Here are some shots.

We put it in the hallway, where it’s the first thing you see when you walk in the front door.

Pretty nice against the wall color.

The duck has become our farm’s logo. Simple. A tribute to our first animals: a batch of four little ducklings back in 2009. One of those ducks, Sassy the white and fawn Indian Runner, is still with us, running the show.

Here’s some detail.

What do you think?

Yesterday I put out a rant on the $130 Million building project for First Baptist Dallas. For whatever reason, that post exploded with readers today. No comments, though.

Earlier I went into their pressroom (on the web, not actually to some sort of pressroom they might have there in Dallas; though, with $130 Million spent on it, they probably have a press team) and dug into a PDF they have available regarding the new campus.

Toward the end of the document were these words that finally did me in:

The pedestal, which stands 68-feet high to the top of the cross, will flow water down to the pool and then to the edge, flowing over the text, “…whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” The Scripture verse taken from John 4:14 is inscribed on the edge of the reflecting pool with stainless-steel lettering. The water flow, as well as undulating titan jets, can be coordinated and programmed to a custom orchestral score of hymns and spiritual songs.

The point of all of this, to spend the money on all of that stuff, is to appear a certain way so that people will look in their direction. It is a show, a production. Regardless of however much good is going on inside–could be great ministry of the Scriptures, excellent counseling of hurting people, etc.–the money was shelled out for the external appearance, to make people look at them.

Why exactly? Why put on the show? Why make the production? Why take $130 Million and do all of this physical, material stuff? Because they want people to see the church and come inside.

That might sound good to some, except Jesus told his disciples to go to the people. He told them to wash feet. He told them to get to the prisons. He told them to go feed the masses. He told them to go preach the Good News. He did not tell them to fortify themselves, to build for themselves a glorious altar, and then tell the people to come inside. He did not tell the disciples to dance on the streets so that hurting people would be entranced and want to enjoy further entertainment like they would with a prostitute.

The $130 Million spent on this project gets even more daunting when you stop to consider what the church as it was could have done with just percentages of that.

What if they took $1 Million, less than 1% of that funding, and handed that over to whatever homeless outreach program already in their body?

What if they took $1 Million, less than 1% of that funding, and created a mortgage support program to help folks avoid or who are going through foreclosure? Or even to help people renovate their home so they could house some people?

What if they took $1 Million, less than 1% of that funding, and supported single mothers, single mothers-to-be, battered women, poor young couples, to help eliminate abortions in Dallas?

What if they took $1 Million, less than 1% of that funding, and created a meals for poor kids program so kids can get good meals every day of the week even if they don’t go to school that day?

That’s $4,000,000. That left $126,000,000 of the original number.

I have no idea if this church already has programs like that in place. If they did, couldn’t $1,000,000 for each of them help for quite a long time? Maybe bump the foreclosure one up to $10,000,000.

How much more could be done? How many could be served? The church is supposed to know the people of Dallas. They are supposed to know what the people of Dallas need. What they really need.

I can tell you they do not need another well dressed preacher telling them they need to come into this pristine glass building to get fed and fixed otherwise their troubles will continue.

Again, sorry for the continued rant. Instead of focusing simply on what this church chose to do, I turn to myself. Am I siding with Jesus? Am I utilizing my resources and talents to support the Kingdom of God and the mission of Jesus? Am I going into my community and loving them, take care of them, and engaging with them in such a way that Jesus is magnified?

The first post is Casting away the woman in adultery, discussing my take that the story of the woman caught in adultery found in John vii.53–viii.11 ought to be removed from the main reading of John’s Gospel, and at most referenced or considered in the footnotes for a historical purpose.

The second post is The NLT is not a scholarly translation? There I discuss a quote from a reformed apologist wherein he questioned the status of the NLT as a scholarly translation of the Scriptures.

While the Casting away post I don’t really need to update, I definitely need to do some updated discussion on Bible Translations in general, but the NLT in particular. There’s still a lot of interest in Bible translation and it’s a good topic to keep working through.

I did clean those posts up real quick. They had some formatting issues. Wrote them while using a different WordPress layout; this layout doesn’t handle certain elements the same way.

There has also been interest in the Carl Bogus discussion, 2nd Amendment stuff, and general Bible Translation issues. I have to update some things and start writing about others. I can’t cover it all or anything like that. But I can point folks to others who have wonderful discussions going on about them.

Many, many thanks to Chris Smith at ERB for the opportunity to engage this great text. I hope you take a few moments to look over the review and maybe even read the book yourself.

Looking back at it, I think there are a couple minor points I would adjust, not really change. Essentially I’d want to emphasize a couple of points. And I missed some grammatical goofs. Oops. But, overall, I think my excitement over the text is evident. Here’s the opening to the review.

Not many Americans would list the US among the world’s empires. Why should they? We declared independence from England, went to war to keep that independence, and established a government to avoid a monarchy. We’re a Republic, not an empire.

But that’s a limited understanding of the term empire. An empire is not necessarily just what you read about in the history books on Babylon, Persia, Rome, or China. Empire is more general, having to do with power, control, authority, monopolization of violence, marking out distinct classes of people, and of course, economics. So the term can be applied broadly, especially to large, active, and globally influential governments around the world. We can talk about the American empire, the English empire, Israeli empire; Iraqi,  Brazilian, Australian, European, Asian empire; whatever it may be.

Whether or not those empires are good or do good, are just or act in the interest of justice, is constantly up for discussion. While all earthly empires are man-made and therefore tied to the nature of fallen humanity (sinful), there are times we see them doing good, acting justly.  In the last few decades there has been an upswing in the number of conversations on the relationship of Christianity to Empire or global empires. There are many who want complete separation from the empires of the world, while others see the need for integration and involvement. Antonio Gonzalez’s recent work, God’s Reign and the End of Empires, is a very timely addition to the discussion. The focus of the book is clear:

When trusting in God’s creative activity in history and building up alternative communities from the grassroots, there is no need to submit to the tyranny of empire. Another world is possible and it begins now, wherever people change the nature of their social relationships and liberate themselves from oppression and violence. (17)

Read the rest of the review at ERB. Let me know what you think, either in the comments there or over here.

First: Christianity Today

Second: Church Executive

Just being honest.

I don’t care one tiny bit about where Tim Tebow does and does not speak.

But when I hear about a church spending $130 Million on a building campaign, I get pissed off. That is money stolen from poor and homeless people, from hungry children unable to eat day-to-day, from programs that would have helped people survive. That is money stolen opportunities to stop God knows how many abortions, not by political campaigns but by caring for the impoverished mothers-to-be so desperate that abortion was the only way.

And for what? Leather seats for the large dollar contributors while many families within the community have no furniture at all to sit or sleep on? Even get some designating seating, like box seats for folks who pay a little more? Numerous wide-screen TVs to read the songs lauding how much you love the Jesus who told you to give it all up and take care of the poor, the widows, the sick, and the imprisoned? A large fountain that pumps a massive number of gallons of water when people have no clean water to drink?

No. I don’t know this church or the people there. But I do know the attitude and mentality behind these massive building projects, and they disgust me. First Baptist Dallas is not the only one to have done such a thing. And it won’t be the last. Maybe in 10 or 20 years a church will engage in a project that will make us wonder how any church was able to build anything good with only $130 Million.

And it makes me angry.

“Oh, Eddie. You’re being judgmental.”

Well, yes. But not in the sense of me judging them self righteously or hypocritically (weren’t you just judging me, by the way). When fellow disciples of Jesus are committing acts that defame the very name and teachings of Jesus, Christians absolutely must speak up and call for repentance. If they want to defend their actions, then by all means.

You have to understand that this very mentality behind the audacious building projects is one that says material accumulation and success is a sign of God’s blessing. That was also the sentiment in the south among Christian slaveholders: the more successful they were, the more blessed they had been by God, which then justified continuing the practice of slavery. A vicious, evil circle.

Hopefully, one day I can articulate this better. But right now I’m angry. I’m angry that this is yet another big church spending a ton of money on material possessions and status, taking away incredibly valuable resources from organizations and people desperately needing them, all in the name of Jesus when in reality it spits in his face and drags his name through the dirt. I want to voice my position here more clearly, more calmly, but I just needed to digitally vent for now.

I hate that I don’t have the money to help people who could be helped by money. Money isn’t the answer to everything, and it doesn’t make the world rotate. But, for some, help is needed in a monetary, financial way. I don’t have that at my disposal. So, yes, I get ticked off when Christians who do have coffers of cash use it for building projects like this when there are friends who are being foreclosed on and will be homeless soon. Or when they write over a large check so First Baptist Dallas can have a 150 foot screen when a friend is in desperate need of special medical help that no insurance will take care of. Sure, I can help my friends eat because we have chickens and eggs we can help them with. But, what good is the chicken if they have no stove to cook it one because they couldn’t afford their gas or electric bill?

Again, sorry, I’m upset. If it was $100,000 for a new auditorium or building to take care of kids, whatever. That’s the individual church’s choice based on their needs within their communities. They decide. But this, $130 Million for what First Baptist Dallas is doing? Where exactly is Jesus in all of it?

I see money. I see a show. I see a sham.

I see myself needing to step up, step out, and sacrifice and invest more in my own community, among the people here. I see myself being humbled by the grace and teachings of Jesus to where I can and must shrug this off and live out the truth so that maybe others will see the truth as well, and we can get closer to this never happening again.

I love to support our local small businesses. Buying from local folks and sources is important to us. As much as we can, we want to support local people. Not just the local economy, but the people. If it’s food, you know where the food came from, what went into growing it and getting it ready for sale, and you promote that ideal.

But, there can be definite downsides. Buying local is not the same as buying quality. And by quality I mean ethically or naturally grown or produced; sustainability; a consciousness to take care of everyone involved in the process, from production to consumption to the environment.

I like sandwiches. When I am able, I like to check out the different local sandwich shops and delis around here. Some are better than others. Some are way more expensive than others. Sequoia Sandwich Company is amazing, with a pretty good median price range for the amount of food you get. Big Popy’s Deli is great, with a fun atmosphere, and an exquisite selection of un-crappified cherry sodas (good stuff, not the syrups and junk). They are very pricey, though, and the amount of food struggles to justify it.

But, back to the point of the post.

I recently checked out a local sandwich shop that very recently opened up two blocks away. They actually replaced a Quiznos that left. I heard good things about them. So I walked over, saw they had a Deep Pit Sandwich and wanted to give that a try. I had a choice of salsa or BBQ sauce, and I went with BBQ sauce. I also asked that it be toasted.

Done. Sandwich ordered. I walked over to to register, and I get to watch them make the sandwich. The young man who took my order grabbed what was the deep pit, wrapped in some sort of parchment paper. He tossed that into a microwave for 15 seconds. Then he walked over to the bre…

Wait. What? The microwave? Oh, that’s no good.

He got the bread ready with some sauce and cheese, grabbed the nuked meat, placed it on the bread,  then ran it through the toasting contraption. While waiting, the gentleman at the register grabbed my BBQ sauce. It looked pretty good; and not in a packet. I asked, “Say, is this a homemade sauce?” He told me, “No. It’s from … um … a Smart & Final brand.”

Dang.

Even though their prices were just a tad more than that of Subway or Quiznos, the quality just wasn’t there. I am willing to pay more for quality local food. But, it needs to be quality. If it costs $1-2 more for a sandwich that’s ultimately no different than that of Subway–poorly raised and processed chickens and cattle, GMO packed grains and produce, using a microwave as a heating element, and not even purchasing their produce or ingredients from local sources–from my perspective that is not supporting local businesses.

The food and restaurant industry as a whole is a complicated mess of inhumanity. There are gems out there, but they have to use street diligence and word of mouth promotions to fight against the billionaire marketing machines. I want to support and promote those local businesses that have quality products and services who are dwarfed and stepped on by the giants. I want them to have a chance.

Here are some pluot branches, looking very promising. This was an attempt at growing 3 trees in 1 hole. Went very well last year in their first year of growth. I’m expecting a fairly good output in this second year.

Here’s our peach tree in it’s infancy stage. Had four peaches last year. Good outlook in 2013.

This is our apricot tree. We actually got this one a little later than the others, but it had several nice apricots on it.

The nectarines should come out nicely.

The asian pear is a wild one we’ll have to keep an eye on. Last year (same as the others, it’s first year), it had tons of fruit growing. Tons! But they all fell. Good thing. Those branches would never have handled the weight. I think I tasted one of the bigger ones. Definitely a good tree to have.

Now for the nuts. No. Not me. The trees.

First up is the hazelnuts. As long as we can keep the geese away from the upper branches, we’ll be alright.

Hall’s Hardy almonds. These are beauties. We’re in the heart of almond country. I think they’ll be fine.

And here’s another almond variety, called Price.

This is a pecan tree we’ve actually had for a few years, but it’s starting to have some life.

We have some other trees growing, like the apples, pistachios, walnuts and an olive tree, but they aren’t showing as well as these are right now. They need a little more time. But, I’ll be sure to snap some photos of them as they grow.

Just so you don’t get any romantic ideas about farms, let’s be real. Here’s what happens to grapes when the aforementioned geese get to them:

Oh yeah. I’m sure they were tasty.

And, here’s a random shot of a bee trying to enjoy the strawberries.

Oh. I did get a better shot of the goose egg. Here’s a comparison. The egg on the left is an average sized blue Easter Egger contribution.

There you have it.

As winter is coming to an end, the weather starts to warm up here in California’s central valley. We haven’t had our last freeze yet, but the temps in general are going to go up. And that means so much.

One of our geese laid an egg. They don’t have a long egg laying period, and ours will only lay up to 40 per goose. We did confirm we do have a gander. So we will only have three laying geese.  The egg was massive, and as expected, she found a spot to somewhat bury it, trying to cover it up. Still found it, though.

Our chickens are starting to get in the laying mood. As we move out of the cold weather, more and more eggs are showing up. We are not going to treat our chickens poorly and force them to lay constantly like the big factory farms do. There, after a year of production, the hens are deemed useless. They lived a short, horrible life. We believe in treating God’s creatures with respect and dignity. We treat them well, they’ll treat us well. Even the ones we will process for meat will have lived a quality life, eating quality food.

We will be ordering some more ducks, and we will be receiving turkeys in April. The adventures, baby.

We have an opportunity to possibly pick up a goat who is pregnant. We’ll keep you posted on that front. I will have to figure out a good pen and housing situation, though.

And our trees. The hazelnuts, almonds, pecans, and walnuts all have those beautiful new buds creeping out all over the trees. The fruit trees are starting to show their new year’s life as well. Especially the pluots. This will be such a fun year watching these tees continue to grow. Plus, the chickens will appreciate the extra shade they’ll get.

There is also a lot going on behind the scenes. Not to sound like an Obama campaign poster but there is a lot of hope and change going on. I hope to have a new Schleitheim Farm website up and running which will cover the plans and opportunities. For now I don’t want to say too much and start making promises before I can assure you they will happen.

Stay tuned. More to come.

Most folks probably read that and said, “Amen,” right? Sounds like preacher talking. Which is true.

Some who tend to be a little more skeptical may be wondering about that statement. And exactly what does it have to do with the title of this post?

That statement comes to life a bit more when we find out who said it. And when he said it. And why he said it.

A preacher did say that; a preacher by the name of Joseph Wilson, father of late President Woodrow Wilson. (You’re probably tracking with me now.)

Joseph Wilson was a southern, Presbyterian preacher who was also proslavery. And when he said Christianity “made everything the best of its kind,” he very well included the institution of slavery.

For my potential Masters Thesis later next year (I like to get a head start on research papers), I’m studying up on pacifist or nonresistant Christian abolitionist groups not directly related to William Garrison. I am really interested in groups in the south before the Civil War. As a part of these studies I’ve been encountering proslavery Christians and engaging their mentality, message, and practice. I am not calling it a justification of slavery because I am not wholly convinced the Christian slaveholders in the south (at least the majority) would have thought of the connection of Christianity and slavery as something that needed to be justified. Slavery was a part of the American way, and the American way was imbued with Christianity.

“Antebellum evangelicals did not believe in biblical literalism as twenty-first century Americans understand it. The frequency of positive biblical references to slavery definitely bolstered southern confidence, and southern evangelicals had no doubts that the Bible supported their position and that abolitionism had been defeated. But the southern evangelicals expected the Bible to be in perfect harmony with beliefs about contemporary science, history, political freedom, economics, and even current events. Southerners did not simply stamp slavery ‘Bible approved.’ They articulated how slavery fit into the ‘genius of the American system,’ and how slavery was only right as part of that system.” (John Patrick Daly, When Slavery Was Called Freedom)

This sort of attitude reveals a more subtle racism. It’s definitely not as overt as some of our historic friends who said that whites were superior and blacks inferior, if they were people at all. No, I’m not talking about Hitler, but of people like Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln.

Subtle racism is very dangerous. When it hides, when it parades as something more comfortable, it takes control of a society. It tricks people, much like the statement from Joseph Wilson above can trick a reader or listener if they don’t have their eyes and ears open.

As of 2009, blacks (including hispanic blacks) made up less than 14% of the US population. But non-Hispanic blacks alone made up just under 40% of the prison population. (Here’s an excellent PDF for the numbers.)

How is that possible? Are blacks more prone to being criminals? Is there some black gene that causes a predisposition to crime and incarceration?

Be very careful how you answer those questions. That is exactly how powerful and dangerous subtle racism is. Racism is a grave evil from the dawn of humanity, and it does it’s best work when it seeps in as a philosophy, a mentality. Then when it has grabbed hold of enough minds and hearts it steps out of its shell and ravages a society.

Don’t be offended but fools believe slavery in the US ended with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. That is incredibly wrong. Slavery lived on for many decades afterwards, just taking on different shapes and forms. You’ll read or hear about de facto slavery. And this was especially the case with incarcerations and the prison system in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But, there are plenty who will argue (myself included) that this subtle, hidden form of slavery and racism lives on today and point right at the prison system as proof positive.

Subtle racism, which I’m certain goes by many names, is a pervasive problem that we Christians have to face and deal with. I know it’s going to keep popping up in my studies, but am hoping to find where these Quaker, Mennonite, and other groups were active, and providing an example of love and hope, and a voice of light in the darkness. I want to see what we can learn and implement within our own communities to help our society, the people in our society, have ears to hear and eyes to see, and to repent of this evil.

I was wondering if he was actually going to utter the words poor or poverty. I was hoping he would mention prisons and the prison system. (Good luck on that one.) And then I wanted to compare that to how often he mentions war and military activity.

For my purpose here, I’m only looking at when the President used the words themselves. While there are direct and indirect connections to these topics, right now I’m only looking at when he said the words poverty, poor, rich, wealthy, prison, war. Then, I wanted to look at Senator Marco Rubio’s response in the same way.

Note: if you have a reference to add, please do so in the comments. If you want to argue that Obama or Rubio mentioned one of these subjects indirectly, please do.

President Obama on Poverty:

Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. But today, fewer than 3 in 10 four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week for private preschool. And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives.

We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day’s work with honest wages. But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong. That’s why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, nineteen states have chosen to bump theirs even higher.

Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead.

Tonight, let’s also recognize that there are communities in this country where no matter how hard you work, it’s virtually impossible to get ahead. Factory towns decimated from years of plants packing up. Inescapable pockets of poverty, urban and rural, where young adults are still fighting for their first job. America is not a place where chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny. And that is why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them.

We also know that progress in the most impoverished parts of our world enriches us all. In many places, people live on little more than a dollar a day. So the United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades: by connecting more people to the global economy and empowering women; by giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve and helping communities to feed, power, and educate themselves; by saving the world’s children from preventable deaths; and by realizing the promise of an AIDS-free generation.

That’s four times he used either poor or poverty. But, I will take my own prerogative and add one more statement to this group. He didn’t mention poverty directly, but talked about the “wealthiest 1 percent,” which is part of a direct discussion on the poor.

Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion – mostly through spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

President Obama on Prisons:

I saw the power of hope last year in Rangoon – when Aung San Suu Kyi welcomed an American President into the home where she had been imprisoned for years; when thousands of Burmese lined the streets, waving American flags, including a man who said, “There is justice and law in the United States. I want our country to be like that.”

Only one instance and it did not refer to our prison system.

President Obama on War:

These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness.

After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home.

Tonight, we stand united in saluting the troops and civilians who sacrifice every day to protect us. Because of them, we can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan, and achieve our objective of defeating the core of al Qaeda. Already, we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women. This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead. Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue. And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.

We are negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counter-terrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates.

All this work depends on the courage and sacrifice of those who serve in dangerous places at great personal risk – our diplomats, our intelligence officers, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. As long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, we will do whatever we must to protect those who serve their country abroad, and we will maintain the best military in the world. We will invest in new capabilities, even as we reduce waste and wartime spending.

We will keep faith with our veterans – investing in world-class care, including mental health care, for our wounded warriors; supporting our military families; and giving our veterans the benefits, education, and job opportunities they have earned. And I want to thank my wife Michelle and Dr. Jill Biden for their continued dedication to serving our military families as well as they serve us.

But defending our freedom is not the job of our military alone.

Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.

Now, let’s look at the response from Senator Marco Rubio.

Senator Rubio on Poverty:

But his favorite attack of all is that those who don’t agree with him – they only care about rich people.

They’re immigrants, who came here because they were stuck in poverty in countries where the government dominated the economy.

So Mr. President, I don’t oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.

Senator Rubio on Prisons:

Not mentioned.

Senator Rubio on War:

And I am especially honored to be addressing our brave men and women serving in the armed forces and in diplomatic posts around the world.

And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts – cuts that were his idea in the first place.

We don’t have to raise taxes to avoid the President’s devastating cuts to our military.

Again, this was not meant to be an in depth exercise. I know Senator Rubio is the current darling of many Republicans, and there is talk at this stage of getting him into the White House. The same was said about Sarah Palin, and then she was cast aside.

While I have no vested interest in who is emperor, my interest is in their choice of language and whether or not they are going to make it harder for us Christians to care for the poor, the imprisoned, and those ravaged by war. For now, Mr. Rubio is being groomed to be king. How will this king-to-be treat the poor, treat those imprisoned, and treat our fellow humans around the globe?

]]> http://schleitheim.com/blog/2013/02/13/poverty-prisons-and-war-in-the-state-of-the-union/feed/ 0 http://schleitheim.com/blog/2013/02/12/dont-le-mis-the-point/ http://schleitheim.com/blog/2013/02/12/dont-le-mis-the-point/#comments Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:04:02 +0000 anabaptist http://schleitheim.com/?p=2640 We have not watched the latest movie rendition of Victor Hugo’s classic Les Miserables. I have seen comments from folks who have seen the film, and they are incredibly favorable. I think there were some negative views on Russell Crowe’s singing abilities, but not enough to make us think it’ll be a bad experience when we finally enjoy the film.

But one comment that kept creeping up was a depiction of the film as a great display of God’s grace. While that may be a great Christian theme, I sure hope that’s not what the film actually focuses on. And I wouldn’t want the classic Les Miserables to suffer a whitewashed fate at the hands of people unwilling to have eyes to see or ears to hear. More importantly, I wouldn’t want my fellow Christian brothers and sisters to only have a message of “God’s grace” as the takeaway from a story with so much more it’s trying to tell people.

In the preface to the copy of Hugo’s original story, I found these words:

So long as there shall exist, by virtue of law and custom, decrees of damnation pronounced by society, artificially creating hells amid the civilization of earth, and adding the element of human fate to divine destiny; so long as the three great problems of the century–the degradation of man through pauperism, the corruption of woman through hunger, the crippling of children through lack of light–are unsolved; so long as social asphyxia is possible in any part of the world;–in other words, and with a still wider significance, so long as ignorance and poverty exist on earth, books of the nature of Les Miserables cannot fail to be of use.

We have to remember the context of the film and story. At the time there was massive poverty and a great disparity between the poor and wealthy who were in control. There were these “three great problems”: a constructed pauperism, women in hunger, and children as outcasts. All three of which were portrayed in the musical as well as prior films (though not as much in the Liam Neeson edition). Not mention the problem of the prison system.

These grave problems were at the heart of Hugo’s story then. These same problems are on a much more global scale today; much of that has to do with our ability to know what’s going on around the world quite quickly. We are more informed about the problems around the globe. Hugo’s story now has no less relevance so long as we don’t domesticate it. As long as we watch or listen with open eyes and ears, we will see the struggles and the problems, and also the message of hope. Let’s avoid whitewashing the realities in our society, and heed to messages from stories such as these. That’s how we can break through and make real change happen in our communities.

On his campaign page (which is still where www.mattkrause.org redirects to) he lists several Issues. One of those issues is, lo and behold, the Second Amendment. Here’s how it reads:

2nd AMENDMENT: I believe the right for each individual Texan to keep and bear arms is an inalienable and undeniable right. A well-armed citizenry is a good check and balance against an overzealous government. The 2nd Amendment is the catalyst for a society of freedom and liberty.

For Representative Krause, the Second Amendment is obviously extremely important. Among his first bill filings was H.B. 938, the so-called “Come and Take It” Firearm Protection Bill. But I think we need to look at his position a little more intentionally.

I believe the right for each individual Texan to keep and bear arms is an inalienable and undeniable right.

While that may be a determination of man, is that something you find in Scripture? Is that something Jesus talked about? Did Paul communicate that somewhere? Peter? To call something inalienable and undeniable is to assign it some sort of divine stature. The words of man will pass away, but not the words of God. The only commands or rights that can be universal must come from God the Creator. Is the right to keep and bear arms one of those?

We Christians who happen to be American need to keep our focus on Jesus and his Kingdom. Our appeal should always be to the words, teaching, life, death, resurrection, and second coming of the Messiah, the King.

A well-armed citizenry is a good check and balance against an overzealous government.

This is one particular interpretation of the Second Amendment (known in some writings as the Insurrectionist Theory). It wasn’t the case in the late 18th Century, and it’s still not the case today. The point of the Second Amendment was to ensure southern slaveholding states could protect themselves, with an armed militia, against slave insurrections and rebellions.

To hold such a view today, particularly for the many Christians in America who do, is to live in a fear opposed to the teachings of Jesus. Is our safety and security in our own hands? Are we the ones who determine when we live, when we die, who God puts in our lives at certain times?

But, for the sake of argument, let’s for a minute take the angle that someone was able to present a case from the teachings of Jesus that justified, or even commanded, Christians bearings arms.

Aside from the un-Christian paranoia, the idea of the citizenry versus an overzealous government is unrealistic. Perhaps back in the late 1700s it would have been easier for a state militia to defend themselves against an overzealous federal government (though you’d have to consider what the government’s military/militia would have looked like). It would have been muskets and maybe canons (government) against muskets (state citizenry/militia). Today, even if you grant the citizenry a cache of assault weapons, the government will come with armored tanks, fighter planes, attack helicopters, and drones. Exactly what good will the hunting rifles be then? There’s no check and balance there.

Further, it assumes the point of owning the weapons is to use them against other humans. What happened to having the guns for hunting? Hunting humans now? In fact they would be other Americans. And these other Americans would be well trained. Not only that, they would be well meaning by some standards. They would love their country and be willing to defend it against those seeking to do it harm.

The 2nd Amendment is the catalyst for a society of freedom and liberty.

That is a tremendous amount of importance placed on the Second Amendment. Guns and weapons are the catalyst for freedom and liberty? Guns? The threat of fatality? Fear? Violence? That’s foundational to freedom and liberty? Not justice, or dissent, or responsibility, or opportunity, or health, or equality. No. Bloodshed.

Jesus was clear: “All who take hold of the sword will die by the sword” (Mt. xxvi.52). A society that is built on violence will die by violence.

While I disagree with Rep. Krause, his words are not an anomaly among Christians in America. Sadly enough. But who will respond? Who will enter the discussion? Who will present a positive case for Christians bearing arms using an exegetical examination of the Scriptures? Or is bearing arms against other fellow humans merely the idea of man?

And he lifted up his eyes to his disciples and said,

Blessed are the poor,
because yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are those who are hungry now,
because you will be satisfied.
Blessed are those who weep now,
because you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.
Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven.
For their fathers used to do the same things to the prophets.

But woe to you who are rich,
because you have received your comfort.
Woe to you who are satisfied now,
because you will be hungry.
Woe, you who laugh now,
because you will mourn and weep.
Woe whenever all people speak well of you,
for their fathers used to do the same things to the false prophets.

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from the one who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic also. Give to everyone who asks you, and from the one who takes away your things, do not ask for them back. And just as you want people to do to you do the same to them.

And if you love those who love you, what kind of credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them! And if you do good to those who do good to you, what kind of credit is that to you? Even the sinners do the same! And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive back, what kind of credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, so that they may get back an equal amount! But love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting back nothing, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful!

- Jesus (recorded in Luke vi.17-36)

Thank you, Jesus,
our great God come in the flesh,
taking on the humanity you gave me,
and making clear through your words and deeds,
through your commands and example,
what I am to do and say as your disciple.

May I love my enemies as you commanded.

May I take your words seriously as you desired.

May I bear the Good News today as you expected.

May I sacrifice my life for even the worst of terrorists as you did.

Amen.

Currently we have a Nook (1st generation, old school) as an actual e-reader and the Kindle app on the iPad. The Nook has helped me out a lot. And e-ink is a great reading medium for a digital device.

But, the Nook has serious limitations. Hopefully within the next couple of months I’ll be picking up the Kindle Paperwhite. It’ll be a better experience, and will help me read at night.

For those Real Books I can’t get, many have turned up as e-books or PDFs. Now I get to benefit from one of the well known college and grad school perks: library access.

Via the library e-book selection, I’ve been able to get my (digital) hands on some excellent texts that will fit right into my studies:

• The Black Abolitionist Papers, five volumes
• Antislavery Politics in Antebellum and Civil War America
• African Slavery in Latin America and the Caribbean
• The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader
• The Problem of Emancipation: the Caribbean Roots of the American Civil War
• Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico

There are more, but these are some exciting reads. I’m humbled by this opportunity in so many levels. I get to study more, learn more, get rid of some of my misguidedness and ignorance (there’s a lot there, so I don’t want to say all), and test my voice more in the community.

I just need to make sure my voice doesn’t get stuck in the ivory tower. If we can’t communicate information and truths, and engage with the people in our communities, then what’s the point? If all this learning isn’t meant for change, then it’s a vain pursuit.

Feel free to read it before you go through the rest of my piece here. However, what I’m writing now isn’t a review or thorough commentary of the article. I will only touch on a couple vital points.

At the very core of what Ms. Williams said, the fundamental element to her argument, is so clear: “Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal.”

The belief that all life is not equal is why she values one life over another. It’s why she can “put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time,” and can call the baby “a life worth sacrificing.” It’s why she and she alone becomes the final arbiter over who’s life is more valuable and therefore who is more worthy of living. She decides who gets to be sacrificed.

That belief circles back not just to self, but to mankind.

Humans, created by God, in God’s image, set the value of life. We, whether individually or within some sort of group, decide who’s life is more valuable than others.

This is purely human-centered, not God-centered. A human, a created being, gets to act like the Creator and decide what value another has. This is where hate lives. This is where racism thrives. This is where arrogance breeds offspring. This is where humans become gods. It is a characteristic of fallen humanity, embracing the results of the sin of Adam.

But this is not where it ends. Before the rest of my progressive, more pro-choice or pro-abortion favoring friends totally cast me aside, and before the applause from the conservative, more pro-life or anti-abortion favoring line of friends becomes too loud, we need to be clear. At no time before this paragraph did I mention abortion (please excuse the use of the word in citing the title of her article). While that was the focus of her piece, and we’ve been talking about a fetus and a baby, this fundamental ideology, that all life is not equal, applies in all cases discussing life.

If we support the death penalty, the execution of a life, we humans are assigning value to that life that is less than our own. If we go to war and seek to kill someone we consider a terrorist, as with Usama bin Laden, we are assigning a value to their life that is less than ours. When we purchase a gun to protect our family, when we have extra change but don’t give it to the homeless man who asked us for some, when we buy the cup of coffee knowing the oppression of a people involved in getting us that coffee, when we buy chocolates for our sweetheart knowing the chocolate was tainted by child slaves, we assign a value to those people that is at some level less than the value we give our own lives.

The very same attitude and ideology that can bring Ms. Williams to the place where she gets to decide who’s life is more valuable and who is worth sacrificing is the exact same attitude and ideology behind the decision to execute another man. Or to go after a terrorist out of vengeance and kill non-participating men, women, and children along the way. It’s the same attitude and ideology that allows us to kill an intruder or someone we consider a threat. It’s the same attitude and ideology behind our disdain for homeless people. It’s the same attitude and ideology underlying our turning away from the evils of slavery and oppression and support them with our appetites and pocketbooks . . . the only vote that makes a real difference.

So many of us who have fought for the so-called pro-life position have hypocritically shown an unequal level of concern and respect for the lives God created among those already born.

So many of us who have fought for the so-called pro-choice position have hypocritically shown an unequal level of concern and respect for the lives God created in the wombs of pregnant women.

We Christians should know better. We must know better. How are we to display the truth to the world when it’s filled to the core with a lie? How can we show them an alternative when we act like those embracing the fallen ways?

If our focus is the Kingdom of God and not the fleeting governmental and political systems created not by God but by fallen, sinful creatures, then we will see everyone not through our selfish, fallen eyes but through God’s perfect, Creative eyes. Then, instead of deciding who lives and who dies as if we created them in the first place, we can be obedient to our Lord, our Master, our Messiah, Jesus, and love everyone.

As a (wannabe) historian, I’ve often taken exception to that axiom. Not that I don’t believe it’s true. The evidence is substantial, especially when we expand “winners” to “powers that be.”

In Texas, that saying is quite literal. The Texas Board of Education–a.k.a. the powers that be–has a lot of power and control over what goes into the textbooks they choose to use. Authors and editors are quick to play along because there is big money involved. When Texas decides on a textbook, much of the rest of the country follows suit. Back in 2009/2010, the Board was perilously close to eliminating one Thurgood Marshall from the historical record. You know, the same Thurgood Marshall who argued for the plaintiffs in Brown vs. Board of Education to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson and tore apart the government’s foundation for racist segregation practices, and who a decade later would become the first black Supreme Court justice.

Oh. Why are we even talking about him? No real history there. No need to have kids waste their time with that sort of stuff; especially black kids.

Last I heard, Thurgood Marshall survived the textbook cuts. He still exists. Brown v. Board of Education still happened.

But, winners and the powers that be don’t limit themselves to just writing textbooks. They know they can push their authority and control a little further by defining the words we use. When George W. Bush was President, there was a major controversy over the US torturing prisoners. The administration redefined torture to justify the acts they committed on their prisoners during the war on terror. (You can read over the approved “interrogation techniques” as laid out by the administration itself and judge for yourself what was and was not torture.) Even today, with President Obama using drones to bomb targets in Pakistan, Yemen, and various other nations, his administration avoids his attacks being labeled as war crimes because they are not official wars. By controlling definitions, the powers that be ensure they will continue to be the winners.

And it’s a funny thing how the words revolution and rebellion are no exception.

. . . even as late as 1775 John Adams denied that the Continental Congress was engaging in rebellion. “[T]he people of this continent have the utmost abhorrence of treason and rebellion,” he said.. . . [The Founding Fathers] associated the word revolution, derived from astronomy, with ordered and prescribed movement and considered themselves engaged in an orderly and legally justified endeavor. (Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 395; article here)

Fascinating. Granted, the two terms are different, though at times wrongly interchanged. A revolution has to do with an overthrow or replacement of a government or political system. A rebellion is more the act of resistance or defiance to a government or ruler. Revolutions tend to be looked at favorably. Rebellions tend to have a negative vibe. Why is that exactly?

In general, the answer is far more simple than some make it out to be. A successful rebellion results in a revolution. If a group of rebels fails to achieve their goal, they are simply rebels. And because the revolution never happend, and there was no change in the powers, the powers brand the rebels treasonous, traitors, and work their magic to silence their dissent. But if the rebels are successful, they become revolutionaries. As the new powers, they decide who the revolutionaries are and who are, or were, the traitors.

If the outmanned, outclassed, and outgunned colonials would have failed against the British, their rebellion against the empire would have been just that: a squelched rebellion of a rabble group of traitors. Instead, because of the victory, we remember what that rabble did as the American Revolution, and those men as revolutionaries.

In the quote above, how John Adams characterized what the founders were doing–as revolution and not rebellion–falls in line with the winner’s attitude. As a leader, among the group of many leaders, he defined the parameters by which the history to come would be known. If they were merely rebels, then what they were doing and going to do to the British Empire was merely the misguided, whine-filled complaining of an angry band of subjects. But, as revolutionaries, they were the enlightened leaders, guiding their fellow oppressed peoples to liberty.

Makes a world of difference when you say it a certain way. Kind of like propaganda.

What’s significant about his article is just how insignificant it is. Or, they are. Or, whatever. Don’t take that the wrong way. By insignificant I do not mean he fails to make an argument that needs to be looked at. I do not mean what he says doesn’t deserve a response.

By insignificant I mean there is absolutely nothing new here. And that’s significant.

. . . he spent a semi-thorough 5 paragraphs on the Old Testament, but only three pithy sentences on the New Testament. How is that a Christian argument?

Where is the reflection that David has taken the time to review the extensive amount of counter arguments and interpretations of the passages and concepts he brought up. Where is the evidence that he’s had discussions about these points with Christians from pacifist or non-violent legacies? Are we really to believe the passages he focused on have never been discussed by non-violent folks?

I will grant this (though, let it be known, I am not saying David French is necessarily doing the same thing here): there are some, from the justified violence side of town, who teach that there a passages that pacifists avoid and don’t talk about. Apparently we are incapable of dealing with these texts that ultimately condemn our beliefs. Now, they do this either unknowingly (they have simply never encountered our writings or discussions of these passages), or knowingly, which means they are lying and misleading their congregation.

I know all too well one particular case, but cannot say if the pastor was misleading his audience knowingly or unknowingly. We know pastors can sometimes get talking and end up saying a little bit much, even if they don’t believe it. During a midweek Bible Study session he gave a teaching called, How Can Peace Loving Christians Carry Guns and Go To War?  (Sermon Audio link) During the teaching he denigrated and insulted pacifism and pacifists. And toward the end he said,

Let’s look at some New Testament passages that look favorably on the bearing of arms, and soldiering as such. Not a major push . . . It’s certainly not condemning in the sense that the pacifists say that it is. I don’t hear them ever talk about the verses that we’re going to look at, because they’re pretty convincing as far as I can tell.

He said it: “I don’t hear them ever talk about the verses that we’re going to look at.”

What were those passages? First, he talked about John the Baptists in Luke iii.14, when the Roman soldiers talk to him while he was baptizing at the Jordan. Second, Jesus telling his apostles to buy swords. And third, Paul talking about Christians using a soldier as a metaphor or illustration. (I guess a fourth, which he included as an aside, is “the argument from silence,” pointing out that no passage in all of Scripture explicitly tells us not to take up arms or go to war.)

Straight to the point: of course we talk about these passages. They’ve been written about and discussed from the pacifist perspective for centuries. Last year I even reviewed a book about Early Church discussions of war, military, self-defense, etc. (The Early Church on Killing) where these particular points were covered. I’m not the only pacifist in this town; did he not talk to anyone? Did he not do a Google search? Was Amazon.com no help at all?

Hopefully I didn’t digress too long there. But the point I’m making circles right back to what David French failed to do: if he tried to find pacifist discussions of those passages he mentioned, then at the very least he did not show it. But it’s sadly all too typical.

But there is a second major point that Mr. French lays out so clearly. In his original article, what he referenced in the second article as “the Christian argument for self defense,” he spent a semi-thorough 5 paragraphs on the Old Testament, but only three pithy sentences on the New Testament. How is that a Christian argument? Where is the reflection of the extensive teachings and example of Jesus? Where is exegesis of John’s Apocalypse? What happened to the words of Peter, James, Paul, Luke? He spent more time with John Locke than he did Jesus of Nazareth. How is that a Christian argument?

But that again is sadly typical. One of the most important aspects of Anabaptism that I quickly latched onto was that Jesus was the center of it all. Jesus is at the core of the faith, and his life, teachings, death, resurrection, ascension, and mission for the Church are the focus for Christians. We start with Jesus. We’re Christians; why would we start anywhere else?

Folks on the side of a justified (or even mandated) Christian use of violence need to engage the writings and teachings and sermons of pacifists. Otherwise they’ll be on the outskirts of relevance. Our relationship to violence is an incredibly important issue. And instead of a positive, reflective, exegetical reading and presentation of the teachings of Jesus and Scripture to understand that relationship to violence and how we as Christians must deal act in the world, folks like Mr. French simply present the same old monologue. We’re simply supposed to read it, understand that we were wrong, and make sure we’re ready to hurt somebody we consider a threat to our well being.

Don’t be ready to love, to speak truth, to speak and act like Jesus told us to. No. No. No. We need to put on our WWJLD? bracelets–What Would John Locke Do?–and feel justified when we “destroy” people.

I still have no idea what the guy from Lost has to do with any of this. I know he was a man of faith, but he really wasn’t a Christian on and off the island.

Will David pointed out a peculiar state bill that Arizona Republican Representatives have proposed. Instead of just summing it up, it’s short enough to simply post here and let you see for yourself (sorry, but the original is in all caps; politicians do like to yell). Here is HB 2467:

BEGINNING IN THE 2013‑2014 SCHOOL YEAR, IN ADDITION TO FULFILLING THE COURSE OF STUDY AND ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, BEFORE A PUPIL IS ALLOWED TO GRADUATE FROM A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN THIS STATE, THE PRINCIPAL OR HEAD TEACHER OF THE SCHOOL SHALL VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

I, _________, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THESE DUTIES; SO HELP ME GOD. 

Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Athiest, focused on the fact that this bill does not allow for any exemptions. Another bill, HB 2284, requires the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance for first through twelfth graders, however with the an exception:

AT THE REQUEST OF A PARENT, A PUPIL SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM THE REQUIREMENT

That’s not written into the language of HB 2467. Maybe it will be there later. Maybe they just forgot it.

For Mr. Mehta, his main concern is the “so help me god” clause (though he mentioned a possible update of the language so atheists could particip ate). For me, it’s the whole thing. This is indoctrination, pure and simple. That can’t even be argued. I remember my high school days, and it was during that second half of the Sophomore year, on through the Senior days where I saw the most growth in kids promoting anarchist ideals. Some of them were just lemmings of the anarchist bands and likely wouldn’t have survived real scrutiny, but others did know their stuff. Granted, Rage Against the Machine was big in the mid-to-late 90s. That helped.

There is bound to be a clash of ideologies. I guess that’s why they want to make sure to get them young. Is there some other reason for this proposal?

Those clear words in the oath ought to make any disciple of Jesus cringe. “Support and defend the Constitution,” which supported the institution of slavery? “I will bear true faith and allegiance to the [Constitution],” even though the Messiah, our King, the creator of all things, calls for those without limitation or hesitation. In fact, that last god clause assumes a relationship between god and this oath. That is very dangerous.

Why do we have to force our children to recite these oaths and pledges? Are we teaching them how to think or what to think? All it does is drive an even larger wedge between our kids and those of the rest of the world. It breeds a hatred for others, even at a subtle level, where they are the enemy and killing them, a threat to the Constitution, is not only justified, but necessary.

This goes against the very teachings of Jesus. But I imagine I will be among the minority of Christians in saying so.

Will it even pass? I doubt it. But, who knows. If it does, it will be a case where I will not advocate Christian parents in Arizona pulling their kids out and homeschooling. Instead I will support them and their child intentionally not reciting the pledge or the oath. Stand up to the control tactics. Stand up to the powers that be with the truth of Jesus and his message.

Let it come. Let it pass. Let’s see the people of God stand up.

The purpose of this survey is to get a glimpse at how Christians today view guns, gun ownership, and the possession and possible use of guns within a church gathering.

Whether you are part of a home church, a small church that meets at a park, a mega church in a 3,000 capacity auditorium, a high church atmosphere, or the back corner of a Starbucks, your input is valuable.

This is not about gun control. This is not about the legalities of gun ownership in America. The focus of this survey is the people making up the body of Christ and our relationship to guns, especially within the context of a church gathering (whether on Sunday mornings, or some night during the week).

A couple of notes. By ‘gun’ is meant a firearm that you think of as a gun (e.g. handgun, rifle, assault rifle, shotgun), and not a pellet gun, airsoft or bb guns, water pistols, Nerf guns, and things of that sort. Let’s not be silly. No; bazookas don’t count. Nor do Civil War era canons. That’s for a whole other survey where the first few questions check on your sanity.

This can be totally anonymous. Be honest and let’s see where this takes us.

Please pass along this survey to as many Christians as you know. The bigger the sampling, the better.

On 21 January 1525, a band of brothers and sisters, united in the living Christ, under persecution, signed their death warrants and forfeited their earthly lives for the sake of obedience and fealty to the one true King, Jesus. Knowing adult baptism was illegal, Conrad Grebel took water and baptized George Blaurock in the home of Felix Manz. The history of the Anabaptists in Switzerland and elsewhere was from that moment on a wildfire. This stuff was real now.

Felix Manz was martyred by drowning 2 years later. George Blaurock was burned at the stake in 1529. Conrad Grebel was captured and imprisoned in October 1525. He escaped the next March and died of the plague not long after. Michael Sattler, the man I (and others) most admire and who was unknowingly the reason I embraced the Anabaptist legacy, became an Anabaptist himself (along with his wife) in 1526. He was quickly thrust into the role as a leader of the young faith and in May 1527 was burned on the pyre for it.

The courage, the tenacity, the devotion to Jesus and to their communities as well as to the people of neighboring villages, is unquestioned and a true inspiration. They were imperfect people; I would have fit right in. But their love for the truth, for people, for justice, for the Word of God, still helps bring people and communities to their knees before the Lord.

That’s been a problem all along. Around this time of year there is the typical uproar over this consistent injustice. But, this is the NFL we’re talking about. In the grand scheme of things, does it matter that much? Folks are quick to raise cain over the injustice, which they should, but perhaps some perspective is necessary.

In the US, recent numbers show over 15% of the population lives in poverty. That number is a bit misleading though. That sure doesn’t mean only 15% of Americans are poor. The poverty level according to the government is based on a specific annual income ($22,314) for a specific family size (family of four). It doesn’t take into account debts or underemployment or the homeless. If you want to look at who is actually poor you will be looking at a higher number. My guess is right now closer to one third of this country is poor, especially when you add in the higher health insurance rates this year, along with the end of the income tax break.

But, in congress, how many poor people are sitting in those seats making the decisions that directly effect the poor in this country?

Not one.

0% of Senators, members of the House of Representatives, and the President and his immediate team are poor. A few of them may have come from a poor background as kids, but eventually, by them time they got into national politics, they were po’ no mo’. Being poor 20-30 years ago is nothing like being poor today.

There are more poor people today. There are more deeply poor people today, with a large number of children in those ranks. There are more rich people today. There are more incredibly rich people today. The gap between those two groups is larger and wider than ever. The burden of the poor is immensely larger than the burden of the rich.

Can the poor have true, effective representation as long as there are no poor people in seats of influence?

With the political and electoral system the way it is, can a poor person ever make it into the Senate or the House?

Who decided how the system would work in the first place?

I don’t know. Just some thoughts. The ramblings in my head.

A little unfortunate on the last name for authoring a scholarly piece. Now you get phrases like, “I read the Bogus article,” or, “I read that one. That was Bogus,” and they just don’t help the cause.

I wanted to read the original piece and see how much or how little I agree with Hartmann’s article (as well as others; a quick search will expose a lot more discussion about Dr. Bogus’s research). If true, this is extremely damning for the credibility of supporting the Second Amendment the way groups like the NRA do, or, the group I’m most interested in, conservative Christians who seem strongly passionate about the right to bear arms. If in fact the intention of the Second Amendment was for the preservation of slavery–established as an appeasement, or compromise, to the slave holding states–then those who believe we must read and understand the Constitution in the way the founders originally intended, which the same conservative Christians tend to do, have a dilemma on their hands. Can they continue to support the idea meant to preserve slavery? They can’t start saying, “That may be what it meant then, but with slavery out of the picture it means this to us,” without fundamentally changing how they read the Constitution. It would be very inconsistent. Or, perhaps they say, “That may have been the intention, but the literal wording isn’t focused on or limited to slavery.” While that might seem better, there’s still the problem of consistency. For the sake of freely owning guns, will they legitimize and support the preservation of such an evil institution?

Not long into reading I arrived at my first question. Bogus was discussing the Insurrectionist Theory of interpreting the Second Amendment. The Insurrectionist Theory is “the idea that the ultimate purpose of an armed citizenry is to be prepared to fight the government itself.” The people have the right to arm and defend themselves, especially in the event their government turns tyrannical. (This article might be helpful for a bit more info on this interpretation.) This interpretation of the Second Amendment has a fairly substantial following. Look at the Tea Party platform for example.

Here’s the paragraph from Dr. Bogus’s article that made me start asking questions:

Despite a surface allure, Halbrook paints a dismal picture. It is animated by a profound mistrust not only for government, but for constitutional democracy. For Halbrook, all of the constitutional mechanisms ensuring that government power will not be misused — the division of power between the federal and state governments, the separation of powers among the three branches of government, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, freedom of speech and the press, and a civilian Commander in Chief — are inadequate. He is afraid the constitutional structure will fail. When Halbrook speaks of an armed citizenry as necessary to “counter inroads on freedom by government” and “prevent tyranny and to overpower an abusive standing army,” he is arguing that the constitutionally elected government will itself become the enemy. In short, Halbrook believes both that the ultimate guarantee of freedom must come from the barrel of a gun and that the Founders believed this as well.

According to Dr. Bogus, Halbrook sees “an armed citizenry as necessary” for when “the constitutionally elected government” becomes the enemy.

There is a lot of fear and mistrust behind this theory. Is that why they buy, and even stockpile, guns? Out of a fear of the government one day storming in and attacking the people?

Where is the trust in the system of government they choose to be under? Where is the trust in the checks and balances in place? Isn’t their security why they voted for whoever they voted for? Would they ultimately stop buying or even get rid of their guns if, let’s say, the head of the NRA became President of the United States?

If they did not feel the threat or live in that fear,¹ would they still own the guns? What would be the need? Protection from other fellow citizens doing evil? Okay, but that has nothing to do with the threat of a tyrannical government. Hunting for food? Fine; but, again, that has nothing to do with the threat of a tyrannical government.

For someone to argue in favor of gun rights, but do so on the basis of this insurrectionist theory (to be ready for when the government becomes the enemy), they would have to live in a constant state of fear. They cannot trust the government no matter who is in power. Being suspicious of government (frankly I believe we all need to be suspicious of government and keep them honest) would be trumped by paranoia. Otherwise, the argument fails.

These are just some of the thoughts and themes that came up. There will surely be more to come.

¹ Jesus told us not to live in fear of those who can merely kill our bodies (Mt. x.28; Lk. xii.4-5).

The issues they talk about range from hell to Islam, environmentalism to immigration, politics to missions. And when I say the book is a conversation, I mean the format itself is an attempt to look like a conversation. Both Tony and Shane interact with the topic and one another. Occasionally they’ll ask one another questions.

If you’re familiar with Shane and his work, and with Tony and his work, I’m not sure there will be anything new or revelatory about what they are saying. If the ideas of Red Letter Christians or New Monasticism or the Irresistible Revolution are new to you, then this book could come in handy. It’s a collection and summation of some radical approaches to the topics they talk about. No particular conversation is very thorough, but I think helpful in getting the dialogue started with you and somebody else interested in the topic; e.g. homosexuality is a big one these days.

I am not convinced with the format. It didn’t make for smooth reading. But I am grateful that these discussions are gathered together. Even though I am very fond of both of these Christian minds, I don’t necessarily tow the line with them on all of these. And even when I do agree with them, I seem to take a different approach. In the “Dialogue on War and Violence,” Tony Campolo talked about the Sermon on the Mount as leading us to a commitment “to nonviolent resistance to evil[.] Note I didn’t say pacifism. I don’t think Jesus ever asks us to be passive…” (pg. 193) Except that’s not what pacifism means, and if we are presenting that to those who oppose or question pacifism then we start by failing.

But, overall, it’s a good book to have. Even if you disagree with the dialogue, I think it’s a good reference to go to if you want to see a different perspective or to get some idea on what some of the more radical, on the fringe sort of folks are saying.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

It’s essentially a biographical sketch, laying out the struggles and doubts he went through that challenged his faith, and the unexpected (to some) people who came into his life and helped him through. From Muslims in Albania during his early downward turn, to drunks in a bar, to a man seemingly insane–though, as you find out, perhaps not completely–Tony learned a lot about how and through whom God speaks.

While there is a lot I can relate to–not the specific experiences, but the struggles, doubts, questions, unhappiness with the standard answers and knee jerk reactions to your questions–I think the tale of Tony Kriz as written here is trying to be more radical than it actually is. That’s not to denigrate the author’s experiences; not at all. But, perhaps this book isn’t as big an influence as he may want it to be.

While okay, there are several books I would recommend first. Anne Jackson’s Permission to Speak Freely is in the same sort of genre, but is far more powerful and radical.