From CT's news roundup today:
• The biggest story in the world of pro-family politics was the surprising resignation of Rep. Mark Souder (R-Indiana), an evangelical and pro-family advocate. Souder had filmed a video on abstinence education policy, where he is interviewed by staff member Tracy Jackson, with whom he had an affair. The only mention of Souder's resignation among pro-family political activists came from Elijah Friedman who provides the "Millennial Perspective" for the AFA. "Sexual sin and other forms of sin can ruin a political career, but more importantly they can ruin a Christian's witness. That is a lesson that we all should take to heart," said Friedman.
This is unfortunate. I find the irony slightly funny, but on the other hand really extremely challenging. It would be easy to pile on the hypocrisy, but let's all be honest: we each have a temptation that knows just how to tweak us, those besetting sins, I think they used to be called.
Lord, remove the planks from my own eye, and keep me from sin. May I live in your grace daily!
Friday, May 21, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Faux Authenticity
The 3.2 readers have heard me pitch Roy Williams, aka The Wizard of Ads, before. Today's memo is another great one.
Fake Authenticity. It leads to some not-so-good places. Read the column here.
Fake Authenticity. It leads to some not-so-good places. Read the column here.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Great thoughts from Tim Keller on Out of Ur
http://www.outofur.com/archives/2010/04/tim_keller_on_j.html#comments
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Immigration Reform
I just finished looking at my friend Laura Cadena's pictures from the recent rally in downtown Dallas protesting the recent immigration laws in Arizona. There's been plenty of news coverage about the laws, and the Arizona governor has made a couple of needed changes, a step in the right direction at least. So my goal isn't to regurgitate the news -- there's plenty of places you can do that. My goal is to think "out loud" on my computer screen, and see what might come to the discussion as I do. Maybe nothing valuable, who knows. It's certainly not a polished piece of prose. But we'll see.
So in no particular order, some musings: first, my thoughts are mostly about responding to immigration in general, and undocumented immigrants in particular. Border security is important, and needs to be dealt with. But IMHO it's not the primary issue behind the AZ law, or behind most people's anti-immigrant stance. If the undocumented folks I have met are indicative of the group, then I believe the vast majority of undocumented people in the US pose zero security/safety risk. Immigration laws--and their enforcement--are also important issues, but again, not so much what I want to deal with here.
Second, I'll try to admit my biases. I think there are too many laws already, on virtually every issue, not just immigration. The problem is we don't enforce what we already have with any degree of consistency. If someone is a drug dealer or terrorist, changing immigration laws will not deter what they do. It's not like they think "Oh, now there's 2 laws against me, I guess I better stop." If someone is a drug dealer or a terrorist, they should go to jail, regardless of their country of origin or their citizenship.
I think that most undocumented persons in the US are not terrorists, drug-users or dealers, or any type of law-breaker, other than that they either came to or stayed in the US in violation of some immigration law. Again, if my experience is any indication, virtually all current undocumented people are hard-working, productive folks who are not trying to "game" the system and get free stuff. They are doing what they believe to be in the best interest of their children, and their children's children. They are working and paying taxes, albeit to SSN accounts that are not theirs, which means they will not draw social security themselves some day. They love this country and do not like being lawbreakers, but they see it as the lesser of two evils, so to speak.
I think that some immigration laws are unjust, and that followers of Jesus should be just as passionate about just immigration laws as they are about just marriage laws or just taxation.
I think that the word "amnesty" is being thrown around too much by anyone who disagrees with immigration reform that doesn't deport any and all current undocumented people. If I get stopped for speeding and ask for deferred adjudication, pay a sizable fine and keep my record clean for 90 days, and in doing so have my record not reflect the speeding ticket, I did not get amnesty. So too a solution that involves fines and law-abiding life for a period of time before being granted permanent legal status but does not include deportation is not amnesty.
I don't think that everyone who opposes dealing in this way with the current undocumented folks are racists. I know some are, but I also know that there are good and godly people who believe we do need to deport all people here illegally. This gives me pause and makes me want to be even more humble and careful in how I put forth my thoughts. I don't take it lightly when godly people disagree on an issue. I also think those who disagree should not take it lightly either.
I think if there is racism rearing it's ugly head (it's certainly not dead in the US, by any stretch of the imagination), it should not be accepted nor tolerated by any follower of Jesus. Period. We the church have been on the wrong side of that issue before, and should never be again.
I think that we don't pay enough attention to history. Winners of wars get to write the laws in our world, but I find this diametrically opposed to Jesus' admonition to the disciples that they should not be the kind of leaders who lord over people, like the world does, but they should put others first and be servants of all, with him as the example of what that looks like. This is a whole other blog topic I plan to write on, and probably one of the more controversial things I muse about, so I'll try to be brief. Did winning a war 170 years ago make us right in setting the borders as we did? Have we for 200 years now practiced "might makes right" as a nation in violation of Jesus' command?
Okay, I'm stopping now. I told you this was a bunch of random thoughts, but for now it's the best I have. I look forward to the dialogue, so please feel free to comment.
So in no particular order, some musings: first, my thoughts are mostly about responding to immigration in general, and undocumented immigrants in particular. Border security is important, and needs to be dealt with. But IMHO it's not the primary issue behind the AZ law, or behind most people's anti-immigrant stance. If the undocumented folks I have met are indicative of the group, then I believe the vast majority of undocumented people in the US pose zero security/safety risk. Immigration laws--and their enforcement--are also important issues, but again, not so much what I want to deal with here.
Second, I'll try to admit my biases. I think there are too many laws already, on virtually every issue, not just immigration. The problem is we don't enforce what we already have with any degree of consistency. If someone is a drug dealer or terrorist, changing immigration laws will not deter what they do. It's not like they think "Oh, now there's 2 laws against me, I guess I better stop." If someone is a drug dealer or a terrorist, they should go to jail, regardless of their country of origin or their citizenship.
I think that most undocumented persons in the US are not terrorists, drug-users or dealers, or any type of law-breaker, other than that they either came to or stayed in the US in violation of some immigration law. Again, if my experience is any indication, virtually all current undocumented people are hard-working, productive folks who are not trying to "game" the system and get free stuff. They are doing what they believe to be in the best interest of their children, and their children's children. They are working and paying taxes, albeit to SSN accounts that are not theirs, which means they will not draw social security themselves some day. They love this country and do not like being lawbreakers, but they see it as the lesser of two evils, so to speak.
I think that some immigration laws are unjust, and that followers of Jesus should be just as passionate about just immigration laws as they are about just marriage laws or just taxation.
I think that the word "amnesty" is being thrown around too much by anyone who disagrees with immigration reform that doesn't deport any and all current undocumented people. If I get stopped for speeding and ask for deferred adjudication, pay a sizable fine and keep my record clean for 90 days, and in doing so have my record not reflect the speeding ticket, I did not get amnesty. So too a solution that involves fines and law-abiding life for a period of time before being granted permanent legal status but does not include deportation is not amnesty.
I don't think that everyone who opposes dealing in this way with the current undocumented folks are racists. I know some are, but I also know that there are good and godly people who believe we do need to deport all people here illegally. This gives me pause and makes me want to be even more humble and careful in how I put forth my thoughts. I don't take it lightly when godly people disagree on an issue. I also think those who disagree should not take it lightly either.
I think if there is racism rearing it's ugly head (it's certainly not dead in the US, by any stretch of the imagination), it should not be accepted nor tolerated by any follower of Jesus. Period. We the church have been on the wrong side of that issue before, and should never be again.
I think that we don't pay enough attention to history. Winners of wars get to write the laws in our world, but I find this diametrically opposed to Jesus' admonition to the disciples that they should not be the kind of leaders who lord over people, like the world does, but they should put others first and be servants of all, with him as the example of what that looks like. This is a whole other blog topic I plan to write on, and probably one of the more controversial things I muse about, so I'll try to be brief. Did winning a war 170 years ago make us right in setting the borders as we did? Have we for 200 years now practiced "might makes right" as a nation in violation of Jesus' command?
Okay, I'm stopping now. I told you this was a bunch of random thoughts, but for now it's the best I have. I look forward to the dialogue, so please feel free to comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)