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.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)