That some day, this day, a man will fulfill his promise.
And that this country, our country, will let him.
Go Barack.
August 29, 2008
I have a dream, too...
That some day, this day, a man will fulfill his promise.
And that this country, our country, will let him.
Go Barack.
August 26, 2008
SOAP Notes
The latest SOAP Notes entry:
August 26, 2008
Jeremiah 50-51; 3 John 1
S: Jeremiah 50:3-5
"For a nation has come up against her out of the north; it will make her land an object of horror, and there will be no inhabitant in it. Both man and beast have wandered off, they have gone away! In those days and at that time," declares the LORD, "the sons of Israel will come, both they and the sons of Judah as well; they will go along weeping as they go, and it will be the LORD their God they will seek. They will ask for the way to Zion, turning their faces in its direction; they will come that they may join themselves to the LORD in an everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten.”
O: Although this particular verse discusses a particular time, wherein the sons of Israel will seek the Lord in despair and be given a great victory, I think it pretty well wraps up the sort of situation that, typically, helps Christians remember what (or rather Who) they’re about.
A: The funny, or tragic, thing about Christianity for many people, often including myself, is that it’s a religion of desperation. My faith is strongest when I’m in the direst straits, which isn’t saying much, because so often my faith is barely existent. For so many, the time that we come to the Lord, where we draw near to Him and whisper hymns of praise and love, are those times when we’re just looking for a deliverance or a miracle or a provision. We’re suck-ups and sycophants, suddenly playing Yes-Man in the hopes that we’ll get what we want out of the relationship through sheer flattery and lip service.
The stable Christians, the real devout ones, see this for what it is. So, of course, does Jesus. Although Jesus is always happy to have our attention, and always longs to have us focused on Him for our provision, how off-putting it must be to only see us when we want something out of Him. Whereas devout people of God make Him a part of their daily life and include Him in their ongoing struggle, the fledgling masses continue just to see Him as a shelter in a storm.
I know the difference between friends of commitment and friends of convenience. I have friends who are always there for me, who care about me when their life is good or bad (and, likewise, when mine is good or bad), and who aren’t there to use me. And I have “friends” who only show up when there’s something in it for them.
Worse, I’m that “friend” to some, and I know it going in.
In those times of “friend”ship, where I’m being used, I can’t wait for my “friend” to leave so I can get back to enjoying true friends. In those same times, where I’m the one glad-handing and siphoning from the goodwill of others, I know they’re just humoring me as long as is necessary to get me away.
And, so, the application: I need to be a friend to Jesus, and not just a “friend.” I need to spend time with Him everyday, whether I have an acute need to attend to or not. For although Jesus, miraculously, doesn’t lose patience with our failings, God forbid someday I should show up in a time of need and have Him say “get away from me, you parasite! You pay me lip service, but I know you don’t really care.” God forbid that moment come, because (of course) He’d be speaking the truth, and I’d have no defense. Thank God that moment won’t come, but it makes my heart sick to think of such a time…
P: Lord, thank you for my true friends, and for the model they are to me of what true friendship is. Help me, Lord, to understand that You, too, are a friend, and that You want a relationship with me. Not one of convenience, and not one born out of acute need. Help me to respect You enough to include You, and help me to be a true friend to You, just as You have always been a true friend to me. Amen.
August 26, 2008
Jeremiah 50-51; 3 John 1
S: Jeremiah 50:3-5
"For a nation has come up against her out of the north; it will make her land an object of horror, and there will be no inhabitant in it. Both man and beast have wandered off, they have gone away! In those days and at that time," declares the LORD, "the sons of Israel will come, both they and the sons of Judah as well; they will go along weeping as they go, and it will be the LORD their God they will seek. They will ask for the way to Zion, turning their faces in its direction; they will come that they may join themselves to the LORD in an everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten.”
O: Although this particular verse discusses a particular time, wherein the sons of Israel will seek the Lord in despair and be given a great victory, I think it pretty well wraps up the sort of situation that, typically, helps Christians remember what (or rather Who) they’re about.
A: The funny, or tragic, thing about Christianity for many people, often including myself, is that it’s a religion of desperation. My faith is strongest when I’m in the direst straits, which isn’t saying much, because so often my faith is barely existent. For so many, the time that we come to the Lord, where we draw near to Him and whisper hymns of praise and love, are those times when we’re just looking for a deliverance or a miracle or a provision. We’re suck-ups and sycophants, suddenly playing Yes-Man in the hopes that we’ll get what we want out of the relationship through sheer flattery and lip service.
The stable Christians, the real devout ones, see this for what it is. So, of course, does Jesus. Although Jesus is always happy to have our attention, and always longs to have us focused on Him for our provision, how off-putting it must be to only see us when we want something out of Him. Whereas devout people of God make Him a part of their daily life and include Him in their ongoing struggle, the fledgling masses continue just to see Him as a shelter in a storm.
I know the difference between friends of commitment and friends of convenience. I have friends who are always there for me, who care about me when their life is good or bad (and, likewise, when mine is good or bad), and who aren’t there to use me. And I have “friends” who only show up when there’s something in it for them.
Worse, I’m that “friend” to some, and I know it going in.
In those times of “friend”ship, where I’m being used, I can’t wait for my “friend” to leave so I can get back to enjoying true friends. In those same times, where I’m the one glad-handing and siphoning from the goodwill of others, I know they’re just humoring me as long as is necessary to get me away.
And, so, the application: I need to be a friend to Jesus, and not just a “friend.” I need to spend time with Him everyday, whether I have an acute need to attend to or not. For although Jesus, miraculously, doesn’t lose patience with our failings, God forbid someday I should show up in a time of need and have Him say “get away from me, you parasite! You pay me lip service, but I know you don’t really care.” God forbid that moment come, because (of course) He’d be speaking the truth, and I’d have no defense. Thank God that moment won’t come, but it makes my heart sick to think of such a time…
P: Lord, thank you for my true friends, and for the model they are to me of what true friendship is. Help me, Lord, to understand that You, too, are a friend, and that You want a relationship with me. Not one of convenience, and not one born out of acute need. Help me to respect You enough to include You, and help me to be a true friend to You, just as You have always been a true friend to me. Amen.
August 21, 2008
August 12, 2008
SOAP Notes
The latest SOAP Notes entry:
August 12, 2008
Jeremiah 10-12; John 14
S: Jeremiah 10:3-8; 12-14
For the customs of the peoples are delusion; Because it is wood cut from the forest, the work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. "They decorate it with silver and with gold; They fasten it with nails and with hammers So that it will not totter. "Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field are they, And they cannot speak; They must be carried, Because they cannot walk! Do not fear them, For they can do no harm, Nor can they do any good." There is none like You, O LORD; You are great, and great is Your name in might. Who would not fear You, O King of the nations? Indeed it is Your due! For among all the wise men of the nations And in all their kingdoms, There is none like You. But they are altogether stupid and foolish In their discipline of delusion--their idol is wood!
It is He who made the earth by His power, Who stablished the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain, And brings out the wind from His storehouses. Every man is stupid, devoid of knowledge; Every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; For his molten images are deceitful, And there is no breath in them.
O: This section laments the people who worship false gods over the True God, but further highlights the tendency of man to put the cart before the horse, in worshipping the created over the Creator to their detriment.
A: My SOAP times are constantly annoying to me, in the sense that what I see in these verses is always a rather simple and obvious shortcoming in myself. And today I see the rather straight-forward issue of priorities. Worship, in so many ways, is a concept in the Bible that simply points out prioritization. Worship = attention = time = devotion = investment, so that when there’s discussion of worship, what it really highlights is that to which we are devoting and investing our time and attention, which in turn illustrates how we rank things in our lives.
Another annoying thing in my SOAP times is the realization that there are so few of them. It seems that my Bible reading almost exclusively consists of these SOAP periods, so as I look back and see I haven’t done a SOAP in months, it highlights just how low this exercise (Bible reading) is in my prioritization scheme.
Thinking over my last month, what has occupied my time? Noble things, like my wife and daughter and moving and work. Spending time with friends, doing favors for people here and there, reassuring clients who need someone to tell them things will be okay. But, just as often (or more often) I’m doing useless, inane, foolish, trifling things. Facebook MobWars or TV or beer drinking or reading magazines or telling stupid jokes or whatever. And both of these lists, the noble and ignoble, consist of things that are all priorities that should fall behind my God. They are all benefits that flow from him, so to worship them, or devote time to them, or pay attention to them, or invest myself in them to the exclusion of their source is ridiculous, short-sighted and wrong.
What to do? Well, the first step in solving any problem is recognizing it. The next step is addressing it. I clearly need to devote time that goes to other things (particularly the useless ones) to my God, and I need to place the noble things in their proper perspective, as things secondary or tertiary or whatever to the source from whence they came. And while appreciating them and servicing them is well and good, to look at them as being primary in importance is wrong, and I must catch myself when that occurs. To fail to address this is to invite ruin, and also to risk losing the benefits of the Creator by excluding Him from my life.
P: Lord, please help me to develop a proper value system in my life, and help me to establish priorities that reflect the correct weight of the things that I devote and invest my time and attention into. Help me to appreciate what You’ve provided without letting those things rule me, and help me to be mindful of their Provenance and to focus my attention appropriately toward You. Amen.
August 12, 2008
Jeremiah 10-12; John 14
S: Jeremiah 10:3-8; 12-14
For the customs of the peoples are delusion; Because it is wood cut from the forest, the work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. "They decorate it with silver and with gold; They fasten it with nails and with hammers So that it will not totter. "Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field are they, And they cannot speak; They must be carried, Because they cannot walk! Do not fear them, For they can do no harm, Nor can they do any good." There is none like You, O LORD; You are great, and great is Your name in might. Who would not fear You, O King of the nations? Indeed it is Your due! For among all the wise men of the nations And in all their kingdoms, There is none like You. But they are altogether stupid and foolish In their discipline of delusion--their idol is wood!
It is He who made the earth by His power, Who stablished the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain, And brings out the wind from His storehouses. Every man is stupid, devoid of knowledge; Every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; For his molten images are deceitful, And there is no breath in them.
O: This section laments the people who worship false gods over the True God, but further highlights the tendency of man to put the cart before the horse, in worshipping the created over the Creator to their detriment.
A: My SOAP times are constantly annoying to me, in the sense that what I see in these verses is always a rather simple and obvious shortcoming in myself. And today I see the rather straight-forward issue of priorities. Worship, in so many ways, is a concept in the Bible that simply points out prioritization. Worship = attention = time = devotion = investment, so that when there’s discussion of worship, what it really highlights is that to which we are devoting and investing our time and attention, which in turn illustrates how we rank things in our lives.
Another annoying thing in my SOAP times is the realization that there are so few of them. It seems that my Bible reading almost exclusively consists of these SOAP periods, so as I look back and see I haven’t done a SOAP in months, it highlights just how low this exercise (Bible reading) is in my prioritization scheme.
Thinking over my last month, what has occupied my time? Noble things, like my wife and daughter and moving and work. Spending time with friends, doing favors for people here and there, reassuring clients who need someone to tell them things will be okay. But, just as often (or more often) I’m doing useless, inane, foolish, trifling things. Facebook MobWars or TV or beer drinking or reading magazines or telling stupid jokes or whatever. And both of these lists, the noble and ignoble, consist of things that are all priorities that should fall behind my God. They are all benefits that flow from him, so to worship them, or devote time to them, or pay attention to them, or invest myself in them to the exclusion of their source is ridiculous, short-sighted and wrong.
What to do? Well, the first step in solving any problem is recognizing it. The next step is addressing it. I clearly need to devote time that goes to other things (particularly the useless ones) to my God, and I need to place the noble things in their proper perspective, as things secondary or tertiary or whatever to the source from whence they came. And while appreciating them and servicing them is well and good, to look at them as being primary in importance is wrong, and I must catch myself when that occurs. To fail to address this is to invite ruin, and also to risk losing the benefits of the Creator by excluding Him from my life.
P: Lord, please help me to develop a proper value system in my life, and help me to establish priorities that reflect the correct weight of the things that I devote and invest my time and attention into. Help me to appreciate what You’ve provided without letting those things rule me, and help me to be mindful of their Provenance and to focus my attention appropriately toward You. Amen.
July 02, 2008
June 26, 2008
Should We Kill the Kiddie Rapists?
Exciting night in Portland. NBA Draft, lots of news on the Blazers front.
On most NBA Draft nights (like last year), I'd be going crazy with excitement over the team and what's going on. It's a time of great promise and great hope.
But, instead, my mind is stuck on something it was seizing upon this morning: the recent US Supreme Court decision ruling that capital punishment shouldn't apply to people who rape children.
Background: as most of my actual readers know, I'm a lawyer. I'm also a person, so any legal insights I have are tempered by my human frailties (emotion and irrational, illogical thinking, for instance). Further, I've read a nutshell summary of the opinion created by a law student at Willamette, so don't think for a minute that I've read the actual opinion, the facts of this particular case, or the legal reasoning involved as applied to the case.
What I know: a guy raped his step-daughter, who was under the age of 12. He may or may not have done it. He was convicted and, under state law, sentenced to death. The Supreme Court essentially found that killing a person for rape was disproportionate to the crime and created too many problems to allow it to stand.
The case is a messy one to serve as a foundation for my premise, even with the scant amount of knowledge that I have. The premise being that few crimes are more deserving of the death penalty than raping a child. So, I discuss generally, and not in the particulars of this case.
I went into my office today and decided to launch the rare idealogical bomb to see what happened. I commonly rest on my philosophical laurels and lead a live-and-let-live sort of existence. Everyone's free to think or feel what they want, provided it doesn't create a mess for everyone else at work, because I'm not to judge them and I expect them not to judge me on the basis of our variant opinions, ideals, or beliefs.
But I was so beside myself with consternation at the Court's ruling that I decided to share it with my peers.
One was predictably on my side, as she always is in any real debate. Another was, again predictably, contrary to me, as we tend to have a different idealogical bent, despite being very close friends who respect and trust eachother inherently. The last, a college student interning with us, was a wild card, as she's only been around for a week.
I forwarded my position: the Supreme Court called it wrong, and child rapists should be fair game in a society that condones capital punishment. My agreeable peer agreed, as I previously alluded. My disagreeable peer gave good reasons for his disagreement.
His primary thesis is that capital punishment is wrong, that it constitutes us playing god (despite he, himself, being somewhat agnostic), and that the whole freaking system of capital punishment is out of order anyway. The intern primarily jumped on the faulty-system bandwagon.
I, of course, have to agree that the system is out of order. There are people subject to the death penalty that shouldn't be. I allowed for this truth in my argument.
But, I opined, if our society and our courts are going to deem it appropriate to terminate some criminals' lives for some crimes they've committed, then certainly child rape should make the list.
My main thrust in the argument was that few crimes are as injurious to society and to the actual victim as raping them. Although I didn't voice it, I was thinking more particularly of adults in a position of trust, such as parentals/teachers/baby-sitters, taking advantage of the youths in their care. But, certainly, any rape of a child is among the most reprehensible of all crimes. In fact, I think it's worse to rape a kid than to murder someone, because while the murder of someone has the effect of cutting off their future, the rape of a child has the effect of completely marring, scarring, and destroying a future that they must live through.
To his credit, my friend saw my points regarding how child rape was worse than many of the murders committed to get people on death row. But he opined that the death penalty's aim in these cases was to appease ourselves as opposed to creating justice. It was to make us feel better.
He is, of course, right. By killing a person, you remove their capacity to reform, to learn from their wrongs, to change. But, by killing that person, you let people know how their conduct is viewed, you state in the strongest possible way to the victim that they are valued and protected by society, and you, in no uncertain terms, mete out the highest degree of allowable punishment available for an extremely high degree of evil that has been committed. And, in acknowledgment of my friend's concern, it absolutely is a way to exorcise the rage we feel towards these people for what they've done.
We ended up debating the death penalty, ultimately, and essentially agreeing to disagree. Thus is the nature of a reasoned society debating openly about various views.
But I still ask, is the Court right? Should capital punishment be reserved to only murderers?
On most NBA Draft nights (like last year), I'd be going crazy with excitement over the team and what's going on. It's a time of great promise and great hope.
But, instead, my mind is stuck on something it was seizing upon this morning: the recent US Supreme Court decision ruling that capital punishment shouldn't apply to people who rape children.
Background: as most of my actual readers know, I'm a lawyer. I'm also a person, so any legal insights I have are tempered by my human frailties (emotion and irrational, illogical thinking, for instance). Further, I've read a nutshell summary of the opinion created by a law student at Willamette, so don't think for a minute that I've read the actual opinion, the facts of this particular case, or the legal reasoning involved as applied to the case.
What I know: a guy raped his step-daughter, who was under the age of 12. He may or may not have done it. He was convicted and, under state law, sentenced to death. The Supreme Court essentially found that killing a person for rape was disproportionate to the crime and created too many problems to allow it to stand.
The case is a messy one to serve as a foundation for my premise, even with the scant amount of knowledge that I have. The premise being that few crimes are more deserving of the death penalty than raping a child. So, I discuss generally, and not in the particulars of this case.
I went into my office today and decided to launch the rare idealogical bomb to see what happened. I commonly rest on my philosophical laurels and lead a live-and-let-live sort of existence. Everyone's free to think or feel what they want, provided it doesn't create a mess for everyone else at work, because I'm not to judge them and I expect them not to judge me on the basis of our variant opinions, ideals, or beliefs.
But I was so beside myself with consternation at the Court's ruling that I decided to share it with my peers.
One was predictably on my side, as she always is in any real debate. Another was, again predictably, contrary to me, as we tend to have a different idealogical bent, despite being very close friends who respect and trust eachother inherently. The last, a college student interning with us, was a wild card, as she's only been around for a week.
I forwarded my position: the Supreme Court called it wrong, and child rapists should be fair game in a society that condones capital punishment. My agreeable peer agreed, as I previously alluded. My disagreeable peer gave good reasons for his disagreement.
His primary thesis is that capital punishment is wrong, that it constitutes us playing god (despite he, himself, being somewhat agnostic), and that the whole freaking system of capital punishment is out of order anyway. The intern primarily jumped on the faulty-system bandwagon.
I, of course, have to agree that the system is out of order. There are people subject to the death penalty that shouldn't be. I allowed for this truth in my argument.
But, I opined, if our society and our courts are going to deem it appropriate to terminate some criminals' lives for some crimes they've committed, then certainly child rape should make the list.
My main thrust in the argument was that few crimes are as injurious to society and to the actual victim as raping them. Although I didn't voice it, I was thinking more particularly of adults in a position of trust, such as parentals/teachers/baby-sitters, taking advantage of the youths in their care. But, certainly, any rape of a child is among the most reprehensible of all crimes. In fact, I think it's worse to rape a kid than to murder someone, because while the murder of someone has the effect of cutting off their future, the rape of a child has the effect of completely marring, scarring, and destroying a future that they must live through.
To his credit, my friend saw my points regarding how child rape was worse than many of the murders committed to get people on death row. But he opined that the death penalty's aim in these cases was to appease ourselves as opposed to creating justice. It was to make us feel better.
He is, of course, right. By killing a person, you remove their capacity to reform, to learn from their wrongs, to change. But, by killing that person, you let people know how their conduct is viewed, you state in the strongest possible way to the victim that they are valued and protected by society, and you, in no uncertain terms, mete out the highest degree of allowable punishment available for an extremely high degree of evil that has been committed. And, in acknowledgment of my friend's concern, it absolutely is a way to exorcise the rage we feel towards these people for what they've done.
We ended up debating the death penalty, ultimately, and essentially agreeing to disagree. Thus is the nature of a reasoned society debating openly about various views.
But I still ask, is the Court right? Should capital punishment be reserved to only murderers?
June 21, 2008
June 03, 2008
A Great Night for America; A Small Moment for Clinton
America celebrates a great moment in its history tonight, as a land that once counted blacks as 2/5 of a person now has one poised to become the nation's President.
The best reason to vote for Barack Obama for President, though, is not his color. It's because, between him and John McCain, Barack is the best person for the job.
Obama steps forward tonight as the duly-elected nominee for the Democratic Party for President of the United States. In his victory speech tonight, both out of real character and political need, he was magnanimous and kind to his primary opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And, beyond that, he caught fire in a speech which captured the imagination and created a thrill for what could be.
Meanwhile, the greatest hope that America has ever had of seeing a woman run the country showed just how little she could be tonight. After having already started trying to push her name forward as a good VP candidate to go to the White House on Obama's coat-tails, Clinton further embarassed herself tonight by deciding not to concede, even as she essentially acknowledged that she'd lost.
Obama will be forced to consider her as a possibility for the back seat on his ticket. But, really, why should he entertain the thought? Clinton doesn't have the temperament of a number two, and her ambition (I believe) would prevent her from fulfilling the tacit understanding that a Vice President's job is to support her boss.
One line of thinking is that Obama needs to reach out to Clinton, because otherwise Clinton's voters won't support him in the national election. But, really, does that make sense? Sure, some of Clinton's supporters are racist whites who'll decide not to vote for Obama simply because of his skin color, but the majority are committed liberals who want to loose the Republican grasp on the White House. In a national election with no Hillary, where will they cast their vote? They certainly won't sit on it, and they certainly won't give it to McCain. Out of a lack of options, their votes will go to Obama, even if they don't like pulling the lever in his favor.
Obama's likely running mate, in my opinion, will be John Edwards. A Northern and a Southern candidate, both energetic and (at least publicly) committed to some pretty sweeping and, frankly, exciting social reforms, would excite the whole base of the Democratic party, while Edwards would wisely see this as a good stepping stool to the Presidency and would behave in an appropriately supportive fashion.
Of course, much remains yet to be seen. For tonight, I simply see confirmation of what I've known for weeks: the right person with the right temperament won, and the other person continues to be a classless and graceless loser, just as she's been for years.
The best reason to vote for Barack Obama for President, though, is not his color. It's because, between him and John McCain, Barack is the best person for the job.
Obama steps forward tonight as the duly-elected nominee for the Democratic Party for President of the United States. In his victory speech tonight, both out of real character and political need, he was magnanimous and kind to his primary opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And, beyond that, he caught fire in a speech which captured the imagination and created a thrill for what could be.
Meanwhile, the greatest hope that America has ever had of seeing a woman run the country showed just how little she could be tonight. After having already started trying to push her name forward as a good VP candidate to go to the White House on Obama's coat-tails, Clinton further embarassed herself tonight by deciding not to concede, even as she essentially acknowledged that she'd lost.
Obama will be forced to consider her as a possibility for the back seat on his ticket. But, really, why should he entertain the thought? Clinton doesn't have the temperament of a number two, and her ambition (I believe) would prevent her from fulfilling the tacit understanding that a Vice President's job is to support her boss.
One line of thinking is that Obama needs to reach out to Clinton, because otherwise Clinton's voters won't support him in the national election. But, really, does that make sense? Sure, some of Clinton's supporters are racist whites who'll decide not to vote for Obama simply because of his skin color, but the majority are committed liberals who want to loose the Republican grasp on the White House. In a national election with no Hillary, where will they cast their vote? They certainly won't sit on it, and they certainly won't give it to McCain. Out of a lack of options, their votes will go to Obama, even if they don't like pulling the lever in his favor.
Obama's likely running mate, in my opinion, will be John Edwards. A Northern and a Southern candidate, both energetic and (at least publicly) committed to some pretty sweeping and, frankly, exciting social reforms, would excite the whole base of the Democratic party, while Edwards would wisely see this as a good stepping stool to the Presidency and would behave in an appropriately supportive fashion.
Of course, much remains yet to be seen. For tonight, I simply see confirmation of what I've known for weeks: the right person with the right temperament won, and the other person continues to be a classless and graceless loser, just as she's been for years.
May 27, 2008
SOAP Notes
The latest SOAP Notes entry:
May 27, 2008
Proverbs 4-6; Romans 8
S: Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.
Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
O: Solomon lays out seven things despicable to the Lord. Paul gives us hope despite them.
A: Easy enough today. What of the hateful things do I have?
P: God, help me to see those moments when I’m preparing to fall short, and to step back from those instances. Help me to focus on your love, which will always be there for me as long as I accept it and act in accordance with it. Amen.
May 27, 2008
Proverbs 4-6; Romans 8
S: Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.
Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
O: Solomon lays out seven things despicable to the Lord. Paul gives us hope despite them.
A: Easy enough today. What of the hateful things do I have?
- Haughty eyes: am I arrogant, snobbish, or scornful? Yes.
- Lying tongue: I try earnestly to be honest, which makes it even more obvious to me when I’m being dishonest. Most of my lies are those of omission; I avoid saying the truth or a lie and let silence tell the lie for me. Is that any less a sin than speaking falsely? No.
- Hands that shed innocent blood: I don’t kill. But in a million ways every day I fail to act to protect life, or to stand up for what is right. I don’t feed the homeless, I don’t clothe the cold, I don’t provide for the orphan. When I leave them in the cold, I might as well take their lives, since I’m not giving to them in times of need.
- A heart that devises wicked plans: Yes, that’s me. I catch myself plotting things that aren’t right. No grand capers, just little things here and there which I know better than to do. I rarely fall into sin; I usually scheme it out in advance.
- Feet that run rapidly to evil: when a chance to do something naughty but fun arises, how often to I run the other way?
- False witness who utters lies: I think of the list I manage to do well here. I see this as spreading untruths about others. I think I’m good at holding my tongue in that regard.
- One who spreads strife among brothers: I also think I’m good at trying to maintain harmony and order, though I do catch myself sometimes drumming up some dischord.
P: God, help me to see those moments when I’m preparing to fall short, and to step back from those instances. Help me to focus on your love, which will always be there for me as long as I accept it and act in accordance with it. Amen.
May 22, 2008
May 14, 2008
Can Obama Win?
I think a better question might be "does it matter?"
JLowe sent me a link to an interesting article discussing the inherent racism on display in our current Democratic race for the presidency.
Basically, the point raised is this: Hillary Clinton asserts, perhaps not always openly, that she's the only candidate who can challenge John McCain, and the primary reason is because she's white.
The article also notes that Barack Obama understands the challenge of race in this election: "as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it."
And that, I think, is an important point. I think that it's important for Barack to be the candidate to face John McCain in the actual presidential election not only because I believe he is the best person for the White House (yes, I'll be voting for him, despite being a registered Republican), but also because it will finally break a glass ceiling that is in place in our current society.
Sure, people have a problem with the concept of a female president. But, as a whole, women have had much more ready access to power and opportunity in this country (especially white ones) than racial minorities. By admitting that, as a white, she's in a better position to win, Hillary Clinton reinforces a shameful truth of America today--that we only see skin deep--and asks us to affirm its correctness.
America may not be ready for a black president. I hope we are. But for those who can't wrap their head around the idea, the only way to get them to acknowledge the possibility, and start thinking about substance over form (or content over color) is to force them to consider whether to cast their vote for a black (or yellow, or green, or red, or whatever) person and then explain why they won't.
Can Obama win? I don't know. I hope so. But, whether he can or can't, Obama for President is, in my mind, an important message to perpetuate for as long as possible.
JLowe sent me a link to an interesting article discussing the inherent racism on display in our current Democratic race for the presidency.
Basically, the point raised is this: Hillary Clinton asserts, perhaps not always openly, that she's the only candidate who can challenge John McCain, and the primary reason is because she's white.
The article also notes that Barack Obama understands the challenge of race in this election: "as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it."
And that, I think, is an important point. I think that it's important for Barack to be the candidate to face John McCain in the actual presidential election not only because I believe he is the best person for the White House (yes, I'll be voting for him, despite being a registered Republican), but also because it will finally break a glass ceiling that is in place in our current society.
Sure, people have a problem with the concept of a female president. But, as a whole, women have had much more ready access to power and opportunity in this country (especially white ones) than racial minorities. By admitting that, as a white, she's in a better position to win, Hillary Clinton reinforces a shameful truth of America today--that we only see skin deep--and asks us to affirm its correctness.
America may not be ready for a black president. I hope we are. But for those who can't wrap their head around the idea, the only way to get them to acknowledge the possibility, and start thinking about substance over form (or content over color) is to force them to consider whether to cast their vote for a black (or yellow, or green, or red, or whatever) person and then explain why they won't.
Can Obama win? I don't know. I hope so. But, whether he can or can't, Obama for President is, in my mind, an important message to perpetuate for as long as possible.
May 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
