Dual Citizenship, Part 3

Does that mean that we are called to abandon our civic duty or our allegiance to our great nation? Not at all. We need to embrace it. No, we must embrace it. But we also hold dual citizenship. We are citizens of the United States. But a deeper allegiance ties us to the Kingdom of God. And God has invited us to change the world through his kingdom by embracing a lifestyle and calling that moves beyond what national citizenship alone could ever do. The Apostle Peter makes this point in his first letter. He says that Christians are a “royal priests” and a “holy nation.” Our life’s goal as members of the Kingdom of God should be to reflect the desires of its King – Jesus. Peter also calls us “temporary residents and foreigners” – people who are part of this world but also find their truest identity in the eternal. You see, for Peter (and for us), we don’t have to choose between allegiance to America and allegiance to the kingdom of God. It’s not an “either/or” decision. It’s an “and/both” decision. We should be committed to our nation. But where our nation falls short of meeting the desires of God’s kingdom – that’s when the church rises to the occasion.

So, what does the kingdom of God look like? How do we know when we are acting out the desires of our King? Well, fortunately, the Bible has a lot to say about that! The kingdom of God is found where you see love in action. Listen to this scripture:

 Matthew 9:35-36: Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

 I love that scripture. It gives us a glimpse of Jesus in action. What was important to Jesus? The things in this scripture: telling the good news, healing the physical and emotional needs of others. And then Matthew says something really important, he tells us exactly why Jesus did those things. Jesus did them out of compassion – a deep abiding desire to help others who are “harassed and helpless.” To help those who are wandering around like lost sheep and fending for their lives daily.

 Now, when we tend to think about images like that, we tend to think of people far off in another place that face overwhelming hardship. They certainly deserve our compassion. But really, the people we can reach most are the ones in our own backyard. Or maybe even in our own congregation…where the hurt lies beneath a thin veneer of confidence and pleasantries exchanged in the courtyard. We are all susceptible to that type of behavior. But here’s the thing. You see, people are more than a statistic. More than categories the government can record on a census. You don’t check a box for heartache, depression, or shame. To me, Jesus gives the ultimate example of how the Kingdom of God behaves in the story of the leper. Lepers were outcasts socially. They had to yell down the street where they walked, “Unclean!” over and over. In Luke 5, a leper falls down in front of Jesus and asks if “the Son of Man,” – the leader of the kingdom of God – is “willing” to heal him. Before he does anything else, Jesus displays one of the most remarkable examples of love in action in the whole Bible. He touches him. By doing so, Jesus says, “you are worthy of the human touch and compassion that so many people have denied you while attempting to keep religious rules.” Jesus said, “You are worth my attention, my time, my resources, and even the risk of disease. You are worth dying for.” In that moment, even before physical healing occurs, Jesus heals the leper’s soul. And those things are happening all around us – in this church.

When the Kingdom of God is in action, all types of healing and mercy and wholeness happen. When we act out our dual citizenship, the Kingdom of God invades the lives of those we come in contact with. A little yeast leavens the whole lump. That’s your part and my part.  And that’s all God has really called us to. Our role in bringing about his kingdom “on earth as it is in heaven” is to be open and to listen for the Holy Spirit. And when given the opportunity, to act with a compassion and love that changes the world around us. I believe it’s a privilege to be an American citizen. For that I am very grateful. But I am even more overwhelmed by God’s invitation to be part of his family and to advance his mandate of grace. As we continue to celebrate our national heritage, may we be that much more mindful of our spiritual lineage as well. May that realization take root and we come to the Lord’s Table this morning.

Dual Citizenship, Part 2

One of the first places we see the kingdom of God is in the Book of Daniel. Daniel is a strange book – full of visions and prophetic diatribes. But it remains one the most influential books in the Old Testament. Why? Because Jesus referred to it a bunch of times. For example, the term “Son of Man” (Jesus’ own name for himself) comes from Daniel chapter 7. And Jesus refers back to Daniel’s understanding of God’s kingdom when he talks in parables like the one we just read. In the second chapter of Daniel, the prophet describes the kingdom of God for us. The King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, had a dream that disturbed him deeply. He called all his sorcerers and wise men together and ask them to tell him the interpretation. They said, “Sure. Tell us the dream.”  But Nebuchadnezzar expected them to tell him the dream and its meaning without any clues at all. They said, “Uhhh…we can’t do that.” Nebuchadnezzar got really angry and ordered the execution of all the wise men.

 In steps Daniel. He tells the king not to kill all his subjects and that he’ll tell him the dream and interpret it, too. Pretty gutsy thing to do. And that’s exactly what Daniel did under the power of the Holy Spirit. In his dream, Nebuchadnezzar saw a statue of a man composed of layers of gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay. Now, prophecy buffs spend a lot of time deciphering the nations represented in that statue. But the important part comes after that. Daniel said that in the dream next to the statue a rock was cut from a mountain, but it was not cut by human hands. That rock struck the statue and smashed it into powder. The rock lands on the ground and begins to grow into a mountain and fills the entire earth. And here’s what Daniel says: “The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed or conquered. It will crush all these kingdoms into nothingness, and it will stand forever.” In other words, nations will rise and fall. Some will be more impressive than others, but the kingdom of God will always reign. Its growth is slow but certain. And the fact that human hands did not create it means that it is supernatural in its essence. We are not to build our own kingdom. We are to embrace the kingdom of God.

The gospels are full of references to the kingdom of God –what it looks like and how we enter into it.  I chose this parable of the yeast because it is so simple but it tells us so much about how God works in our world. And once we know how God works, we can join him on his terms. We get this backwards sometimes, we assume that we have a good idea (and usually it is) and so we spend countless amounts of energy attempting to make it a reality. And that’s where we miss it. There is no shortage of “good” ideas. But there is a shortage of people willing to look past a good idea to a God idea – the idea that furthers God’s kingdom in the way he wants it advanced. Sometimes, those kingdom ideas look vastly different from what we consider a “successful” ministry opportunity. And that’s why it’s vital to understand Jesus’ words in the parable of the yeast.

Okay – so on to the text itself. Once again, what Jesus says seems very simple almost boring to modern readers…but let’s unpack the background and we’ll see that Jesus (as usual) is saying something humorous and outrageous to his listeners. There are some things happening here that make this story unusual. The woman in this story is not your average woman. Here’s why. Though making bread was stereotypically considered female work, she is doing it with more stereotypically male energy. We’re not talking about a couple of loaves of bread for dinner here. She’s a professional baker – a male-oriented profession at the time. Let me translate the measurements she uses. “Three measures of flour” (in Greek, a sata) is approximately a bushel of flour. That may not mean anything to you. But 128 cups of flour might. And I know that 16 five-pound bags of flour certainly will!  To make that much bread you would need to add around 40 cups of water. Mixed together, this woman was kneading over 100 pounds of dough!

Why is that important? Because the imagery that Jesus uses here is absolutely ridiculous. And he knew that – that’s why he used it. The “kingdom of God” depicted as 100 pounds of raw dough before it rises, reinforces the fact that we can’t do much with that amount of anything. And that’s the point. The kingdom of God is bigger than us. It smashes national interests and political wrangling underneath the weight of what really counts in this life: those things that impact eternity. And like the yeast in this parable, the impact of the Holy Spirit goes much further than what any group of people can do in their own strength. 

Dual Citizenship, Part 1

He also asked, “What else is the Kingdom of God like? It is like the yeast a woman used in making bread. Even though she put only a little yeast in three measures of flour, it permeated every part of the dough.”  – Luke 13:20-21

July 4^th. It’s a big day. It’s a weekend of family get-togethers, barbeques, summer fun, and fireworks. For some in the South, NASCAR will certainly be involved. And really, within all those activities is the theme of freedom. We can do all those things because we live in a nation that provides us with freedom to pursue what means the most to us. That sounds obvious…but we would be foolish to think that everyone in this world has that same freedom. Our national Independence Day represents so much of what is great about the Christian message as well. At its core is the belief that people have religious freedom to worship God. To our founding fathers, that was something worth fighting for. They didn’t all agree about morality, religion, philosophy, etc., but they certainly believed in the right for each person to seek those answers in a place where you could feel safe doing so.

Of course, that same allegiance to individuality and freedom has gotten us in a bit of a mess over the years. One of the great things about America is the fact that each person is allowed to think what they want. I don’t know if you’re like me, but sometimes I don’t like the ideas that others come up with! On top of that, we also decided to vote on things…which means that plenty of people are going to be disappointed at the outcome. Yet, part of the beauty of our nation is our general willingness to air our disagreements and get back to the business of life.

My generation and the one beneath me have moved even further along the line of individuality. We have a tendency to disagree far more than we should with those who are far more knowledgeable on a subject. We disagree but refuse to get involved. And with that, I strongly disagree. I will never forget the time I was riding down the highway with some friends. Unfortunately, the topic turned to politics and I knew I was in for a long trip. In that situation, I did what I normally do: I shut my mouth and listened. I’m always fascinated by people’s perspective on governmental or world affairs. But this conversation started off bad and went straight to worse. From the top down, my friends criticized every aspect of government. And here was the low-point: they begin to criticize the amount of money spent on national transportation. Maybe that’s not funny to you…but here we were whizzing down a federal highway while railing against the people who put the highway there in the first place! If it wasn’t for the government, we wouldn’t have a road on which to criticize the government!  It’s like criticizing George W. Bush but then making sure we received our child tax credit. Or those who criticized Bill Clinton while taking advantage of the Family Medical Leave Act. And that’s part of our freedom – for better or worse. I promised myself at that moment that I would never openly criticize the government while taking advantage of their provision for our country.

And though we may hold citizenship in a remarkable nation, for the Christian there’s more. We belong to something greater. Something bigger that swallows all of humanity’s attempts to mark off its territory on some map somewhere. The Bible says we belong to the kingdom of God. And as important as this kingdom is, we still only catch glimpses of its beauty and grandeur. That’s how Jesus describes it anyway. And for all the attempts by his disciples to make him into a political icon, Jesus was on a quest to establish something that was greater than mere political influence.

One Too Many Critics…

I am so sick of critics.

Between political opinions and religious self-appointed doctrine police, I’ve heard more negativity recently than I can remember. Our society has conjoined the concepts of criticism and credibility at the hip. We’re not legitimate until we disagree. To find nothing wrong with someone or something has become a sign of ignorance or presumption. Because of that, we just may be the most opinionated society in the history of humankind. And we’re under the delusion that our opinions are worth something. But really we’re just taking the Western cultural paradigm to the extreme. Being critical does not make us credible. It makes us obnoxious. Before you write this post off as someone being critical of critics, let me explain where our “culture of suspicion” originated.

Everyone knows about the Enlightenment and the rise of rationalism as the guiding hermeneutic (to use a theological term) for secularism. Descartes introduced a new paradigm for Western society – one where evidence must be presented for a hypothesis to stand. Leibniz and Spinoza followed behind applying Descartes’ ideas to social and political theory. Empiricists like Hume, though disagreeing with the rationalists on many points, carried their negativity to the extreme in areas of anthropology and religion. Now, Cartesian methodology is fine as a foundation for the scientific method but this Enlightenment ”method of suspicion” guides our approach to everything – from politics to religion to media to relationships. After all, where there’s smoke there’s always fire, right?

As Americans, we are constantly steered toward this critical paradigm. I like what social historian Keith Thomas said about it in regards to our understanding of the supernatural: “Most of those millions of persons who would laugh at the idea of magic and miracles would have trouble explaining why.  They are victims of society’s constant pressure towards intellectual conformity” (emphasis mine). And it’s a more widespread epidemic than just the belief in miracles. At the core of this issue is our inability to trust. It’s become a human issue. Cartesian method quickly moved out of the laboratory and now influences dinner table conversations, news and political opinion, and has decimated our ability to treat people with honor and respect. We feel we need “evidence” to trust anyone. And that’s a very sad thing. That approach to life also eradicates faith – the belief in something beyond our explanation or full understanding. Rather than believing the best about another until proven wrong, we chose to expect the worst, while waiting for the slight chance that someone might actually do the right thing. We value the 10% bad and discard the 90% good about each other.

Here’s the funny thing about all of this: people who adopt this critical approach to life assume that they stand on the bedrock of human understanding. Most humanists I know feel this way. And who knows, maybe they have arrived at the pinnacle of intelligence. But really, the Western Enlightenment paradigm is only about three hundred years old. Rationalist thought didn’t fully permeate Western culture until about 250 years ago. And there were hundreds of paradigms that came before us. Presently. most other world cultures see our modernist suspicion as faddish and a sign of immaturity. After all, people saw things differently before the 1700s. And we now have the corner market on comprehension after 250 years? Is it possible we think too much of ourselves?

The Bible says we should believe the best about each other. That’s hard to do as we attempt to control others by labelling and distorting information to confirm our suspicion of others. I believe that’s called making a mountain out of a molehill. That type of criticism is only a reflection of deeper negativity inside the critic. Critics are unhappy people. Chances are good that a critic spends as much time in personal negative self-talk as they do talking about someone else. The truth is: we’re all okay. Not perfect. But most people have good intentions when not backed into a corner. We can choose not to believe that and let the “hermeneutics of suspicion” guide us. But if we do, we’ll be so busy criticizing the mistakes of others that we’ll miss thousands of chances to witness the good intentions of those around us. And that’s something I personally don’t want to miss.

Roads, Part 2

I am amazed at people’s willingness to share their opinions on just about anything. One exclusive on 20/20 or the latest one-liners from Glenn Beck and we become experts on any subject. I’ve shared with you before that I don’t get into politics very much at all. As someone who has acdemically studied something in depth, I now feel totally unqualified to have strong opinions about anything (much less politics) without having done the research. I don’t research politics; therefore I don’t have many opinions about it.

One of the most amazing things about people’s willingness to criticize our government is where it happens. To me, the funniest place this occurs in on the interstate. We spend hours driving down government maintained roads while cursing the government for mismanagement of funds, shady business deals, and international insensitivity. While we travel on their roads! It cracks me up. Maybe that’s not very funny to you – I think there’s a lot of irony there. It’s like people who criticized Bush but then made sure they received their child tax credit. Or those who criticized Clinton while taking advantage of the Family Medical Leave Act. There’s something wrong about that. 

Though I may not agree with everything our government does, I’m not about to slander them while taking advantage of their provision for our country. Sure, there’s plenty of mismanagement in government. But I’m not really talking about government here, am I? I’m talking about people. Americans feel they have a right to assert their opinions. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, there is something terribly wrong in turning a blind eye to the fortunate lifestyle we partake of. The ungrateful message between the lines? “I could do better.” At least for me, I’m not so sure I could. Maybe that’s a better topic to think about while driving down the road.

Stem Cells and the Soul

I don’t weigh in on contemporary issues too much, for a couple of reasons: 1) my opinion isn’t that important, 2) by the time I come to an opinion, the blogosphere has moved on, and 3) my opinion rarely translates into a “readable” post. I though I might try it with this one since I actually do have something to say I hope you’ll find interesting. Of course, if you’re looking for some sort of definitive answer, you’re probably gonna be disappointed.

Obama lifting the funding restrictions on stem cell research and cell nuclear replacement (CNR) has made headlines in the last day or so. Of course, people don’t understand that Bush had allowed previously discarded stem cells to be used – his ban was not on all stem cells, as many in the media have suggested. Bush allowed those stem cells to be harvested that already had no chance of becoming a child. What Obama is doing is allowing any stem cells, including those randomly harvested by any individual, to be used for scientific purposes. The crude analogy that comes to mind is a sperm bank. That may be incorrect but that’s the impression I get from the news articles I’ve read.

Of course, that type of talk sets of a firestorm of critical reaction from religious/scientific circles. I don’t plan to solve the problem, but I can relay the different ways that theology has dealt with the real issue for Christians: when does the “soul” begin to exist? And when does an embryo become a human being? A person’s view of the intrinsic nature of the human soul determines one’s response Obama’s decision.

Theology generally recognizes several views of the human composition. Some take a tripartite view of the spirit, soul, and body. Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5 mentions these three. Augustine tied the three persons of the Trinity to the makeup of humans, attempting to relay the idea that we are made in the image of God. God is three; we are three in composition. Some call this Augustine’s “psychological” treatment/analogy of the Trinity. However, most Christians today opt for a dualist view of humanity: soul and body. Many see the soul as a once and for all spiritual endowment given by God. I’ve heard the idea that little “baby spirits” are floating around in heaven waiting for conception and then God infuses that spiritual part into the womb.  If that’s true, then stem cell research is death of a spirit-being and stem cell research is morally depraved.

Another theological choice is that the human spirit/soul grows with the human body over time. So, the moral status of a human is enhanced as a fetus develops. This choice for Christians isn’t as marginalized as you may think. Thomas Aquinas believed that “ensoulment” took place within the first 40 to 80 days after conception. This would certainly fall within the Warnock “time limit” of stem cell harvesting: 14 days. Other theologians believe in a something called “non reductive physicalism”: the idea that humanity is composed in a way that is inseparable into specific parts (non reductive). Others believe that the emergence of the soul as the predominant part of humanity takes place only when salvation occurs. Otherwise, they say, what ‘s the point of eternal life if you already were given it through the immortality of the soul? Stem cell research does not negatively affect any of these views.

So which one is correct? I don’t know (I told you that you wouldn’t like this post). All use scriptural and scientific grounds to make their case. So, what do you believe Sam? I can say that I am intuitively unnerved by President Obama’s recent decision. But I’m not exactly sure for what reasons. I do know this: I believe God knows about all of this. I also believe that he is capable of saving us. How that’s done or the role human composition plays in that are things I don’t have concrete answers for. Either way God isn’t daunted by legislation, good speeches, or the “false choice between sound science and moral values,” or whether the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science thinks scientists are “happy” or not.  I fully trust that he can save anyone at any point – Why? Because he’s God and he doesn’t want anyone to perish. The context of “perishing” changes with each human – no matter when the soul of a person awakens. God is there at every moment.

Why Oprah Just Might Be the Antichrist…

For all you wonderful people who think Barack Obama might be the Antichrist…

I taught a small group on end times beliefs about four years ago. During our examination of Revelation, we inevitably stumbled upon the passages believed to describe the Antichrist. Immediately questions arose: who is he? When will he come? Will he start the tribulation? Will Christians be raptured before then? Boy, could I feel a headache coming on! I’ve said in this post how much I hate popular forms of eschatology for this exact reason. So, this time around, I decided to have a little fun:

“Oh, the Antichrist is already here.”

“What!! Who is it?”

“It’s Oprah Winfrey.” 

“WHAT!!”

Then I took them to the only  place in the Bible where the term “antichrist” is mentioned: the epistles of John, specifically 1 John 2:18-19. What I love about these two verses is the fact that John says there were many antichrists who had come – most of them were part of the church at that time before they left it. So, if John is using the term correctly, we must assume that “antichrist” does not mean “Antichrist” in the popular sense of one rival messiah sent to deceive the world. So what does it mean?

Well, “Christ” means “Messiah” – that’s obvious enough. It’s the “anti-” part that we get wrong. We assume that “anti-” means “in opposition to” or “antagonistic” – like anti-abortion. But it doesn’t. In means “in place of,” “instead of,”or “substitutionary.” So, “antichrist” means “in place of Christ.” 1 John 2:22 goes even further by saying that anyone who denies not only the Son, but also the Father, is acting as an antichrist.

So, why Oprah? Well, it actually doesn’t have anything to do with Eckhart Tolle. It has to do with Oprah’s power and cultural influence. Like most media figures, Oprah often establishes her influence outside of Christianity and many people look to her for answers about life’s deeper issues. She’s one of the most popular and well-recognized individuals in our nation and often serves as a cultural substitute where spiritual issues are concerned.

In that sense anything can be antichrist – government officials, sports figures, musicians, teachers, world leaders, philosophers, and even preachers. Any person that others may substitute for Christ is, in some sense, antichrist. That list includes Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And it could include John McCain just as much as Barack Obama. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong or unworthy of admiration. But I think it’s safe to say that they aren’t God. And to subsitute them for God inapproriate.

In most cases, the problem is not with the “Oprahs” of the world but with those who substitute their wisdom for a deep relationship with God. Notice that John didn’t write to the “antichrists” of his time, but rather to the people who gave them undue authority and influence. And that’s the key. Anyone can warn about the “Antichrist” of the Left Behind Series, but what are we doing about those who give to others the influence that only Christ should have? People succumb to “antichristism” when Jesus is their savior in doctrine but in matters of life, Oprah (or anyone else) is their lord. The only time people look for substitutes is when what they have isn’t satisfying their deeper needs. Don’t blame Oprah, people. We Christians alone share the burden for “wandering” spiritual seekers. It just so happens that Oprah has a some spiritual advice for people now. But, for her followers, her cultural influence eclipsed the practical aspects of Christianity long ago. Eckhart Tolle just made Christians stand up and take notice.

George W. Bush: The Worst President Ever?

George W. Bush. I’ve thought about our exiting president over the last year each time I see the latest poll tallying his world-wide unpopularity. The man just can’t seem to catch a break. The insults range from his intelligence to his southern drawl and he’s currently being blamed for all present national and international conflicts. And maybe he is the problem. Maybe he deserves his popularity rating.

I was having dinner with someone over a year ago. The topic turned to GW. “I’ll tell you what I think,” my friend said. “I think he’s an idiot.” I asked, “Why is that?” “Because he’s a horrible leader, he’s unintelligent, he doesn’t know what he’s doing, and he’s incapable of governing the Iraq war.” “Wow. You really don’t like him do you?” I said. He responded, “No, he’s a horrible president.”

Now this young fella I was speaking with has significant “domestic policy” issues in his own house. From money problems to marriage problems – he’s got them all. I was stuck by his confidence in his own estimation of our fearless leader. And I’m sure he has a lot of companions who have the same opinion of GW – roughly 65% to be exact.

“You know what I think?” I asked my friend. He looked at me: “What?”

“I think he’s a man. A man with blind spots and faults but someone who generally is doing the best he can with the situations he’s been given. I have to be honest and say that I don’t envy him. Even if I was smarter than our president, I don’t know that I would’ve handled the immense pressure he’s been under any better. He’s had more international conflict, domestic complications, and natural disasters in his tenure than any of his recent predecessors combined. I think we’re too hard on him. And I would never call him an idiot or a buffoon. He’s merely a man doing the best he can at an impossible job while attempting to meet the impossible expectations of people just like you who make judgment calls based on what they see on TV.”

That was pretty much the end of our conversation about President Bush.

I posted this picture of GW because of his facial expression. He’s receiving applause from his staff and wife – the people that are closest to him. I see a lot of things in his eyes. I see public exposure and criticism. I see misunderstanding. I see Hurricane Katrina. I see the Iraq War. I see a father trying to hold his family together. I see the collapse of the Twin Towers. I see the capture of Saddam Hussein. I see hurt feelings and harsh words. I see uneasy relations with North Korea, Russia, China and a host of other nations. I see economic turmoil and political unrest. I see the toll the most difficult job in the world takes on a person. I see a very tired man. He deserves our support and respect. He’s not perfect. But he certainly deserves more than the comments of my friend.

Obama, the Religious Right, and Our Present Cultural Landscape

Wow. How about Barack Obama? As the election results rolled in last night I thought about several different things…

1) The religious/evangelical right did not exist as a block vote in this election. In fact, a lot of Christians voted for Obama, in spite of many “conservative” Christians who believed his Senate voting record and stance on abortion were antithetical to family values. Maybe this had to do with McCain’s tendencies towards liberal policy as well, but in the past, McCain’s pro-life stance would’ve counted for more. This time, it didn’t. Will the evangelical right show up in four years? If the trend among my generation of Christians and the one beneath me continues, the answer is probably not.

2) With election results in, the media immediately shifted from national and international issues to racial dialogue. Obama was no longer the Democratic candidate for change this morning; headlines state he is the first African-American president. The majority of broadcasters highlighting this historic racial moment (and it certainly is one) were white. That tells us something very important that no one else has the gall to mention today: yesterday’s vote was more about the voters themselves than the candidates. Issues of qualification and policy, though important, went out the window in favor of a larger rallying cry. White people are proud of the fact that the world will now see them as culturally aware and globally enlightened. We’re tired of Europe making fun of us. I’m not taking anything away from Obama and his potential for greatness as a U.S. president when I say that. I hope he excels and helps our nation. But I also think that in the same way that people sometimes do good deeds for recognition, some people may have voted to be part of the Obama “movement” so they can internally pat themselves on the back.

3) How much money does it take to win an election? 640 million. McCain only raised about half that amount. Money makes a difference.

4) America is slowly moving towards a secularized society like Europe. Cultural liberalism is in vogue. I don’t mean that in some Rush Limbaugh way. I mean that pluralism has taken full root in every area of society. We live in an open society where specific ideologies no longer restrict individual choice. In other words, (other than media influence) there is no over-arching intellectual conformity in America. And that was just a matter of time. To me, Obama represented that trend as the ultimate “melting pot” candidate and proved it with his landslide victory. Of course, our interreligious landscape has already shown us this. Honestly, that doesn’t bother me. If anything, it will make Christianity among those who see it merely as a cultural concession willing to show their true colors. It will also make those who have an authentic faith treasure it more. That’s actually a good thing.

5) With a democratic house and senate, Obama will have the chance to enact change in a lot of areas if he wants. It will be interesting to see how he handles the next four years. Will he be the unifying force he’s promised to be, or will his past voting record (one of the most liberal) tell the true story? In a way, he’s already given us an answer. Obama had the chance to pick a more moderate/conservative choice to shield him from criticisms of being overly progressive. He didn’t. He chose someone with a voting record just like his. That tells me something, too. Obama just might believe that he stands on the cuff of idealism and progress with little regard for those who may feel he is unbalanced. His VP pick ignored those conservatives who took a risk in voting for him yesterday. And that’s actually does scare me. Check back in four years and we’ll have our answer.

Respect, Community, and Intergalactic Planetary Wars

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. Or so they say. “Value the differences.” That’s what I heard throughout marriage counseling.

Herein lies one of secular culture’s most ridiculous statements – a statement that runs contrary to human nature, biblical advice and plain old good logic. It shapes our cultural and socio-economic landscape and influences our politics. And here’s the statement: unity and respect occur only when people see our distinctives and uniqueness. In other words, exalting diversity promotes unity. Though that idea makes for good speech writing, really, the opposite is true. Unity comes from the realization that in most ways, all people value and live life the same.

Take marriage for example. The book title I quoted above and many others say that our marriages improve when we learn to love what’s different about our spouse. But when was the last time anyone loved the most irritating things about anyone, much less the person they live with? No, that’s crazy talk. What keeps people close is their common ground, their similar interests, and their willingness to focus on the things that endear them to each other, not the personality traits that polarize. Compatibility occurs with people who like the same things, not with those who talk about how different they are.

Another great example is race relations. Racial dialogue has been based upon the differences between Hispanic, Caucasian, and African-American groups, among others. So, we sit around and talk about how great our differences are and how distinctive each other’s culture is - we emphasize uniqueness and independent value. But honestly, all that does is subconsciously direct us back to why separation and hostility exists. It’s illogical. Rather than focusing on our distinctives, we should be valuing the similarities among us: food, clothing, shelter, love, friendship, life, death, grief, family, and honor. Those are what make us the same. Community is found in our similarities, not our differences. We need to value what we have in common rather than carving out a place of distinction for ourselves. That’s what Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 12 – our differences must be eclipsed by our vision for the whole. What did Paul see as the common denominator among all peoples? Jesus Christ.

I heard a statistic long ago that really drives this point home. All the genetic anomalies among all the people of the world only add up to 2%. That means you and I are only 2% different than the person we might think is physically the most unlike us. Two percent! Yet, we spend the majority of our time exploiting that 2% for recognition rather than finding commonality among the other 98%.

So, if I’m just stating the obvious here, why do we do it? Why do we harp on those differences (whether intellectual, cultural, or political)? Because our society promotes individuality. We have to be different so we can stand out. I used to be obsessed with being different. Now, not so much. I think average is pretty great, too. Average is not societal or spiritual death – it’s being content as part of the 98%. And that makes for good company and a whole lot of friends.