Not since my (then) young daughter brought me a cookie had I participated in a tea party. The get-together that attracted me was held on tax day in Jefferson City. For those of you who missed a lot of the fourth grade, Jefferson City is the state capitol of Missouri. It has the requisite stately capitol building, which was an ideal setting for the rally. About fifty people showed up - not bad for a small burg. Networking was the order of the day - we had a fine time standing in the warm sunshine and talking to each other. No one orated, no one chanted, no news hounds covered the rally; according to politics-as-usual, it was a non-event.
Lo and behold, some people at the tea party had heard of a similar event held the day before at the same location. Quite a few had read that the tax day rally was slated for 11:00. Still others (including a couple of state reps who claimed to have been invited to speak) said the rally was on for 3:00 that afternoon. Those of us who arrived at noon had learned that time on the internet. The more suspicious folks in the crowd decided that the misinformation was a Democratic party ploy to limit the size of the crowd. Maybe so, but the real problem seemed to be that no person or agency was in charge of organizing the tea party.
Of course, people at the rally were not the only conspiracy theorists that day. Several prominent Democrats claim that the tea party movement is being led by the Republican party. Welll. If so, no wonder the Republicans blew the last election.
Hopefully, the 3:00 tea party went well. Not being a nominee to the Obama cabinet, I had to go home and put my taxes in the mail. And so alas, the later tea party had to go on without me.
A very nice lady from Macon (Missouri) offered me a small poster board and use of a magic marker. So my proud sign said "NO MORE WASTE-ULUS". That may have been a little obscure, but I heard a high school girl explaining to her younger brother that the so-called economic stimulus package is full of waste and ineffeciencies. So I felt good about the sign, and of course was proud of the young lady's keen insight into politics.
There were a lot of signs, but no great memorable ones. There was the typical "Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot" - this guy got plenty of pictures taken, but I had to explain to some folks that this was a slam against Obama. (Doesn't that sign trot out in one form or another for every president?) Lots of signs said "Taxed Enough Already". And there was a smattering of other messages. But there were no signs with fancy graphics, and no evidence that any group was sponsoring the event.
One guy had a video camera. He drifted around the party, offering to record what people had to say about taxes. He didn't ask me. I'm an old guy with a graying pony-tail, and I don't fit the homeland-security definition of wild-eyed conservative. Perhaps that makes me a poor example for trying to convince conservatives that they need to support the tea party movement. But could be the cameraman was looking for red-necks that could scare liberals about the horrors of tea parties. If so, they absolutely didn't want any spokesman with whom liberals can find the least commonality; and they definitely wouldn't want me.
If you are thinking about going to a tea party, please consider this. The tea party movement appeals to a lot of people, maybe someday the majority of American citizens. The parties of the Democrats and Republicans both fear tea parties for the same reason - we bring together people who oppose both Republican social engineering and Democratic socialism. The American political system works best with two major parties: the social luddites and socialists are afraid that they will have to band together to oppose us. Such a union is not as strange as you might think - both factions love to spend lots of money on big government. And that's where we differ with them. Lots of people differ with them. Let's accept the best of the major parties, and leave the rest to the politics of yore. We can't afford to reject any Democrat or Republican - he or she stands to be a vital member of the American Tea party.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Bible Verses Vs. Bible Stories
Looking at individual Bible verses is a dangerous thing to do. A lot of people take a single verse out of the Bible and make assumptions about what it means. Others lift a verse out of context in an attempt to prove that which they already believe is right. Either way, their exegeses are often flawed. Jesus told stories; he didn't speak in disconnected, numbered statements. We miss Jesus’ message if we ignore the context of a story. And the same applies to all the writers of the Bible – they are telling the stories of humans seeking God, not trying to bore us with a bunch of little numbers stuck in the middle of the text.
Here are a couple of verses that many people uncritically accept as stand-alone statements. And one that most people reject because they don’t take into account what it means in the total story. They are taken from the Holy Bible, the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18.
Verse 18 says that whatever we “bind” or “loose” on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. It looks like this means that God will rubber-stamp our decisions. Maybe the Pope uses this verse to explain how he can be inerrant in matters of doctrine (perhaps he justifies this tenet in some other way.) But usually only the insane think we can make decisions for God.
Verse 19 says that whatever a couple of Christians agree about on earth is how God will make it happen in heaven. The religious establishment tries to convince us that only the important holy people (the bishops and mega-church preachers and such) can make the kinds of decisions that God wants. Most of the rest of us think that if two or more people pray the same prayer, then God is obligated to honor the request.
Verse 20 says that if two or three people are gathered in the name of God, then God will be there also. We often use this as a throw-away line. Have you ever been to a church meeting where only one other person shows up? We usually shrug and say, “well, wherever two are gathered…” Surely if God was there, a lot of people would have shown up.
You’ve probably already realized that these three verses make more sense together than does any verse by itself. Let’s look at more context of the verses. The whole story Jesus was telling is about resolving conflicts or reconciling two members of a church. It is from Matthew 18: 15-20 of the Holy Bible (New Revised Standard Version):
In context, within verse 19 Jesus states that a group of Christians (even two or three) can make a decision to pass judgment on another Christian. They don’t have to be the grand poobah or any other high muckety-muck of a church. But they do have to be united in trying to find what God wants. And they may find that either, neither or both of the aggrieved parties are in the wrong.
And verse 20 promises that God will be present when we are trying to reconcile people to each other. We can pretty well figure that no person or group can discern the will of God unless God is leading them. And if we follow Jesus’ guidelines, then God’s Spirit will be there, showing us how to bring people together. Perhaps God is present every time we get together for worship, or music practice, or church building maintenance, or whatever; but that’s not what Jesus is saying in the verse.
The part of verse 17 about treating someone like a tax collector needs to be read in context with the preceding paragraph (verses 10 through 14). God doesn’t want to lose anyone. God does want a Christian to repent of the things that he has done wrong. And so, there can’t be any situation in which God would want us to treat another Christian in such a way that it would hinder his rejection of sin. Indeed, going back yet another paragraph (verses 5 through 9), we see that Jesus harshly criticizes anyone who causes another person to sin. Making a pariah of someone may not cause him to sin, but perhaps it will; this is another place we're going to need God's guidance.
This brings us to verse 18. In context with the rest of the story, bind or loose means to form or sever a tie between a person and a church. The church must bring people to God. But it is not a contradiction that God would allow us to loose anyone that God does not want to lose. It is Jesus' way of telling us that God doesn’t reject someone just because his church casts him away. The verse must be important - Jesus uses his "Truly I tell you" words to start it out. So this bears repeating: the church is one means of God's saving grace, but we have no right to think that we can ever remove anyone from the grace of God.
Here are a couple of verses that many people uncritically accept as stand-alone statements. And one that most people reject because they don’t take into account what it means in the total story. They are taken from the Holy Bible, the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18.
Verse 18 says that whatever we “bind” or “loose” on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. It looks like this means that God will rubber-stamp our decisions. Maybe the Pope uses this verse to explain how he can be inerrant in matters of doctrine (perhaps he justifies this tenet in some other way.) But usually only the insane think we can make decisions for God.
Verse 19 says that whatever a couple of Christians agree about on earth is how God will make it happen in heaven. The religious establishment tries to convince us that only the important holy people (the bishops and mega-church preachers and such) can make the kinds of decisions that God wants. Most of the rest of us think that if two or more people pray the same prayer, then God is obligated to honor the request.
Verse 20 says that if two or three people are gathered in the name of God, then God will be there also. We often use this as a throw-away line. Have you ever been to a church meeting where only one other person shows up? We usually shrug and say, “well, wherever two are gathered…” Surely if God was there, a lot of people would have shown up.
You’ve probably already realized that these three verses make more sense together than does any verse by itself. Let’s look at more context of the verses. The whole story Jesus was telling is about resolving conflicts or reconciling two members of a church. It is from Matthew 18: 15-20 of the Holy Bible (New Revised Standard Version):
‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.’
In context, within verse 19 Jesus states that a group of Christians (even two or three) can make a decision to pass judgment on another Christian. They don’t have to be the grand poobah or any other high muckety-muck of a church. But they do have to be united in trying to find what God wants. And they may find that either, neither or both of the aggrieved parties are in the wrong.
And verse 20 promises that God will be present when we are trying to reconcile people to each other. We can pretty well figure that no person or group can discern the will of God unless God is leading them. And if we follow Jesus’ guidelines, then God’s Spirit will be there, showing us how to bring people together. Perhaps God is present every time we get together for worship, or music practice, or church building maintenance, or whatever; but that’s not what Jesus is saying in the verse.
The part of verse 17 about treating someone like a tax collector needs to be read in context with the preceding paragraph (verses 10 through 14). God doesn’t want to lose anyone. God does want a Christian to repent of the things that he has done wrong. And so, there can’t be any situation in which God would want us to treat another Christian in such a way that it would hinder his rejection of sin. Indeed, going back yet another paragraph (verses 5 through 9), we see that Jesus harshly criticizes anyone who causes another person to sin. Making a pariah of someone may not cause him to sin, but perhaps it will; this is another place we're going to need God's guidance.
This brings us to verse 18. In context with the rest of the story, bind or loose means to form or sever a tie between a person and a church. The church must bring people to God. But it is not a contradiction that God would allow us to loose anyone that God does not want to lose. It is Jesus' way of telling us that God doesn’t reject someone just because his church casts him away. The verse must be important - Jesus uses his "Truly I tell you" words to start it out. So this bears repeating: the church is one means of God's saving grace, but we have no right to think that we can ever remove anyone from the grace of God.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)