Author: Robert

So I’ve killed my first deer. Andy was nice enough to let me hunt on his property again this year and even loaned me some of his hunting wisdom by recommending a spot for me. Andy had seen this doe fawn hanging around one of his clearings. I saw her come into the clearing and watched her for about 40 minutes hoping to get a better shot. Ended up shooting her when she was 75 yards off because there was a lot of gun fire around and she was starting to get spooked. .

I can’t imagine handling, field dressing, and hanging by ones’ self some of the big deer I’ve seen friends shoot. Hauling, field dressing, and hanging this little thing was enough a challenge for me. Similar in some ways but obviously very different from field dressing the small game that I am used to dealing with.

My dad raised my brother and I dove hunting and fishing. We didn’t really deer hunt. I went deer hunting a few times in all my years before moving to Wisconsin. I’ve done lots of other hunting but for some reason I never really went deer hunting. I’m not sure why. It could have been that my dad, brother, and I preferred dove hunting. It could have been that deer hunting was slow while dove hunting was fast. It could have been that the deer in Alabama are usually about the size of large dogs and who wants to shoot a dog?. I’m not sure why. All I know is that it never really interested me so when Pam and I moved up to Wisconsin, a major deer hunting area, I was more interested in duck hunting than going after any of the monster white-tailed deer around here.

This changed two years ago when I hear a “To The Best of Out Knowledge” episode called “The Vanishing Present.” This episode interviewed UW-Madison environmental studies professor Donald Waller. He described beginning to hunt deer because of the environmental destruction he knew them to be responsible for.  I described this last year here. Unfortunately, I didn’t see any deer last year. Saturday is opening day of the 2012 gun deer season and I am once again hunting for Bambi’s mom (and Bambi too if possible).  The good news is that Andy, the owner of the land I am hunting on, has been seeing deer consistently by where I will be hunting. Here’s hoping I lower the deer population Saturday.

SIDE NOTE – While searching for Andy’s blog url I found this post concerning Andy. Turns out that at the time of the post Andy had the Wisconsin record for the Shortnose Gar. Not sure if he still has it but I think that is cool. He really is an incredible sportsman.

I’ve been reading exit polls from the Pew forum regrading Tuesday’s election. The exit polls concern how the religious voted. Here is a table of their data.

There is a great deal of interesting stuff but as a self-described evangelical I find the evangelical vote and the response of some ministers most worrisome. Almost 80% of evangelicals voted Republican while 20% voted Democratic. My worry is that I have read some ministers on both sides not debating the issues so much as belittling and insulting the other side.  Usually when I have read these comments and posts it has been made with what I would presume is a belief that every other evangelical was on the same side as that particular minister. Regardless of reaching those who not followers of Jesus (a possibility which I believe is harmed by some of these statements) I think it is not a wise move for an evangelical minister to talk in such a way that he/she basically calls 1 in 5 people who might consider coming to your church stupid, idiotic, or worse. I would same the same is just as true for more liberal evangelicals regarding the evangelical believers on the conservative side. Seems to me that the danger is just as great for Black Protestants where the ration is 1 in 20 voting Republican.

I don’t mean by this that pastors and churches shouldn’t deal with the issues at hand. As citizens we can and we should with the issues our nation faces. We should just do it in a manner that focuses on the issue rather than insults those with whom we disagree.

One of the many things I love about Tapestry is that we have a group of people who have a variety of political beliefs. I believe this is only possible if one either avoids political discussions OR loves the people you are having the discussion with more than you disagree with them. If you have ever been to Tapestry you know that we don’t avoid these discussions. Instead we disagree but do so in a massive amount of love. Thread Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Independents and others talk through the issues but do so with an amazing amount of love and respect for the ones with whom we disagree.

Yesterday I listened to this past week’s “This American Life” episode “Red State Blue State” and I would highly recommend listening to it today during all the chaos of the election. It and a post from a Facebook “friend” have me thinking a little (this is a friend from High School so the only reason the quotes are used is because I find the concept of Facebook friends rather disturbing). Here is the part of his post that I am of thinking of.

I think my friend’s point is quite good. We should talk and discuss issues that are important. I believe people should hold certain views passionately and work diligently to see their dreams for the betterment of our country accomplished. I think such things are beautiful and to use my friend’s phrase “SO COOL!” The problem is that while I think my friend’s point is good and right I also think he is wrong.

The reason I think he is wrong is because I actually don’t think we are seeing (especially in the “FB feeds” he is talking about) discussion. Instead we are seeing people typically shouting/talking AT each other rather than talking/shouting WITH each other. “WITH” is the word to use for discussions. You talk “with” someone. It involves two at the minimum and sometimes many more than two. “AT” is an entirely different story. You can talk “at” someone and they don’t really need to be involved. “AT” equals lectures. “AT” doesn’t involve an use of one’s ears. “AT” just requires a mouth. “AT” personifies a lot of what I think is  presently considered political “discussion.”

This doesn’t mean that we need to always agree with the other sides (please notice the plural) of the issues. There are things concerning which we should passionately disagree with each other. I ‘m not opposed to thinking the other person is wrong. Let’s face it. I’m a minister and I regularly talk with people who consider themselves atheists, agnostics, people from other faiths, and people who are practical atheists in the way they live their lives. If I don’t disagree with these friends and if I am not convinced that they should believe closer to what I believe then I am probably not worth the salt in my body. But if I don’t treat those with whom I disagree with the love and respect that is a part of the good news of the Kingdom of God then I nullify the very message I am trying to spread.

For example I agree less with the politics of my parents now than I did 20 years ago. They know this and I know this. They think I am wrong and … well it would be impolite and not very respectful for me to say I think my parents are wrong so I’ll just say that I think they have better ideas on other subjects. 🙂 Anyhow we get heated every now an then. Why? Well because I love and trust my parents to still love me after I am stupid and I think they feel the same about me. My dad and I don’t usually avoid political subjects (though my mom would probably prefer that we did). Sometimes those conversations go well and sometimes they don’t but they are almost always conversations and not lectures at each other. We are truly discussing what we believe not just shouting AT each other. My dad doesn’t disown me and I won’t forget that he is my dad. After all, just because you disagree with someone strongly doesn’t mean that they are the enemy, evil, or hate the U.S. of A. They just disagree with what you think is best.

So my hope for the country that I love is that we would have more passionate discussions concerning things that really matter to us. I pray that we learn to strongly disagree with one another and still talk and work with each other. Because right now our country’s elections remind me more of college football rivalries than they do a debate of differing philosophies of government.

Now go vote if you haven’t already … or if you are in Chicago or Louisiana maybe go vote a second and a third time (it’s a joke people).

SIDE NOTE – You really should go listen to the “This American Life” episode “Red State Blue State”. It is really good.

NOTE – This post is about politics but is not an attempt to convince you to vote for one candidate or another. Instead it concerns the intersection of orthodox Christian belief and political expediency. I feel very strongly that since my blog is on Tapestry’s website it is not appropriate for me to use it to convince someone to vote like I will be voting. This post is about the danger of Christian faith mixing with political power. The old saying is that when you mix religion and politics you get politics.

Every election is interesting but from a religious perspective this year’s presidential election is one of the most interesting ones of recent memory. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, for the first time in the history of the GOP the Republican ticket is without a protestant candidate, and second, it seems the majority of evangelicals are supporting a candidate in this election that most of them consider to be a member of a cult. Generally Evangelicals consider Mormonism to be a sect at best and a cult at worse, meaning that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is viewed as having theology that is heretical. I would agree with this belief. Mormon theology deviates from recognized orthodox belief.

Of course, this in no way means that a Christian shouldn’t vote for Governor Romney. I’ve discussed my view on Christians and politics earlier. I believe there are plenty of reasons that Christians can vote for either candidate and there are plenty of other policies over which Christians should hold each candidate’s “feet to the fire.” So I am not disturbed by Evangelical Christians voting for a Mormon. I am however disturbed by the fact that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (an stalwart Evangelical organization) has removed from its website the references concerning Mormonism being a cult.

This removal concerns me a great deal. To me it speaks of a greater concern for political expediency (a phrase I lifted from Tony Jones’ blog post on the subject) than for right belief (i.e. orthodoxy). An evangelistic organization’s main concern is supposed to be evangelism, the spreading of the good news and helping people to enter into that good news. In the past the BGEA thought Mormonism was a very poor imitation of the gospel of Jesus Christ that actually led people astray from the real gospel of Jesus (i.e. a cult). Now apparently because they are worried about an election they have changed their mind and all references to Mormonism being unorthodox have been removed from their website. That worries me. Our actions and desires should be shaped by our beliefs rather than us shaping our beliefs to justify whatever we want.

Thankfully this election is going to be finished soon. I desperately hope that Evangelicalism doesn’t sale its soul as a result of this election.