Category: random thoughts

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.

Clint Barron sent me a parody twitter feed that I think is hilarious. It is the feed of @KimKierkegaard which combines the profound thoughts of Søren Kierkegaard with the “profound” thoughts of Kim Kardashian. He is a sample of this awesomeness.

Eternally speaking, there is only one means and there is only one end: Private plane & Wendy's. This is how we do.

— Kim Kierkegaardashian (@KimKierkegaard) September 7, 2012

From this @KimKierkegaard’s feed I found the wonderfulness that is @Justin_Buber – a combination of the Martin Buber and Justin Bieber. Which leads to wonderful thoughts such as this:

Real faith means holding ourselves open to the mystery in every sphere of our life. Ooh pretty lady, don't you think it's crazy?

— Justin Buber (@Justin_Buber) August 17, 2012

So now I am considering doing my own parody twitter account. I’ll not go down the existential route but I am instead thinking two German loves. I am considering combining Dietrich Bonhoeffer and David Hasselhoff. He would be Dietrich Hasselhoeffer.

I have an acquaintance who regularly refers to himself as “a prophetic voice for [his] generation.” Though I don’t know him well I can say from my encounters with him that I believe him to be a nice enough guy who is trying to do his best so this post isn’t about dogging on him. However, if I were to have a conversation with him I would question his use of the word “prophetic” because from what I have seen, heard, and read in the vast majority of his “prophetic” statements. They are almost always about how those outside of the Church are screwing up. He very rarely comes down on the church’s failure and I’ve never heard him name his own church’s failures. If you read the Bible, especially the Old Testament, you will see that prophets preach to the outsiders every now and then. Jonah is a pretty good example of this. God sent Jonah to preach to the Ninevehvites who, at least as far Jonah seems to have been concerned, were about as diametrical opposite the people of God as one could get. Interestingly the prophet Jonah didn’t want to speak prophetically to the Ninevehvites but when he finally gave into God and did preach to them the people of Nineveh responded in repentance and turned from their sin.

But the prophets’ normal role in the Bible isn’t pointing out the sin of non-believers. Instead they usually focused on saying “thus saith the Lord” to the people of God.

The majority of the prophets preached prophetically to the people of God. They shouted to the people of God “You know God saved you in the past and you promised to live a certain way in response. Have you forgotten? Now change your ways.” There are tons of examples in the Bible but my personal favorite is Amos. He was probably a migrant worker (he is described as having two separate agricultural jobs), someone of little power and influence. Yet God used Him to speak prophetically to the powerful of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who called themselves His people. Amos called out the sins of other nations as well but he spent the vast majority of his preaching pointing out the sin of those who claimed to be God’s people. That’s my problem with my acquaintance’s “prophetic voice” he is always preaching in the church about how bad the rest of the world is screwing up.  Preaching to the church about how bad the world is just doesn’t seem very prophetic.

So here is my problem with how most Christians act in politics.

We tend to fight for one party to win by pointing out the failures of the other party and ignoring the failures of our own. This is true of everyone, Christian or not. I believe those of us who claim Jesus as our Lord have a much higher calling that none of the political parties follow very well. This means that while we can praise certain elements of a political party’s platform we still need to call for more. Christians within the Libertarian, Republican, Democratic, and other parties need to be be speaking prophetically to all the parties. These political parties should have a love/hate relationship with the church. They might love our votes but we should be acting in such a way that they feel like we are always asking for more changes in the areas of the party that don’t line up very well with Jesus.

To use poor political stereo types, those of us Christians who are Democrats should be constantly challenging the party on abortion and personal responsibility. Those of us Christians who are Republicans should be pushing the party concerning caring for the “least of these” (Matthew 25:31-46) and war. Those of us Christians who are Libertarian should push the party to care for people other than just ourselves. Finally, those of us who are independent in our mindset should be a royal pain in the butt to everyone. 🙂 I know these are very broad generalizations and in many ways inaccurate but hopefully they help to illustrate the point I am trying to make. We Christians need to speak prophetically to the political parties. Speaking in such a manner within the political process means we don’t let our own political parties “off the hook” just because we agree with them a little more than the other parties.

i started this blog nine years ago and for some reason when i started it i decided not to use caps other than for the LORD’s name. i didn’t really have a reason for it. i just thought it would be fun. it has driven some people i know and love crazy (e.g. my parents) but i continued. i did the same thing on facebook and twitter. these two social networks have been causing me problems over the past year because while i have enjoyed going “cap-less” i don’t like the way my statuses look when i place links in them or tag people (which often include caps which i can’t do anything about).  i’ve been frustrated by this for about a year now.

well last night while i was talking to some thread college students at IV’s monday night large group a couple of them told me out of the blue that they found my blog interesting but didn’t read it consistently because they found it difficult to read due to the lack of caps. that is a good enough reason for me to change.

The blog will now use capital letters in normal sentence structure. The world may never be the same.