The Candidate Blues

It has been a while since I have posted on this blog.  The reason for that is two fold. First I am a full-time pastor. Second I have felt called to start a men’s retreat for churches in my denomination in my state. But I expect as time moves along I will post a little more.  Now on to today’s topic.

One statement I have heard frighteningly often is that after the candidates for each party are resolved, there will not be a candidate on the ballot that is supportable. The two choices will be so bad, that the best option is to not vote rather than to vote for one of the options.

I understand what the individuals mean, of course. I watched the first debate with surprise realizing that I could enthusiastically support several of the candidates. Mostly I am referring to those who are gone now.  As I see it, Donald Trump is quite likely to become a nominee, and if you have seen my previous posts you know that I see him as having all the greatest weaknesses that Obama had.

Despite this, I will vote for him in the final election if he becomes the candidate. It is not unusual that voting for me is an experience of choosing the lesser of two evils. Why should this year be any different?  But if I choose to not vote at all I would be making several mistakes. First I would be giving away a right that this country has fought for. I refuse to dishonor my dad who served a long career in the army, and every other person who has risked their life to earn me this right.  Second I would be handing the mantle of leadership to someone who would be far worse in my estimation.

I get it when I hear there is an anger in our country. I get it when I hear that people don’t believe their vote counts. I get it when people say that politicians are corrupt. But the answer to all of these things is in the political process. If we had been more faithful earlier on in the process, then the candidates would more accurately reflect our values.  Third I would be a part of moving this country into the apathy that empowers others to rule over us instead of being accountable to us.

Voting is both the foundation and the pinnacle of this political process. It is the pinnacle because voting is our greatest privilege, it is the foundation because not voting is the quickest route to destroying our country.

Advertisement

Chaplaincy and the Bible

I started a career in ministry 20-some-odd years ago. At the time, I considered a number of opportunities within the bigger arena of ministry.

It is possible to be a missionary, a pastor, a musician (I knew that one was out), an educator, or a number of other options, but one thing I did not consider was being a chaplain. The reason why I moved away from chaplaincy was the knowledge that in this form of ministry one is expected to minister to people with a generic identity. If the person was of a different theological perspective or ecclesiastical tradition than you, then play the role to meet their needs.

I don’t disparage the ministers who take on this task. Nor do I believe it a grievous wrong of them to behave differently than their core identity to meet the spiritual and emotional needs of others. But I also know I do not do ‘generic’ well. When a person asks me for my perspective, they get my perspective rather than an answer measured by what they need to hear.

I will strive to make that answer Biblical. I will try to be led by God. But ultimately I know that answer will come out of my personal relationship with God. Anything else would leave me feeling dishonest.

Chaplains recognize this tension, and know how to balance these two different concerns.

Recently I heard about a chaplain, a hero among chaplains, who was being chastised because he was asked what the Bible said on a topic and he answered. His answer was not so much an opinion, but a review of what the specific statements of Scripture on the topic in question. The Bible is not politically correct. He is being disciplined for accurately answering a question on what the Bible said. Or to put that another way, the Navy has decided that some parts of the Bible are not acceptable for use by their chaplains.

So we must have turned a corner, a horrible corner. The military is now officially censoring the parts of the Bible they do not like. Since that is the case, how long will it be before the government at large begins telling churches what parts of the Bible are no longer acceptable?

Freedom and Achievement

Last week there was a court decision in Washington, DC indicating federal Obama Care subsidies were illegal. A few hours later a different court in another location decided they were legal. I believe we are a long way from working out whether or not it is a feasible system.

This is likely to be the single most complicated issue of our time. Right now I don’t know what the long term effects of the law will be, or how much of it will remain on the books.

Undoubtedly, the law was intended to help a lot of people. The designers of the system believed America should be great enough to cover every individual with health insurance. This is an increasingly common way of looking at America. We should be great enough to provide every person with a better life in various ways. Health care, housing, retirement, livable wage, and more are under the control of the government in order to guarantee them to every individual, and prove we are a great nation.

Behind the law is a principle that is worth noting. America is attempting to prove it is great through the services provided for its citizens.

In the founding and history of this nation, though, we had a different perspective. America became the greatest country on earth by providing the people freedom. The people, through hard work, innovation and courage, used that freedom to provide for their own needs. They took responsibility for themselves and then they were motivated to go beyond the basics of life and reach higher.

Only with freedom are people motivated and capable of reaching for greater success. And it is this success of the hardworking individual which made America great.

 

Political Communication

Communication is at the heart of all politics. The communication of ideas, the communication of values, and the communication of policies. A good politician will not only be a skilled policy maker, but a great communicator.

But the art of communication is sometimes not just about conveying information. Sometimes it is also about what is purposefully not communicated, or maybe even purposefully miscommunicated. The manipulation of information is at the heart of all bad politics.

Several times lately, I have heard details of three cases where government was purposefully preventing communication. When Gibson Guitars was raided by homeland security, they immediately ordered the plant to shut off all of their surveillance equipment. Another case was when a hospital disagreed with a standing diagnosis of a child by another doctor, they not only succeeded in having the child removed from her parents, but also successfully asked the court to order the parents to break all contact with the family’s priest. Just today, I learned a basketball player who was also a paid social media publicist was in trouble for having tweeted a selfie he took with the president.

In all three cases I don’t see the point in the action taken. If the raid on Gibson Guitars was being done in a lawful way, why prevent the details from being recorded? How was ordering a couple parents to cease contact with a family priest in anyone’s best interest? If the president shows a lack of discretion in who he takes a selfie with, why would anyone expect the other party to take that responsibility for him?

Who controls the flow of information is always critical, and without solid communication there is no accountability. When a society loses the ability to access factual data about their government and its activities, they cannot expect to remain free.

St. Patrick’s Day Parade

The LGBT steamroller is aiming at the oldest and largest St. Patrick’s Day Parade this morning. The parade in question is the one in New York City, where the mayor of the city has chosen not to participate. They do so based on the idea that preventing the LGBT community from carrying signs and promoting themselves at the event is discriminatory. Looking at the Parades official website you can see all the groups planning to March this morning.

On the list are lots of pipe bands, lots of city and county governments, and lots of high school bands.  When I scanned the list I did not find any group supporting anything other than the Irish community, Catholicism, or the local government. Nobody on the list is there to promote themselves as in yay for black people or Jewish or Baptist or anything other than Irish Catholic.

Despite this, when the homosexual community is told they can’t do what no one else can do, sponsors pull out, the media gets behind it, and freedom is sent scurrying for cover.

Recently in Arizona a common sense law to try and protect religious freedom was attacked in a similar way. The failure to pass the law seems has many people believing the new state of the law is that right of refusal no longer exists in this country. You must serve whoever walks into your storefront and asks for service. It doesn’t matter if what they are asking you to do offends you or not.

So my suggestion to the organizers of the New York St Patrick’s Day Parade is to bring suit against the mayor. He has no right to turn you down, just because he is offended by your choices. You cannot turn away from serving people whose views differ from yours, that would be discrimination. So get a judge to force him to March.

I am pretty sure this course of action would fail. In our country you can force a Christian to participate in a homosexual event which is offensive to them, but you cannot force someone to participate in an Irish event. The homosexual community are quickly becoming a specially recognized group, with their rights being more protected than the rights of others.

Right of Refusal

The right of refusal is the legal ability to refuse to do something which has been requested of you. When a child is told by their parents to go to bed at their appointed bed time, they have no right of refusal. When a military man is commanded by a ranking officer to do his duty, he also has no right of refusal.

When a businessman is asked by a customer to do something he finds offensive, does he have a right of refusal? The most common assumption might be that, yes, he can refuse to do something he finds offensive. But this is not very clear in America today. 

Every person on the planet has a sense of right and wrong. I am not saying everyone’s opinions agree, but every person has an opinion. If a customer asks a shop owner to do something that violates their own personal moral code, whatever that may be, do they have the right of refusal?  Should they have the right of refusal?

Phrasing the question this way I assume most of you are saying, yes, they should. But understand this. When a person is refused there is someone on the other side of the counter who may have some question as to whether they are being treated fairly. Perhaps the shop owner is harboring some prejudice against the type of person that customer is. Maybe that customer is being discriminated against. It feels like the word maybe is killing us.

Let’s pick a few examples:

1. A man goes to a kosher Jewish deli, and asks them to put bacon on his sandwich.
2. A woman goes to a gay printer, and demands he prints fliers stating homosexuality is sin.
3. A baker is asked to bake a wedding cake which is all angel food, he thinks the idea is tacky.
4. An Islamic man is asked to make a custom ring which has a Star of David on it.
5. A Christian photographer is asked to shoot a gay wedding, even though he believes it defies the sanctity of marriage.

Do any of these business owners have the right of refusal?  Should they have the right?

Number three is different than the others because it is about personal taste, but the other four are about religious freedom. The question of the day is, when religious freedom encounters the right to be served, which gets the higher priority?

If you answer the same for all four, then congratulations you are consistent. If you said all of them have the right to refusal you chose religious freedom as the higher value. If you said none of them have the right of refusal, then you avoiding all possibility discrimination is more important than religious freedom.

But if you answered 1, 2, 4 and 5 inconsistently, then perhaps you are caught in the trap of discrimination. Namely that some groups deserve rights and privileges others do not have. What you chose reveals either, who you favor, who you disfavor or a combination of both.