HineSight

Another Way

2012-11-10T01:44:00.002-06:00

This past weekend I came out of my comprehensive exam haze (more on that later this weekend) to realize that we still had an election going on. I’m not going to say I did not enjoy Tuesday evening. I was excited that President Obama was elected for another term, and I watched Karl Rove turn into a blubbering fool with more than a little feeling of schadenfreude. I also was excited for the four states that either voted in favor of civil gay marriage or rejected a civil definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. As those who are regulars to this blog know, I think that those victories are not just victories for the LGBT community, but victories for those who believe in religious freedom as well. (For those of you who are not regulars I think this post is the most comprehensive of the many I have written on the issue.) The aftermath of election night has left me a little disturbed though. I am not necessarily disturbed by the conservative spin on the President’s reelection. I expect no better of Fox News and their ilk. However, the conservative Christian response has bothered me. In the days before and after the election here is a brief list of some of the things that representatives of the Religious Right have said. Matt Staver, head of the Liberty Counsel, said that voters “looked at evil and adopted it” and insinuated that the Democratic platform comes from Romans 1. Buster Wilson of the American Family Association said that God would curse America for re-electing the President. Janet Mefferd expressed the belief that America would not survive a second term and Janet Porter from Faith 2 Action said that Obama’s election was due to disobedient Christians. I could mention more (I still have Pat Robertson and Robert Jeffress in the tank) but I think we all get the point. Conservative Christians feel like they lost this election and have been quick to preach fire and brimstone as the consequence of the outcome. My wife and watched the election returns with a classmate of mine and his wife (who is a former classmate). Both of them are former conservatives and his wife regaled us with stories from her Facebook newsfeed of conservatives (now) pining for Jesus to come in the wake of the election results.

This has bothered me for the past few days because I am reminded again that this is not what the public face of Christianity should be. I know that there are tons of Christians and Christian churches that are doing great things both here and abroad, but it’s just so sad that anytime you hear about Christians, it’s about some political issue and Christians are displaying themselves as close-minded, bigoted, and unloving. The old cliché was that some Christians were so heavenly minded that they were no earthly good. But is it possible that many Christians have now become so earthly minded that we no longer benefit Heaven? Have we forgotten what Christianity is supposed to be about? I believe that the Christian’s place in the world primarily involves two things. The first goal of the Christian is to spread the gospel. (Matt 28:19-20) (An interesting side note: We as Christians are supposed to be teaching people to do what God has commanded, not forcing them to do what God commanded.) The second goal of the Christian in relation to society I believe is found in Micah 6:8. “He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?” Somehow along the way Christians in this country have decided that the Christian life is supposed to be about making America into the jewel of God’s eye. I don’t know where that is in the Bible, but I haven’t found it yet.

It’s unfortunate that Christians in America have become overly engaged in politics. Not only because it has Christianity a bad reputation, but because if we are really about witnessing for Christ and creating a society that respects Christ, political fights are not the best way to accomplish the task. Richard Stearns, president of World Vision tells the story of Dean Curry, pastor of the Life Center Church in Tacoma, WA. The Life Center Church was once known for its Christmas Pageant and the societal practices it opposed until Pastor Curry was moved by the suffering he saw on a mission trip to Africa. He returned to the U.S. determined to help this community across the world. He started the Global Neighborhood Project. In seven years they have grown to 5,000 members including politicians, police officers, members of other denominations, and members of the LGBT community. And as an added bonus, the membership of his church has doubled over that time. Stearns summarized the point and expressed all that needs to be said about the issue –

There was a time when Pastor Curry might have worried about things like posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, but today he's too busy changing the city of Tacoma and world. This is the work Christians are called to do. Christians can stop worrying about the symbols of the decline of Christian America and get back to the mission Jesus gave us to show the world a different way to live -- a way that demonstrates the great character of God: his love, his justice, his compassion, his forgiveness and his reconciliation.

Let Them Grow

2012-10-27T03:55:00.001-05:00

Over the past few months I have been thinking a lot about how we can improve our churches. In that vein, several of my posts have been geared towards this topic (See “Why Have a Church,” “What Doth the Lord Require of Thee,” “Unity,” and “How to Have a More Open Church.”) I thought of this as we read a parable in the Book of Luke last week. In Luke 13:6-9 Jesus tells what seems to be a straightforward parable. A master owns a vineyard that has a fig tree that has not borne fruit for 3 years. When he comes to see that it is taken and destroyed the keeper who he has hired to take care of the vineyard intervenes. He asks the master for one more year. The vineyard keeper wants to dig around it, fertilize it, and give it one more chance to bear fruit.

This is an interesting and somewhat confusing parable, if it follows the normal parallels. Normally the master of the vineyard is God. Normally the keepers of the vineyard are the Pharisees and scribes and the vineyard itself (and everything in it) is the Jewish nation (or the church in modern parlance). (See Luke 20:9-18 for such an example.) If those parallels hold, then it would be the Pharisees who are asking God for more time to help save a failing member of the church, when God wants to cut that person off. It seems an odd interlude until the parable is juxtaposed with the actual events that take place immediately following the parable. A woman who was afflicted with a spirit has been doubled over for 18 years. Jesus sees her in the temple on the Sabbath day and heals her. A synagogue official sees the healing and chastises them and the crowd because Jesus healed on the Sabbath - a supposed violation of what they understood to be God’s law. The synagogue official wants Jesus and the woman to follow the rules. After all, there are six other days of the week when she could come to get healing. She could come tomorrow. Why can’t she just follow the rules? Jesus immediately points out the hypocrisy of this position. After all, the Pharisees allow all kinds of work on the Sabbath day. When I read this story I was struck by the lack of patience that the synagogue official showed. He is supposed to be the vineyard keeper. Why is he not pleading for grace for the woman instead of leading the chorus to criticize and chastise her?

It made me think of the way we treat some people in the church. Too many times it seems to me that we are too much like the synagogue official. We’re willing to turn people away because they show up on the wrong day, or in the wrong clothes, or with the wrong “problem.” And even if they get a chance to come through the doors, we don’t give people time to grow. At best we’re too impatient. We want so badly to see progress in people that we are intolerant of the simple fact that it takes time to become what God wants us to be. I’m nowhere near where I want to be with God and we’ve been wrestling for a long time. I thank Him that He is still patient with me. How can I deny that time and patience to someone else? How dare I interfere in the process of growth for someone else simply because I believe I know better? The lesson I’m learning this week is that my supposedly superior knowledge of what God wants does not give me carte blanche to insert myself into the work of God. It’s so unfortunate that we tend to treat people like the master in the parable, ready to cut them off because they do not seem to bear fruit. That would be ok – if we were the Master. But we’re just the vineyard keepers and the question for us all is what type of vineyard keeper we’ll be. Are we going to be like the synagogue official, who is impatient with the people in his vineyard? Are we going to be like the synagogue official, who exposes himself to be a hypocrite for extending grace to himself that he will not extend to those who are truly suffering? Or will we be like the vineyard keeper in the parable, willing to plead with God Himself for just a little more time to invest grace, patience, and love in those who seem too far gone? Will we be like that vineyard keeper, who wants the same grace extended to others that we have received ourselves? God is constantly showing me how longsuffering He has been with me. If we can be as long-suffering with others, I think we can begin to create an environment in our churches where people can grow and where we all can become more of what God wants us to be.

T-minus

2012-10-16T19:10:00.005-05:00

Yesterday was the 2 week deadline to my comprehensive exams. Each day from Oct 29-31 I will be taking a day-long exam related to the coursework that I have been doing for the past two years. On November 2^nd my committee and I will reconvene for the oral defense portion of comprehensives. That afternoon I will have to defend the answers I gave earlier in the week and defend my prospectus, which outlines what I would like to study for my dissertation. Quite simply, a PhD student cannot move into the dissertation phase of the program without passing comps.

For the exams I have had to do a ton of reading, several books for each subject. Because I’m a nerd (and proud of it!) some of the prep has been fun. It has been interesting engaging with the ideas of authors who are considered leaders in the three fields I’m studying (Religion and Politics in the US, Church-State in the US, and Religion, Law, and Politics). But of course it has been incredibly time consuming, especially when I’m teaching a couple courses, taking a class, and trying to fulfill my hours for my stipend. I’m not complaining, I realize that life as a professor will probably be just as busy if not more, but I wish I had all day to sit home and read. I have added my own stressors too. As you know if you’re a faithful visitor to this space, I went out of town weekend before last, and as a result did not get much work done. But what I did that weekend was important and worth it. But at times I wonder when I’m not working on my comps whether the time I’m spending away will be my downfall. Then there’s my wife to consider. I don’t get to act like I’m not married during this process. Not that I would want to – the best time of my day is the time I spend with her, and spending time with her is always more fun than any reading that I could be doing.

Also, I wish I could spend more time blogging than I have the past month or so. I wanted to do a more extended treatise on Ayn Rand which I never got to, and it breaks me up that I haven't really talked about the debates. For the next couple of weeks I will be doing some reposting (or doing some guest spots – if you’re interested let me know!). I will probably still do my Friday night post, but this midweek post will be devoted to something else until after comps are done.

Needless to say, I’m more than a little nervous. My career is riding on this to a certain extent. For those of you who are praying people, I can always use some whenever it may cross your mind. I believe that God brought me here, so I am sure that I will be successful, but I’ll need all the help I can get.

Bad Examples

2012-10-09T22:17:00.005-05:00

I had the pleasure of attending a screening of the documentary Seventh-Gay Adventists this weekend in Washington, DC and participate in a panel discussion about homosexuality in the Adventist Church. While I have already posted my general reactions, I was on the panel because of my expertise as a student in church-state studies. I was invited by the Metro Area Adventist Youth Association because they wanted to have a balance of voices on the panel. Dr. Nicholas Miller, a church-state expert from the Seminary at Andrews University, was already on the panel to represent the traditional Adventist position. I have talked about Dr. Miller in this space before, and this was certainly not the first time we were on a panel to discuss religious liberty and gay marriage.

In any debate about gay marriage, those who hold Dr. Miller’s views must address two often unspoken presumptions. First, that objections to gay marriage come from those who live according to the Christian ethos. Because of the Establishment Clause and its jurisprudence, it would be unconstitutional to outlaw gay marriage because it violates any particular religious laws. Therefore it is best to find an argument against gay marriage that does not appeal to religion. Second, many believe that churches should not be involved in political issues. The dominant theory in the 20^th Century is that religion is a private matter and churches are private entities. The theory says that religion has no place in public life and should be involved only in spiritual matters of the heart. To argue Dr. Miller’s position (that Christians should come out in force and protect the “traditional” view of marriage), you have to construct an argument that churches have a role in the larger society that would allow them to not only be active, but to be involved in the promulgation of particular laws that their religion supports.

Dr. Miller addressed both of these arguments over the course of the panel discussion. In response to the first presumption, Dr. Miller cited the principles of society at the time of the Founders. Individuality was not as all encompassing a principle. The Founders believed in a form of natural law that assumed certain natural ideas and concepts that could be agreed upon through an examination of the world around them. Amongst these natural laws would be the idea that couples come together in order to create children and continue the species. Marriage is humanity’s way of codifying and promoting the union of a man and a woman for the propagation of the race and the raising of children. Because it is “naturally” impossible for homosexual couples to have and raise children, there is no reason to give any special benefits to their unions. This argument, based on these premises, leads to other arguments – like the idea that marriage is not a right, and that allowing gay marriage will harm children because the best home for kids is with their father and mother.

To answer the second presumption, Dr. Miller cited two examples of religious involvement in society that I had not heard from him before. First, Dr. Miller recounted the story of the death of John the Baptist. In Matt 14:3-12, John the Baptist is arrested (and later beheaded) because he criticized King Herod for stealing his brother’s wife. Dr. Miller noted with import that this was an unlawful marriage that John chose to criticize. Dr. Miller surmised that John criticized the marriage because he knew how important marriage was to society and that the king’s bad example would have a negative effect. The second example he cited was from the history of Adventism. The Adventist Church was very active in the Prohibition movement in the late 19^thand 20^th Centuries. Dr. Miller pointed out that Ellen G. White urged people to vote for prohibition, and was concerned about the effect of drinking on society. The analogy is that we should be equally concerned by the detrimental effect of gay marriage on society and vote against marriage equality.

Fortunately, I was given the opportunity to address and refute both arguments. There are several ways to critique any natural law argument. First, natural law arguments are inherently subjective arguments, especially today when individualism is an important principle in society. Whose conception of natural law do we follow? What do we do when there is a minority who disagree with the majority view of natural law? Does the minority not get the same level of freedom simply because they believe a different set of moral values, which may be based on their own conceptions of what is natural? I told the people attending the panel that the history of America has been about the expansive notion of freedom, and that an argument like Dr. Miller’s is out of step with this notion. Simply trumpeting natural law does not address any of these questions, unless you’re willing to state as George Orwell did in Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Dr. Miller’s second argument is suspect because of the bad examples he uses to prove his point. Dr. Miller is attempting to argue that Christians should argue for their beliefs in the public square, and vote for laws that align with their beliefs. To support this argument, he cites an example from the Bible where the prophet does not attempt any form of decree or legislation, and then he cites an example of possibly the greatest social experiment failure in American history. Oddly enough, both examples give clear indications about how Christians should attempt to change society. In Matt 14, John does not attempt to align himself with a political movement to outlaw the king’s marriage. Instead he addresses the king about his sin directly, in hopes that he will see the error of his ways. The Prohibition Movement was a colossal failure, at least the part where they passed a constitutional amendment in 1920. Outlawing alcohol only led to bootlegging, smuggling, and organized crime. Society was awash in illegality and violence, compounded by the fact that few municipalities devoted resources to enforce the law. Even after the amendment was repealed in 1933 alcohol consumption never rose to pre-Prohibition levels. This did not stem from the passage of the law, but from the fact that before they passed the amendment supporters held seminars and prohibition rallies, convinced people of the evils of alcohol and then people made the decision not to drink.

John the Baptist and the early proponents of prohibition have already given us the best example of how religious people can have the greatest effect on society. If we see an evil in society that runs counter to the will of God, we should show people it’s wrong and introduce them to a Savior who can help people live better lives. The God that I serve is a God of freedom, who only wants people to follow His laws if they choose to, not because they are being coerced into godly living by the laws of their country. If gay marriage is the scourge that Dr. Miller thinks it is, he should devote his efforts to helping gay people live lives more in accordance with what he understands to be God’s will, not trying to save society from freedom. After all, God does not save us from the freedom to follow or not follow his law. If we attempt to depict God as anything other than a God who allows everyone to live by the precepts of their own conscience, all we’re doing is presenting another bad example.

Family

2012-10-08T22:01:00.001-05:00

I’m not quite sure what I expected. Panels are usually more focused, at least for me. I have a particular set of skills, and I try to use those skills to the best of my ability to address the subject of religious liberty. It made sense for me to be on the panel. After all, Maryland has a referendum on marriage equality on the ballot this fall, and so Adventists, who are against gay marriage in the church, would have questions about how to vote on such a measure. That is right in my wheelhouse and a significant question. I was able to do that (and I think I did a good job, but that’s for another post), but the religio-political implications of this particular question became small in comparison to the weightier questions raised by the film Seventh-Gay Adventists.

The evening began with a brief introduction by Daneen Akers, one of the film’s producers. The film is about 3 gay couples and their struggles with their sexual orientation in light of their Adventism. At some point, each of the people featured decided that their sexual orientation was not going to change, and they are all in committed relationships. The film is particularly moving, watching these people struggle to find religious communities that will accept them, and live their lives in ways that honor who they are as human beings and also honor God.

So I found myself on the panel in my opening statement admitting to the audience (and to myself) that I couldn’t define “homosexuality” well enough to make a moral pronouncement about it, and that I didn’t think anyone else on the panel had either. In my closing statement I found myself talking about how sexual orientation is the ultimate other – heterosexuals (who believe that homosexuality/homosexual conduct is a sin) can feel ultimately confident in their condemnation of the gay community. Homosexuality is a “sin” for which the heterosexual has no temptation. It is practically the heterosexual Christian’s only opportunity to condemn others without condemning ourselves. I challenged the audience to think of whatever they consider their greatest sin and how they would want to be treated in the church if they had that sin plastered on their forehead. Right after I said that, Daneen challenged us to actualize the love that we say we want to show to the gay community. In those moments, I became uncomfortable. I was no longer comfortable with the thought that I knew enough about the spiritual life of someone else to say whether they were right or wrong in their sexual orientation.

There were 2 things that struck me about Seventh-Gay Adventists. First, these people have a relationship with God. I think we often think that if gay people would just pray harder, they would be able to overcome their “sin.” What the film made evident was that these people had prayed, had tried to overcome who they are. One of the other panelists insinuated this when he analogized homosexuality to Paul’s “thorn in the flesh.” (Interestingly enough, this was the same panelist who admitted that I was correct in saying that we don’t quite understand sexual orientation.) What gives anyone the authority to make that determination for anyone else? I can’t answer that question, and I’m determined not to be one of the people who thinks that he can make that determination for anyone but himself.

The second thing that struck me about the film was the sense of family. Whether it was one person’s son, or another person’s brother, there were members of families that overcame their own reservations in order to keep and strengthen the bonds of love. If they can do it, I don’t see why it should be difficult for a church family to do the same. Churches are supposed to be families. We shouldn’t be calling each other brother and sister out of tradition. Churches are supposed to create bonds amongst those who believe in Christ. If there is one thing that is true about those in the gay community that want to continue to be a part of our community, it is that they believe in Christ. Regardless of our theological positions, we have a duty to love these brothers and sisters in Christ simply because they are our family. And if they are our family, our love for them should be just like God’s love – a love that accepts and draws us all in – without condition.

First Fridays

2012-10-02T19:26:00.002-05:00

I have spoken about the documentary Seventh-Gay Adventist and its producers, Daneen Akers and Stephen Eyer in this space before. I am really excited that I will finally get a chance to see this wonderful documentary this weekend! It's a long story which I will take the time to tell. About a week ago I got an message from Daneen asking if I was available to be on a panel in Washington, DC about gay marriage. Apparently a youth group in the area (the Metro Area Adventist Youth Association) wanted to have a panel on homosexuality in the Adventist Church, in part because of the fact that marriage equality is going to be on the ballot in Maryland this fall. The people coordinating the event were looking to have some balance on the panel, and reached out to Daneen. When the most obvious person could not make it (and he really is the most obvious person), they asked him who he thought should go in his stead. He said my name. I've almost never been so excited to be second in my life!

After some maneuvering, I am now heading out to DC to watch a screening of the film and then participate in a panel discussion afterwards. I am really excited to be back on the road again, and talking about religious liberty in this very important area. If you come to my blog regularly, you know that religious liberty and its connection to the fight for marriage equality are very important to me. (There's no possible way I could link to all the blog posts I have on this subject. But read almost anything from May 2012 and you'll find it.) I know some of the people on the panel, and so it will be interesting to hear how the arguments have changed, and it'll be fun to be out there thinking on my feet again. But most of all, I hope to be able to engage with the panelists and the audience about the principles of freedom that God espouses and how the use of government to coerce what we deem to be righteous living is antithetical to the very Christian ethos we claim to uphold. That is what makes religious liberty so fascinating to me, and I hope to share that passion with the people I will meet this Friday.

All that said, if you are in the MD/DC/VA area come on out! The event is being held at the Capital Memorial Church, 3150 Chesapeake Street, N.W., Washington, DC. The program will start this Friday, October 5, with a screening of Seventh-Gay Adventist at 6:30 PM and the panel will begin at 8:30 PM. If you know me, come because I haven't been on the East Coast in a while and would love to catch up with you. If you don't know me, come because I am always interested in meeting people who have been a part of the community we're trying to build here. Hope to see you Friday!

Jesus, The Solution

2012-09-29T02:37:00.000-05:00

Sometime in the 4^th Century BC, Aristotle wrote Nicomachean Ethics. The broad question of the book is how to achieve happiness. Aristotle posits that the happiness is the only true end. We never seek happiness in order to get us to some other end, and almost everything we do is done in order to come to the end of happiness. Why am I in school? To get a PhD. Why are you getting a PhD? So I can teach subjects that I like and do things that I enjoy doing as a career. Why do you want to do what you enjoy as a career? So I’ll be happy. Almost anything we desire in this life works along this logical train. (Though I’d be interested if someone found a means (or an end) that did not eventually come around to being happy.) Aristotle eventually concludes that living a life of virtue, or possessing virtue is the way to be truly happy. He establishes possessing virtue as different from being morally strong or morally weak. Someone who is morally weak is someone who gives in to temptation when it is presented. Someone who is morally strong is someone who wrestles with temptation. That person often succeeds, but at times may fail. The person who possesses virtue however, does not experience the conflict of temptation. It does not mean that temptation does not come, but that they are able to control it without the moral dilemma that plagues the morally weak and the morally strong. The person of virtue has their passion and reason in order with one another and they always do what is right. But the question remained at the end of Nicomachean Ethics. Could anyone really be the person of virtue?

In the 1^st Century AD/CE, the death of one man answered this question. The answer was no. We cannot, in our own strength, live the life of virtue. Ps. 51:5 (NIV) says, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” We did not have the hope of living the virtuous life, not by ourselves. However, “God demonstrate[d] His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom 5:8 (NASB)) Christ died so that we could be redeemed, and for the remission of sins committed. Because of Christ’s sacrifice, John was able to say that he could write so that we may not sin, but that if we should sin we have an advocate with the Father. (1 John 2:1) Jesus came and died so that we, with His help, might live with virtue. At least that is how Aristotle would describe it.

It wasn’t until I was talking to a friend and mentor earlier that I made the connection between Nicomachean Ethics, a book I was teaching in a class, to my own life. My friend made the point that we often make mistakes because we are too concerned with how we’re feeling in the moment, and we do not step back and see our lives and what can make us happy from a broader perspective. Then it hit me. Aristotle was right. We are all motivated by happiness. And the mistakes and missteps I have made in my own life were made because I was attempting to avoid pain, fear, and sadness and make myself happy in the moment. But what I did not realize in my selfishness was that I was not sowing seeds that would lead to a lasting solution to my problems, I was only sowing temporary happiness and future pain. Eventually I had to reap what I sowed. The person of virtue realizes that any momentary pleasure achieved by doing something immoral is outweighed by the pain, sadness, and unhappiness that will come because of the immoral act. God does not ask us to live the way He prescribes because He wants to hurt us, or deprive us of some good thing, but because He knows that living for momentary happiness does not give us peace. It does not give us joy. It does not help us to be happy. If we follow that path, we live from one high to the next, hoping that whatever sin we commit to make us feel better will be the thing that heals the hurt inside. But God wants better for us. God wants us to find what Aristotle described as the ultimate end. God wants us to be happy.

He Caught That?

2012-09-25T23:10:00.005-05:00

Imagine that there are a WR and a DB in the middle of the field. A pass is thrown and the DB jumps in the air and catches it. Before he comes down, the WR takes it away from him. I think we would all say that is a catch. Now imagine that in the same situation the DB get two hands on a ball, the WR gets one hand on it, and they both possess the ball as they fall to the ground. Based on the rule of simultaneous possession, we would all agree that is also a catch. Now take away the fact that you’re mad at replacement refs and Roger Goodell and that’s essentially what you have from the final play of the game Monday night. I will say up front that I believe (along with the rest of the country outside of Seattle fans) that the game was wrongly decided, but not necessarily because Golden Tate did not catch the ball, at least according to the rules, as I understand them.

I think it is important which vantage point you have on the play. The highlight most of us have been seeing is from the side of the end zone, from that perspective it definitely looks like Jennings for the Packers has a clear interception. However, if you look at the angle from the front of the end zone I think you get a very different picture. (You can see the front angle here at 2:42.) I think it’s important to understand what we see from the front. Jennings clearly jumps up and catches the ball, with Golden Tate’s hand in between his own. Before Jennings hits the ground, Tate gets his other hand on the ball. As they come to the ground, Tate seems to take one hand (his right hand) off the ball but then puts it back on as they go to the ground. When Tate’s back hits the ground, he has TWO hands on the ball, as does Jennings. Jennings then rolls over and it is only then that Tate’s hand comes off the ball. I do find it interesting that the ref who had the view from the front is the one who called the TD while the back judge (who had a different vantage point) was the one who said no TD.

The rule that is appropriate is what is possession when a WR goes to the ground. In this case, you cannot conclusively say that Tate lost control of the ball sometime between when he jumped for it and when they hit the ground. His left hand was still in there even when his right hand momentarily comes off the ball. I am not surprised that the ref with the front angle saw a simultaneous catch. The issue here, once again, is what constitutes possession. Possession for Jennings, just like any receiver, is not complete until he lands, and as he goes to the ground, if that is what occurs. From Tate’s perspective, if he has two hands on the ball when he hits the ground, he is down and has possession. That’s what happened.

At the same time, if I was looking at the replay, I would notice that Tate clearly pushes off on Shields as the ball is in the air, and that if he had not done so, Shields is in perfect position to block the pass. Therefore, even if the offensive pass interference cannot technically be reviewed, I would allow the pass interference to influence whether I believed he caught the ball.

Now I know most people who come to this post will say it was wrongly decided, and I agree with that. I don’t even necessarily expect that people will believe the argument that I put forth. I don’t think you can ignore the egregious pass interference on Tate and that call should’ve been made (even off the replay in the name of justice). However, I do think that what I have just explained is a credible theory on why Tate had simultaneous possession of the ball as they came to the ground. I am just as outraged that Seattle won. But not for the same reason.

Time For "Plan B"

2012-09-25T21:48:00.005-05:00

An Illinois appellate court rendered an interesting decision last week.[1] The court upheld a lower court ruling that Illinois pharmacists do not have to sell “Plan B” pills to customers if they have religious objections to the use of the product. “Plan B” is the brand name of a drug that can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sexual activity. The court made this ruling based on the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, and a lawyer at the Becket Fund called the decision “a great victory for religious freedom.” While I am a staunch supporter of the right of conscience, I also believe that the right of conscience has limits, and those limits have been crossed by this decision. Two aspects of this decision trouble me. First, the laws on which the decision is based, and second, the idea behind the legislation itself are problematic and bring up serious questions of the reach and scope of “religious liberty.”

The Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act is a very broad piece of legislation that protects the right of conscience of those who would like to refuse service of medical procedures based on their closely held beliefs. The Act applies to “any phase of patient care,” is applicable to almost any physician health care personnel, or healthcare facility. Repeatedly the statute absolves the healthcare professional of the “

duty
to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any
way in any form of medical practice or health care service that is contrary to
his or her conscience.” Furthermore the Act makes it unlawful for employers to
discriminate in hiring or promotion based on the physician’s conscientious
refusal to perform medical services contrary to his or her conscience. Based on
the law as stated here, the decision by the Illinois appellate court was
correct. However, there seem to be two huge problems with the law itself.
First, what do we do when the conscientious objection is to service itself?
Under this law, a more than credible argument can be made that if I have a
conscientious objection (based in my religion or otherwise) to providing basic
medical care for Black people, then I don’t have to provide that service.

[2]


If that is too far-fetched a more apropos example is a homosexual HIV patient.
If homosexual conduct is against my religious beliefs, I can now refuse to
serve or even recommend services to a segment of the country that would
desperately need help.

[3]


Second, because of the broad discriminatory protections of the law, the odd
situation is created where a doctor who had religious objections to performing
abortions would have to be hired by an abortion clinic, because that clinic
would not be allowed to “discriminate” based on the religious beliefs of the
physician.

Even more distressing than the overreach
of this law is the concept of religious liberty that undergirds it. This is
another example of something in religious liberty that I have termed “selfish
freedom.”

[4]


Whenever their right of conscience runs counter to someone else, many
conservatives will choose their right to liberty over the right that equally
belongs to the other person. In these close cases, those who believe in this
“selfish freedom” believe that their right of conscience should control the
ability of another person to exercise their conscience simply because they are
spiritually offended by the other person’s lifestyle or actions. I believe that
this type of selfish freedom is antithetical to the Christian ethos. God is a
god of freedom, who does not want us to do the right thing because someone else
won’t support our own decision, or because we are compelled by law to do so.
Instead, we are to come to an understanding of and willingness to do God’s will
simply because we choose to.

It seems that conservative Christianity
has forgotten the goal of this great spiritual movement. The goal of
Christianity is not to ensure that everyone does the right thing. Rather, our
mission as Christians is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with others and to
work with the Spirit in making disciples. This is not accomplished by making
sure that pharmacists can refuse to sell “Plan B” pills or ensuring that
homosexuals do not receive the civil benefits of marriage. No young woman who
is refused a “Plan B” pill will be drawn closer to Christ because of it. We
achieve nothing by refusing her right of conscience, except to make our own
conscience feel better. We could accomplish so much more if we spent our
energies on really trying to understand people and telling them about a God who
can change their heart instead of trying to force a change in people’s actions.
We serve a God who gave up everything for us so that we could choose to live
His way, and yet it seems that we are all too willing to take that choice from
others.

[1] The court opinion for this case has not been released at this time.

[2] While this situation would probably never occur, I cannot find anything in the law that would make it illegal to have this type of religiously based, racist objection to providing medical services.

[3] It is also important to note that in certain segments of the country medical services are not readily available. Therefore, this problem is not necessarily solved by saying they could get services from somewhere else.

[4] I also made this argument in reference to the HHS contraception mandate.

God Knocks

2012-09-22T02:50:00.004-05:00

I haven’t talked about religious liberty issues in this space in a long time. I have to admit that it makes me uncomfortable. Some of the reason for the absence is due to the lack of new news. I’m not going to be on here every month telling you about the same 3 or 4 issues that tend to dominate the religious liberty landscape (though I do apologize for not being in town last weekend to do an extra post on this year’s Value Voters Summit). However, when things jump up in the right timeframe I can’t help myself. It always feels good to get back into the subject I enjoy the most.

Rick Scarborough is the head of Vision America and has been rallying conservative Christians to a movement called 40 Days to Save America. For the 40 days leading up to election day, they are calling on churches and Christians to be in fasting, prayer, and political action as a way to restore the religious and moral foundation of this nation in light of the “multiple crises” America is now facing – “pending economic collapse, moral disintegration, and international terrorism.” They believe that all these problems are indicative of a spiritual crisis that can only be rectified by the people of God turning to Him in prayer. The website makes clear that this is not a particularly political movement, and asks that people not vote as Republicans or Democrats, but as “followers of the living God.” I’d like to think that they really mean that.

The problem is that they are off to a very bad start. The group had Rick Perry come on Tuesday and speak on their twice weekly conference calls. Yes, that Rick Perry. Governor of Texas, failed presidential candidate, “The Response” organizing Rick Perry. He did a very bad job of being non-partisan when he said, “you think about this spiritual warfare that’s going on and [inaudible] going strong as President Obama and his cronies in Washington continue their efforts to remove any trace of religion from American life.” I’m sure that’s exactly the way to make it seem like you’re not on one side or the other. But what really upset me were his statements about the separation of church and state. First he said that nothing could be further from the truth than the principle of church and state. Then he contradicts himself within the span of two sentences. “You know, are we going to get up and say ‘you are going to vote for X’? No, but we’re going to talk about Christian values. When you think about the issue of life and protecting life, it’s so important that we as Christians put legislation into place, that we elect women that defend life.” I don’t know, but it sure seems like he’s saying, that at least on the issue of protecting life, he’s going to get up and say “you’re going to vote for X.” He then went on to say that those who would send people of faith to the sidelines of political discussion (which I think he would equate with the idea of the separation of church and state), “are not truthful, Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and one of the untruths out there is driven—is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena.”

Now I know that Rick Perry is probably not the best proponent of the conservative view of church-state separation, but I think it is problematic to insinuate that people who believe differently from you are in league with Satan. His statements are so filled with error that I’m not sure where to begin. First, church-state separation does not call for the removal of people of faith from the public square. If that were true, then Rick Perry should’ve been arrested a long time ago. What church-state separation does is allow people to live in freedom of morality (to a certain extent) without any church attempting to dictate morality through the force of law. The separation of church and state has often been credited as the reason why religiosity remains robust here in America in comparison to the countries of Europe. Freedom of religion, the broader principle of which separation is a part, has flourished in this country and has every person to not just belief what they wished, but to follow their hearts to live a life in relation to spirituality that only needs to make sense to them and no one else.

But what bothers me most is that people like Gov. Perry fail to see the spiritual benefit to church-state separation. God is not a god of force. In Rev 3:20 He says, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.” God knocks. God wants us to live they way He prescribes because we have chosen to, not because we’ll go to jail (or to Hell for that matter) if we don’t. He doesn’t use the force of an earthly government to get people live by His precepts. He asks that we believe in Him, that we answer when He knocks, and that we would rely on Him. That’s such a beautiful message, and yet it is message that I hear so rarely from the religiously conservative. Instead, I hear a lot about how God wants to save America, instead of how God wants to save Americans (and everyone else as well). God never called us to save America. Instead he called us to introduce people to Him, and to help Him make disciples (Matt 28:19) When Christianity becomes a voting bloc, a political movement, it distorts the picture of who God is. He is not a God who is overly concerned with winning an election. He’ll still be God regardless of who’s in office. But He is a God who is overly concerned with each one of us, and just wants us to open the door when He knocks.

Link of the Day - We Have Met the Enemy...

2012-09-15T03:13:00.000-05:00

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has long promoted the idea of religious liberty. I presume that part of the reason why I am so interested in questions of the freedom of conscience and religious freedom is because I am a member of the SDA Church. In promotion of these values, the SDA Church publishes Liberty Magazine. In addition to their private subscribers, they also send copies of the magazine to educational institutions, politicians and select members of the legal field. I was a little shocked to find issues were being sent to the Dawson Institute, where I am working towards my PhD.

I was also shocked by an article published in the most recent issue of Liberty. Dr. Nicholas Miller wrote an article entitled, “A Secular Threat to Religious Freedom.” In the interest of full disclosure, it is important for me to say that I know Dr. Miller personally. He was my professor for the church-state seminar that is offered at the Seminary at Andrews University. The article began as I would have expected based on what I understand of Dr. Miller’s position on church-state issues. He began by comparing and equating the secularism of the French Revolution to the movement of secularism present in the U.S. today that has led to the acceptance of homosexuals and gay marriage. Dr. Miller considers it to be a threat to the basic, natural, moral order of society and that Christians should defend and promote traditional marriage in America. To that end, Dr. Miller has also helped to edit a book stemming from a conference on gay marriage in 2009, Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church – Biblical, Counseling, and Religious Liberty Issues. The book examines the question of gay marriage from a theological and political perspective, and also includes sections on how to address issues of homosexuality in the SDA church and testimonials (I assume) from people who once identified as gay but do so no longer.

But then the article took a turn that quite frankly I did not expect. Dr. Miller expressed misgivings about a recent Supreme Court case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC. (You can find an article summarizing the decision here.) While he believes that the case was rightly decided, he is concerned because the rights of the individual were subjugated to the rights of a religious institution. He closes the article by saying,

The individual's standing before God is of highest import; this standing must be respected by both the state and the church, and our system of rights is first and foremost meant to defend individual, personal rights . . . We must beware of political candidates, or any other civic or religious leaders, who insist that the threat to religious freedom comes only, or even primarily, from an antireligious secularism. Religious people and forces have shown themselves well capable of doing just as effective a job at trampling on the religious rights of the individual.

I do not disagree with Dr. Miller on this point. In fact, I made the same point for the Liberty Magazine Roundtable at the time the Hosanna Tabor case was about to be decided. What surprises me about this turn is that Dr. Miller does not address or explain what seems to be an apparent contradiction with the first half of the piece. If Dr. Miller is concerned with individual and personal rights, then why is he critical of the extension of those rights to homosexuals? I'm not exactly sure, but I think it might have something to do with the fact that they're gay.

The problem here seems to be an essential difference between the teacher at the center of Hosanna Tabor case and homosexuals who want the right to marry in civil society. The difference seems to be that we know that the teacher is a parishioner. In fact, she has been deemed a minister by the church. Therefore, when her rights are violated, they are the religious rights of an employee of a church. But Dr. Miller would not want to extend these rights to those who do not share some basic traditional notion of faith. Here are a couple of questions that strike to the heart of the contradiction. What happens when the right of gay marriage is a religious right as well? Why does it even matter to deem the right of gay marriage “religious” at all? My depiction of the argument may not be accurate, (in fact I am sure Dr. Miller would say that it is not) but I do not think we can escape this essential problem – Dr. Miller is advocating that religious institutions should be careful not to trample on the rights of an individual parishioner, but he is willing to have churches and religiously-affiliated institutions trample on the rights of those who do not agree with his theology (or more likely, his notion of what is a part of the basic natural moral order of society). Gay marriage is a civil benefit that some people are fighting to have extended to those who love people of the same sex. Dr. Miller himself admits that churches will probably not be forced to solemnize gay marriages. If he is right, then all he is fighting for is for his conception of marriage, ultimately founded in his theology, to be enforced on everyone, even those who disagree. To do this would be to become exactly what he warns us of – a religious person doing an effective job of trampling the religious rights of the individual.

Not All His Fault

2012-09-11T20:44:00.001-05:00

I don’t normally talk about football a lot on the blog during the season, but I feel compelled to say something. The Eagles barely got by against the Cleveland Browns Sunday with a 17-16 victory. Michael Vick played probably his worse game as a pro – 29-56 for 317 yards, 2 TDs, 4 INTs. However, Vick ended better than he played for 3 quarters, leading a 91 yard drive for the game-winning touchdown. Certainly Vick deserves much of the blame for the Eagles barely winning against a Browns team that is not supposed to be very good. However, I feel like Vick is getting too much blame, and his play has raised questions about whether he is actually good QB. I think those types of doubts are way overblown and it is time to bring some perspective to a clearly bad performance. I don’t think that Vick’s performance will be duplicated unless some things change. A few thoughts –

Vick was actually rusty – Consider the fact that, due to injuries, Vick only played 12 snaps in the preseason. One of the things that we hear often about the only benefit of the preseason is that it helps players get acclimated to the speed of the game. It seemed to me on Sunday that at least 2 of Vick’s INTs were due to the speed of the game – windows that closed faster than he expected. Now it is certainly on Vick to make sure he doesn’t make those decisions, but I would not expect him to make those throws in week 3 or 4 either.

RUN THE BALL! – I don’t expect this will change, because it hasn’t in 14 years, but Reid hung Vick out to dry a little bit on Sunday, and I don’t understand why he is not taking more of the blame for Vick’s performance. The Eagles dropped back 62 times on Sunday and Vick threw 56 times. That’s just way too many pass attempts. Vick is not at his best throwing 56 times. Actually, very few QBs are. In a game where there are 70 offensive plays, I would like to see Vick throw somewhere between 35 and 40 times. I know Reid wants to throw the ball so do what you want to do, but dropping back to throw almost 70% of the time is just ridiculous, especially considering that you have LeSean McCoy in the backfield. It’s not like you don’t have a good running game. Besides the benefits that will accrue from having more balance (your play-action passing game would work better for example, if people ever thought you were going to actually run), it also has a secret benefit for the offensive line. Running the ball allows your offensive line to hit people instead of being hit. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out that 300 lb men would much rather spend more of their Sunday afternoon inflicting punishment as opposed to taking it. Furthermore, last year the Browns had the number 2 defense in the NFL against the pass, and 30^th against the run. In addition, they were missing 2 of their starting LBs. Why would you do anything but come into the game with the full intention of running the ball?

I think those guys upfront are supposed to block – Now Tommy Lawlor over at IgglesBlitz would disagree with me, and he knows way more about football than I do, so take this for what it’s worth. I thought the offensive line had a horrible first half in terms of pass protection. (In support of my position, see this Bleeding Green nation post.) It seemed like play after play they were not giving Vick a clean pocket. I wouldn’t be so hard on them if it did not appear to my untrained eye that there was immediate pressure at the snap of the ball. Now it may be true that while Vick did not have a clean pocket he was not exactly in trouble either. However, is it too much to ask of an offensive line that they actually seal guys off? I don’t think so.

The Browns are Eagles Mid-West – I have not seen many people make this point, but it is worth noting that the Browns are particularly suited to play well against the Eagles. The Browns’ head coach, as well as their offensive and defensive coordinators have spent time with the Eagles within the last 5 years. These people are very familiar with Andy Reid’s system and what they like to do on offense. They’re practically running the same system themselves. This incredible amount of knowledge about what the Eagles like to do, and the plays that they like to run in certain situations have the potential to make their defense look better than they are, and make Vick look worse than he actually is.

Now I certainly could be wrong. It is possible that Michael Vick is just a turnover and injury prone QB, who can’t win games. But I don’t think the ability to win is something that leaves you if your skills haven’t diminished. Vick can still throw, and he can still run, and he’s already proven that he can win games. I don’t think he’s that different of a QB now than he has been over his career. I expect to see a better Michael Vick next Sunday (although I’m not ready to predict a win over the Ravens). But with all the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the Eagles fan base so far, you would almost think they would want Vick to play well and lose before having Vick play bad and win.

Admiration

2012-09-07T12:54:00.002-05:00

I feel like I have to defend the President’s speech last night on the closing night of the Democratic National Convention. More than a few people have commented that it was at best the third best speech of the convention and the worst (relative term) of the 3 closing speeches. Of course everyone’s opinion is subjective, and so an opinion of a speech is based at least in part on what you were expecting. So to a certain extent I agree with the analysis. If you were looking for something as moving as Michelle Obama’s speech on Tuesday, you didn’t get it. If you wanted something as charismatic and exciting as President Clinton’s speech on Wednesday, you didn’t get it. But to judge President Obama’s speech by those standards is to ignore how brilliant and effective his speech was in its own way. In that sense, I liked his speech as much (if not more) than either the First Lady’s or President Clinton’s. Mrs. Obama moved me to silence. I was excited after President Clinton held it down for almost 50 minutes. But I couldn’t stop talking about President Obama’s speech when it was over. I was just gushing about how smart I thought it was. I admired it.

Now that doesn’t mean I liked everything about the speech. (I think I would only say that I liked the First Lady’s speech from start to finish.) Pounding the drum on killing Osama Bin Laden so much and so loudly bothers me. I understand the need to do it. But to overdo it (as I think President Obama and Vice-President Biden did last night) sends a wrong message. Also, I am not a fan of all of President Obama’s environmental policy either. It always sounds to me like, “we’ll tear the Earth up too, just not as much as the GOP will.” That never sits right to me.

Despite those things, I still found the speech to be masterful. First because of how light it was. I think they realized that with the First Lady and former President and the Vice-President before him, President Obama did not have much heavy lifting to do. This is a testament to the speeches that went before that the President didn’t have to cover old ground in order to create a complete picture for the convention. I also like the fact that they didn’t attempt to top the First Lady or President Clinton in their areas of strength from the night before. So the speech was moving without attempting to be overly emotive. It was critical of the GOP, but not overly so. When the star player trusts the rest of his squad, and when the squad does their job, all the star player has to do is play his position. President Obama played his position well and the speech was evident of that. With the pressure off, the speech could be more light and funny, and I think he did have some of the best zingers of the convention. I don’t think anyone had anything as funny as “take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning.” He was able to make damning critiques on economic policy and foreign policy without the strident tone that President Clinton or Vice-President Biden brought to the table. He got to play his speech like a boss.

The second thing, which impressed me the most (and why I think I like this speech more than the others), were the two rhetorical moves that the President made were also his most damning criticisms of GOP strategy in this election. First he made a move to a discussion of citizenship that I thought was subtle, unexpected and ingenious. In describing citizenship as a feeling of community, and the creation of a true society where we look out for one another, President Obama did two things. First, he attacked birtherism by creating an almost subconscious argument against the Republican idea that citizenship is just about where you are born. Second, he co-opted a very republican idea that used to be the stalwart of Republicans. The republican ethos is one of community, of civic identity. That something binds us together as Americans that goes deeper than money or might. The source of our strength as Americans is the idea of community, that we all relate to each other as compatriots in a common aim. And that aim is not individual success (though we decry no one their accomplishments). Instead we band together to provide the opportunity for one another to fulfill the American dream. This used to be what Republicans said. They give it some lip service but they don’t embody it anymore. The President embodied it last night and gave it meaning.

The second move was a reimagination of the ideas of hope and change that embodied his first campaign four years ago. President Obama was clear that the hope and change that he believed in, the hope and change that he helped us to believe in, was really the possibility of hope and change in ourselves. He pulled us into the work of becoming a better nation, in a move similar to President Kennedy. It helped to reinforce the ideas of citizenship and republicanism that came earlier in the speech. But it took the GOP criticism of “hope-y, change-y” and turned it into an attack against them. Now that we understand that the hope and change resides within the people, why would anyone want to attack the resolve for better that lies within the people themselves? It once again addressed the hyper-economic individualism of today’s Republican Party by saying that “we the people” can band together to create a better America for ourselves and future generations.

While President Obama’s way of attacking was much more subtle, I think it was just as devastatingly effective. Those who saw the President last night and are still deciding who to vote for saw a leader who is able to connect to the ideas that we say make America what it is, and wants our help to bring us all their together. The best way to communicate that message is not to be overtly emotive, or to be stridently critical. The best way to communicate that message is to be what President Obama was last night – brilliant and presidential.

Eagles 2012 Preview

2012-09-05T18:27:00.001-05:00

Yay Football!! I am really excited to talk some football here at HineSight. I only do it twice a year really, and I am excited to do another preview of my favorite team in sports, the Philadelphia Eagles. The Eagles were one of the most disappointing teams in the NFL last season, going 8-8 despite bringing in several big names in free agency and trades. Despite this, there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic about the Eagles this season. Once again, I’ll work my way through the three phases of the team, and give my overall thoughts on what the Eagles can do this season.

SPECIAL TEAMS

Special Teams was not horrible last season and have looked fairly good this preseason. Alex Henery missed only 3 FGA last season and set the rookie accuracy record. There were two questions – can he kick for distance (only 6 attempts beyond 40 yds last season) and can he make pressure kicks (missed 2 FGA in a tight game with SF last year). If the preseason can count for anything, it seems that those questions have been answered. He hit a late FG against PITT in the 1^st preseason game and has hit from beyond 50 yds in the preseason as well. I am a little more concerned about Chas Henry. He had an up and down season last year and they brought in Mat McBriar to challenge him. He responded well and the Eagles decided to keep him. He then went out and did not look as good against the Jets in the last preseason game. I do think that the return game will look better, despite the fact that the duties will be split between two rookies. Damaris Johnson, undrafted, will be the primary punt returner, and has shown flashes in the preseason, as has Brandon Boykin as the primary kick returner.

DEFENSE

D-line - This was already amongst the best defensive lines in the league and they clearly got better since last season. Starting D-ends Jason Babin and Trent Cole combined for 29 sacks. Their backups, Brandon Graham and Phillip Hunt, have looked great this preseason. If Graham can stay healthy, it looks like he will fulfill some of the promise that he showed when the Eagles drafted him in 2010. The Eagles are hysr as loaded at tackle as well, with Cullen Jenkins and last year’s revelation Derek Landri. And although first round pick Fletcher Cox did not flash as much as we’d hoped in preseason, all indications are that he and Cedric Thornton are capable coming off the bench. The defensive line will probably be at the top of the league again in sacks, and if they can do a little bit of a better job playing the run, they can be great.

LBs - I think this is the place where the Eagles needed the most improvement and where they took the steps necessary to be better. First in the offseason they traded for DeMeco Ryans, a 4-3 MIKE playing out of position in Houston’s 3-4 system. He hasn’t flashed as much as we’d like in the preseason either, but he did play better in every game, so I think it has just been a matter of relearning the 4-3. Next to him at SAM is rookie Mychal Kendricks who has looked great in camp. Unfortunately, we can’t say the same great things about Akeem Jordan, who has been here for years and was recently named the starter at the WILL. The best that we can say about him is that he is steady, which may be good enough with the better players at LB. Backing them up are Brian Rolle, Jamar Chaney, and Casey Matthews, who you may recognize as people who started last year. They’re better as backups. If this position can improve (and I think they will, then I think that this defense improves drastically against the run and has the potential to be a top-5 defense.

DBs - This group is a group that might be better by subtraction. No doubt that the playmaking ability of Asante Samuel will be missed. But with him gone, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie can go back to the outside where he is a better fit. Brandon Boykin steps in as a very capable slot corner (despite being a rookie), which may mean that Nnamdi Asomugha can play more on the outside than he did last year. The fact that we have better LBs will help this unit as well, as you may not need one of the corners to cover opposing TEs. Asomugha spent some time getting adjusted, but he had a better season than people realize last year. The problem was that when he messed up it was really bad, and therefore more noticeable. Of course the issue with the DBs is still safety. Back again will be Nate Allen and Kurt Coleman, and while neither of them has looked like a star, they both have looked more capable to man their positions. I am still holding out hope that Nate Allen will be better. Of course, this somewhat relative – once you’ve had Brian Dawkins manning the S position, it’s going to be hard to find someone else who will satisfy you.

Overall, I think this defense will be better than last year (and statistically they were not that bad 8^th in the league). Of course I say this every year, so there is no reason to believe me now. But the LBs, who were legitimately bad last year, are more talented. The defensive line is even better than they were last year. The DBs as a group are better than they were last year, and they are better placed in their roles. Hopefully this, along with more experience for Castillo as a D-coordinator and with Todd Bowles behind him, will help the defense avoid some of the meltdowns they experienced early last year.

OFFENSE

O-line – The O-line would have been fine, but Jason Peters had to go and get himself injured twice this offseason. So now there is concern about the LT which is now manned by King Dunlap. I would feel better if he was the backup as opposed to the starter. The Eagles went out and signed Demetress Bell, who replaced Peters as the starter in Buffalo. For some reason that hasn’t worked. I’m hoping that he comes around and plays well enough to replace Dunlap at some point in the season, similar to Watkins replacing DeVan at RG last year. Other than LT, the offensive line is fairly set. The Eagles are bringing back the starters at each of the other four positions on the line, and all of them played fairly well at the end of last season. But there are some questions. Did RG Evan Mathis play well because he’s really talented or because he was next to Jason Peters? Will Kelce and Watkins continue to improve in their 2^nd seasons? As much as those questions exist, I think they will all be answered positively.

TEs – I could almost say what I said in last year’s preview. It’s the same 2 guys – Celek and Harbor. Celek in my opinion is one of the most underrated TEs in the NFL. I understand it to a certain extent. In just the NFC you have TEs like Gonzalez, Witten, and Davis who would garner more notoriety. I think people would be surprised at how favorably he compares to those TEs. He has more yards than Davis and the same number of TDs as Witten. His yds per catch is highest amongst this group. The simple point is that Celek is amongst the best TEs in the game but does not have the same name recognition. Harbor was mostly known as a blocker, but he has improved every season and has shown well this training camp. He’s not going to get a lot of touches this season, but is capable as a 2^nd TE.

WRs – For all intents and purposes it’s the same group as last year. The only real difference is that Steve Smith is gone (never trust a former Giant) and Damaris Johnson is in. I think we’ll see much more from Johnson as a returner than as a receiver. The top 3 are what they are DeSean Jackson had a down year last year (58, 961, 4). But that’s a pretty good down year. I expect him to be better now that he’s got is money. Maclin had a better year (63, 859, 5) and I expect better from him this season considering the fact that it took him a while to get going after missing sometime last year due to an illness. Avant continues to be one of the best 3^rd down receivers in the league, despite his limitations. Riley Cooper is out with an injury right now, and I’m hoping we’ll see him reach some of his potential this season.

RBs – Some interesting developments amongst the RBs. LeSean “Shady” McCoy is still one of the best in the league, with over 1300 yards and 20 combined TDs last year. Dion Lewis is back in the #2 position and looked good in training camp. There seems to be a lot of promise at the bottom of the depth chart too, with 2 rookies Bryce Brown and Chris Polk both showing enough that the Eagles decided to keep all 4 RBs. I can already tell you there are not enough carries to go around. I can see Polk being inactive on gamedays. I do like that both of these backs are bigger backs (both of 220) and so there style is a little different from McCoy to give defenses a different look. The Eagles also kept Stanley Havili at FB, who I assume we will only see on 3^rd and 1 and down near the goal line.

QBs – A lot of intrigue here. Vick of course is still the starter, but there is some trepidation about his injuries. Oddly enough, many of those injuries have come from standing in the pocket. He missed three games last year, and people like to throw around the statistic that he has only played 16 games once in his 9 year career. The stat is a little misleading though. In two of those seasons (2001 and 2009) he was not the opening day starter. (Neither was he the opening day starter in 2010, but he played in the first game and therefore was eligible to play 16 games.) In four of the remaining 7 seasons, he played either 15 or 16 games. Truth be told, it has only been since he’s been in Philly that he has seemed injury prone. It is also true that a lot of his injuries are fluky. Last year he got a concussion banging his head against the helmet of a lineman. This preseason he hurt his hand when he hit his lineman’s helmet. I’m not sure what you can do to avoid those types of injuries. I do wish we saw more from Vick in the preseason this year, but I do think he will be ok once the season starts. He was actually pretty good last year, but he threw too many INTs. If he can avoid that this season, the offense will be more than adequate. Of course all the ink this summer has been about the rookie Nick Foles. He has been the best QB this preseason. Not sure how comfortable I feel with him in the #2 position, but he has looked good. If they ship Vick out for any reason in the next year or two, I would be comfortable with Foles as the starter. In the #3 position is Trent Edwards, who I think is here because he is better suited to mentor Foles than Mike Kafka would’ve been.

OVERALL

I would love to say that this team is going 12-4. I think they have the talent to do so. The problem is that they have an absolutely brutal schedule this season. Every in the NFC East has improved, except maybe the Giants, and they’re the Super Bowl Champs. I have to predict a 3-3 season in division. They play the NFC South this year, which could be 3-1, but only because they play ATL and CAR at home. They also play the AFC North where I think they’ll go 2-2 if they’re able to beat the Bengals at home. The other 2 games are against DET and AZ, which are both very winnable, but this is the same team that lost to AZ last year. That adds up to 10-6 and a lot will have to break right just to get there. Also, the way the schedule falls is horrible too. Over 7 weeks in the middle of the season the Eagles schedule is NYG, @PITT, DET, bye, ATL, @NO, DAL. I’ll be happy if they come out of that stretch 3-3. The three games after that are WASH, CAR, and DAL again, which is no cakewalk either. All that being said, all of their games are very winnable. The only 2 teams on the schedule that you could argue are demonstrably better than the Eagles are PITT and BAL. I think the Eagles go 10-6 and make the playoffs, but I’m not sure how much further they go after that.

Moved

2012-09-05T01:33:00.005-05:00

There really is no other way to describe my feelings about the first night of the Democratic National Convention. With maybe one possible exception (yes I’m talking about you Fmr. Gov. Strickland) I think the speakers at the convention tonight were pitch-perfect. I thought Cory Booker started the evening well, I thought Kal Penn was funny and poignant at times, Deval Patrick was on fire, and that this was a great coming out party for Mayor Julian Castro. But there were two speakers tonight I found particularly moving and for different reasons.

First I found the story of the Lihn family particularly touching. After all, how can you not be moved by a little girl who is struggling to stay alive in the face of difficult odds? Of course the speech and video were there to make the point that the Affordable Care Act (which I guess Dems are now willing to call ObamaCare?) is helping families like the Lihns and little girls like Zoe. I thought this was an important move for the Democrats to make in discussing health care reform. Policy decisions have an effect on actual people. It’s about time the Democrats starting showing that ObamaCare is something that people and families are relying on. It’s not enough to say that it helps people; you have to start showing us who these people are and telling us their stories. And what a heart-rending story the Lihns have. Who wants to be the politician who’s against giving cute little children the opportunity to live? I don’t want to be the one. It’ll be interesting to see how the GOP attempts to address this, now that there is this picture in our heads. As a speech it was also well crafted. There was a nice dig at Gov. Romney when she talked about how she had many more happy days since Pres. Obama was elected, and not just the day she voted for him. Also, it seemed to be on cue that Zoe started crying when her mom began talking about a Romney presidency would affect healthcare which would affect Zoe’s ability to get treatment. The cynic in me wants to think that he Dad pinched her right as her mom said that. Overall I thought this speech was emotional and it was one of the many points of the night when the convention could rally around the idea of healthcare reform and praise it for the good that it does.

Finally and obviously, I was very moved by the speech given by First Lady Michelle Obama. I don’t know if she was given the task of humanizing the President for us, but she did a much better job of that than Ann Romney did last week (when we know that was part of her assignment). Their story was a real story, and story that I relate to – being recently married and having a mountain of debt between me and my wife. She too was poignant and funny and clear in her message. She presented the President as someone whose life as a son, grandson, husband, and father had led him to this time, these policy choices, this presidency. But what moved me the most was her discussion of the American dream. I am not overly patriotic. I believe in the ideals that American was founded on, but I am way too cognizant of our failures as a nation for me to be that much of a flag waver. However, the First Lady made me believe in the American Dream tonight. The way she spoke with such conviction about what can be accomplished in this nation, how she had seen the dream fulfilled in her life, her husband’s life, the lives of their separate families and the family that they created together moved me. She painted such a clear picture that their life as President and First Lady is an extension of a belief in that dream, and the conviction that the dream is not to be hoarded, but to be shared with as many people who live in this land as possible.

For far too long and for far too many, the American Dream is something that has been aspired to, but not achieved. I think what touched me tonight, what made my eyes well up as I sat on my couch tonight, was the idea that this dream can be real. I was watching it in front of me. And I was convinced again watching the First Lady, as I was convinced on my couch in Michigan almost 4 years ago. But today it was even more real to me than it was then. The President of the United States is the primary defender of that American dream. He helps to shape and define it for generations to come. He and his family help to make the dream real. So it means something to me that the primary defender of this dream is now someone whose people had been denied that dream for so long. Having gone through the rigors of that process with her husband and family, Michelle Obama eloquently spoke to that dream, defended it, and extended it to all of us. She made a believer out of me tonight. Not in them – I already believed in them. But she made me believe that there is something special about this land, this culture, this society we’ve created. I don’t know how long it will last, but for at least one night, the First Lady made me feel something I hadn’t felt in a long time – Hope.

How to Have a More Open Church

2012-09-03T13:07:00.004-05:00

Over the past month or so I have been thinking a lot about church issues. About two weeks ago in my post “Unity,” I considered the way we in the church relate to each other. Now my thoughts have turned to how we relate to those who wish to become a part of us. Any church with its salt has to be bringing people in. The whole point of the Christian movement is to make disciples (Matt 28: 19, 20). But what has often distressed me is that we don’t treat people the way we should when they show an interest in us. I think that in order for the church to be successful in its ultimate, God-given mission, we have to get better at how we treat people that we define as sinners. These are the people who should be coming to us for help, and yet I have found that we are not always in the best position to help them. Here are some things I think we should consider changing within church culture in order to make the church a more welcome place for the people who need it most. (I think I should say here that I can only speak with authority about the Adventist Church, but I think these principles apply to any Christian denomination.)

1. Welcome people in love. I know that seems self-explanatory, but many Christians I know have a really hard time hanging out around “sinners.” I guess the first thing would be to stop thinking about them as sinners. But there’s also just a pragmatic element to this problem. If the job of the church is to make disciples, who are we making disciples? Obviously, it would be people who are not disciples now (sinners). If you can’t get comfortable around sinners, how are you going to help make them disciples? I find it funny that this is the same problem that Jesus had in His day. He spent His time trying to help people, and was criticized by “church people” because He spent too much time with those who were considered too far gone for the church. Jesus’ response? “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice, for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matt 9:12, 13)

2. Speak (and receive) the truth in love. Here is the truth – everyone in the church is a sinner, some of us saved by grace and some of us not so much. But all of us are here because at one point or another we decided that we wanted to live a better life that was more in line with what God has asked of us. Now for the person who is coming into the church seeking to learn and to grow, we cannot present to them something other than this honest picture. If we do, then all we are doing is setting them up for disappointment when they find that we are not as advertised. In addition to this, we also have to learn how to receive truth from the very people we think we’re trying to save. In Romans 2, Paul talks about those who instinctively do what the law requires because the law has been written on their hearts. (Rom 2: 14, 15) There are several implications of this text, but for our purposes here it lends credence to the idea that it is possible for someone outside of the church to know and understand thing about God that we inside the church do not know or understand. We have to be just as willing to accept truth from them as they have to be in accepting truth from us. We are here in this body called the church to learn from each other. The fact that I have been here longer does not mean that I have nothing to learn from the sinner who just walked in the door.

3. People are not the sum total of their past. We have a nasty habit in the church of defining people by their past, as soon as we discover it. We define them by the sins that we discover that they are seeking deliverance from. This is a particularly nasty habit because some people are better at hiding their sins from others, and therefore escape this labeling. But it is also just functionally incoherent. All of us are in the church to be different from who we were, so what sense does it make to define people by that? We are all attempting to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…” (Rom 12:2) Furthermore, what does it matter the sins someone has in their past? Christ died for all of us while we were yet sinners (Rom 5:6-8). If He loved me enough to do that for me when I was in that state, why would I accept His gift and then turn around give a sinner something less than my all? The problem is that we have yet to create a culture and environment where people can feel comfortable laying their sins open before the church and asking for help. Too many people have tried this and seen their lives torn about by gossip and scandal. Too many people have had no choice but for their sins to become known (I’m thinking of every unwed mother here) and have had to watch the eyes of judgment follow them in the house of God. If we’re ever going to fully become what God has called the church to be this must change.

4. Let people know that we are no better than them. I’ve been hinting at this throughout, but I believe this is the only way that the culture can change. We have to let people know that we are seeking to live a better life, just like they are, and that we continue to struggle with our secret and open sins, just like they will. The good news is that they can have victory, just like we do, and grace to cover them if they should fall, just like we do. Paul’s example is instructive here. The Book of Romans was written approximately ten years before Paul died. This was towards the end of Paul’s life after several years in ministry and starting churches all over the world of his day. At that point in his life he said this to the Roman church, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.” (Rom 7:18-20) If Paul was saying that towards the end of his life, I think it’s safe to say that many of us will continue to wrestle with good and evil. But this also gives me hope. Because Paul continued to wrestle and at the end of his life was able to say, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.” (2 Tim 4:7-8)

If Paul can fight and win, we all can do it. I’m not saying that if the culture changes then every person who walks into a church will be saved and never leave. However, I want people to leave because they have a problem with Jesus, not because they have a problem with us.

How to Build a Lie (or How Paul Ryan Spent His Evening)

2012-08-30T11:31:00.002-05:00

There are two types of lies in this world. There are explicit lies. You come home and your wife/husband asks, “Where were you?” You answer, “I went to the store,” when you really went to happy hour after work. Then there are implicit lies. You come home and your wife/husband asks, “Where have you been?” You answer, “I was at the store,” when you also went to happy hour and don’t want your spouse to know. Now the implicit lie is not technically a lie. After all, you did go to the store. But the implicit lie is dishonest (and therefore still a lie) because you are leaving important elements out of the story in order to manipulate your audience (in this case your spouse) into thinking a particular thing that is not completely true. I happen to believe that implicit lies are just as bad, and in some cases even worse, than explicit lies. After all, the best lies are the lies that have some element of truth in them. But if it makes some of you feel better, I won’t call it a lie. I’ll just call them misrepresentations of the truth.

If Paul Ryan showed me anything last night, he showed me that he understands this point and is willing to use it to the hilt. I got into the same argument with several people on Twitter last night about Ryan’s most obvious misrepresentation of the truth. Since Ryan has been added to the GOP ticket, he’s been telling a story about how candidate Obama promised employees at a plant in Janesville, WI that he would help the plant stay open when he became President. As Paul Ryan said last night, the plant was closed within a year of that campaign promise. Ryan uses the story as an example of President Obama not coming through on his promises and how President Obama’s policies have not worked even for the auto industry, whose revival has been a feather in President Obama’s cap. There’s just one problem – the plant closed in December of 2008, before Obama became president. In the wake of Ryan’s speech (and even beforehand), several media outlets pointed out this lie. (Here are articles from Talking Points, Politifact, and Huffington Post.) Conservatives jumped to Ryan’s defense citing that the plant actually closed in 2009. Laying aside the issue of whether President Obama’s policies could help a plant that closed just months after he became President, I think it is fairly clear that Ryan deliberately misled his own party and the broader American public with this story.

I’ll admit that the story is a little more complicated than “the plant closed in 2008.” But that’s only because it is fairly complicated to close a plant. For my evidence I present this article, which was actually sent to me by someone who was trying to prove that Ryan was telling the truth. From this article I learned that in December of 2008 the plant in Janesville laid off 1200 of their 1300 workers. 100 employees stayed on to finish a final order for Isuzu, which was completed in April of 2009. After that a skeletal crew stayed on to shutdown the plant. That sounds to me like the plant closed in December of 2008. But a conservative would say in response, “But there were 100 employees until April of 2009! Ryan was telling the truth!” Those people would be wrong. Here’s a comparison that I think is appropriate – A restaurant closes at 9 PM. You show up at 9:15 and see that the staff is still in the restaurant serving customers. Question: Is the restaurant still open? Of course not. The restaurant is closed, but they are honor bound to finish the orders of those that came in before the restaurant closed. It is the same case with this auto plant. They closed in 2008, but were kind enough to fulfill their final order. To that end, they kept on 100 employees to finish the job. The fact that those 100 employees came to work after the announcement doesn’t mean that the plant is open.

But I guess someone could argue that the plant was open. After all, until April, 100 employees had a job, and went to work at a plant and did not find chains on the doors. There’s just one problem with that argument. It’s dishonest. Arguing that the plant was still “open” in 2009 when 1200 of 1300 employees were laid off in December of 2008 and the ones left knew that they did not really have a job is disingenuous. Now maybe Ryan did not know these facts. But then that creates an equally indefensible position of talking about a story without knowing all the facts. I don’t see how Ryan escapes the web of deception that he attempted to create with this blatant misrepresentation of the truth.

Even more damaging than the inaccuracy of Ryan’s story is the conclusion that he attempts to draw from the story. As I said earlier, Ryan uses this as an example of President Obama’s broken promises and policies. Except President Obama did not break a promise to those workers. Here’s what candidate Obama said at the Janesville plant in February 2008 – "And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your president." As Politifact said, that’s a belief about what can be done, not a promise about what will be done. Even so, candidate Obama was right. If the government was there to support them, they could’ve stayed open for another 100 years. There government was not there to support them, and they laid off 1200 people and announced their closing in 2008. Now which government was it that left those auto workers hanging? It wasn’t a government led by President Obama, he wasn’t inaugurated until a month after the plant closed. It seems that it was the policies of the GOP and the President that shall not be named (President George W. Bush!) that failed the people of Janesville and the workers at that plant. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how you lay this at President Obama’s feet.

As I said earlier this week, the Republican Party insults the intelligence of not only the general American public but even their own adherents when they blatantly misrepresent the truth in this way. Why would anyone want to support a party that has shown such contempt for their own people? One of the people I was debating with on Twitter last night said that he felt that Ryan told the story to prove that Obama’s policies did not work for the United Auto Workers in WI. That may be true, and it may be a legitimate point. However, I would prefer for my politicians to not misrepresent the truth in order to make potentially legitimate points. In my opinion the willingness of the GOP to so brazenly mislead on even the most basic points should disqualify them from the privilege to lead.

Two Lies (At Least)

2012-08-28T22:32:00.001-05:00

The Republican National Convention has begun, and it has already bothered me. I originally wanted to do a short post about what I thought was the main problem for the GOP in this election season. It seems to me that the most difficult argument to make is to argue that you can do a better job at running the country when it’s your fault the country is in the position it’s in. I find it unfathomable that the nation found itself in a mini-depression because of Republican policies. I can understand the nation being upset that President Obama has yet to do all that’s necessary to bring the nation to a more complete economic recovery. What I think is a much harder sell is saying that the same people who got us into this mess are the people who will be able to get us out. I refuse to believe that Americans are so forgetful that they could forget how we got here and that the GOP is proposing the same policies that got us to where we are. Am I happy with everything President Obama has done? Of course not. I’m never happy with any President. But I’m not thinking that the best move now is to go back to way things were. The way things were was actually much worse than how things are now, and I am hoping that the rest of the country sees that. In truth, I’m not sure if that will happen.

But I’m even more appalled by the way the GOP has been willing to blatantly lie in order to present President Obama in a false light. There have been two major lies that have been perpetuated and I am amazed that the GOP continues to push them despite the fact that they know the lies to be false. The first lie is incredibly blatant. It’s so blatant that it is the theme of the first night of the convention. There were many signs and many of the speakers mentioned the line “We/You/I built that!” This line was taken from a speech of the President and has been twisted into an attack on the President. Republicans have accused the President of robbing small business owners of the work of their hands and giving credit to the government instead. However, everyone knows that President Obama did not say that and did not mean that. Politifact has debunked this lie and so has the Washington Post. The GOP is not only continuing to press this lie, they are building their convention around it. I think this type of transparent misleading of their own adherents shows a disrespect and contempt for all of us as citizens.

The second lie is about the recent changes to welfare. Republicans have been saying that President Obama has removed the work requirements from welfare. Once again Politifact has debunked this claim, giving it a rating of “pants on fire.” In fact, what the President has done is what you would think the GOP would want. President Obama has allowed states flexibility to decide how they will fulfill the work requirement; instead of having a one size fits all federal government requirement. This type of blatant disregard for the truth really bothers me. I believe every campaign is dishonest. There is always spin involved, misrepresentations, and mischaracterizations. It is more apparent than ever that all is fair in law and politics. However, I find the Republican Party is unabashed in their willingness to obscure the truth. To go to these lengths is just another reason why I cannot support the GOP. We'll see if this improves over the course of the Republican National Convention - but I doubt it.

The Vision

2012-08-25T15:16:00.004-05:00

It has been a rough week for me, filled with shame, guilt, doubt, anger, and spiritual crisis. I am grateful to God that I have been able to take the steps necessary to make my way out of this wilderness. While many things that have been said and done have been beneficial, the one thing that I wanted to share came from a friend and mentor who I spoke to last night. We spent some time catching up (we had not spoken in some time), and I began to talk to him about the problems I was experiencing. We promised to pray for one another and to stay in contact with each other. As he prayed at the end of our phone call, he said something to God that struck me. He prayed for me, that I might have a vision of the type of man God intends for me to be, the person that God saw when He ordained that I should be.

It moved me (and moves even as I write now) because it hit me just then that I already had a vision. When I was planning to make this move over 4 years ago, I had a clear vision of what God wanted for me. When I got laid off, and the vision had to be implemented sooner than I expected, I held that vision. It guided and sustained me when I didn’t know where the next paycheck was coming from. It excited me as I made my way to seminary, and held me during days of learning Greek, and the all-nighters when I wrote 6 papers in a semester and was working on my thesis. It expanded when I got married in 2010, and strengthened me as my marriage was challenged before it happened. It gave me the faith to know that my wife was the partner who God had ordained to perfect the vision. The vision held me when I was accepted at Baylor and moved here not knowing what to expect.

Somewhere along the way though, I lost sight of the vision. The difficulties that we have experienced in Waco - financial, spiritual, and academic - clouded my vision. I got so busy fighting that I lost sight of what I was fighting for. I got so busy fighting that I began to think that I was fighting alone and with only my own strength. And it was only when I failed that I realized how wrong I was. My mentor’s prayer led me to look through the Bible for instances of the word “vision.” I found two that moved me. In Proverbs 29:18 it says, “Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, but happy is he who keeps the law.” In this verse I saw myself. I had lost the vision, and so I was living a life unrestrained by the goal, the idea of who it is that God intends for me to be, and the purpose for which I was created.

The other verse, (which came to my mind before my search) comes from Habakkuk 2. Habakkuk is an interesting book. In chapter one, he starts by crying out to God, “How long, O Lord, will I call for help, and You will not hear? I cry out to You, ‘Violence!’ Yet You do not save. Why do You make me see iniquity, and cause me to look on wickedness?” (vv. 2-3) In verse 13 he goes on in his complaint – “Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You cannot look on wickedness with favor. Why do You look with favor on those who deal treacherously? Why are You silent when the wicked swallow up those more righteous than they?” Habakkuk begins chapter 2 waiting on a word from the Lord. God comes to Him and says, “Record the vision and inscribe it on tablets, that the one who reads it may run. For the vision is yet for the appointed time; It hastens toward the goal and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; For it will certainly come, it will not delay.” (vv. 2-3) In my own life I realized that I had gotten impatient and had lost faith. The setbacks engineered by those whose actions can only be described as less than righteous made me doubt the vision when the vision is only tarrying. But this verse encouraged me that the vision is for an appointed time, and not right now. Yet that vision will not fail, if I remain patient and just wait for it.

So I come into this Sabbath with a humbled and grateful heart. Still hurting from my own pride, but encouraged to begin again. I am grateful for a loving God who continues to reach out to me, even when I’m not reaching out to Him. I am thankful for the loving and compassionate wife that God gave me, who believes in me even when I don’t believe in myself. And lastly, I am appreciative of the friends and mentors who God has placed in my life who give good counsel in Christian love.

PS – There was a time when people would write something and tell you what they were listening to when they wrote it (Does anyone remember this but me?). I was reminded of the practice because the songs I was listening to as I wrote the post above were particularly moving. I hope they speak to you as they spoke to me.

Written listening to: Greater – John P. Kee & New Life, No Not One & I’m Still Here – Dorinda Clark-Cole, Lord We Have Come – Madison Mission Mass Choir, The Storm is Over Now – God’s Property, God Wants a Yes – James Hall & Worship & Praise, Afterwhile – Kirk Franklin feat. Yolanda Adams, We Praise Your Name – Here II Praise, Again – Donnie McClurkin

Unity

2012-08-18T20:00:00.000-05:00

There’s been a lot of discussion of unity in the Adventist Church as a whole recently. I talked a little bit last week about how that discussion is misguided for the context, but unity is certainly an important concept for any religious group. Interestingly enough, the discussion came up at my local church this week as well. However, the context here was how to be the best church we could be and help in spreading the gospel in our neighborhoods. The conclusion we came to was that we could not be an effective witness to the “outside” world if we in disarray ourselves. We need to be unified ourselves before we invited anyone to join our church. I agree with that. And as I thought more about the subject of unity, I thought of five things that could help any church (and an entire church for that matter) become more unified.

1.Remember that we are all the same – Before the cross of Christ, we are equal. In Gal 3:26-29 Paul makes it clear that before Christ there is no Jew or Greek, there is no male or female. Yet so many problems churches face are issues of the way we try to divide ourselves from each other. It saddens me that my church (the Adventist Church) still has problems with race and gender in light of Paul’s counsel. I’ve been in churches where African-Americans and Caribbean people couldn’t get along. These types of problems don’t make sense when we all are supposed to be equal before the cross, heirs to the promise, and working towards the same goal.

2. Remember that we are all different – It is true that we are all the same before the cross. But this doesn’t mean that we lose our individuality. Unity does not equal uniformity. We all have different talents and abilities, and we have different conceptions about the best way to go about the work that Christ has asked us to do. Our problem is that we sometimes get the impression that everyone has to be down with the way we want to do something, and if they’re not, they are somehow less of a Christian. For example, everyone should spread the gospel. I agree with that. Everyone should not go door to door and talk with people. Some people do not have that skill, that talent, that ability. In fact, there are some people I wouldn’t want to go door to door. At the same time, I’m not saying no one should do it either. In 1 Cor 12, Paul talks about spiritual gifts. In that chapter Paul makes the point that we can’t all be the same thing. The body does not function if we all decide to be a hand, or an eye. Each of us has our own role to play, and we can each do what best suits are personalities, talents, and abilities and be of benefit to the church.

3. Realize that we have to let some “doctrines” go – In Acts 15, the church was in crisis. Some Jews started telling Gentiles that they had to be circumcised in order to be saved. After much debate, they decided to go discuss it with the apostles in Jerusalem. After much discussion, Peter said, “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” His point was that the particular elements of doctrine like circumcision were things that Jews were called to do (and that Jews had not done a good job in keeping the law themselves). Those were not things that Gentiles were supposed to bear. We see the same thing going on in churches today. People attempting make people live by the yokes that God only gave to them. (I treated this subject more fully in “What Doth the Lord Require of Thee?”) We sometimes cause dissension, discord, and destroy unity in our church because we think we should try to get everyone to live by the rules of life that we think our important but are really just the things that help us navigate through the Christian life.

4. Speak the truth in love – The last point does not mean that we don’t ever say anything to anyone about the way we live. Unity does not mean that there will not be disagreements. Unity does not mean that we avoid conflict. However, unity is served if we find ways to say difficult things in love to one another. In Eph 4:14-16 Paul talks about not being moved by every doctrine. It’s important that we help each other to live the way God wants for us. But this does not mean we take it upon ourselves to say what needs to be said, in whatever manner we choose. We have hurt so many people not because we spoke the truth, but because we chose not to speak it in love. My heart hurts for all the youth that I know who left church because they felt unloved and disrespected. My heart hurts for all those who were young in the faith and did not feel the love of Christ from us. I truly believe that we will be called into account for some of the hurtful things we have said to people.

5. LOVE! This is the ultimate point. We have to learn how to better love one another. If you want to know what love is, there is no better place to go than 1 Cor 13. I’m sure all of us are loving people. But I also know that we can learn to love each other better. How many times can I say that I have treated everyone the way Paul calls us to in verses 4-7 of this chapter? Have I always been kind? Or patient? Or unselfish? Or humble and not arrogant? If I’m not these things all the time, then I have more work to do. And that work could be the difference in someone’s salvation. I think it’s worth the effort.

Why is unity so important? I found the answer to that in John 17:20-23. In his prayer for the believers who will come after the disciples (that’s us) Jesus prays for us to “all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” Our disunity hurts the very mission we say we uphold. Our lack of unity makes it hard for the world to believe that God sent Jesus to us to save us. We are so quick to blame everything else for the condition of our society and our world. We blame the devil, we blame sinners, we blame theories, we blame politicians. We say, “If such and such would happen, this society would be a better place to live, or people would be more willing to come to Jesus.” I believe that if we would love each other more, if we would be more unified within our individual churches, within our denominations, and amongst denominations, people would be able to see Jesus in us, believe the God sent Him, and be saved.

Link of the Day - I Like Ayn Rand

2012-08-13T00:21:00.000-05:00

So Mitt Romney decided to go with Paul Ryan for his VP. Good luck with that man. What amazes me is that Paul Ryan probably is the best choice. To me this shows that there is a dearth of political talent in the GOP nowadays. The lack of talent is understandable though. It seems to me that the Tea Party is on an anti-intellectual streak that has permeated the entire Republican Party. I have always been the type to want to feel like my President is the smartest guy in the room. I don’t really care if he’s the type of guy I would like to have a beer with. The GOP actually has presented the best ticket they could this year. It’s just a shame that the best they have to offer is Romney-Ryan.

With Paul Ryan back at the center of Republican news, Ayn Rand has once again become a favorite whipping posts for liberals. Some segments of the GOP have been touting Rand as the inspiration for their economic ideals. Several, including Ryan, have cited her book Atlas Shrugged, as one of their favorite works. In response, several people have been critical of them, Rand, and her philosophy of objectivism. I take offense to these mischaracterizations. Maybe I’m the one who’s wrong, but I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand. I own all of her works of fiction, and The Fountainhead is one of my favorite books all time. I have found her works life changing and have read them more than few a times since I was first introduced to her in my senior of high school. I like her work so much that I wrote one of the very first posts on this blog about her and the effect of her work on my outlook on life. I went back and read it today, and “I Am Howard Roark” remains a post that I like very much and so I give it to you again today. Unfortunately I am in the middle of preparing for comprehensive exams, so I don’t have the time now to go any deeper than this, but I hope before election day to reread both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and give you more of my thoughts on Ayn Rand, and how she is (and is not) what conservatives make her out to be.

Moving Day

2012-08-12T20:51:00.001-05:00

We didn’t really move, but we made a change or two at HineSight yesterday and we just wanted to keep you folks updated. The blog has a new twitter handle - @HineSightBlog. All Twitter updates will come from there from now on (with only occasional retweets from my personal Twitter account @Jason_A_Hines) so make sure you follow that account. Also, I want @HineSightBlog to be a place where we can continue the discussions that the blog posts are supposed to start. Now we can have more direct discussions about the subjects of the posts and you can more directly suggest ideas for blog posts, and places where you would like to see me go based on where we are here. I’m really looking forward to having more contact with the community that we’re attempting to build here.

The second thing we did was change the e-mail address connected to the blog. You can now reach us at HineSightBlog@gmail.com. As you should know, the main focus of this blog is questions pertaining to religious liberty. What you may not know is that I have been traveling giving seminar and sermons on this subject for over 8 years. I’m still in that ministry and am more than willing to come and do something with your church or civic group. The presentations and sermons that I do are from a Christian point of view, so you don’t have to be a Seventh-day Adventist to understand what I’m saying. If you’re interested, send us an e-mail and we can talk more about it.

We think that these changes will help to give a more unique character to the blog and we hope that you enjoy it!

Attitude Reflect Leadership

2012-08-11T04:15:00.000-05:00

I have talked about women’s ordination and the Adventist Church in this space before (see Deborah’s Dilemma). I linked to the Deborah’s Dilemma again on July 29, 2012 when the Columbia Union (a geographic region of the church that covers PA, NJ, MD, VA, WV, and OH) voted to ordain candidates without regard to gender. Those (like me) who believe that women pastors should not be discriminated against in our church were excited by the news. Those (like Elder Wilson, President of the General Conference (GC) and de facto leader of our church) who disagree were not as excited. In fact, Elder Wilson spoke at the meeting of the Columbia Union against the measure. Since that point, the church in its official capacity has been spinning the issue as a problem with the unity of the church. In this vein, Elder Wilson and 4 others held a roundtable discussion on 3ABN (an independent Adventist TV network) this past Wednesday.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I did not watch the program in its entirety. In fact, I tried very hard not to watch it. My wife watched it though, and I was drawn in as the program continued, mostly because I could not believe what I was hearing. I will be relying on what I viewed of the program and this recap as I attempt to address some of the problems with the way “the church” is addressing this issue.

· The most glaring issue with the way the church addresses this issue is that the arguments presented are double-edged arguments. They apply just as well to the church as they do the segments of the church that are stepping out on their own to ordain women. Elder Wilson at one point said that organizations in the church need to work in submission to each other and to the Lord. I agree. That statement implies that the organization Elder Wilson heads (the General Conference) would at times submit to the unions, just as unions should submit to the GC at times. But he doesn’t explain who should submit to who and when.

· He suffers from the same problem when he attempts to use the unity argument. Unity works both ways, and could be just as easily accomplished if he submitted as if the union submitted. Here’s the odd part – I agree with Elder Wilson. This is an issue of unity – just not the way he thinks. One of the definitions of unity is an absence of diversity; to be of an unvaried or uniform character. I want there to be an absence of diversity in the way we bless people called by God for ministry. I want the designation of the calling that God places on both men and women to be unvaried or uniform in character. I have attended the seminary. We don’t train men and women differently. I also understand in a very personal way that the callings that these women receive are not somehow less, or different from the calls that men receive. We have seen that the work that they do for the church is not different or less than the work that men do as pastors. We should not be discriminating against them and treating them differently simply because we want to continue an antiquated system of prejudice. I want “unity” too.

· Another note from the “I agree, but not the way you think” department – Elder Wilson took time out in his introductory comments to talk about the fact that we are living in the last days. One of his signs? The acceptance of gay marriage. I agree. Adventism believes that churches seeking to have their beliefs codified into civil law and forcing people to live by the Christian ethos without choice are signs of the last days.

· The Adventist church is attempting to have their cake and eat it too on this issue, and some church organizations are tired of the hypocrisy. Right now Adventism allows women to pastor, but not to be ordained. That does not make sense. There is actually a stronger biblical argument for not allowing women to pastor at all. (I don’t agree with the argument, but you could make it logically.) But we’ve already gone too far down the road for that, and the evidence is too strong that God is blessing women to pastor, lead churches, and lead souls to Christ. That should be evidence enough that women are worthy of the same earthly credentials as men (seeing as they clearly have the same heavenly credentials). The church can’t do that either though, because there are too many people who see the verses that seem to speak against women in ministry and are mad enough that women are allowed to lead anything in the first place. The Columbia Union exposed this tenuous balance by voting to no longer contradict itself. I cannot find any problem with that.

· Some of the arguments proposed on the program do not make sense upon deeper inspection. At one point Pastor Mark Finley referenced Acts 15 as a time when there was disagreement in the church. He made the point that people put aside individual differences for the sake of the mission of the church. Does he realize that the apostles (the heads of the church at that time) solved the dilemma by giving up their preconceived notions and relaxing the rules for the constituents at the local level of the church? I’m sure he does.

· One small point – someone on the panel said at one point that the fact that each of them was on the panel together was a sign of unity amongst their differences. Sir, five old white men on a panel is not a sign of unity. Now if you had some women up there and some people of color – maybe. Unless he meant that some people on the panel actually disagree with Elder Wilson but were there toeing the party line anyway. Which leads me to my final point….

· The most dangerous thing that Elder Wilson implied was that people should ignore the voice of God for the sake of uniformity. Now Elder Wilson did not use the word uniformity, but uniformity is what he meant. At one point, Elder Wilson said that it would be better to act together, even if the conclusion runs counter to personal conviction, than to foster disunity. That sounds extremely problematic to me. This isn’t one person. This is a segment of the church that voted overwhelmingly to ordain women, and the people who voted for the provision, voted based on their religious conviction. I am willing to assume that they voted the way they did because they felt that this is what God would want them to do (and by the way, I would feel the same way if the numbers were reversed). Is Elder Wilson calling for people to obey the church, even if they feel God is calling them to do something else? Peter found himself in this very position in Acts 5 and said, “We must obey God rather than men.”

But Elder Wilson is right – this is about unity. How did the church come to such a fractured position? When I think about this issue, I’m reminded of the movie Remember the Titans. This movie, which chronicles the on and off the field struggles of a newly integrated football team in the South, is one of my favorite films. At one point Julius Campbell (Wood Harris) is arguing with Gerry Bertier (Ryan Haust) who is the captain of the team. Julius tells him that no one is playing for the team and he is going to play for himself. When Gerry tells him that he has a poor attitude Julius retorts, “Attitude reflect leadership, Captain.” Elder Wilson laid the foundation for this when he became president two years ago. He stood before the entire church and divided us from each other, based on ideas and concepts that he felt were not proper. (This one of the first things I wrote about on this blog. Check out Wilson’s War – Parts I, II, and III.) He was well within his rights to do so. However, you can’t divide us from each other and then get upset when some decide to do their own thing. Elder Wilson fomented the spirit of division and discord from the very beginning, and the attitude of the Columbia Union and others is a reflection of that leadership.

Christian Chickens

2012-08-04T00:29:00.000-05:00

A new front arose in the so-called “culture wars” this week. That’s right – we fight over chicken now. If that isn’t a sign of how far we’ve fallen, I don’t know what it is. There are several ways to look at this “controversy.” I have already talked a little bit about how this is not the free speech issue that people are making it out to be. I spoke to one person who tried to float the idea that this is somehow about the free exercise of religion. That argument is even more nonsensical than the free speech argument. But the thing that bothers me most of all is that this week’s events gave a very bad picture of what Christianity should be about.

For the uninitiated – Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A, recently stated his support for traditional marriage and his belief that God’s judgment would fall on America for its attempt to redefine marriage. In addition, Chick-Fil-A is known for its support of groups that advocate for discrimination against homosexuals on several levels. Cathy’s statements sparked calls for a boycott of the fast food chain, which prompted Mike Huckabee to call for those who agreed with Cathy to support Chick-Fil-A on August 1. Supported by conservative evangelicals and other elements of the Religious Right, Christians flocked (no pun intended) to the chicken restaurants and bought as much as they could. (It also led to photos like this one. Lord help us.) The company reported record profits from what has been dubbed “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day.”

I wonder what the Christians who bought from Chick-Fil-A think they accomplished on Wednesday. I know they gave a lot of money to a corporation that will donate some of that money to advocacy groups that seek to discriminate against homosexuals in several areas, including but not limited to civil marriage. That much I know. Other than that, I’m not sure what got accomplished. I believe some think that they stood up for free speech. I feel bad that they got duped into thinking that this was about free speech. I believe some people think they stood up for the standards of God’s word, for the laws that God/Christ would want in this nation, and that they lived out their Christian beliefs. But is that what Christianity is supposed to be about? I am convinced that this is not what Christianity should be. Living out your faith should be a lot harder than that. It’s easy to go buy a chicken sandwich and think that you’ve stood up for God. It’s easy give your money to some guy you don’t know, which will go (in part) to burden the life of some gay person you don’t know. It’s easy to think that you lived out your faith because of where you ate on a particular day. I think if you’re convinced of that position, you haven’t done anything but taken the chicken’s way out.

But don’t be alarmed, we have been misunderstanding Jesus’ mission for a long time. In Mark 2: 14-17, Jesus called Levi, a tax collector, to be his disciple and socialized with him in his home. Tax collectors were among the most despised people in Judea, because they were Jews who worked in the service of the Roman oppressors and had a penchant for overcharging people and pocketing the difference. Those in the religious establishment did not associate with those people. The fact that Jesus did led the scribes to ask, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus answered, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” What so many Christians did on Wednesday smacks of throwing their money at the “righteous.” That’s the easy way out. I wonder how many of the people who specifically went to Chick-Fil-A last Wednesday to support Cathy’s statements have close gay friends. I wonder how many of those people have ever been in a gay person’s home, reclined at their table, and really sought to understand them and their lives. That’s what Jesus did, and I think that’s what He wants us to do. Jesus is calling us to a much higher and harder thing than lifting a chicken sandwich in a sanctuary. He’s calling us to reach out to those who do not know Him. To show them the love of God in the way we live and in the way we treat them. He’s calling us to really get to know all of His sons and daughters, and extend the same mercy and grace that He has extended to us. To accomplish this task, it will require us to be a friend of sinners. It will require us to advocate for them in the same way that Jesus advocates for us. I know it won’t be easy, but I do know this – chickens won’t do it.

Link of the Day - Grateful

2012-08-02T12:30:00.000-05:00

I am so thankful that Noah Michelson wrote this post on how the Chick-Fil-A controversy is not about free speech. It saved me from having to do a full length post myself. If there is one concept in America that Americans do not understand it is free speech. A couple notes to add to Michelson’s great and wonderful article. The right of free speech is a right extended to you by government. What that means is that you cannot be arrested or have rights taken away from you because of something you said. Last I checked, no one was attempting to arrest Dan Cathy because of his opinion. And no, you do not necessarily have the right to open your restaurant wherever you want. Furthermore, this is not just about speech. Chick-Fil-A also takes your money and gives it to organizations that advocate for discrimination against homosexuals. Therefore, if you decide you do not want your money to go to that cause, then you have every right to not eat there. I’ll leave Mr. Michelson to make the rest of the argument, but needless to say, I felt just like he described when I saw that this was becoming a free speech issue. For some reason we think that the right to free speech means that no one is allowed to criticize what we say or that people are not allowed to change what they do in response to our speech. Nothing could be further from the truth…. Now I wonder how much of that influx of money to Chick-Fil-A yesterday will find its way to Mike Huckabee’s PAC?