Risk Aversion

This country was built on risk. The Discoverers risked sailing into the unknown, even against the superstitions of the day. The first settlers came to the new world without any guarantees of survival. The Founders risked their lives, their fortunes and honor to break away from England.
The pioneers pushed west, again without any guarantees of success or survival. The early industrialists built enormous companies and enormous wealth, mostly by risking everything to achieve their goal. America was built on risk. What happened? Playing it safe or pushing the risk off on others seems to be the name of the game. Hard earned rights are given up for "security."
We let injustice run rampant and refuse to act. We are afraid to speak out because "they" might get us. Heads of major companies push risk off on everyone else...the shareholders and the employees. Success or failure entails no risk for them.
Similiarly, the Church of Jesus Christ was built totally on risk. Jesus had no guarantee that he'd be resurrected. (let's not get theologically embroiled here). He risked it all. Was God's word true or not? The history of the church is full of examples of risk taking...following Him Who is the author and pioneer of our faith. But lately, it seems that His church, especially here in the West as become adverse to risk, sitting in it's buildings, cherishing its particular theology, enjoying rights and privileges of "membership" and not risking too much. Perhaps it is time for we in the church have "risk aversion" aversion therapy. Should we not, like our Savior, risk it all for the inbreaking Kingdom? After all, God is the ruler of creation for ever and ever.

We want change!! Do we, really?

During the last presidential campaign there was a lot of talk about how the American people want change and how a sizeable percentage of voters believed that the US was on the wrong path. OK, that's fine as far as it goes. But, it begs the question, "Change what?" Government, culture, self? What really is in need of change?
It seems to me that many folks look to President Obama as THE agent of change. But, as one foreign commentator said, 'America elected a President, not a magician.' Do we want change with all the pain and sacrifice that real change requires, or do we want 'no muss, no fuss' change where only the externals change?
If we want that kind of change, we can all just sit back and let the government impose "change" on the rest of us. But, if we want real, honest to god change, we, the people, must change first.
Are we up to the challenge? For real change to happen, we, the people have to put up or shut up.

THE CITY ON A HILL

Who said America is a 'city on a hill?" A lot of folks would hearken back to Ronald Reagan and his "shining city on a hill" speech in the 1980's. Others just might know that John Kennedy used it in a speech 1960. And still others might just know it originated with John Winthrop in 1630. And they would be correct. But how many people know that New England being a 'city on a hill' was conditional?


Now the onely way to avoyde this shipwracke and to provide for our posterity is to followe the Counsell of Micah, to doe Justly, to love mercy, to walke humbly with our God, for this end, wee must be knitt together in this worke as one man, wee must entertaine each other in brotherly Affeccion, wee must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities, wee must uphold a familiar Commerce together in all meekenes, gentlenes, patience and liberallity, wee must delight in eache other, make others Condicions our owne rejoyce together, mourne together, labour, and suffer together, allwayes haveing before our eyes our Commission and Community in the worke, our Community as members of the same body, soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us, as his owne people and will commaund a blessing upon us in all our wayes, soe that wee shall see much more of his wisdome power goodnes and truthe then formerly wee have beene acquainted with, wee shall finde that the God of Israell is among us, when tenn of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies, when hee shall make us a prayse and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantacions: the lord make it like that of New England: for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world, wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of god and all professours for Gods sake; wee shall shame the faces of many of gods worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into Cursses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whether wee are going: And to shutt upp this discourse with that exhortacion of Moses that faithfull servant of the Lord in his last farewell to Israell Deut. 30. Beloved there is now sett before us life, and good, deathe and evill in that wee are Commaunded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another to walke in his wayes and to keepe his Commaundements and his Ordinance, and his lawes, and the Articles of our Covenant with him that wee may live and be multiplyed, and that the Lord our God may blesse us in the land whether wee goe to possesse it: But if our heartes shall turne away soe that wee will not obey, but shall be seduced and worshipp other Gods our pleasures, and proffitts, and serve them, it is propounded unto us this day, wee shall surely perishe out of the good Land whether wee passe over this vast Sea to possesse it; Therefore lett us choose life, that wee, and our Seede, may live; by obeyeing his voyce, and cleaveing to him, for hee is our life, and our prosperity.

Seems pretty conditional to me. But consider the context it is used in today's political and religious discourse. Nary a mention of any conditions attached. It has moved from an idea of civic covenant to civic myth. Has America ever fulfilled the conditions? Probably not. But what if we tried?

ISLAND OR CONTINENT?

For weeks, a title of an old documentary series has been running through my mind. "HOW THEN SHALL WE LIVE?" narrated by Francis Schaeffer, a prominent Evangelical theologian of the last half of the 20th Century. I cannot remember much about the theme of the series, but the question has stuck with me.
I've been rereading some writings which I haven't looked at since my college days. One of these, I think, has some bearing on the question of the day.

"Meditation XVII" by John Donne (1572-1631)

No man is an island entire of itself: every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main:
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were;any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

So, the way I see it is that every person must answer the question, 'how then shall I live?' by deciding if he/she will live as an island or part of the larger community.

Pro-Life..Political Stance or Christian Conviction?

It's the silly season again. Election time. Negative ads. Sloganeering. Sound bites. Single issue voters. Fundraisers. Push-Pull polls. Pontificating pundits. Charges and counter charges. Yard signs. Position papers. Information glut. Misinformation glut. Fried brains.
One perennial issue, common to most elections, looms large again this year (at least in some sectors of the electorate.) Pro-life vs Pro-Choice.
I don't propose to elaborate on the relative merits of either position. Let's just say that I see some justification for both.
Me? I think I can say that I fall into the Pro-life camp. Now, this does not necessarily mean I am anti-abortion per se. I have been thinking about whether it is possible to be anti-abortion but not pro-life. I believe that it is possible, if one takes a pro-life political stance. In politics, stand alone issues abound, and this is just one of many. It is not really inconsistent to be politically opposed to abortion and support capital punishment and preemptive war. Politically, these are separate issues.
But, if one is pro-life from a Christian perspective, pro-life cannot be broken down into its respective parts. Life is more than a few cells inside a mother's womb or a full-term infant in the birth canal. Life in all its fullness is not merely a biological state of being. Life is the second greatest gift of our Creator, and from what I read in scripture, it is much more than biology. We were called to be stewards of this gift; to tend it, to protect it, to nurture it.
So a Christian is called to live a pro-life life. What does this life look like? What does it entail?
Good question. They way I see it, a Christian pro-lifer would work to eliminate the need for abortion;work to alleviate the situations which force women to make this choice. He/she would work to prevent state sanctioned killing and preemptive war. He/she would insist on quality pre- and post-natal care for mothers and their children. He/she would work to see that everyone had sufficient (and good) food to eat. He/she would help provide the means to provide clean water to those without. He/she would oppose policies that valued money over people. He/she would insist on quality education for all children. The list goes on and on. Are there any limits to this? I don't know. I haven't been able to find where the pro-life life stops.

In Harm's Way

We hear a lot these days about our troops defending our freedoms or protecting us from terrorism. In churches we pray for those "in harm's way." We argue about Iraq being a just war, an imperialist war, a war for oil, a war for freedom, a war to expand democracy, and so forth.
All this is fine, noble and intellectually stimulating. But all this talk covers up the true reality of military action. The raw truth is that we have sent our young men and women to kill, and to kill in our name. War is killing. It is not some abstract concept to be discussed dispassionately (or passionately for that matter). I pray that in the future, when we are considering military action, we first discuss whether the cause is worth asking our soldiers to kill or to be killed. This is the major question.

CAUGHT IN A BLUE'S BROTHERS TIME WARP

The other day I read a report of a speech by Sarah Palin in a church where she said, in effect, that the US invasion of Iraq was a mission for God. I wonder if she was wearing a black fedora and sunglasses when she said it. Then I got to wondering about what god was she talking about. Mars? Mithra? Zeus? Thor? Odin? The God of the Cross? The stern, exclusive god of the authoritarian right? The 'whatever' god of the secular left? Very confusing, that. And then, I got angry. What a surprise, eh?Now, as a Lutheran (not!), I know that Martin L. taught that we should be loyal to the prince (president) because he was appointed by God to rule over us. At least that is the general understanding of his position. But, the real question is, should we be blindly obedient? Should we ignore scripture (in context)? Should we ignore what God's will is for His creation...shalom? Should we, as followers of Jesus, validate everything the State does in our (His) name? Well, as a contrarian, I think not. Making war, for example. Is it right to make war in god's name on the barest pretext of self-defense? I guess it is if you stick to the OT & pick things out of context AND identify the State with Israel. But, what if you identify yourself as a citizen of God's kingdom and a recipient/bearer of His grace & mercy? Kind of puts a different light on things, doesn't it?Now to my rant.One of the ceremonies of validation that most churches engage in is Memorial day. I know I'm stepping on hallowed ground here, but I'm not one to shy away from controversy. In, and of itself, remembering those who died in service to their country is not a bad thing. It's how it's done that gets my dander up. It is so sanitary, so romantic, so freakin' unrealistic. We say things comforting like 'they died for their country' or prattle on about 'full measure of devotion.' But we deceive ourselves. Having 'been there, done that, got the T-shirt, belt buckle & ball cap' I have an entirely different image. I see a 1 year old baby with a chunk of steel in its head, a beautiful little girl whose body is covered with scars from burns and who has no legs, people so hungry that they sift through half burned feces to find undigested food, bodies rotting in the sun, a woman (an 'enemy') shot in the spleen whose blood drained into her chest cavity looking like she's 9 months pregnant. That's what I see..and I can tell you, that is the reality of war. I think of the time that a command detonated mine killed 2 young Americans, the same mine I had driven over shortly before. What is so sanitary, so romantic about that. I never met one soldier who's goal was to 'lay down his life for his country.' If I had, I'd sure have stayed away from him. I want to make this clear..soldier's lives are not 'laid down.' They are ripped from them in very horrifying ways. War is not a movie or a 19th century Currier & Ives lithograph. It is ugly. It has sights and sounds and smells that will stay with you for a lifetime. Now, is there a Christian message in Memorial day? Yes, I believe so. In war, men will put their lives in jeopardy for the buddies, their squat, their platoon, their team. They will, if necessary, die so that their buddies would live. Just as we should lay down our lives for others. Dying to self. Putting other's first.There is a closeness in combat. A love if you will. To this day, more than 35 years later, I feel closer to the men I served with, than to almost any person I know (exceptions being my wife and children). And, this too, is an analogy of Christian commmunity. So, in my humble (yeah, right) opinion, if we insist on continuing to celebrate Memorial Day, let's celebrate it in Christ's Name & not in the State's.