I was thinking more today about the blog I wrote last night...after I finally got my ability to think back.
I was asking myself some of those questions about relating the truth of Christ's character to my culture. That and the fact that I just read an awesome key note speech by Barak Obama and some thoughts by Hillary Clinton got me thinking about how that story of Jesus calling and believing in those whom society sees as failures affects my political leanings.
I was asking Matt if he had heard any of the good excuses about why Congress voted to not raise the minium wage but he hadn't. He suspected that it had to do with the fear that companies would outsource more jobs if they had to pay Americans more money. Makes sense.
So my question is why aren't we creating laws that limit companies ability to outsource jobs? Oh yeah, free market. I think this is a perfect example of how we as a nation have a serious tendency to favor the rich and powerful and ignore those who are "less" in the eyes of society. We pass laws that benefit corporations and hurt the poor. That's crappy policy making in my opinion. It seems to me that if our political leaders claim to speak for God (or be placed in their positions b/c of God's favor) then maybe they should be trying to stand for the things Jesus stood for. If politicians are going to play the faith card, they should be fighting to overcome poverty and injustice for the weak and powerless, not seeking more and more ways to bless the rich and powerful.
I read an article that referred to the Bush administration as having a reverse robin hood complex. That phrase has rolled around in my head a lot.
By the way, you should check out the key note speech by Barak Obama. Great, fair and honest speech! I'm hoping he might be a possible candidate for the next presidential election...
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=C&NewsID=5454
Friday, June 30, 2006
It's about Jesus
I can already tell this is going no where, no where that makes a lot of sense anyway. I've discovered in the last few days why I've been blessed/cursed? with a minor ability to draw. Hours and hours of my time have been spent drawing large mural-sized chili peppers with cute little smiley faces. That's so not the point of this but perhaps a disclaimer...
Matt's sermon on Sunday got me thinking a few things. By the way, he's a good speaker! I mean I'm glad we're not in some kind of talent competition b/c with his guitar/vocal/piano/bass skills and now his preaching skills, he's totally kicking my butt in that department.
Ok to my point. Or to more ramblings, I don't know...
I feel like for most of my life, I've missed the point. My brain can't even begin to wrap itself around the new things I'm seeing in life but I can only believe that this newness, this constant confusion over truth and God is good b/c maybe for once I'm catching the bigger picture.
Matt said in his sermon that the Bible isn't about me. Yeah. It's not a rule book or a text book or a step by step how to book. It's a passionate account of God's working in the world, in all of creation. It's not about me. It's about God.
This led me to thinking more about the story of Jesus calling his disciples to follow him. I wrote about it in another blog so I won't go into it all. Growing up the point of that story was how the disicples dropped everything they knew and followed Jesus so that must be a rule. I should drop everything and follow Jesus. Not a bad point. But I'm just not sure it is the point. Maybe the point is Jesus. His character. His life.
Who did he call? The people that society looked down on as failures. He called them and believed in them. From that we can take that Jesus calls us and believes in us no matter who we are and what we've done.
Cool.
But I think it's bigger than even that.
If we are called to be like Jesus, than we are called to believe in those whom the world has deemed hopeless, lost causes, failures. How is that real to us? How does that play out in our culture, in our lives? We need to ask ourselves those questions every time we encounter the life and character of Jesus in the Bible. We need to stop looking for rules, and start looking for Jesus.
Crap, I wanted to go on but now I'm just too tired. Oh well, you get it...
Matt's sermon on Sunday got me thinking a few things. By the way, he's a good speaker! I mean I'm glad we're not in some kind of talent competition b/c with his guitar/vocal/piano/bass skills and now his preaching skills, he's totally kicking my butt in that department.
Ok to my point. Or to more ramblings, I don't know...
I feel like for most of my life, I've missed the point. My brain can't even begin to wrap itself around the new things I'm seeing in life but I can only believe that this newness, this constant confusion over truth and God is good b/c maybe for once I'm catching the bigger picture.
Matt said in his sermon that the Bible isn't about me. Yeah. It's not a rule book or a text book or a step by step how to book. It's a passionate account of God's working in the world, in all of creation. It's not about me. It's about God.
This led me to thinking more about the story of Jesus calling his disciples to follow him. I wrote about it in another blog so I won't go into it all. Growing up the point of that story was how the disicples dropped everything they knew and followed Jesus so that must be a rule. I should drop everything and follow Jesus. Not a bad point. But I'm just not sure it is the point. Maybe the point is Jesus. His character. His life.
Who did he call? The people that society looked down on as failures. He called them and believed in them. From that we can take that Jesus calls us and believes in us no matter who we are and what we've done.
Cool.
But I think it's bigger than even that.
If we are called to be like Jesus, than we are called to believe in those whom the world has deemed hopeless, lost causes, failures. How is that real to us? How does that play out in our culture, in our lives? We need to ask ourselves those questions every time we encounter the life and character of Jesus in the Bible. We need to stop looking for rules, and start looking for Jesus.
Crap, I wanted to go on but now I'm just too tired. Oh well, you get it...
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Thoughts on the "Un-Churched"
I'm not usually very good at actually reading the magazines I get. They sit on my coffee table for weeks and then get thrown in a pile in my closet. I just happened to open my "Rev!" magazine today and came across an interesting article titled, "What Do the Unchurched Want?" I have always struggled with traditional ideas of evangelism and church growth and what not so I found some great thoughts I wanted to share....
When you work in a church there's a lot of talk about why people come, why the stay and why they don't stay. There's a lot of speculation about what draws people to connect to a certain church over another. A lot of people think it's the music. Others think it's a great sermon. Others think as long as people are friendly, they will come back. Well for a new book, the Barna Research Group interviewed thousands of "unchurched" people and found some interesting things about this. 1) People won't remember the topic, much less the key points of a sermon the first few times they visit. 2) People don't come to church for good music. If they want music, they'll turn on their ipod. What they are looking for is "something unique and of value that justifies changing their habits of avoiding church." They don't understand worship but they can experience the presence of God. And truly experiencing God's presence, even though they might not be able to describe it, will usually cause them to want more of it. The other thing is that people can sense when a church is truly a community and not just a group of people fulfilling their duty. "The unchurched want to experience love - from God and people - and if they feel that in the church environment, they'll return. If they don't sense it, they're history - probably forever...."
After that George Barna shares some things he would do to reach people outside the church. He talks about how people aren't very likely to "accept Christ" in a church service. That is something more that comes out of personal relationships. So one of the key things he would do is gear worship services exclusively to those who love Christ. If a person who doesn't typically attend church wanders in, it's better for them to be blown away by the presence of God, commitment of the people to that presence, the passionate worship taking place and the sincerity of the people regarding knowing God more deeply. The goal of worship is worship, not evangelism. (Great book on this topic: "Worship Evangelism.")
Another point that really hit home for me was this: "I'd shift the strategy from training people in the steps we think will lead people to Christ to empowering people to just be real." He goes on to talk about how nonbelievers are more impressed by a good friend who truly loves Jesus and lives like he/she does than a by a well-intentioned debator who wants to argue everyone into the kingdom. He suggests that we stop looking for ways to manipulate situations to interject God and Scripture (and invitations to church - my addition) into conversations to accomplish our goals. People know when we are real. This has by far been the hardest thing for me about being a part of a church. Always being told that I should be looking for ways to get people to church. I always feel like I'm supposed to have this ulterior motive to building friendships with people. Like I meet someone in the store and try to be nice to them but I better find a way to tell them about my church in the meantime. I'd rather just try to live like Jesus and love people the best I can and hope that God's Spirit takes care of the rest.
The last point he makes I thought was a great one since I'm a kid's pastor...He says "I'd focus the majority of our outreach resources on children, not adults." He talks about how the majority of people are converted even before reaching their teen years and that it is much more effective to reach kids and empower them to reach out to their families than it is to target the families.
Anyways, just some good thoughts...
When you work in a church there's a lot of talk about why people come, why the stay and why they don't stay. There's a lot of speculation about what draws people to connect to a certain church over another. A lot of people think it's the music. Others think it's a great sermon. Others think as long as people are friendly, they will come back. Well for a new book, the Barna Research Group interviewed thousands of "unchurched" people and found some interesting things about this. 1) People won't remember the topic, much less the key points of a sermon the first few times they visit. 2) People don't come to church for good music. If they want music, they'll turn on their ipod. What they are looking for is "something unique and of value that justifies changing their habits of avoiding church." They don't understand worship but they can experience the presence of God. And truly experiencing God's presence, even though they might not be able to describe it, will usually cause them to want more of it. The other thing is that people can sense when a church is truly a community and not just a group of people fulfilling their duty. "The unchurched want to experience love - from God and people - and if they feel that in the church environment, they'll return. If they don't sense it, they're history - probably forever...."
After that George Barna shares some things he would do to reach people outside the church. He talks about how people aren't very likely to "accept Christ" in a church service. That is something more that comes out of personal relationships. So one of the key things he would do is gear worship services exclusively to those who love Christ. If a person who doesn't typically attend church wanders in, it's better for them to be blown away by the presence of God, commitment of the people to that presence, the passionate worship taking place and the sincerity of the people regarding knowing God more deeply. The goal of worship is worship, not evangelism. (Great book on this topic: "Worship Evangelism.")
Another point that really hit home for me was this: "I'd shift the strategy from training people in the steps we think will lead people to Christ to empowering people to just be real." He goes on to talk about how nonbelievers are more impressed by a good friend who truly loves Jesus and lives like he/she does than a by a well-intentioned debator who wants to argue everyone into the kingdom. He suggests that we stop looking for ways to manipulate situations to interject God and Scripture (and invitations to church - my addition) into conversations to accomplish our goals. People know when we are real. This has by far been the hardest thing for me about being a part of a church. Always being told that I should be looking for ways to get people to church. I always feel like I'm supposed to have this ulterior motive to building friendships with people. Like I meet someone in the store and try to be nice to them but I better find a way to tell them about my church in the meantime. I'd rather just try to live like Jesus and love people the best I can and hope that God's Spirit takes care of the rest.
The last point he makes I thought was a great one since I'm a kid's pastor...He says "I'd focus the majority of our outreach resources on children, not adults." He talks about how the majority of people are converted even before reaching their teen years and that it is much more effective to reach kids and empower them to reach out to their families than it is to target the families.
Anyways, just some good thoughts...
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Don't Be Silent
So our President and Congress are up to no good. Bush is out to help his wealthy friends by gutting the estate tax. The divide between the richest and poorest in this country continues to widen while the government makes tax cuts in a time of war where budgets are already being cut in unacceptable places. We must make our voices heard. We must let our senators know that it is not ok with us to bless the rich and hurt the poor. The ever-increasing number of people living in poverty in this country is ridiculous while Bush makes every efforts to keep his rich buddies happy.
Below I have copied the text from an article written by Jim Wallis regarding the Estate Tax. You can better understand this tax by reading this article. Then go to http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/chn/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=288 to email your senators and let them know that this is unacceptable.
To protect the common good by Jim Wallis (http://www.sojo.net)
According to the biblical prophets, the greatest moral offense of poverty is the inequality that often lies behind it. When poverty abounds and the wealthy refuse to share their prosperity, God gets mad. If the congressional leadership has its way, American inequality is about to take a giant step forward with their efforts to destroy or gut the estate tax - an effective measure to combat inequality that has been working for 100 years.
Sometimes, there are public policy choices that simply make no moral sense. When a nation is at war, when deficits are rising at record rates, and when everyone knows that even more budget cuts are coming that will directly and negatively impact the nation's poorest families and children, you don't give more tax breaks to the super-rich. But that is exactly what the administration and the Republican leadership are strenuously trying to do. And with the latest Census Bureau income and poverty report showing that the poverty rate has gone up for the fourth straight year, the moral offense is compounded. There are 37 million Americans now living below the poverty line, 4 million more than in 2001. That includes 13 million children.
So why are George Bush, the Republican leadership, and some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing so hard to completely repeal or substantially gut the estate tax? It's been in place for nearly 100 years, is a substantial source of government revenue, and has been a major catalyst to charitable giving (including to faith-based organizations, something the administration claims to support). A repeal of the estate tax will cost an estimated 1 trillion dollars in federal revenue over the next 10 years (that's right, 1 trillion), substantially increase the deficit, dramatically diminish the resources available to help low-income families escape poverty, and further increase the pressure on the budget from the high cost of war. The only thing the repeal of the estate tax will accomplish is to make sure the wealthiest of Americans will bear no sacrifices during war-time belt tightening and tough decision making but, rather, will reap a windfall of benefit and be the only Americans who do.
Repeal supporters have cleverly changed the language of the debate by calling the estate tax "the death tax" and claiming that it mostly affects family farmers and small businesses who are unable to pass their farms and businesses along to their children. That is simply not true. To put it less delicately, they are lying to cover up the fact that the estate tax mostly affects their richest friends. The tax affects only the wealthiest half of 1 percent of Americans - estates with a net value of more than $2 million ($4 million for couples). That is exactly what this tax was supposed to do when it was introduced in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican, remember) to counter the European practice of passing on enormous wealth from generation to generation, thereby encouraging aristocracy. The more American idea was to ask those who have benefited enormously by accident of birth to contribute back to the common good and expand opportunity for all. Many wealthy people, such as Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett, agree and vigorously support the estate tax. But that American ideal is now under attack by a political leadership which seems anxious to restore an American aristocracy.
Those who want to retain the estate tax are willing to reform it to make sure that family farmers and small business people are not adversely affected and to ensure that the tax - let's call it a "common good tax" - is focused where it was intended, on those who have benefited so much from the opportunities of America. In a very real sense, the estate tax is a repayment for the public services and infrastructure that enable wealth creation - our transportation system of highways, bridges, and airports; our legal and educational systems; and many other investments we make in our society. It is only right that having benefited so much from the opportunities of America, the wealthiest should be obligated to return some of their good fortune to expand the opportunities of other Americans (maybe we should call the estate tax "the opportunity tax").
Is this the America that we want? One whose top policy priority is to make the rich richer while abandoning the most needed efforts to reduce poverty and protect the common good? That, in particular, was the original purpose of the estate tax, initiated by different kind of Republican president who was committed to the equality of opportunity for every American.
It is time for Democrats, moderate Republicans, and people of good social conscience across the county to draw a line in the sand against this administration's radical policies to redistribute wealth from the bottom and middle to the top of American society. It's time for a moral resistance to such unbalanced social policies and the place to begin is to defeat the dangerous and disingenuous effort to destroy the estate tax. In the name of social conscience, fiscal responsibility, equality of opportunity, protecting our communities, and the very idea of a "common good," it's time for the moral center of American public opinion to say "enough." The repeal of the estate tax would literally be an attack upon the common good and it must not succeed. Instead, we need policies that would create better and more balanced national priorities.
For even more information on this issue go to http://www.citizen.org/documents/EstateTaxFinal.pdf
Below I have copied the text from an article written by Jim Wallis regarding the Estate Tax. You can better understand this tax by reading this article. Then go to http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/chn/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=288 to email your senators and let them know that this is unacceptable.
To protect the common good by Jim Wallis (http://www.sojo.net)
According to the biblical prophets, the greatest moral offense of poverty is the inequality that often lies behind it. When poverty abounds and the wealthy refuse to share their prosperity, God gets mad. If the congressional leadership has its way, American inequality is about to take a giant step forward with their efforts to destroy or gut the estate tax - an effective measure to combat inequality that has been working for 100 years.
Sometimes, there are public policy choices that simply make no moral sense. When a nation is at war, when deficits are rising at record rates, and when everyone knows that even more budget cuts are coming that will directly and negatively impact the nation's poorest families and children, you don't give more tax breaks to the super-rich. But that is exactly what the administration and the Republican leadership are strenuously trying to do. And with the latest Census Bureau income and poverty report showing that the poverty rate has gone up for the fourth straight year, the moral offense is compounded. There are 37 million Americans now living below the poverty line, 4 million more than in 2001. That includes 13 million children.
So why are George Bush, the Republican leadership, and some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing so hard to completely repeal or substantially gut the estate tax? It's been in place for nearly 100 years, is a substantial source of government revenue, and has been a major catalyst to charitable giving (including to faith-based organizations, something the administration claims to support). A repeal of the estate tax will cost an estimated 1 trillion dollars in federal revenue over the next 10 years (that's right, 1 trillion), substantially increase the deficit, dramatically diminish the resources available to help low-income families escape poverty, and further increase the pressure on the budget from the high cost of war. The only thing the repeal of the estate tax will accomplish is to make sure the wealthiest of Americans will bear no sacrifices during war-time belt tightening and tough decision making but, rather, will reap a windfall of benefit and be the only Americans who do.
Repeal supporters have cleverly changed the language of the debate by calling the estate tax "the death tax" and claiming that it mostly affects family farmers and small businesses who are unable to pass their farms and businesses along to their children. That is simply not true. To put it less delicately, they are lying to cover up the fact that the estate tax mostly affects their richest friends. The tax affects only the wealthiest half of 1 percent of Americans - estates with a net value of more than $2 million ($4 million for couples). That is exactly what this tax was supposed to do when it was introduced in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican, remember) to counter the European practice of passing on enormous wealth from generation to generation, thereby encouraging aristocracy. The more American idea was to ask those who have benefited enormously by accident of birth to contribute back to the common good and expand opportunity for all. Many wealthy people, such as Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett, agree and vigorously support the estate tax. But that American ideal is now under attack by a political leadership which seems anxious to restore an American aristocracy.
Those who want to retain the estate tax are willing to reform it to make sure that family farmers and small business people are not adversely affected and to ensure that the tax - let's call it a "common good tax" - is focused where it was intended, on those who have benefited so much from the opportunities of America. In a very real sense, the estate tax is a repayment for the public services and infrastructure that enable wealth creation - our transportation system of highways, bridges, and airports; our legal and educational systems; and many other investments we make in our society. It is only right that having benefited so much from the opportunities of America, the wealthiest should be obligated to return some of their good fortune to expand the opportunities of other Americans (maybe we should call the estate tax "the opportunity tax").
Is this the America that we want? One whose top policy priority is to make the rich richer while abandoning the most needed efforts to reduce poverty and protect the common good? That, in particular, was the original purpose of the estate tax, initiated by different kind of Republican president who was committed to the equality of opportunity for every American.
It is time for Democrats, moderate Republicans, and people of good social conscience across the county to draw a line in the sand against this administration's radical policies to redistribute wealth from the bottom and middle to the top of American society. It's time for a moral resistance to such unbalanced social policies and the place to begin is to defeat the dangerous and disingenuous effort to destroy the estate tax. In the name of social conscience, fiscal responsibility, equality of opportunity, protecting our communities, and the very idea of a "common good," it's time for the moral center of American public opinion to say "enough." The repeal of the estate tax would literally be an attack upon the common good and it must not succeed. Instead, we need policies that would create better and more balanced national priorities.
For even more information on this issue go to http://www.citizen.org/documents/EstateTaxFinal.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)