Women breastfeed their babies. They’ve done it longer than restaurants have been in existence, longer than public parks have been in existence, longer than Western society has been in existence.
Breasts. Breasts. Breasts. Maybe if I say it enough times you won’t blush. Breasts.
For longer than your family’s last name has been around women gathered around and breastfed their babies. In America, granted, breasts are very sexual. Thus, most women who breastfeed their babies in public do so discreetly. It’s a grace they give.
Maybe you heard the story about the preacher who got arrested for preaching in Arizona. And maybe you heard the version that Glenn Beck told. Or anyone else at Fox News told.
No, that’s not what happened. And no, Christianity is not becoming illegal in America. This is Arizona. You’re not going to find a town that puts a man in jail for “operating a church”. It’s a matter of complying with city ordinances about safety.
Remember when Jesus said, “the poor you will always have with you”? In the immediate context he was rebuking Judas for his suggestion that a bottle of perfume be sold to the poor instead of poured on the feet of the Messiah. You’d think that if he was concerned for the poor he wouldn’t have sold the perfume to them. Jesus affirmed that giving the poor things like perfume would have been a noble thing to do at any other moment, but at this moment the son of the living God was with them, and he wouldn’t date let even one of his own followers criticize a woman for pouring out perfume on his feet in a gesture of worship. No matter how shocking a thing it was to see her do it, it was an act of pure devotion to a God that delivers people, delivers the poor, raises up servants, praises women, saves us from our depravity. Wiping his feet with her own hair, she was unashamed of the taboos inherent in that moment.
[Correction: Judas actually says to sell it and give the money to the poor, not to sell it to the poor. But the text reveals that Judas’ true motive was to sell it, give some money from it to the poor, but mostly to take some of the profits. That’s the Bible’s way of saying trickle-down economics comes from the same people who betray Jesus.]
It’s also interesting that Jesus was referring to a passage from the old law:
“There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.” (Deut. 15:11)
There is no permanent solution to the problem of poverty: that is the underlying statement. Because of that, poverty will always be around us, whether next door, across the street, or across an ocean from you and me. The old law gave an injunction to be openhanded, not just to give money, but to have an open hand, to be willing to give of whatever it took. The only time-bound phrasing in the passage is “always”, thus it must be assumed that we “always” are open-handed. Jesus even takes this to another level, arguably the same level it was always meant to be. The poor “will always be with you”, in essence. They will be in your midst. They won’t go away. Driving them off is an abomination, not a solution. In fact, in the statement “you will always have with you” implies a command to have them with us. As in when a syllabus says “the student will” or a judge pronounces that as part of a sentence a person “will” perform such-and-such service.
The importance of this distinction is that the command is not just about always being willing to give, but to do so in an environment in which the poor are WITH us.
I was reminded of this when my unofficial agent and editor Trae Bailey, to whom I owe approx. 9,536 words of praise, showed me this article from Mission Frontiers: Projecting Poverty Where it Doesn’t Exist
The more distant we are from the poor, the less we are in tune with their needs. Cultural values also influence this. What we may deem as a sign of poverty, another culture may deem merely a reflection of the culture. Are the Amish in poverty because they have no electricity? Granted, that is fully their decision. In many developing countries it’s not necessarily a decision of communities not to have what we have, but sometimes, even amidst adaptation to poverty, cultures make an adjustment that are comfortable with, leading us to assume that every “need” we seek to provide is one they yearn for.
Steve Saint’s example of orphans demonstrates this difference. In America, we call a child with no parents an orphan. In South America, an orphan is a child with no family at all, no caretakers. In many of the cultures there, children whose parents have died are cared for by even the most extended family. This poses the question: Is an orphanage what they need? Imagine the cost going into an orphanage when the real problem in a community may be the water quality. Families already take care of their children, but these children are growing sick from bad water. To be in tune with a community’s needs, we need people deeply rooted in the community to know how to meet them. And we want to help empower the poor to be in a place where they can sustain their own needs as much as possible.
I don’t know if I agree with Saint that we should avoid handouts. Sometimes a handout is just what a person or community needs, particularly in the event of a disaster or tragedy. But sometimes that open hand is a real hand, holding theirs. Sometimes an open hand is a hand that teaches and models how to do a task to help the community and self. Sometimes that open hand is a hand giving up income for a policy one is taxed to promote to protect poor communities from having their food and water supply poisoned. Sometimes that open hand is working to put together a food or medicine package.
One example I think of is Love In Stereo’s effort to help the children of Haiti. If you purchased the album “My Heart is in Haiti“, money from the purchase went to feeding a child in Haiti. But that’s not the end of the project, otherwise this would be mere slacktivism. Brad Montague, who was behind the project, also spearheaded GO! Camp. Children from all over the region attended GO! One of their many projects was packing together 100,000 meals for these children. This is one of the many things they are involved in. This is a network of relief and aid. And the money from the album purchases didn’t just go to a random organization. They went to help an individual, Roberta Edwards, who founded Sonlight Children’s Nutrition Center, and lets orphans into her home.In this growing network of global connections, we can use our resources to use these networks to let our hands open to the poor around the world.
Get involved. Know these needs of the poor. How do we know? They are with us. They are always with us. Are they?
I’ve heard enough negativity about health care recently. As well as enough confusion. I like to hear positives ideas and weigh them. I’ll try to do that today. Continue reading →
I like fireworks. I kind of have a knack for them. 1812 is one of my favorite pieces of music. Some people call them trashy, and maybe they are, a little. When I was a kid we couldn’t let off fireworks in our yard. I was angry. Our neighbor was a Viet Nam vet. I didn’t understand when I was little why the fireworks upset him. I just thought he was cranky.
Later I learned a few things about what war is like. I learned about PTSD, about how horrors follow you and don’t disappear overnight. In Roanoke, there’s a huge firework display near where Victory Stadium used to be (where Andrew Lewis played T.C. Williams, you know, from “Remember the Titans”), which is also right next to the memorial hospital. I wonder sometimes how the fireworks sound to the vets. It’s a strange juxtaposition, celebrating freedom with these flash bang works of fire, which also mimic the sounds and sparks and repercussions of battle.
I love this land and it’s people and it’s places. As a foreigner, I appreciate your empire letting Christians like us live in your land without molestation. You have been very kind to us. We appreciate you consulting our Holy text among the other sources you looked to in fashioning the principles of the country you created. I am sometimes worried by reports of how you seem to be restricting the space we have to spread our message, but I confess I would expect that from any country who feels threatened by a transformative faith that appears so upside-down to you.
Your country is strange to me. A little trashy. Cheap at times. Loud. Dangerous. Colorful. Enormous. Fun. A grand spectacle. Like a firework show. I too will mourn when it is over if I live to see that day, whether it end with a whimper or a bang. When it is over, we pack up our chairs, roll up our blankets, and move on. Sigh.
Sometimes I wonder if fireworks are the best choice for celebrating this day. Well, at least they’re not fired on Memorial Day. I came across this video message from a vet who shares with American Christians the perspective he finds when applying the word of God to the deeds of this land in which we Christians are travelling through as foreigners.
Like Wilson-Hartgrove, I do love this place, this land, the blessings it brings. What if one year we stopped the fireworks, and instead let vets stand up and tell their stories? Like what Forrest Gump did after Nam, except without the radical guy with the Fro “always sayin’ that ‘F’ word”.
I know a lot of people like to bring up the price that soldiers pay for our freedoms. But if we are going to take this day to celebrate our freedom, maybe we should hear the tales of what kind of things went on in the name of freedom. Let the vets have a voice. And respect that voice. Stand and hear them. Let them tell us what they witnessed. This could also open up conversations about what we send them to do. Let the vets tell us what they think about the wars we send them to.
If you are a soldier or vet, I honor the courage you showed, as the mind for service that went along with it. I may not agree with the deeds you were asked to perform for this nation, nor the choices made by powerful men to send you to where you went. But I mean no disrespect to you, nor will I refuse to give you a warm welcome. In fact, I’d love to see more soldiers come home. With all the wars this nation inherited and are expanding in the name of freedom, I almost wonder if we should fast from fireworks for a year and instead listen only to the stories of those who endured the real booming battlefields which they echo. I had a dream last night I was a vet. I had seen and done things I couldn’t forget. When I came home I was tearful, and nobody cared to listen to me because I wasn’t celebratory. Maybe that’s why I wrote about this today.
Aw, what am I saying? Let’s break out the fireworks and have us a ball! May God bless this land, and may this land respond in kind with praise and awe-filled deeds of love and service! May the milk and honey flow and the sparklers wave from the hands of children!
I recommend a good dose of the Young Turks every once in a while.
A Republican Threatens with Armed Rebellion:
One of the most bogus claims is that an entire system is broken and ceased to exist because one thing didn’t go our way. That’s right. The Constitution died because of a single tax imposed on those without health care. Nobody had ever done it before. Up until President Obama, the Constitution was in perfectly healthy condition.
In other words, something like this bloatedly misleading piece of propaganda:
And so Matt David’s idea of rebellion seems totally legit to a lot of people. Why, not since the redcoats has anyone so trampled on the American people, and we had a solution to that, didn’t we?
As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. Violent rhetoric begets violence. You have to take responsibility for what you say. Freedom of Speech does not mean you can yell “Fire” in a theater. Matt David should be shamed publicly for his outrageous suggestions. Not arrested. Because if we arrest him the moronic militias will only get angrier and arm themselves for what they think is a just cause.
Do I think Republicans would be as outraged if Romney passed the bill? I think there are many who wouldn’t, and that race does have a part in it. But mostly it is because they cannot see how their own candidate would push the same kind of action, because he’s on “their side”. We have regressed into tribalism and barbarism. Well, not all of a sudden.
I’m glad they brought up Timothy McVeigh, because his story is parallel to what is happening now. People take up arms in reaction to both real and perceived injustices from the government, and eventually somebody snaps.
And then we’re introduced to thought experiment number 2: What if Matt Davis was a Muslim? If he implied armed warfare, even over Obamacare, Republicans would be all over these comments, suggesting he be bagged and brought to Guantanimo. They’re already spying on Muslims, even if they never spoke a word of violence in their lives. But this guy says “sure, I’d shoot people in government if I had to, and that may be very soon” and he’s still walking around.
You may be thinking that this is about the question of whether Obama is a tyrant, whether this is real oppression. But it’s not a real question, not for this situation. I think he’s made grave mistakes with perpetuating war, using bombing drones, and not making a move to limit the number of aborted children in the US. Whether you think that qualifies him as a tyrant is beyond this point:
Armed rebellion is not a justified response to oppression. It’s not that we’re not oppressed enough to warrant a rebellion, as if Matt Davis is just speaking too early. No, rather, it’s that armed rebellion against any government is an inherent rejection of the way of Christ. His followers were tortured brutally in the Roman regime, a far worse penalty than most Christians in America have yet to know. Had they thought armed rebellion justified, they would have acted on such thoughts. Considering how unified they seemed to be in the refusal to take up arms against oppressors, there must have been something there in their very beliefs that brought forth this unity of peaceful resistance.
Could it be the teachings of Christ? You mean the teachings of the man that most Republicans claim to follow? Like Matt Davis? For once, let’s have a real tea party. Where we sit down, have some cups of tea, especially with those we disagree with, and talk things out like men, not like beasts who beat their chests and grunt.
It’s time we take up arms in rebellion. Against our wicked selves. Kill the old regime in your heart. Establish the new.
[the following is a revisited look at observations and comments I made 2 years ago on the healthcare bill]
I’ll admit that I am not an expert on public health, government operations, or economics. So I’m not going to talk about what I don’t know. I’m not qualified to evaluate this bill. I invite others to do that. But if the extent of your knowledge about this new bill has come from chain emails or infotainment personalities with an axe to grind, think again before mimicking what you only assume is trustworthy. And I will say that this here article is in no way a defense of the new H.C. bill. It’s a treatise on how to better talk about it even though you know very little about it.
So before we begin, let’s consider a few things. The best place for Christians to begin is their Word of God. Continue reading →
Says Empire: “Doing something to Syria would be a big blow to Iran.” Except that Iran hasn’t threatened us. We are more of a threat to them.
Obama wants to invade Syria. The reasoning: it will weakin Iraq. Because killing people in one country to make another country weak when it’s already too weak to even think of attacking us is logical in any playing field. Ron Paul could talk him out of it, if he would just listen.
What ‘s happening in Syria is none of our business. What happened in Libya is none of our business. In fact, what happened in Iraq was none of our business.
I echo the video: this whole invade everybody who we think might get a nuke in the future or something is bad politics, bad policy, bad economy. Oh, and it’s morally corrupt.
You want to change things for the better in a country? Send in doctors. Send in teachers. Send in carries of gospel.
Missionaries, not missiles.
The prophets of Israel called for quietism abroad. That means you don’t go invade other places. Oh, and America’s founders also didn’t want to go “monster hunting” abroad, for those of you who claim to follow Jesus but care more about America. So, no matter how you cut it, this invasion would be wrong.
over the last 50-80 years America’s history of preemptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupation, nation building, torture and assassination have accumulated a vast hatred of American presence in the Middle-East and other places in the world. It’s time for this to end.
Swords into ploughshares. Ron Paul is the only politician I know who seriously quotes it in his use of policy rhetoric. Start listening to him.
Remember that lion from Wizard of Oz? He was a big ol’ lion but he was a pansy. Then the wizard gives him a medal of bravery because he did, after all, face a witch and flying monkeys and the wrath of a fake wizard for Dorothy, even though he was scared. That time-worn, but true lesson that courage isn’t the absence of fear, but earning a fearless life by overcoming fear.
The first movie I watched after Noah was born was Courageous, the most recent film made by Alex Kendrick and Sherwood Pictures, the church group who made Facing the Giants and Fireproof (and Flywheel, which, if you see it, is really cheezy and low budget, but surprisingly compelling).
In Courageous, a group of police officers come to the realization that they aren’t living fulfilling lives as fathers. When they become dispirited from the growing rate of crime, they decide that the world needs fathers to step up and be more involved in their childrens’ lives. They make a pact together to be better fathers themselves.
Christian entertainment these days is full of cheese. It reeks of Andy Griffith and flannel board renditions of the parables. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Mostly it’s just a matter of taste. We don’t like to hear messages that are simple, or preachy, or brought to us by “an authority”. We like complex messages, stories that entertain us more than call us to action, and messages from characters that discover what they want, not come to a realization about what is right or wrong. Does this movie have cheese? It has some. But it’s not preachy, or oversimplified, or depicting Christianity as an authoritative religion.
The dilemma I find myself in is finding movies that are wholesome and artistically interesting and raw with meaning. We like our Andy Griffith, but it’s a story about a town that never really existed in real life (or at least exited for whites). It taught us really good lessons, but didn’t touch a lot of issues. But yet I’ve seen some movies simply because they were critically acclaimed and thought, “man, Clockwork Orange has a lot to say about society and the human psyche but did I really need to see all that?” I should have just read the book.
I say all this to say that I really enjoy and appreciate Courageous because it’s a wholesome story that doesn’t cut artistic corners or lie about how the world works. It is very much like the more popular film The Blind Side, only with much more overt Christian themes. Sure, some of the delivery is bad, but how shallow are we if we reject a message because the actors (who by definition are pretending anyway) aren’t as good at pretending as their more talented counterparts? Maybe that’s why good Christians aren’t good actors, because they don’t like to play pretend. Maybe non-fiction is more our thing, releasing documentaries about the good work being done for Christ. It’s easy to create wholesome entertainment for children, because they love to play pretend. For adults, maybe it’s hard to find wholesome movies because when we see people acting as Christians on the screen we see ourselves only pretending to be Christians.
Sherwood’s films do have their share of issues. [spoiler alert]. It sometimes seems that they’re trying to tell us that if we pray to God and try to do what’s right, bad things will stop happening to us. In Giants, the coach says “we win, we pray to God; we lose, we pray to God.” Well, they pray to God, and you can imagine what happens. I don’t think the filmmakers are trying to present the prosperity gospel, the great heresy of Joel Olsteen. After all, the scriptures say, “seek first the kingdom of God, and all these things will be added to you.” But the question is, does he give us everything we want? Or need? We need very little; fasting shows God we know this. I think the films try to show us that if we pursue faithfulness, things will come together in a meaningful way in our lives, whether for the good or in spite of it. In Courageous bad things happen, and even after the pact of faith is made bad things continue to happen.
Another critique of the film may be the very idea of these men taking an oath to be exemplary fathers, and having to have an ordained minister there to do this. I can see why people may be offended by this idea. Shouldn’t all fathers take up this mantle? Do you need a clergyman to verify your vow to be a good father? Since this idea is novel to the film, it’s not like they were trying to enforce some denominational rite.
What I do like about the film is something that could have gone wrong but didn’t: how they deal with crime and the world. Rather than a propaganda piece telling us that a rise in crime necessitates a rise in law enforcement measures at any cost, the writers propose that being better examples and leaders is the best solution. Of course, they still do their duty as cops to arrest criminals. But they also don’t show this simplistic view of crime and criminals. They prefer to tackle and handcuff than shoot. Judge Dredd is an anti-Christian figure.
They also avoid getting the racist label. Several of the criminals depicted are black, but, in the deep south this is a statistical truth that says more about race relations and poverty than “the black race”. One of the cops is black, too. One of the main characters is hispanic. He and his wife have deep accents, border on poverty, and are unemployed. This could have easily been a racist caricature, but it isn’t. They are portrayed as intelligent, hard workers with strong faith. Their accents are incidental, as is their poverty, and the man’s willingness to take any honest job makes himself honorable. In fact, he inspires faith in the white fathers. Some sensitive viewers might scoff at a comic scene involving the cops making use of his “hispanic-ness”, but that would be a stretch of a critique, and even then, even the heroes of a story aren’t perfect, nor should they be.
Bible belt Christians seem to be depicted as racist and, let’s face it, many are, and the white/black divide in churches shows there is still work to do. But I caught no signs in the film that the filmmakers were going to irresponsibly let their own viewers validate prejudice. They wanted to make sure their viewers didn’t walk away saying, “we would just have less crime if we just got rid of all this scum (meaning, certain ‘kinds’ of people).” The problem of crime isn’t the presence of a certain race or culture, but a certain value of honor and integrity, or lack thereof.
But I’m glad to see the rise in popularity of these films, even among non-Christian audiences. Hollywood just isn’t making wholesome movies any more, and even people who aren’t pursuing God are interested in wholesome stuff, not just for their kids, but maybe because deep down the know they need something uplifting and morally compelling beyond vague celebrations of “the triumph of the human spirit”.
I don’t think a film has to have an overt moral message to be considered “Christian”. But one thing I look forward to as a father is watching all this G and PG rated stuff that just doesn’t seem much fun without a kid in the house. I say that now—I’m sure I’ll sing a different tune after 26 viewings of Disney’s Cars.
CALEB COY 