Pelosi's lack of shame - tax dollars to eliminate future births

Well, we continue to learn more about the $850 billion, soon to be $1 trillion spending proposals working their way through Congress.  And the details are frightening.

House Leader Nancy Pelosi even suggested that in order to stimulate the US economy, the federal government should invest $200 million in family planning (abortion and birth control) services.

On "This Week..." Pelosi said the following to George Stephanopoulos:

"The family planning services reduce cost," Pelosi said, "One of the elements of this package is assistance to the states. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Even Stephanopoulos seemed startled by her brazenness.  So he sought clarification.  "So no apologies for that?"  Pelosi's reply: "No apologies. No."

Never mind the Federal government has not made an argument as to how spending on contraception, sod for the Washington mall, $600 million to help people convert to digital television (I suppose we need to be more sedentary, so let's make for a better television picture!), or money for water parks stimulates the economy, but the arrogance of this woman is incredible.  She has now vocalized a proposal akin to the genocidal policies of China.  Recall that China for years held to a 2-child per household policy that led to many hundreds/thousands/millions of abortions.  Their thinking was that the economy of China could not keep up with the population growth of their country.  Well, many Chinese families wanted boys, so if an early birth was a girl, well, it was better to eliminate the child and keep a slot open for the birth of a boy in the future.

Now, Pelosi is stating the same thing.  She said that with state and local economies facing budget deficits, the federal government will help them by eliminating unplanned pregnancies.

Not only is this thinking sad, morbid, disgraceful, and disgusting, it is short sided even if you buy into her arguments (let me be clear, I don't).  After all, as our government spends future generations savings with the type of cavalier spending that is presently taking place, the result is an increase in long-term debt.  And like personal debt, there will come a call for repayment, and that repayment will fall on those presently in their 20s, 30s... actually those in their teens and future generations.  So by proposing to eliminate hundreds/thousands/millions of children from being born, she is eliminating the future government revenues (taxes) that will be required to pay off this debt.

Pelosi is a self-professed Catholic, and it's disgraceful she behaves in such a cold manner. And yet Scripture contains numerous expressions that we are to look after the children, the innocent.

But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant, and said to them. "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them for to such belongs the kingdom of God."  Mark 10:14 (ESV)

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones.  For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven."  Matthew 18:10 (ESV)

"Speak up for the people who have no voice, for the rights of all down and outers.  Speak out for justice!  Stand up for the poor and destitute." Proverbs 31:8

Providing government dollars in the form of birth control or to enable abortions despises the little ones, dismisses the most destitute, and prevents the little ones from coming to Jesus as he demanded.

Jim Wallis - yeast of a Pharissee

In my opinion, Christians have spent far too much time on the abortion debate over the last 30+ years, ignoring other global issues like hunger, AIDS, human trafficking, etc.  And in terms of helping increase the visibility on those issues, few have done more than Jim Wallis and his organization, Sojourners.  

But Wallis recently erred when he said that Obama's decision to rescind the policy of President Bush which tied international financial aid to a pro-life stance, the so-called Mexico City policy.  Wallis said Obama "showed respect to both sides in the historically polarized abortion debate..."  Why does Wallis state this?  He says it was because Obama did not sign the order on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  Sadly, the timing of the decision was politically motivated, but does nothing to "show respect to both sides" as Wallis suggests.

Wallis and Obama are naive to believe the timing of the signature lessens the impact of the signature.

Wallis and others are often quick to point to the irresponsible comments of people like Pat Robertson, suggesting they do not speak for God.  I agree on that point.  But as Wallis' fame has grown I think he is precariously close to becoming the left-leaning version of Robertson.  When "leaders" like Wallis express their opinions on politics, I reflect on Jesus' instruction to his followers to not allow the yeast of Pharisees to infect them.  (Matthew 16:5-12)  Jesus recognized that the disciples may be swayed by the religious leaders of their day, and warned them to be careful.  His message was clear - you need to follow my teaching, my instruction.  And Jesus' instructions are clear - we are to care for the children, the poor and the weak.  Wallis often works to ensure that the poor and weak are not overlooked, and I commend him for doing so.  But there is none "weaker" than an unborn child.  Obama's order to rescind this policy does nothing to protect the unborn, and in fact makes it more likely more of the unborn will die.  And Wallis seems to ignore this fact.

I think too many - people on both the right and left - are letting politics sway their allegiance to Jesus.  Robertson and others like him will typically support Republicans, and Wallis, McLaren and others will usually support Democrats.  Yet our God called us to be set apart.  We are not to follow Pharaoh, or Caesar, or the President, or a political party, but instead the one true Christ.  

And on this, Jesus will hold us accountable.  Matthew 25:45-46 - Paraphrasing Jesus, "As you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me.  And these will go away to eternal punishment."

President Obama, Rick Warren and the invocation

It seems the hysteria is beginning in reference to Pastor Warren's invocation yesterday.  Not only did he invoke the name of his (and the President's, and my) savior Jesus, but he also shared what is often referred to as The Lord's Prayer.  Many are expressing surprise, if not contempt.

However, if one looks closely at this prayer, incited by Jesus as how one should pray and not as what one should pray (Mt 6:9, "Pray then like this..."), we see universal truths for all, regardless of what one's faith is.

Mt. 6:11 - "Give us this day our daily bread... Throughout the world, millions face hunger.  It is estimated that 16,000 children die each day from hunger related causes.  Praying for God to provide the basic sustenance for living is not offensive; ignoring the plight of so many on the other hand is.  

Mt. 6:12 - "...and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."  In America, personal and governmental debt is having a terrible impact on so many.  Homes are being foreclosed, businesses are shutting down.  Debt in third-world countries is even more crippling.  When impoverished countries struggle to pay debts incurred decades earlier, their people suffer.  While organizations like DATA continue to make strides to communicate the burden of debt, much more progress is needed.  Forgiving the debt of others can make a tremendous impact on their lives, both here and abroad.

Mt. 6:13 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."  Giving in to the evils of temptation lead to many destructive behaviors.  Drug and alcohol addiction, infidelity and addition to pornography, obesity, theft - the list is too long to continue.  Praying to God to enable us to resist all destructive temptations allows us to live upright lives.

Pastor Warren did a good thing invoking this prayer.  And I pray that people look beyond the politics of religion and closely at the words of Jesus.  There is nothing offensive in these words, and if we acted as Jesus instructed our entire world would be in better shape.  And I pray that President Obama follows Jesus' instruction as he leads this country over the next four years.

An open letter to Grace Community Church

To Reverend Christmas and the congregation of Grace Community Church -

I read with interest your plans to reveal the sins of one of your former members to the congregation you lead. While I do not condone the sins of Ms. Hancock, I find it absolutely hypocritical of you and your leadership to resort to such humiliation.

Let me ask a number of questions of you.

1. When Ms. Hancock met with a mentor to share the details of her relationship, did the mentor tell Ms. Hancock that she would share those details with others? In one news account, Ms. Hancock expressed surprise that other people were aware of her indiscretion, so I expect the answer to be no. And yet the mentor shared the details with a number of other women, without the consent of Ms. Hancock. I do believe the Bible takes to task those who gossip (See Paul's words in Romans 1, 2 Corinthians 12, and these words in 1 Timothy 5:13 - "And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to."). Are those women going to be publicly humiliated for their sins?

2. Are other sinners being brought before the congregation? How many of your congregants live as Paul describes in Galatians 5:19-21? "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." I would imagine many have feelings of hate, jealousy, selfish ambition. Is it because Ms. Hancock trusted someone and shared her struggle that she is to be humiliated, while those that keep their sins secret get a pass? Who is more honorable - Ms. Hancock for her honest disclosure of her sins, or the hundreds of secret sinners that sit in your pews? Who is casting stones - because Jesus said only those without sin could do so?

3. Where is your grace? You are focusing on the law, on the sin Ms. Hancock committed, and yet, we are called to forgive, and to live like Christ. Yet Paul says that while sin increases, grace is to grow disproportionately. "The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Sadly, I see no grace in your actions.

4. Your context of Matthew 18:17 is erroneous. Read carefully the words of Jesus. He states if a brother sins against you. How did Ms. Hancock sin against you? Her sin is immoral yes, but in no way was she sinning against you, or your congregation. And yet you have decided that the best way to deal with this is through humiliation? That is disgraceful. In fact, continuing on in that chapter, Jesus tells Peter he should forgive seventy-seven times. My guess is that you have not forgiven once, let alone seventy-seven times.

How sad that a sinful, broken people of God, as you profess to be, acts as Pharisees. Please read your Holy Scriptures. Some words of wisdom, from Jesus our Lord: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

The wisdom of C.S. Lewis

Lately I've had a lot of extra time to read, as I've taken a break from the rigors of seminary. So I've picked up some new books, and taken some time to re-read older titles. One book I'm reading right now is The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis. It's a perspective of heaven and hell that only Lewis could present.


There is a particular passage that struck me today. If you're familiar with the story, one of the Ghosts was an artist, a painter before dying. In taking in the splendor of Heaven, he asks if he'd be able to paint what he sees. He's told no, that he wouldn't be able to, as the skill of the artist is no longer needed in Heaven. After some back and forth, the Ghost is told that he forgot why he painted in the first place. "Light itself was your first love: you loved paint only as a means of telling about light." Since everyone can see the indescribable beauty before them, art isn't needed; Heaven is the art.


That passage really struck me, as it seems to address a fundamental concern I have for American Christianity. Lately, there is so much angry discourse about what Christian leader is right, which leader is heretical, what the Bible means, etc. The arguments are filled with so much pride, so much indignation.


In light of this, I thought a paraphrase of Lewis' words made so much sense:

"God Himself was your first love:

you loved the Bible only as a means of telling about God."

Isn't that why we were gifted with the Bible, with God's word - to learn about God? Isn't the singular story from Genesis to Revelation a story of God, and about His pursuit of us? Of His rescuing us? Why is it that so many people want to be right about what the Bible means, and then forget about God, about Jesus, and about their gracious, never-ending love for us?


In another of Lewis' books, The Screwtape Letters, Lewis shares a fictional account of Screwtape, an assistant to Satan, and Wormwood, his nephew. Wormwood's objective is to win people to Hell, away from God and Heaven. In one scene Screwtape shares that if Wormwood can get people to focus on anything other than God, he'll win. He said that if Wormwood gets a person to focus on and pray to an object, not to God Himself, then the person will think less and less of God, eventually falling away from Him completely.


The current trend to argue incessantly about the ancient meaning of Biblical texts serves the same purpose. In my mind, the more we argue about what Paul meant, what Revelation means, how OT prophesy is fulfilled through Jesus, the less we'll focus on God and praising Him. Our attention is focused on winning the argument and not on God.


I truly appreciate the creative brilliance of Lewis. I think modern Christians would learn a great deal by reading some of these classic stories.

Obama - a victory for those in need?

There are many things about Obama's victory over McCain that I have concern about. For example, I am extremely concerned about the out of control growth of government spending. Federal expenditures grew during Clinton, grew during Bush, and will continue to grow as a percent of GDP under Obama. I am concerned about what this means in terms of abortion rights and the impact on the unborn. And I have other concerns as well - frankly, I still do not believe he has the experience and qualifications.

But all that said, I celebrate his election in terms of the overall meaning of a minority winning election to the highest office in our country. In 40 years, to move from the voter rights movement of the mid-60s to electing a black man to the Presidency is monumental. It is evidence that maybe our country is beginning to believe that all men are created equal, and all are created in God's image.

But there remain inequities, and racism and inequality still exist in the United States and the world. If you don't believe that, read the story of the failed assassination attempt on Obama.

And yet, Obama's victory offers a unique opportunity. Don't misunderstand - the opportunity isn't to create equality by redistributing wealth or promoting the "Fairness Doctrine." The opportunity is an authentic pursuit of justice and reconciliation between blacks and whites, between the wealthy and poor, and yes even between Democrats and Republicans. But the reconciliation will only occur if all sides make a decision to engage in civil discourse...voluntarily.

In this time of economic uncertainty, we have a very important opportunity as well. We can reach out to those in need, to those struggling to pay their bills or buy food, and take action. It doesn't matter what color, religion, or political party, we have the chance, right now, to prove Obama's election isn't just window dressing.

Obama stated in a speech, "Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well." Jesus conveyed these thoughts throughout his public ministry. He called us to care for the "least of these" - those hungry, thirsty and imprisoned. Sadly in our country, in this country of great wealth and prosperity, we fail to do so.

The Obama presidency can become everything his supporter's hope for. It can be an administration of "change." But it can only be so if partisan, vitriolic comments on both sides of the aisle cease and the country pursues a path reflective of the life of Jesus. The government will solve nothing, but people can. If you are an Obama supporter, don't wait for him and the federal government to do anything - take action on your own. And if you are a McCain supporter, then prove to others you care about more than just taxes. Get involved, take action, and solve problems, whether big or small.

Peace.

The high cost of college - a new perspective

There is no doubt that the cost of a post-secondary education has gotten out of line. Because colleges and universities really do not operate in a free-market, with the federal government subsidizing tuition rates that are artificially high, the cost has increased much faster than the rate of inflation. Over time, the high costs will result in fewer enrollments and/or more debt burden upon graduation.

So, many students are looking for creative ways to help them pay for college, to help them reduce their debt. Sadly, one person is selling her body - and dignity - to help her reduce her college debt. She is selling her virginity. This is so sad. She says, "I don't think auctioning my virginity will solve all my problems, but it will create some financial stability." I'm not sure how much debt she has, nor how much she really thinks this stunt will earn her, but she can't think this will earn a lot of money. What will someone pay - $500? $1000? (And what freak would pay this money?!) But within her quote is the tragedy. Selling her virginity will not solve all her problems, as she suggests, and in fact may cause future problems she hasn't contemplated.

Setting aside any potential risk to her physical health, what might this do to her psychological health? How does she explain to a potential future husband that she was a prostitute? Sorry for being crude, but that's what this is. How does she wrap her mind around this? She doesn't think she'll have regrets in the future?

What is her sense of urgency to reduce her debt? What is motivating her? Where are her friends and family? Isn't there a job out there she could get to begin a methodical, disciplined paydown of the debt?

It's interesting as our society pays more attention to caring for the environment, to caring for animals, that we care less about how special we are in God's eyes. We were created in the image of God - how do we take that gift and throw it away? While celebrity virginity is in the news (Jonas Brothers, Jordin Sparks), it seems as though more and more people are engaging in pre-marital sex, not only with long-time boyfriends and girlfriends, but casual hookups and "friends with benefits."

This is really sad. I feel bad that she doesn't have people around her that can provide her with some guidance, and let her know she doesn't have to go this direction.