voting for Gary Johnson and William Weld, the Libertarian candidates, in this year's general election. This was made set in stone the moment that Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton went from being presumptive nominees to official nominees of their respective parties. In the interest of time, I won't go into how amazed I am that it came to this; that somehow these two were the best that the United States of America had to offer.
I have been deliberately outspoken about this on all social media. I have purchased domain names, created Facebook pages, Twitter accounts and Instagram feeds, and am just beginning to get them off the ground. Yet in the midst of this, I find myself spending most of my time explaining to friends, family and colleagues WHY I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate. "You realize you're splitting the ticket, right?" "You know he's pro choice, right?" "You know he supports gay marriage, right?" "You know he has absolutely no chance of winning, right?"
I get these questions on repeat, and handle them as politely and succinctly as I am able (which is to say, not very well. Just ask my wife). So I decided it was high time to address these questions and some others that confront some statements made in opposition to the very existence of a third party.
But before I launch into becoming a libertarian apologist, I'd first like to take a bit of time and explain why, outside of those hot-button issues, I will be voting Johnson/Weld.
First of all, I needed something better than just voting against one candidate or the other. I believe that men and women have fought and died to provide our right to vote. I believe men and women have fought and died to protect that same right. I consider it a sacrament of the American experience, and one I hold in sincere reverence. I don't treat this like American Idol; I don't vote with a primary motivation of sending someone home. I need to believe in someone if I am going to vote for them. I have believed in every candidate for which I have cast a ballot, and I have no intention of changing that habit. So when I tell you I believe that Gary Johnson will make an honorable and trustworthy President, I mean it. And regardless of political maneuvering, I cannot say that about Clinton or Trump. I believe they are con artists, and their only successes are dependent on that specific skill-set.
I believe it takes experience to govern, and Johnson and Weld have done that (successful Governors of New Mexico and Massachusetts). I believe it takes experience to compromise and work with those who maintain different civic philosophies, and Johnson has done that (elected as a republican in a democratic state). I believe that someone whose decisions will have a direct impact on the taxes, economy and deficit of our country ought to have experience balancing budgets and managing taxes, and Johnson has done both (balanced budgets, cut taxes, and left surpluses, not deficits).
So now, let's get down to the concerns friends have raised as they have learned about my support of Gary Johnson.
"You realize you're splitting the ticket, right?"
No, at least not in the way most people intend. The assumption here is that by choosing Trump, I'm helping Clinton by taking away votes from him. That's a terrible assumption, because I wasn't ever going to vote for him in the first place. Might I have voted Republican if another candidate had been chosen? Sure. But the Republican ticket lost my vote the moment they made Trump their candidate. More to the point, they lost my vote the moment they let him hijack their nomination and hold it ransom.
See, what's interesting here is that both sides are claiming the same thing. "If you vote for Johnson, you're giving the election to Clinton/Trump". It's interchangeable, and it isn't true on either side of this election. I'm voting FOR Johnson, and as a happy consequence I also happen to be voting AGAINST Clinton AND Trump, and that's the whole point.
Am I splitting the ticket? In a way ... a very good way. I'm saying with my vote that both "major" parties have run off the rails, and that this is the time to establish and support alternate parties. As Johnson has said, "The two party system is a dinosaur, and we're the comet."
As an aside, this is NOT the same as Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996. He was an uber conservative who ran as the Reform Party candidate and drew votes almost exclusively from Republicans. And it isn't the same as Ralph Nader in 2000. Nader was a Green Party candidate that leached votes exclusively from Gore. Gary Johnson is drawing equal votes from both sides, because both parties are fed up with the corruption and collusion on their side of the aisle. He is polling incredibly well with independents, first-time voters, and minorities.
"You do realize he's pro-choice, right?"
Yes, and this was the most challenging internal knot I had to untangle. See, I'm pro-life. Always have been, and likely always will be. This is one of my least "moderate" positions. So how can I bring myself to support a pro-choice candidate? Because all of the candidates in this election cycle are pro-choice. In what I believe to be a very accurate representation of current and future America, everyone in this race is pro-choice. Furthermore, all candidates support Planned Parenthood. So how do I distinguish between them? Johnson is pro-choice until the viability of the fetus (24 weeks, and conservative states define it at 22 weeks), whereas Clinton and Trump have supported or do support mid-to-late term abortions. The biggest difference is that Johnson wants states to be able to govern themselves with minimal federal government interference. For me, that makes a very, VERY big difference.
I also had to come to grips with the fact that I believe many of our political animosities are based on the fact that each party tries to impose its morality on society (Republicans push Judeo-Christian, while Democrats strongly favor Secular Humanism). But is that the purpose of a governing body? After all, America is not and was never intended to be a theocracy. Yes, we were founded on biblical principles. Yes, faith informed some of our greatest triumphs and tragedies. But that was not the purpose of America's founding. The purpose was freedom. Freedom to worship and to live in accordance with our beliefs. And we don't need the President to tell us how to do that. What we need is for our government to WORK, to defend our nation, safeguard our liberties, maintain positive relationships with our allies and trade partners, and to stand up to organizations who become too formidable for families and communities (to name a few). When I realized that I have been voting in order to impose my own morality on everyone, things changed drastically for me. I shouldn't do that. The Religious Right should never have done that. The Progressives should not be doing that now.
"You know he supports gay marriage, right?
See above. All three candidates do. But Johnson differentiates himself in that he wants the government out of the marriage business, out of couples' bedrooms, and supports religious freedom in ministers' right to perform or abstain from performing marriage ceremonies.
"You know he has absolutely no chance of winning, right?"
This circular argument upsets me more so than any of the others. It has no basis in polling data or election law.
In essence, here's what you're saying:
"You shouldn't vote for someone who can't win."
"Well why can't he win?"
"Because not enough people are going to vote for him."
That. Is Absolutely. Insane.
So allow me to put it to you a different way:
"You should vote for Johnson."
"Why would I go and do a thing like that?!"
"Because if everyone who was fed up with Washington voted for Johnson, he would win."
And guess what ... EVERYONE IS FED UP WITH WASHINGTON. We're sick of the cronyism. We're sick of the empty promises. We're sick of the absurd spending. We're sick of mandated political correctness. We're sick of being taxed on income, retirement, investments, our cars, our homes, our phone lines, our groceries and our internet. We're sick of being observed by every government agency for no reason whatsoever. And we are sick, sick, SICK of the two "major" parties conspiring to tell us who we should want for president. You know what? The vast majority of us don't want Trump. The vast majority of us don't want Clinton.
I wonder what would happen if we all voted that way.
While not a member of any party, I have overwhelmingly voted for Republican candidates. George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. McCain in 2008. Romney in 2012. Senators, Representatives, both state and federal. I live in NC and voted for McCrory.
So when I tell you that I'm not voting for Trump, even in the face of his running against Hillary Clinton of all people, you need to understand how radical of a deviation this is for me.
I will be voting for Gary Johnson and William Weld, the Libertarian candidates, in this year's general election. This was made set in stone the moment that Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton went from being presumptive nominees to official nominees of their respective parties. In the interest of time, I won't go into how amazed I am that it came to this; that somehow these two were the best that the United States of America had to offer.
I have been deliberately outspoken about this on all social media. I have purchased domain names, created Facebook pages, Twitter accounts and Instagram feeds, and am just beginning to get them off the ground. Yet in the midst of this, I find myself spending most of my time explaining to friends, family and colleagues WHY I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate. "You realize you're splitting the ticket, right?" "You know he's pro choice, right?" "You know he supports gay marriage, right?" "You know he has absolutely no chance of winning, right?"
I get these questions on repeat, and handle them as politely and succinctly as I am able (which is to say, not very well. Just ask my wife). So I decided it was high time to address these questions and some others that confront some statements made in opposition to the very existence of a third party.
But before I launch into becoming a libertarian apologist, I'd first like to take a bit of time and explain why, outside of those hot-button issues, I will be voting Johnson/Weld.
First of all, I needed something better than just voting against one candidate or the other. I believe that men and women have fought and died to provide our right to vote. I believe men and women have fought and died to protect that same right. I consider it a sacrament of the American experience, and one I hold in sincere reverence. I don't treat this like American Idol; I don't vote with a primary motivation of sending someone home. I need to believe in someone if I am going to vote for them. I have believed in every candidate for which I have cast a ballot, and I have no intention of changing that habit. So when I tell you I believe that Gary Johnson will make an honorable and trustworthy President, I mean it. And regardless of political maneuvering, I cannot say that about Clinton or Trump. I believe they are con artists, and their only successes are dependent on that specific skill-set.
I believe it takes experience to govern, and Johnson and Weld have done that (successful Governors of New Mexico and Massachusetts). I believe it takes experience to compromise and work with those who maintain different civic philosophies, and Johnson has done that (elected as a republican in a democratic state). I believe that someone whose decisions will have a direct impact on the taxes, economy and deficit of our country ought to have experience balancing budgets and managing taxes, and Johnson has done both (balanced budgets, cut taxes, and left surpluses, not deficits).
So now, let's get down to the concerns friends have raised as they have learned about my support of Gary Johnson.
"You realize you're splitting the ticket, right?"
No, at least not in the way most people intend. The assumption here is that by choosing Trump, I'm helping Clinton by taking away votes from him. That's a terrible assumption, because I wasn't ever going to vote for him in the first place. Might I have voted Republican if another candidate had been chosen? Sure. But the Republican ticket lost my vote the moment they made Trump their candidate. More to the point, they lost my vote the moment they let him hijack their nomination and hold it ransom.
See, what's interesting here is that both sides are claiming the same thing. "If you vote for Johnson, you're giving the election to Clinton/Trump". It's interchangeable, and it isn't true on either side of this election. I'm voting FOR Johnson, and as a happy consequence I also happen to be voting AGAINST Clinton AND Trump, and that's the whole point.
Am I splitting the ticket? In a way ... a very good way. I'm saying with my vote that both "major" parties have run off the rails, and that this is the time to establish and support alternate parties. As Johnson has said, "The two party system is a dinosaur, and we're the comet."
As an aside, this is NOT the same as Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996. He was an uber conservative who ran as the Reform Party candidate and drew votes almost exclusively from Republicans. And it isn't the same as Ralph Nader in 2000. Nader was a Green Party candidate that leached votes exclusively from Gore. Gary Johnson is drawing equal votes from both sides, because both parties are fed up with the corruption and collusion on their side of the aisle. He is polling incredibly well with independents, first-time voters, and minorities.
"You do realize he's pro-choice, right?"
Yes, and this was the most challenging internal knot I had to untangle. See, I'm pro-life. Always have been, and likely always will be. This is one of my least "moderate" positions. So how can I bring myself to support a pro-choice candidate? Because all of the candidates in this election cycle are pro-choice. In what I believe to be a very accurate representation of current and future America, everyone in this race is pro-choice. Furthermore, all candidates support Planned Parenthood. So how do I distinguish between them? Johnson is pro-choice until the viability of the fetus (24 weeks, and conservative states define it at 22 weeks), whereas Clinton and Trump have supported or do support mid-to-late term abortions. The biggest difference is that Johnson wants states to be able to govern themselves with minimal federal government interference. For me, that makes a very, VERY big difference.
I also had to come to grips with the fact that I believe many of our political animosities are based on the fact that each party tries to impose its morality on society (Republicans push Judeo-Christian, while Democrats strongly favor Secular Humanism). But is that the purpose of a governing body? After all, America is not and was never intended to be a theocracy. Yes, we were founded on biblical principles. Yes, faith informed some of our greatest triumphs and tragedies. But that was not the purpose of America's founding. The purpose was freedom. Freedom to worship and to live in accordance with our beliefs. And we don't need the President to tell us how to do that. What we need is for our government to WORK, to defend our nation, safeguard our liberties, maintain positive relationships with our allies and trade partners, and to stand up to organizations who become too formidable for families and communities (to name a few). When I realized that I have been voting in order to impose my own morality on everyone, things changed drastically for me. I shouldn't do that. The Religious Right should never have done that. The Progressives should not be doing that now.
"You know he supports gay marriage, right?
See above. All three candidates do. But Johnson differentiates himself in that he wants the government out of the marriage business, out of couples' bedrooms, and supports religious freedom in ministers' right to perform or abstain from performing marriage ceremonies.
"You know he has absolutely no chance of winning, right?"
This circular argument upsets me more so than any of the others. It has no basis in polling data or election law.
In essence, here's what you're saying:
"You shouldn't vote for someone who can't win."
"Well why can't he win?"
"Because not enough people are going to vote for him."
That. Is Absolutely. Insane.
So allow me to put it to you a different way:
"You should vote for Johnson."
"Why would I go and do a thing like that?!"
"Because if everyone who was fed up with Washington voted for Johnson, he would win."
And guess what ... EVERYONE IS FED UP WITH WASHINGTON. We're sick of the cronyism. We're sick of the empty promises. We're sick of the absurd spending. We're sick of mandated political correctness. We're sick of being taxed on income, retirement, investments, our cars, our homes, our phone lines, our groceries and our internet. We're sick of being observed by every government agency for no reason whatsoever. And we are sick, sick, SICK of the two "major" parties conspiring to tell us who we should want for president. You know what? The vast majority of us don't want Trump. The vast majority of us don't want Clinton.
I wonder what would happen if we all voted that way.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
#GreekLivesMatter
Racism is as old as humankind itself. The Bible is completely littered with accounts of racism, whether it be the misdeeds of the “heroes” of Biblical accounts, or else racist actions taken against them. That anyone denies racism as an actual part of the human experience blows my mind. For someone to sincerely believe that, they not only have to be completely blind to the world around them, but they also have to completely ignore the whole collection of our historic literature. If you’re someone who has been tempted to say that, stop and read a book. And after doing that, if you still need proof, I have a truckload of data. Make me use it. “Go ahead punk, make my day.”
For those of you who recognize the reality of racism, but are having a hard time grappling with the #BlackLivesMatter movement specifically or the validity of racism against minorities in America in general, this blog is for you.
But more specifically, I’m writing to fellow Christians, because I am compelled beyond restraint to do so. We read the Bible. We love Jesus. We worship and participate in sacraments, we pray and we fast. In our time doing all those things, it has become very clear to us that God is all about reaching the marginalized. He loves the outcast. He welcomes the foreigner. He chases after the discarded members of society. We know these things because He commanded His Church to behave this way. We know these things because the Son of God Himself behaved this way. In light of those things, I want to draw attention to two different challenges faced by the early church which I sincerely believe give us a clear course of action to take in this current cultural war.
In Acts 6, we find the first challenge. Verses 1-6 paint the picture: Greek Jews were upset because their widows weren’t being given their portion of daily food. Widows were provided for, because they had no way to provide for themselves, and had no family members to provide for them. The church took care of them. But in a very short period of time, preference was shown to Native Hebrews. When the Greek Jews came for their portion, they were told “Sorry, we’re fresh out.”
Now, let’s stop right there to clarify a few things: was this discrimination? Yes. Was it based on ethnic background? Yes. Was it therefore racist by our modern definition? Yes. We're believers in Christ the ones doing it? Yes. Christians were discriminating against other Christians because of their ethnicity. But as is often the case, this story doesn’t endorse the behavior. The Apostles’ response to this conflict is so good we should unpack it:
“Administrate it.”
“Handle it.”
“Take care of it.”
What we don’t find is any dispute. Now perhaps there was contestation, but it isn’t recorded here or anywhere else. The Native Hebrews didn’t deny the discrimination. They didn’t marginalize the claims. And if they did, that aspect was completely overlooked. Why? Because it didn’t matter. The Apostle’s direction shows that they ACKNOWLEDGED the discrimination and chose to CONFRONT IT with ACTION. Why? Because it was important that there be equality in Christ’s Church, a place where racial, social, economic, and gender distinctions were nullified as it relates to people’s inclusion and participation in God’s family. We are called to live "on earth, as it is in heaven."
In this instance, the Apostle's needed to make a statement, and they did it in short order:
#GreekLivesMatter
It’s really important to note here that affirming the fact that #GreekLivesMatter in no way rejected or prevented the Church’s practice of providing for non-Greek widows. It only motivated them to ensure that they were included and that the discrimination, whether intentional or unintentional, stopped from that point forward.
Why then is this so hard for us to acknowledge now? If we see that racism exists, and if we see that a particular segment of our population is on the receiving end of that discrimination frequently, why do we hesitate to speak up and act on their behalf?
Because the media twists it? Because they’re speaking for themselves? Because some of them are violent? Because they’re angry? Because it’s not as bad as it used to be?
What a despicable bouquet of excuses! Jesus would behave differently, because Jesus behaved differently (and had his own experiences being on the receiving end of racism). The Apostle's would behave differently, because they behaved differently when given the same opportunity that the Church is being given now.
THAT is why saying #AllLivesMatter is so damaging; so beneath God’s family. It’s not for us to generalize all of humanity as if that somehow makes racism a myth, as if closing our eyes to it somehow makes the storm around us go away. It’s not for us to spout off self-help platitudes as some kind of cheap substitute for our PARTICIPATION in the PROCESS OF RECONCILIATION. And it’s certainly not for us to laugh at, mock or tear down those who are doing what they can with what they have to try and DO OUR JOB FOR US.
I’ve decided to tackle Acts 11 in my next post. But for now, I’ll leave you with this question: If the Church was behaving as the agent of change in the world that God intended it to be, would there need to be a #BlackLivesMatter movement at all? Food for thought.
For those of you who recognize the reality of racism, but are having a hard time grappling with the #BlackLivesMatter movement specifically or the validity of racism against minorities in America in general, this blog is for you.
But more specifically, I’m writing to fellow Christians, because I am compelled beyond restraint to do so. We read the Bible. We love Jesus. We worship and participate in sacraments, we pray and we fast. In our time doing all those things, it has become very clear to us that God is all about reaching the marginalized. He loves the outcast. He welcomes the foreigner. He chases after the discarded members of society. We know these things because He commanded His Church to behave this way. We know these things because the Son of God Himself behaved this way. In light of those things, I want to draw attention to two different challenges faced by the early church which I sincerely believe give us a clear course of action to take in this current cultural war.
In Acts 6, we find the first challenge. Verses 1-6 paint the picture: Greek Jews were upset because their widows weren’t being given their portion of daily food. Widows were provided for, because they had no way to provide for themselves, and had no family members to provide for them. The church took care of them. But in a very short period of time, preference was shown to Native Hebrews. When the Greek Jews came for their portion, they were told “Sorry, we’re fresh out.”
Now, let’s stop right there to clarify a few things: was this discrimination? Yes. Was it based on ethnic background? Yes. Was it therefore racist by our modern definition? Yes. We're believers in Christ the ones doing it? Yes. Christians were discriminating against other Christians because of their ethnicity. But as is often the case, this story doesn’t endorse the behavior. The Apostles’ response to this conflict is so good we should unpack it:
“Administrate it.”
“Handle it.”
“Take care of it.”
What we don’t find is any dispute. Now perhaps there was contestation, but it isn’t recorded here or anywhere else. The Native Hebrews didn’t deny the discrimination. They didn’t marginalize the claims. And if they did, that aspect was completely overlooked. Why? Because it didn’t matter. The Apostle’s direction shows that they ACKNOWLEDGED the discrimination and chose to CONFRONT IT with ACTION. Why? Because it was important that there be equality in Christ’s Church, a place where racial, social, economic, and gender distinctions were nullified as it relates to people’s inclusion and participation in God’s family. We are called to live "on earth, as it is in heaven."
In this instance, the Apostle's needed to make a statement, and they did it in short order:
#GreekLivesMatter
It’s really important to note here that affirming the fact that #GreekLivesMatter in no way rejected or prevented the Church’s practice of providing for non-Greek widows. It only motivated them to ensure that they were included and that the discrimination, whether intentional or unintentional, stopped from that point forward.
Why then is this so hard for us to acknowledge now? If we see that racism exists, and if we see that a particular segment of our population is on the receiving end of that discrimination frequently, why do we hesitate to speak up and act on their behalf?
Because the media twists it? Because they’re speaking for themselves? Because some of them are violent? Because they’re angry? Because it’s not as bad as it used to be?
What a despicable bouquet of excuses! Jesus would behave differently, because Jesus behaved differently (and had his own experiences being on the receiving end of racism). The Apostle's would behave differently, because they behaved differently when given the same opportunity that the Church is being given now.
THAT is why saying #AllLivesMatter is so damaging; so beneath God’s family. It’s not for us to generalize all of humanity as if that somehow makes racism a myth, as if closing our eyes to it somehow makes the storm around us go away. It’s not for us to spout off self-help platitudes as some kind of cheap substitute for our PARTICIPATION in the PROCESS OF RECONCILIATION. And it’s certainly not for us to laugh at, mock or tear down those who are doing what they can with what they have to try and DO OUR JOB FOR US.
I’ve decided to tackle Acts 11 in my next post. But for now, I’ll leave you with this question: If the Church was behaving as the agent of change in the world that God intended it to be, would there need to be a #BlackLivesMatter movement at all? Food for thought.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Before You Vote for Trump, There's Something You Should Know...
As the primary season has dragged on, a rumor has been catching on like wildfire.
"Donald Trump is the eventual nominee. It's going to happen."
And I don't know, there's a part of me that just doesn't like this kind of forecasting. It sounds a lot like the Borg: "YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE." And despite my own feelings on the subject (read: repulsion), like any honest trend analyst, I decided to crunch the numbers and see if it was true. So I sat down one day and compiled as much data as I could for the primaries and caucuses that have happened so far. And you know what I learned?
There is nothing eventual about Donald Trump. And in a General Election against Hillary Clinton (his ACTUALLY EVENTUAL opponent), he would lose, and lose badly. Truth be told, the only thing that can win the nomination for Trump is the bold faced lie that it's already his. But don't take my word for it. Let's look at the numbers. (Pulled from politico).
37 - That's the number of states who have held primaries or caucuses for either or both parties.
34 - The number of republican primaries or caucuses as of the date of this publication.
20 - The number of states Trump has "won".
1 - The number of states Trump has won with a majority of votes. Hint, it was New York, his home state.
19 - The number of states Trump won with a plurality.
That last number should interest you. Why? Because it shows that the leading front runner isn't Donald Trump, but instead is his arch nemesis, "Anyone but Trump". Truth be told, Donald Trump hasn't even won close to half of the Republican votes. Here are those numbers:
23 million - Total votes cast in Republican Primaries
8.7 million - People who have voted for Trump
14.2 million - people who have voted for "Anyone but Trump".
Let that sink in for a second. Nearly 2/3 of the Republican votes cast have been for someone other than Trump. Sure, you could say the same for the other Republican Candidates, except for one thing: He's the front runner. He has the delegate lead, and has for a long time. If there was ever a bandwagon to jump on, it's his. And yet 2/3 of voters from the Republican camp have voted for one of the other "losers", as he calls them. Cruz has won plenty of states, and Kasich annihilated Trump in Ohio. Oh, and they both got more votes in their home states than he did in NY.
And while we're on the subject of things The Donald has said, I want to touch briefly on his accusation that the system is rigged. As with everything else in Trump's campaign, this statement is all smoke & mirrors. How else could a man get 2/3 of the delegates with only 1/3 of the votes? The system, that rigged system, is the only reason he still has a campaign.
Let's look at how things should look for a nominee that is actually winning the primaries. Let's look at Hillary's numbers:
37 - The number of states who have held primaries and/or caucuses
34 - The number of Democratic Contests
18 - The number of states Hillary has won
17 - The number of states Hillary has won with a majority of votes.
18.4 Million - The number of votes in Democratic Primaries and Caucuses
10.4 Million - The number of votes for Hillary
8 Million - The number of votes for Anyone but Hillary
Those numbers are what winning looks like. Now I'm far from a Hillary supporter, but when you talk about someone winning their party's nomination, this is what it should look like. And when Bernie Sanders concedes, he will encourage his supporters to back Hillary to make sure a Trump presidency never happens. And she already has more votes than Trump does. Come November, she will win in a LANDSLIDE, and he'll spend the following months tweeting about the unfairness of it all. After all, she got more than double the votes he did in New York, and as he said recently, "If you can't win New York, you don't belong here."
So before you head to the polls today, remember: if you're voting for Trump, you're in the minority. If you're voting for Anyone but Trump, you're in the majority, and as Donald would say, "It's not even close". A contested convention is the surest way to make sure the majority of voters aren't "robbed" by the "corrupt system". Most Republicans want someone other than Trump. Do yourself and everyone else a favor: vote against Trump.
"Donald Trump is the eventual nominee. It's going to happen."
And I don't know, there's a part of me that just doesn't like this kind of forecasting. It sounds a lot like the Borg: "YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE." And despite my own feelings on the subject (read: repulsion), like any honest trend analyst, I decided to crunch the numbers and see if it was true. So I sat down one day and compiled as much data as I could for the primaries and caucuses that have happened so far. And you know what I learned?
There is nothing eventual about Donald Trump. And in a General Election against Hillary Clinton (his ACTUALLY EVENTUAL opponent), he would lose, and lose badly. Truth be told, the only thing that can win the nomination for Trump is the bold faced lie that it's already his. But don't take my word for it. Let's look at the numbers. (Pulled from politico).
37 - That's the number of states who have held primaries or caucuses for either or both parties.
34 - The number of republican primaries or caucuses as of the date of this publication.
20 - The number of states Trump has "won".
1 - The number of states Trump has won with a majority of votes. Hint, it was New York, his home state.
19 - The number of states Trump won with a plurality.
That last number should interest you. Why? Because it shows that the leading front runner isn't Donald Trump, but instead is his arch nemesis, "Anyone but Trump". Truth be told, Donald Trump hasn't even won close to half of the Republican votes. Here are those numbers:
23 million - Total votes cast in Republican Primaries
8.7 million - People who have voted for Trump
14.2 million - people who have voted for "Anyone but Trump".
Let that sink in for a second. Nearly 2/3 of the Republican votes cast have been for someone other than Trump. Sure, you could say the same for the other Republican Candidates, except for one thing: He's the front runner. He has the delegate lead, and has for a long time. If there was ever a bandwagon to jump on, it's his. And yet 2/3 of voters from the Republican camp have voted for one of the other "losers", as he calls them. Cruz has won plenty of states, and Kasich annihilated Trump in Ohio. Oh, and they both got more votes in their home states than he did in NY.
And while we're on the subject of things The Donald has said, I want to touch briefly on his accusation that the system is rigged. As with everything else in Trump's campaign, this statement is all smoke & mirrors. How else could a man get 2/3 of the delegates with only 1/3 of the votes? The system, that rigged system, is the only reason he still has a campaign.
Let's look at how things should look for a nominee that is actually winning the primaries. Let's look at Hillary's numbers:
37 - The number of states who have held primaries and/or caucuses
34 - The number of Democratic Contests
18 - The number of states Hillary has won
17 - The number of states Hillary has won with a majority of votes.
18.4 Million - The number of votes in Democratic Primaries and Caucuses
10.4 Million - The number of votes for Hillary
8 Million - The number of votes for Anyone but Hillary
Those numbers are what winning looks like. Now I'm far from a Hillary supporter, but when you talk about someone winning their party's nomination, this is what it should look like. And when Bernie Sanders concedes, he will encourage his supporters to back Hillary to make sure a Trump presidency never happens. And she already has more votes than Trump does. Come November, she will win in a LANDSLIDE, and he'll spend the following months tweeting about the unfairness of it all. After all, she got more than double the votes he did in New York, and as he said recently, "If you can't win New York, you don't belong here."
So before you head to the polls today, remember: if you're voting for Trump, you're in the minority. If you're voting for Anyone but Trump, you're in the majority, and as Donald would say, "It's not even close". A contested convention is the surest way to make sure the majority of voters aren't "robbed" by the "corrupt system". Most Republicans want someone other than Trump. Do yourself and everyone else a favor: vote against Trump.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Christian Men and Christian Grey
Unless you're just coming out of winter hibernation, you will
have noticed that the Internet has been abuzz this week leading up to the
cinematic premier of 50 Shades of Grey on Valentine's Day. In particular, the
entire Christian blogosphere has dusted off its collective megaphone on the
subject; Matt Walsh, adam4d, and a host of others have spoken out in vehement
opposition to the movie, while others still have called for a boycott. (This frenzy is only surpassed by the stampede of women from all walks of life eager to see this book series come to life on the silver screen.)
I will not be adding to that rallying cry.
Instead, I want to post a response to a blog posted by Becky on
scissortailsilk.com called Christian Women and Christian Grey. I posted it to
my Facebook profile because I feel it eloquently communicates the root
issue behind the allure this movie has, even among Christian women: marital monotony
and loneliness. If you haven't yet read her blog, please do. I benefitted a
great deal from it.
After having read Becky’s post, a question rolled around in
my heart on my drive home: “If I found out that my own wife went to see 50
Shades, how would I respond?”
Now before I launch into the answer, I feel it is important
to make a crucial distinction that is largely missing in this very public conversation:
the difference between “should” and “will/did”. Everyone in Christendom is
declaring whether they feel women should see the movie. The odd thing about the
word “should” is that it is a concept word. It denotes idealism, morality and
ethical preference. I personally hate the word, because it has simultaneous
power to both challenge and condemn, and is hard to control in that way. I would go so far as to speculate that more Christian
women live in bondage to the word “should” than to actual sexual bondages like
pornography, unhealthy fantasies or extramarital affairs. And yes, the play on
words was intended, because I guess I’m just clever like that.
The other words, “will/did” are words of action. “Will”
speaks to mental and emotional decisions. When someone says “I will do this or
that”, they are saying they've come to a decision about their future action in
light of or in spite of what they
should do. Then saying “I did or didn't do this or that”, they reveal that they
followed through on that decision. These words are infinitely more important
than “should”. Why? Because the human will is more unruly than our moral/ethical
compasses. After all, Christian men who are addicted to porn know that they
shouldn't watch it, but that doesn't stop them from doing it. Strong morals,
weak wills.
So should Christian women watch 50 Shades of Grey (or anyone
for that matter)? I personally don't think so. I think it's monumental when the feminist movement and the evangelical movements agree on ANY SUBJECT. No, I don't think anyone should see this movie, and I'm not alone in that opinion. But honestly … Who cares? Do we
really need to jump in the ring for another round of moral debate to determine
who's right and who's wrong? How does that benefit anyone? How does that help your or my marriage?
So back to the premise question: What would I do if I found
out my own wife saw 50 Shades?
Love her.
And I'm recommending and even imploring other Christian men
to do the same with their wives.
Why? Well that starts to get to the heart of the matter. As
Becky pointed out, many women are attracted to the 50 Shades fantasy because of
a lack in their own marriages. Lack of intimacy. Lack of exhilaration. Lack of
spontaneity. Lack of communication. Lack of love. And while those things aren’t
excuses to watch 50 Shades any more than it is an excuse for men to sneak away to watch
porn on their computers, it’s still an issue that must be addressed. 50 Shades
of Grey isn’t a cure for boring marriages, or rather, the inherent boringness
of marriage.
“Should she see it?” If I’m asking that question, I’m
missing the point as a husband. Better to ask “Why does she want to see it?” or
“What is she looking for from the movie that she doesn’t feel she has in our
marriage?” It’s a hard question to ask, because it assumes that I’m not giving
my wife something she needs. But what is that? Is it intimacy? Romance? Trust? Spontaneity?
Love? And once I ask myself those hard questions, do I have the courage to ask
her and really listen to the answer?
(Just to clarify, so
as not to inspire any vitriol towards my wife, we’ve talked about this. She
doesn’t want to see the movie because she knows the emotional impact it will
have on her. This isn’t airing out our issues in full view of the public. This
is a challenge to men to do what WE can to keep this movie from driving a wedge
in our marriages, whether our wives see it or not. Even if you’re repulsed by
the idea of the movie, its cultural prominence provides a great opportunity to examine our own
hearts and actions regarding our wives.)
Gentlemen, the bottom line is this: if we’re loving our wives as Christ loves the Church, they won’t want to go to this or any other movie looking to feed a fantasy. Lust doesn’t hold a candle to true love. Christian Grey pales in comparison to a Christian husband who is committed to cherishing his wife. If you’re assertive, adventurous, available and vulnerable in the bedroom, she’s not going to care what Christian Grey does in his.
So I fully agree with Becky, just from the other side of the coin. Let’s take back sex, and in so doing, take back marriage. Let’s stop focusing on this movie and start focusing on how to satisfy, love, cherish and protect our wives when they’re with us. The Apostle Paul understood this, and he wasn’t even married. Lots of sex = little temptation to stray. Little sex = lots of temptation to stray. It’s not difficult math. So if you’re wife is planning on going to see 50 Shades, rather than protesting or condemning, why not give her a reason to stay home with you instead? Surely there’s more incentive being the wife in your bedroom than there is in merely being a fly on the wall of Christian Grey’s play room. Surely you can write for her a love story with your life and time that surpasses the one that happens in ink or on the screen between Christian and Ana.
Not sure how? Try asking. Just a thought.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
The Early Church Fathers: Clement
This week, I came into possession of a book set that I've wanted ever since my first freshman year (yes, that's right, I said first; there were 3) at Bible College. The Early Church Fathers set is almost 20,000 pages, 38 volumes, and spans the first few centuries of the early Christian Church. And now, it is my own ... my love ... my precious.
Since I can't foresee many of you rushing out to buy your own set, even if you ARE jealous (and you should be), I wanted to publish some of my thoughts on their writings here.
The first tome is a letter from Clement to the church in Corinth, penned some time between 40-100 AD. Right off the bat, I was surprised how similar (yet not the same) the text was to Scripture. Paul wrote 1 and 2 Corinthians, and I thought this might read like 3 Corinthians. In prose and in structure, it does, but there is a distinct lack of authority as compared to the former texts. If anyone questions the inspiration of the Scriptures, I'd recommend reading Paul's epistles and then Clement. You'll see what I'm saying. Here are a few observations on the first reading...
Since I can't foresee many of you rushing out to buy your own set, even if you ARE jealous (and you should be), I wanted to publish some of my thoughts on their writings here.
The first tome is a letter from Clement to the church in Corinth, penned some time between 40-100 AD. Right off the bat, I was surprised how similar (yet not the same) the text was to Scripture. Paul wrote 1 and 2 Corinthians, and I thought this might read like 3 Corinthians. In prose and in structure, it does, but there is a distinct lack of authority as compared to the former texts. If anyone questions the inspiration of the Scriptures, I'd recommend reading Paul's epistles and then Clement. You'll see what I'm saying. Here are a few observations on the first reading...
- Clement knew his Bible: Clement spends a great deal of time relating the conflicts in their church to situations that happened in scripture. He quotes from the Law, the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, and even the New Testament BEFORE IT WAS CALLED THE NEW TESTAMENT. I was amazed and inspired to read more of my own Bible. This should serve as a direct contradiction to current undergrad Bible scholars who use Wikipedia to fill out their papers. Just sayin'.
- Church splits have ALWAYS been ugly: in 1 Corinthians, Paul writes to believers who are arguing with each other and are engaged in unbecoming immorality. In 2 Corinthians, Paul writes to give instruction as to how to restore those who were removed from the church on account of their immorality. In Clement's letter, he writes to choose hospitality and humility whenever possible, to give honor to the pastors/presbyters, and to remove themselves from fellowship if they couldn't stop being a source of contention. If I were ever to assist in a church on the verge of splitting, this would be required reading for both/all parties.
- Clement speaks of an Egyptian fable, the Pheonix, as though it is a veritable fact, and uses it to illustrate that nature reminds us of the coming resurrection. While reading, I had what I could only describe as a "one of these things is not like the others" moment. I can see why this one didn't make the cut for canonization.
20 pages down, 1000 times that to go. Bring it on.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Now That the Polls Are Closed...
Well congratulations! You've done your civic duty ... you've voted in this year's NC Primary. Either you REALLY LOVE the democratic process, or you came out because you have strong feelings about Amendment 1. If you voted FOR Amendment 1, to you it signifies that you are willing to take a stand for the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. Well since you stood in line, put your name on the line, and filled in the circle, you made it official that you're willing to do what it takes to ensure that the institution of marriage be protected, come liberals, hell, or high water.
I'm so glad you took a stand! Are you ready to stay standing? You see, marriage isn't something that is protected by a single law, or even a series of laws. It isn't kept sacred by just it's definition being included on the state constitution. It is kept sacred by those to whom it has been given, as a sacred trust from the One who gave it in the first place, and Who therefore asks that it be stewarded in a manner that is worthy of His Name. So here are 5 tangible things you can do to do EVEN MORE for marriage than simply voting.
1) Drop the "D" Word
The divorce rate is as high in the church as it is anywhere else. The absolute first step toward safeguarding the institution of marriage is to stay married. It seems there is a plethora of acceptable reasons to get a divorce these days, and very few are grounds to actually proceed. This isn't a slam against those who have been divorced. It is a call to remember that the same Bible which identifies marriage as being between one man and one woman also vehemently states that marriage is a permanent covenant, and should only be abandoned as the exception and not the rule.
2) Keep it Clean
I'm mostly talking to the menfolk reading this. Dude, seriously, drop the porn. It's a distortion of what sex is, it messes up your brain function, and ruins your ability to take joy in the things that make marriage awesome. You shouldn't want your wife to act like a pornstar, you should pray for pornstars to be loved as much as you love your wife. Addiction is a bear. Help is available.
3) Keep it Close
If you haven't yet realized that extra-marital affairs are a bigger threat to the institution and sanctity of marriage than homosexuality, you aren't paying attention. To seek sex outside of marriage is to vote "AGAINST" Marriage in the arena of everyday life, and people take notice. Don't just try to make your mark in an election year. Make your mark in all of your circles, showing that husbands and wives can, with grace and discipline, keep from straying.
4) Scrap the Tabloids
HOLLYWOOD (for the most part) HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE WHAT MARRIAGE IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. I'm really sorry, but it's a valid claim ... why can Kim K get married, make a mockery of what marriage should be, and then get divorced only to do it all over again? Imagine you are a member of the gay community, wanting to be married, and watching that. Seem a bit inconsistent with our standard of marriage? I think so. $50 to the Congressman that first introduces a Kardashian Marriage Ban. Who cares which actress married which producer? Stop paying attention to the attention mongers.
5) Stand for Others
You are surrounded by friends and family that need help in their marriage. They need encouragement. They need a cheering section. They need someone to tell them they're wrong when they're wrong. Marriage does not exist in a vacuum, and isn't something that everyone should be expected to learn 100% by experience. If your marriage is successful, AWESOME. Share the wealth. Help other people be successful in their marriages. It doesn't take Dr. Phil to fix some issues. Some people simply need advice, and someone to point them in the right direction. If you really believe the Bible is the instruction manual on Marriage, whip out out more often than elections.
I'm committed to each and every one of these things. My wife is also. If you voted FOR NC Amendment 1, shouldn't you?
I'm so glad you took a stand! Are you ready to stay standing? You see, marriage isn't something that is protected by a single law, or even a series of laws. It isn't kept sacred by just it's definition being included on the state constitution. It is kept sacred by those to whom it has been given, as a sacred trust from the One who gave it in the first place, and Who therefore asks that it be stewarded in a manner that is worthy of His Name. So here are 5 tangible things you can do to do EVEN MORE for marriage than simply voting.
1) Drop the "D" Word
The divorce rate is as high in the church as it is anywhere else. The absolute first step toward safeguarding the institution of marriage is to stay married. It seems there is a plethora of acceptable reasons to get a divorce these days, and very few are grounds to actually proceed. This isn't a slam against those who have been divorced. It is a call to remember that the same Bible which identifies marriage as being between one man and one woman also vehemently states that marriage is a permanent covenant, and should only be abandoned as the exception and not the rule.
2) Keep it Clean
I'm mostly talking to the menfolk reading this. Dude, seriously, drop the porn. It's a distortion of what sex is, it messes up your brain function, and ruins your ability to take joy in the things that make marriage awesome. You shouldn't want your wife to act like a pornstar, you should pray for pornstars to be loved as much as you love your wife. Addiction is a bear. Help is available.
3) Keep it Close
If you haven't yet realized that extra-marital affairs are a bigger threat to the institution and sanctity of marriage than homosexuality, you aren't paying attention. To seek sex outside of marriage is to vote "AGAINST" Marriage in the arena of everyday life, and people take notice. Don't just try to make your mark in an election year. Make your mark in all of your circles, showing that husbands and wives can, with grace and discipline, keep from straying.
4) Scrap the Tabloids
HOLLYWOOD (for the most part) HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE WHAT MARRIAGE IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. I'm really sorry, but it's a valid claim ... why can Kim K get married, make a mockery of what marriage should be, and then get divorced only to do it all over again? Imagine you are a member of the gay community, wanting to be married, and watching that. Seem a bit inconsistent with our standard of marriage? I think so. $50 to the Congressman that first introduces a Kardashian Marriage Ban. Who cares which actress married which producer? Stop paying attention to the attention mongers.
5) Stand for Others
You are surrounded by friends and family that need help in their marriage. They need encouragement. They need a cheering section. They need someone to tell them they're wrong when they're wrong. Marriage does not exist in a vacuum, and isn't something that everyone should be expected to learn 100% by experience. If your marriage is successful, AWESOME. Share the wealth. Help other people be successful in their marriages. It doesn't take Dr. Phil to fix some issues. Some people simply need advice, and someone to point them in the right direction. If you really believe the Bible is the instruction manual on Marriage, whip out out more often than elections.
I'm committed to each and every one of these things. My wife is also. If you voted FOR NC Amendment 1, shouldn't you?
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The Most Embarrasing Thing My Wife's Ever Seen Me Do...
As my Aunt Mary so perfectly put, God has a sense of humor.
As the older of two in my family, I have the supreme honor of being able to tell embarrassing stores about my younger brother without any fear of retribution. I often share, when the subject comes up, how terrified my little bro is of any kind of flying bug. Flies, bees, even mosquitoes. I stretch out and then demonstrate the "Andrew Flail." I'm sure you've seen me do it before, and if not, just ask.
After telling the story and doing the move for my Aunt & Uncle, I headed home after a long day. As is our routine, I let the dogs out the back door to relieve themselves. When I opened the door, several moths were startled and flew around our exterior floodlights. I didn't want to have to round them up later, so I reached for the screen door, and then it happened.
Have you ever seen a cicada killer? If the hairs on your neck aren't standing up right now, you definitely haven't. They look like this. Bugs are definitely biggest in the south. Well as I was closing the screen door, one buzzed past my head and into my house.
As it turns out, I am not scared of flying insects. Instead, I am mortally terrified of huge flying insects. That is the only explanation I can offer for the reactions that followed.
I started screaming. I might have swore a few times. Rachel, who was changing in the bedroom asked what happened. I screamed back at her to stay in the bedroom. She asked why. I yelled "A Cicada Killer just flew in our house!". So she came out to investigate. Did I ever mention my wife is fearless? She grew up in Indiana, so it figures...
I had lost sight of the monster and immediately found the biggest magazine I could and rolled it up to defend myself. This, as it turns out, was a terrible, terrible mistake.
So we moved slowly around the living room trying to find it before it found us. And then it took flight. It flew from the couch, up to the ceiling and over the fan. I backed up against the wall and immediately started to panic and scream. Rachel asked "Where is it" and I immediately shouted back "ARE YOU SERIOUS? IT'S ENORMOUS!!!"
Well it flew down between the blades of the ceiling fan, hovered about a foot off the ground, and then made a B-Line (no pun intended) for me. I swatted as hard as I could ... One ... Two ... Three times, never connecting once. And then it landed. On me. More specifically, on my ... zipper area.
I backed up into the wall and shouted at the top of my lungs, tried to brush it off, and then I swung again ... One ... Two ... Three times (breaking the standing lamp next to me in the process), never connecting with the insect once. I did, however, connect all three times ... with my zipper area. The pain caused me to drop the unfortunately heavy magazine on the ground. The wasp flew down to the carpet and landed. My fearless wife ran over, grabbed the magazine, and then pounded the critter into the carpet. She then dropped the magazine, picked up her sandal and continued to beat the bug until she was sure it was dead.
I hope that you, the reader, take the following lessons away from this tragic and painful story:
1) Be nice to your siblings.
2) Don't make fun of the fears of others.
3) Only grab the lightest periodical available when dispatching household insects.
As the older of two in my family, I have the supreme honor of being able to tell embarrassing stores about my younger brother without any fear of retribution. I often share, when the subject comes up, how terrified my little bro is of any kind of flying bug. Flies, bees, even mosquitoes. I stretch out and then demonstrate the "Andrew Flail." I'm sure you've seen me do it before, and if not, just ask.
After telling the story and doing the move for my Aunt & Uncle, I headed home after a long day. As is our routine, I let the dogs out the back door to relieve themselves. When I opened the door, several moths were startled and flew around our exterior floodlights. I didn't want to have to round them up later, so I reached for the screen door, and then it happened.
Have you ever seen a cicada killer? If the hairs on your neck aren't standing up right now, you definitely haven't. They look like this. Bugs are definitely biggest in the south. Well as I was closing the screen door, one buzzed past my head and into my house.
As it turns out, I am not scared of flying insects. Instead, I am mortally terrified of huge flying insects. That is the only explanation I can offer for the reactions that followed.
I started screaming. I might have swore a few times. Rachel, who was changing in the bedroom asked what happened. I screamed back at her to stay in the bedroom. She asked why. I yelled "A Cicada Killer just flew in our house!". So she came out to investigate. Did I ever mention my wife is fearless? She grew up in Indiana, so it figures...
I had lost sight of the monster and immediately found the biggest magazine I could and rolled it up to defend myself. This, as it turns out, was a terrible, terrible mistake.
So we moved slowly around the living room trying to find it before it found us. And then it took flight. It flew from the couch, up to the ceiling and over the fan. I backed up against the wall and immediately started to panic and scream. Rachel asked "Where is it" and I immediately shouted back "ARE YOU SERIOUS? IT'S ENORMOUS!!!"
Well it flew down between the blades of the ceiling fan, hovered about a foot off the ground, and then made a B-Line (no pun intended) for me. I swatted as hard as I could ... One ... Two ... Three times, never connecting once. And then it landed. On me. More specifically, on my ... zipper area.
I backed up into the wall and shouted at the top of my lungs, tried to brush it off, and then I swung again ... One ... Two ... Three times (breaking the standing lamp next to me in the process), never connecting with the insect once. I did, however, connect all three times ... with my zipper area. The pain caused me to drop the unfortunately heavy magazine on the ground. The wasp flew down to the carpet and landed. My fearless wife ran over, grabbed the magazine, and then pounded the critter into the carpet. She then dropped the magazine, picked up her sandal and continued to beat the bug until she was sure it was dead.
I hope that you, the reader, take the following lessons away from this tragic and painful story:
1) Be nice to your siblings.
2) Don't make fun of the fears of others.
3) Only grab the lightest periodical available when dispatching household insects.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
What Disc Golf Taught Me About Christianity this Week...
I play disc golf. Yes, it's a sport. No, you may not judge me.
There are some pretty amazing courses here in Charlotte, so I get to play without having to travel too far. This year, I decided I wanted to get more distance out of my drives, so I practiced a different grip. Yes, there are different grips. Shut up.
Ever since I started playing, I have used a control grip for everything ... drives, mid-range and putts. That resulted in more control, but less distance. So this year, I'm changing to a power grip. As the name implies, there is more power, but less control.
So I went out to Killborne Park here in Charlotte, and I made the decision to switch to the power grip. And something odd happened...
The third time I went to drive off the tee, mid throw, MY HAND switched from a power grip to the control grip. At first I was surprised, then confused, and then angry. How dare my own hand disobey ME! It's MY hand!
The problem is, that's what I trained it to do. Out of sheer muscle memory, my hand simply did what it has always done. Regardless what I wanted it to do, it was going to try to go on auto-pilot and throw the way I learned to throw. Unlearning is a frustrating process.
I'm convinced the soul has a "muscle memory" too. It's in this place that Christian disciplines like prayer, personal worship and devotional time become essential. If you teach your soul to live with them, eventually they will become auto-pilot. But if you teach your soul to live without them, don't be surprised when your soul argues with you to do something different. And the thing of it is, you can't even really get mad, because it's just doing what you trained it to do...
There are some pretty amazing courses here in Charlotte, so I get to play without having to travel too far. This year, I decided I wanted to get more distance out of my drives, so I practiced a different grip. Yes, there are different grips. Shut up.
Ever since I started playing, I have used a control grip for everything ... drives, mid-range and putts. That resulted in more control, but less distance. So this year, I'm changing to a power grip. As the name implies, there is more power, but less control.
So I went out to Killborne Park here in Charlotte, and I made the decision to switch to the power grip. And something odd happened...
The third time I went to drive off the tee, mid throw, MY HAND switched from a power grip to the control grip. At first I was surprised, then confused, and then angry. How dare my own hand disobey ME! It's MY hand!
The problem is, that's what I trained it to do. Out of sheer muscle memory, my hand simply did what it has always done. Regardless what I wanted it to do, it was going to try to go on auto-pilot and throw the way I learned to throw. Unlearning is a frustrating process.
I'm convinced the soul has a "muscle memory" too. It's in this place that Christian disciplines like prayer, personal worship and devotional time become essential. If you teach your soul to live with them, eventually they will become auto-pilot. But if you teach your soul to live without them, don't be surprised when your soul argues with you to do something different. And the thing of it is, you can't even really get mad, because it's just doing what you trained it to do...
A Bit of Honesty
I don't blog very often. It's for a variety of reasons, but it's something I want to change. I happen to like blogging. I've run into a few roadblocks, so this post is an attempt to clear the air and move right past them.
First of all, I spend too much time deliberating about how I should come across in each post. "What do I want these readers to think about me?" Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but despite how I try, I'm not a philosopher. I'm not a political analyst. I'm not a successful businessman.
What I am is a 30 year old pastor and husband who went through some very trying times (including a church split), lost all interest in the church as a whole, went through a period of depression, and then came out of it with the help of an amazing wife and a loving, gracious, and patient church. So when I write, that's what you're going to get. That's my filter. That's my history. And if I live as though it never happened, then the lessons I learned during that time would be wasted. So no more denial. I hope that's cool with you.
Moving on.
Also, because I'm a perfectionist, long blogs are exhausting. Revising. Linking. Fact-checking. I have 10 great blog ideas, but the thought of them is completely debilitating, because I feel like I have to get them perfect. Well I don't. So my blogs are going to be shorter and to the point.
So here's to short & to the point...
First of all, I spend too much time deliberating about how I should come across in each post. "What do I want these readers to think about me?" Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but despite how I try, I'm not a philosopher. I'm not a political analyst. I'm not a successful businessman.
What I am is a 30 year old pastor and husband who went through some very trying times (including a church split), lost all interest in the church as a whole, went through a period of depression, and then came out of it with the help of an amazing wife and a loving, gracious, and patient church. So when I write, that's what you're going to get. That's my filter. That's my history. And if I live as though it never happened, then the lessons I learned during that time would be wasted. So no more denial. I hope that's cool with you.
Moving on.
Also, because I'm a perfectionist, long blogs are exhausting. Revising. Linking. Fact-checking. I have 10 great blog ideas, but the thought of them is completely debilitating, because I feel like I have to get them perfect. Well I don't. So my blogs are going to be shorter and to the point.
So here's to short & to the point...
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Love may Win, but "Love Wins" does not...
I know it's been a while since I chimed in about Rob Bell's most recent book, "Love Wins." Well I've read it, and it's already been passed around to people who were also curious and wanted to see for themselves what it was all about.
I've also had plenty of time to talk to friends, family and mentors about it, and it's comforting to know that after reading the book, we're coming to a lot of the same conclusions.
I went into reading the book with a high degree of optimism, because I remember just how much controversy surrounded "Velvet Elvis" when it came out, and how disappointed I was with the fundamentalists' grasp of what Mr. Bell was actually saying with that book. It seemed to me that so much of what he said was taken out of context that I gained a level of respect for his musings.
Final Conclusion: I both recommend "Love Wins" and warn against it. I recommend the first 2 chapters, and I caution the reader to be careful with everything following. Here's why...
The first two chapters are like an inoculation for the Church to remember that we believe in a more Biblical understanding of the kingdom and the people of God as both present and future. We're not supposed to simply occupy our time with churchy things until we get to really let loose after death. We're supposed to be, as a church, a bastion of God's love here on the earth, reaching out to people, because that's what God cares about above everything else: reaching hurting people. The first two chapters inspire a refreshing amount of hope, regardless of the background of the reader.
Beyond those two wonderful chapters, proceed with caution. First of all, because the method of Mr Bell's writing is very ambiguous and asks a great many more questions than he dares to answer or even attempt to lead the reader to answers. Socrates was a master at this ... he asked questions that led his students to answers. Mr Bell's questions seem to only lead to an agnostic void ...
Yes, ask questions; Yes feverishly pursue answers as well.
My second and most important caution has been echoed by every single Bible scholar and pastor whose opinion I've solicited: Rob Bell's logic, reasoning and exegetical conclusions take ENORMOUS leaps from question "A" to his own conclusion "B" that simply can't be made without a great deal more support. This is manageable for someone who is mature, but for someone who is perhaps more impressionable, it's just downright dangerous.
I've also had plenty of time to talk to friends, family and mentors about it, and it's comforting to know that after reading the book, we're coming to a lot of the same conclusions.
I went into reading the book with a high degree of optimism, because I remember just how much controversy surrounded "Velvet Elvis" when it came out, and how disappointed I was with the fundamentalists' grasp of what Mr. Bell was actually saying with that book. It seemed to me that so much of what he said was taken out of context that I gained a level of respect for his musings.
Final Conclusion: I both recommend "Love Wins" and warn against it. I recommend the first 2 chapters, and I caution the reader to be careful with everything following. Here's why...
The first two chapters are like an inoculation for the Church to remember that we believe in a more Biblical understanding of the kingdom and the people of God as both present and future. We're not supposed to simply occupy our time with churchy things until we get to really let loose after death. We're supposed to be, as a church, a bastion of God's love here on the earth, reaching out to people, because that's what God cares about above everything else: reaching hurting people. The first two chapters inspire a refreshing amount of hope, regardless of the background of the reader.
Beyond those two wonderful chapters, proceed with caution. First of all, because the method of Mr Bell's writing is very ambiguous and asks a great many more questions than he dares to answer or even attempt to lead the reader to answers. Socrates was a master at this ... he asked questions that led his students to answers. Mr Bell's questions seem to only lead to an agnostic void ...
Yes, ask questions; Yes feverishly pursue answers as well.
My second and most important caution has been echoed by every single Bible scholar and pastor whose opinion I've solicited: Rob Bell's logic, reasoning and exegetical conclusions take ENORMOUS leaps from question "A" to his own conclusion "B" that simply can't be made without a great deal more support. This is manageable for someone who is mature, but for someone who is perhaps more impressionable, it's just downright dangerous.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Starting Over
I absolutely hate putting together furniture. I'm pretty awful at it. Ask my wife, she's seen me in action. You know that place on instruction manuals that tell you the approximate assembly time? I've begun to simply add 50% extra time for myself to know how long it's actually going to take.
At our home, Rachel has a room that is dedicated as her photography studio/office. I also have a space of my own. Right now it's the catch-all room of the house, but before that, it was my study. I have a love of books, and coming from 3-too-many years of college, I have plenty of books to love. That also means that I have plenty of books to find shelves for. So in our second year of marriage, we invested in 3 identical bookshelves from Target.
When I set out to put together the first one, I was confronted with something I hadn't ever handled before ... cam bolts and locks, paired with wooden dowels. Now I'm sure you have some experience with these if you've ever put together office furniture. I have come to appreciate them and loathe their design all at the same time. I felt like I was making extremely good time (for me) and was ready to put the backing on the bookshelf, and then I saw it. The framing on the back of the bookshelf was backward, and because of that I couldn't complete it properly. The backing of the shelf was step #26. The framing was step #4. The cam bolts and locks had lied to me, and I didn't notice it until I was almost done.
Hence my hatred of office furniture.
As a perfectionist, I couldn't just Jerry-rig it to work as it was, so I was left with 2 options: Scrap it for firewood or work my way backward and start over. So I began the arduous process of taking it apart, lock by lock ... dowel by dowel. And no, I didn't whistle while I worked. I mostly grumbled incoherently, throwing in a profanity or two ... or twenty. In any case, I wasn't happy. Eventually I got it together properly, and then was careful not to repeat my error in the other bookshelves. They look marvelous.
On May 3rd, I will celebrate my 15th year of being a redeemed man, sold-out for Jesus and serving Him with everything I have. I'm a Life Pacific College Graduate, as well as a Life East alumnus. I've served several pastors in several churches in a variety of ways, but I find myself in an odd place at this major adult benchmark... You see, a little over a year ago, I discovered that in all of my effort and work at being a Christian man, somewhere along the way I skipped a step. I missed a detail. There was no way around it. I could not continue forward to embracing the destiny that the Lord had for me because something was off. Something in my framework was backward, and it couldn't be ignored. And for the last year, I've kicked and grumbled and swore under my breath (and at the top of my lungs), because I was working my backward rather than forward. I was undoing everything just to get back to step #4. It's been a painful process, but one I think was absolutely vital to my future as a man after God's heart.
Today at church, while listening to Pastor Dale speak, something settled in me that hadn't been settled until today: "If I am being undone so that I can be a healthy member of the body of Christ for the next 15 years, it's absolutely worth it." Being disassembled is infinitely better than being discarded and used for firewood. So tonight, after the blog post, dinner and some family time, I think I'm going to go upstairs to those bookshelves, grab two of my first Bibles (A blue pocket sized full Bible and a red leather bound New Spirit Filled Life Bible), and pick back up at step #4.
To Pastor Larry and Pastor Dave "Andre Agassi" Barndt, thank you for giving me those Bibles as a teenager and insisting that I mark them up as much as I wanted to. Without your love, starting over would be much more difficult. And to Pastor Dale Jenkins, thank you for fanning the flame and being like Jesus; "a smoldering wick He will not snuff out, and a bruised reed He will not break."
At our home, Rachel has a room that is dedicated as her photography studio/office. I also have a space of my own. Right now it's the catch-all room of the house, but before that, it was my study. I have a love of books, and coming from 3-too-many years of college, I have plenty of books to love. That also means that I have plenty of books to find shelves for. So in our second year of marriage, we invested in 3 identical bookshelves from Target.
When I set out to put together the first one, I was confronted with something I hadn't ever handled before ... cam bolts and locks, paired with wooden dowels. Now I'm sure you have some experience with these if you've ever put together office furniture. I have come to appreciate them and loathe their design all at the same time. I felt like I was making extremely good time (for me) and was ready to put the backing on the bookshelf, and then I saw it. The framing on the back of the bookshelf was backward, and because of that I couldn't complete it properly. The backing of the shelf was step #26. The framing was step #4. The cam bolts and locks had lied to me, and I didn't notice it until I was almost done.
Hence my hatred of office furniture.
As a perfectionist, I couldn't just Jerry-rig it to work as it was, so I was left with 2 options: Scrap it for firewood or work my way backward and start over. So I began the arduous process of taking it apart, lock by lock ... dowel by dowel. And no, I didn't whistle while I worked. I mostly grumbled incoherently, throwing in a profanity or two ... or twenty. In any case, I wasn't happy. Eventually I got it together properly, and then was careful not to repeat my error in the other bookshelves. They look marvelous.
On May 3rd, I will celebrate my 15th year of being a redeemed man, sold-out for Jesus and serving Him with everything I have. I'm a Life Pacific College Graduate, as well as a Life East alumnus. I've served several pastors in several churches in a variety of ways, but I find myself in an odd place at this major adult benchmark... You see, a little over a year ago, I discovered that in all of my effort and work at being a Christian man, somewhere along the way I skipped a step. I missed a detail. There was no way around it. I could not continue forward to embracing the destiny that the Lord had for me because something was off. Something in my framework was backward, and it couldn't be ignored. And for the last year, I've kicked and grumbled and swore under my breath (and at the top of my lungs), because I was working my backward rather than forward. I was undoing everything just to get back to step #4. It's been a painful process, but one I think was absolutely vital to my future as a man after God's heart.
Today at church, while listening to Pastor Dale speak, something settled in me that hadn't been settled until today: "If I am being undone so that I can be a healthy member of the body of Christ for the next 15 years, it's absolutely worth it." Being disassembled is infinitely better than being discarded and used for firewood. So tonight, after the blog post, dinner and some family time, I think I'm going to go upstairs to those bookshelves, grab two of my first Bibles (A blue pocket sized full Bible and a red leather bound New Spirit Filled Life Bible), and pick back up at step #4.
To Pastor Larry and Pastor Dave "Andre Agassi" Barndt, thank you for giving me those Bibles as a teenager and insisting that I mark them up as much as I wanted to. Without your love, starting over would be much more difficult. And to Pastor Dale Jenkins, thank you for fanning the flame and being like Jesus; "a smoldering wick He will not snuff out, and a bruised reed He will not break."
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Here is the New There
I love tuning forks.
I seriously do.
During my brief time at Radford University, I belonged to A Cappella groups that would perform in public places, most of which didn't warrant the use of a full size pianos to get our starting notes. So we brought tuning forks. If you don't know what they are, google it. Go ahead ... I'll wait.
In the movie Tin Cup, Kevin Costner's character says that a well-hit golf shot is like a tuning fork going off in your loins. And it's a funny way to think of golfing, but I know what he means. I've only had 1 or 2 golf shots where I felt the "That's what it's supposed to feel like" after the swing. I've felt it more playing disc golf, where when the driver releases out of your grip off the tee, holds that tight line down the fairway and makes the turn at the perfect moment. It's not a technical moment. It's something you just feel.
You know that feeling?
Reading Chapter 2 of "Love Wins" by Rob Bell, I had one of those moments, but it was the first time I can remember that was a spiritual tuning fork moment. To summarize, if you haven't read the book yet, Chapter 1 deals with the not-so-simple nature of salvation/faith. By the way, this was what I read last time that wouldn't allow me to continue reading. Chapter 1 asks a lot of questions. Chapter 2, on the other hand, begins answering them , starting with the nature of Heaven and how we relate to it.
Rather than paraphrasing, here is a trail of quotations that led to my moment...
"How we think about heaven, then, directly affects how we understand what we do with our days and energies now, in this age." ~p44
"Taking heaven seriously, then, means taking suffering seriously, now. Not because we've bought into the myth that we can create a utopia given enough time, technology, and good voting choices, but because we have great confidence that God has not abandoned human history and is actively at work within it, taking it somewhere." ~p45
"Jesus teaches us to pursue the life of heaven now and also then, anticipating the day when earth and heaven are one.
Honest business,
redemptive art,
honorable law,
sustainable living,
medicine,
education,
making a home,
tending a garden --
they're all sacred tasks to be done in partnership with God now, because they will all go on in the age to come. In heaven, on earth. Our eschatology shapes our ethics. Eschatology is about last things, ethics are about how you live." ~p46
"A proper view of heaven leads not to escape from the world, but to full engagement with it, all with the anticipation of a coming day when things are on earth as they currently are in heaven." ~p47
When I got to the words "They're all sacred tasks", I had to stop reading, because I started sobbing uncontrollably. It wasn't crying. It was deeper than that. It was like a tuning fork being struck in the deepest part of my spirit and resonating "I knew it. Thank God someone said it."
Rachel loves photography, not because of the prestige, but because of the deep belief that she is helping to shape this age (aion) and will change the world using that medium. For her, it is a sacred work with sacred purpose. Because of her perspective, she probably will change the world...
I love tending to people and anything that is alive. When I care for my wife, our dogs, the rose bushes and the lawn, there is a part of me that knows that I'm "about my Father's business." They're each a sacred work; which I sense that I'm partnering with Him every time I do them.
There is something intensely freeing about seeing seemingly secular, mundane, ordinary tasks as sacred tasks. It's a feeling and a heart understanding that I hope I never lose.
For those that can remember the movie Chariots of Fire, it's saying the same thing as what the character Eric Liddell is known for saying: "I believe God made me for a purpose, but He also made me fast. And when I run, I feel His pleasure..."
For all the skeptics, Rob Bell is not saying that Heaven doesn't exist. What he is saying is that Heaven is much more expansive than the current popular tradition of it, which is simply a place away from here that we'll eventually go if we're good enough.
I seriously do.
During my brief time at Radford University, I belonged to A Cappella groups that would perform in public places, most of which didn't warrant the use of a full size pianos to get our starting notes. So we brought tuning forks. If you don't know what they are, google it. Go ahead ... I'll wait.
In the movie Tin Cup, Kevin Costner's character says that a well-hit golf shot is like a tuning fork going off in your loins. And it's a funny way to think of golfing, but I know what he means. I've only had 1 or 2 golf shots where I felt the "That's what it's supposed to feel like" after the swing. I've felt it more playing disc golf, where when the driver releases out of your grip off the tee, holds that tight line down the fairway and makes the turn at the perfect moment. It's not a technical moment. It's something you just feel.
You know that feeling?
Reading Chapter 2 of "Love Wins" by Rob Bell, I had one of those moments, but it was the first time I can remember that was a spiritual tuning fork moment. To summarize, if you haven't read the book yet, Chapter 1 deals with the not-so-simple nature of salvation/faith. By the way, this was what I read last time that wouldn't allow me to continue reading. Chapter 1 asks a lot of questions. Chapter 2, on the other hand, begins answering them , starting with the nature of Heaven and how we relate to it.
Rather than paraphrasing, here is a trail of quotations that led to my moment...
"How we think about heaven, then, directly affects how we understand what we do with our days and energies now, in this age." ~p44
"Taking heaven seriously, then, means taking suffering seriously, now. Not because we've bought into the myth that we can create a utopia given enough time, technology, and good voting choices, but because we have great confidence that God has not abandoned human history and is actively at work within it, taking it somewhere." ~p45
"Jesus teaches us to pursue the life of heaven now and also then, anticipating the day when earth and heaven are one.
Honest business,
redemptive art,
honorable law,
sustainable living,
medicine,
education,
making a home,
tending a garden --
they're all sacred tasks to be done in partnership with God now, because they will all go on in the age to come. In heaven, on earth. Our eschatology shapes our ethics. Eschatology is about last things, ethics are about how you live." ~p46
"A proper view of heaven leads not to escape from the world, but to full engagement with it, all with the anticipation of a coming day when things are on earth as they currently are in heaven." ~p47
When I got to the words "They're all sacred tasks", I had to stop reading, because I started sobbing uncontrollably. It wasn't crying. It was deeper than that. It was like a tuning fork being struck in the deepest part of my spirit and resonating "I knew it. Thank God someone said it."
Rachel loves photography, not because of the prestige, but because of the deep belief that she is helping to shape this age (aion) and will change the world using that medium. For her, it is a sacred work with sacred purpose. Because of her perspective, she probably will change the world...
I love tending to people and anything that is alive. When I care for my wife, our dogs, the rose bushes and the lawn, there is a part of me that knows that I'm "about my Father's business." They're each a sacred work; which I sense that I'm partnering with Him every time I do them.
There is something intensely freeing about seeing seemingly secular, mundane, ordinary tasks as sacred tasks. It's a feeling and a heart understanding that I hope I never lose.
For those that can remember the movie Chariots of Fire, it's saying the same thing as what the character Eric Liddell is known for saying: "I believe God made me for a purpose, but He also made me fast. And when I run, I feel His pleasure..."
For all the skeptics, Rob Bell is not saying that Heaven doesn't exist. What he is saying is that Heaven is much more expansive than the current popular tradition of it, which is simply a place away from here that we'll eventually go if we're good enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)