Sorry, going political just one more time . . .

For some incredibly sad reason, I cannot get the following out of my mind . . .

I was reading the spot-quotes under the pictures of some of our senators in USA Today, the topic was immigration legistlation. And there's H. Clinton stating that the current legislation was contradictory to all-things "Good Samaratin" and that it would "prevent Jesus" from doing His work if He were alive today.

I assume Ms. Clinton reads my blog so, "PLEASE DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT JESUS!! It's bizarre, creepy, stunning, and gross. The 'Jesus' of which you speak has never existed. If you are interested in the Jesus of the Bible, of historic Christianity, or even 'The Jesus Movement' (yikes!), please write or call someone. But stop tapping into the public idea(l) of Jesus in the Protestant Bible. It's such blatent pandering to the point of grotesque!"

----------------------------------

Not even "How Stuff Works" (.com) can make Evolution anything more than a theory - an unproved group of beliefs that can possibly explain things (albiet quite poorly according to the later half of the article).

See it at http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm

I would like to see the Supreme Court read this, or at least the attorney that are presenting.

"Fact" - it is impossible to know what happened before humans existed for such information is not recorded precluding us from either "knowing" or "repeating" the creation process. Every religion (including "science" as it exists today) has to trust some unprovable beliefs. Therefore, Origins is NOT an acceptable topic in a publically (federally) funded school system - except in a survey of religions course!!

Grrr.

Is perfection a narrow ideal?

Paul said, essentially, “I want to be able to be anything for anyone, so that I might most clearly explain to them (in life, action, words, etc.) God and His desires.” (1 Cor. 9).

In Christian history, this has been called “all things to all people.”  Certainly it is a good goal for an individual to have (as so stated by Paul).  But is it really a good goal for a group of people, as a group?  Is it really even possible?  Perhaps a person can be all things to 50% of people.  Taking a group of 10 would not yield 500% due to overlap (i.e. Tara and I might be all things to the same 40% while she “be” Canadian and I can “be” psychotic - those groups making up the remaining 10%).  So a conglomeration of 10 people might be all things to 75%.

But what about as a group?  Most “groups” have a name that tries to define what they ARE being, thereby also defining what they are NOT.  It is deliberately not all things to all people - hopefully all things to a specific group (e.g. Chess Club, Home Depot, etc.).

The local church in the U.S. is run by a leadership-driven model.  As such, “vision” and “direction” are usually given in ways that are as narrow as Chess Club and Home Depot.  Very seldom is a leader(ship)’s vision so broad as to be “all things to all people.”  Most churches I have been involved in, for example, have little-to-nothing to do with co-dependent, emotionally needy people.  Nor do they have much to do with fighting oppression.  Nor . . .  They are driven by a focused vision - focused in that it includes some things and excludes others.  Whether intentional or not, it is not all things to all people.

How much sense, then, does it make to ask a local church to be all things to all people?  Is the impact of a group not bound by the “focus” (narrowing of energy) of the vision?

I was talking with Eric Dalrymple 2 days ago and began to ponder what the point of a “vision” is.  How can a “vision” include everyone?  So my big question is, can a vision include any and everyone?

[To those who follow my saga, I have been bothered by the idea of having every Christian in the U.S. working their way toward some “common, ideal Christian.”  I believe that everyone’s uniqueness prevents this “common ideal.”  Perhaps I see the journey of this country needing to go from what currently is (one, ideal, local church) to unique, local churches -- hoping then to get local churches to go towards unique, local Christians.  That is, breaking the “monolithic mega-goal” at the group level and then break it at the individual level.  Maybe, then, we can stop wearing those W.W.J.D. bracelets and start living “What Did Jesus JUST NOW Tell Me To Do” necklaces (no way to get all those letters on one, plastic bracelet!).]

Don't blame post-modernity!

While I tend to like about 40% of what’s being said by the first-wave of postmodernity, I think I saw this wave as the undoing of what currently is.  I think I liked this idea.  Until I listened to the radio.

Now I think that the U.S. (in particular) is unraveling itself.  The U.S. is turning into a big but

- We value people living independently, in some kind of ‘democracy’ - BUT - we force people to have this independence! [Go Bush!]

- We value personal safety and security - BUT - we won’t let the safe-guardians do their job
    - we will sacrifice our very Life for privacy
    - we will blame the safe-guardians we handcuffed for their failure to protect

- We believe in the universal right of “freedom of expression” - BUT - we don’t think the anti-Muslim cartoons should print
   (did anyone else get a kick out watching/listening to a free press try to distance itself from this ‘free expression’!!??!)

- We believe that access to good, quality jobs is essential for life on this planet - BUT - we profile Middle East countries and prevent their success (UAE port purchase) [Go Ms. Clinton!]

- We have a non-negotiable Constitution - BUT - we can rewrite it to include Pornography as a “freedom of speech” (a political ideal), “separation of Church and State” to be a limit on the Church not the State (as intended), even the misinterpreted “separation” is misinterpreted to only apply to belief-systems that name their all-powerful Creator (how different is “God” than “Big Bang”?)

To quote the great Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon!”  Should God bless America as we ask, it will probably start with some housekeeping.