Remember the Poor

This past Sunday I taught at Doxology. In preparation for that I wrote out the message that I wanted to communicate. I didn't read it, so if you were there, this isn't the text of that teaching, but it does contain all of the major points. (WARNING: I haven't edited this and it is rough in places. I will try to edit it later, but hopefully it will still make sense.)
__________________________________________________________________

A couple of weeks ago, during our morning prayers, Brett and Lou and I read this verse. “All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. Galations 2:10” This verse comes in the context of Paul’s description of his personal inquisition before the Apostles in Jerusalem. The apostles wrestled with many aspects of Paul’s teaching, including circumcision, meat sacrificed to idols, eating with Gentiles, and all kinds of other things that were a really big deal in Jewish culture. Though they had walked with Jesus (or maybe because they had walked with Jesus), the apostles had a hard time grasping the depth of paradigm shift that Jesus was teaching, but Paul, after his Damascus Road experience, got it. Jesus didn’t come to tweak the Jewish codes but to transform them. It was revolutionary and the apostles knew this. So, in that context, understand what happened here. The apostles said, “Okay” to a lot of things, but the ONE thing that they insisted MUST be a part of the gospel story was “we should continue to remember the poor.” And, what was Paul’s response? The one who GOT the gigantic paradigm shift? His response was that this was “the very thing I was eager to do.” Not the very thing I knew that I had to do. Not the thing that I agreed to compromise on. No. The very thing I was EAGER to do. I won’t speak for you, but this verse got me because I haven’t been eager to remember the poor since I was a teenager.

As a teen, I was involved in various ministries to the poor and I learned a few things. First, I learned that it is hard work and it takes time from other things… but that wasn’t so bad. The really hard lessons were that the poor can be tough to work with… and, for many of them, if there is a really bad decision that could be made, they will find it and make it. In that context, the efforts to help seem really pointless. You help tutor a kid so he doesn’t fail English, and the day of the test he doesn’t show up because he was arrested for getting in a gang fight the night before! For me it didn’t take long for Jesus’ words in the story we read earlier to come to mind. “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.” What’s the point in working with the poor? You’re never going to solve it. Why bother? Jesus is a lot nicer anyway. I know that I’m not the only one to use that verse that way, but I want us to look at it pretty closely today to see if that is how Jesus really meant it. Let’s read it again.

6While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
8When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. 9"This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."
10Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. 12When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
One key to understanding this story is to look at the disciples’ reaction. They were indignant. Why? Consider these verses and remember that they were with Jesus when he said them.
Luke 6:20
Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Luke 7:22
So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.
Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
Luke 14:13
But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
Matthew 15:32
Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way."
• Matthew 25:35
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
Matthew 25:34-36 (in Context) Matthew 25 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 1:53
He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.
Luke 6:25
Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.


It is clear that to Jesus’ disciples a big part of Jesus’ message was about caring for the poor and when they see Mary “wasting” this precious resource, it seems perfectly obvious to them that this is a bad thing. So, did they miss it so much? Was Jesus saying that ministry to the poor was not really that big of a deal?

This question is easier to answer if you understand one thing… Jesus was quoting a passage from the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 15… If I say to you, “Jack and Jill ran up the hill…,” what do you think? … Not all of you may know this one, but for those of you who recognize it what images do you see in your mind when I say, “Dumber than a bag of hammers.” In all languages it is common to phrases that people recognize to condense our speech and that is what Jesus is doing here. Let’s look at this passage of Deuteronomy.

1"(A)At the end of every seven years you shall [a]grant a remission of debts.
2"This is the manner of remission: every creditor shall release what he has loaned to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the LORD'S remission has been proclaimed.
3"(B)From a foreigner you may exact it, but your hand shall release whatever of yours is with your brother.
4"However, there will be no poor among you, since (C)the LORD will surely bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess,
5if only you listen obediently to the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all this commandment which I am commanding you today.
6"(D)For the LORD your God will bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.
7"If there is (E)a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, (F)you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother;
8but (G)you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
9"Beware that there is no base thought in your heart, saying, '(H)The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,' and (I)your eye is hostile toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing; then he (J)may cry to the LORD against you, and it will be a sin in you.
10"You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because (K)for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings.
11"(L)For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'
There at the end is the verse that Jesus is quoting, but look what comes before and after it. I think the most striking thing is the contradiction between verse 4 and verse 11. This isn’t an accident the contradiction is there to make a point. What God is trying to the Hebrews is that IF they will obey Him there will be no poor, but because they will NOT obey him, there will always be poor. In other words, poverty is the result of sin, both the sin of the wealthy and the sin of the poor. It’s not because God has not provided enough resources for everyone. Deuteronomy makes clear that this is not His fault. He provided us with a world with plenty to meet the needs of everyone, but that doesn’t happen because of us. According to the World Resources Institute, the poorest 20 percent of the world’s population now claims just 11 percent of global income, while the richest 20 percent claims 86 percent.

Now, put that in the context of how Jesus interpreted Mary’s act. “12When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." Jesus is making a direct connection between the ongoing poverty of the world and his own death. Can you hear the pain in his voice? Her preparing him for burial was needed BECAUSE the poor will always be with us.

That’s one way to understand this story, but I think there is even more. Mark adds a little to Jesus’ statement, “7"For you always have (A)the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.” (Mark 14:7) He makes it clear that the disciples can continue to care for the poor. That stays in the equation. In this case, it becomes really clear that Jesus is talking about priorities. Last week, Brett read the parable of the sheep and goats and pointed out that those who fed, clothed and visited Jesus did not do it to earn brownie points with God and the goats’ attitude was “Oh, if we had know that that is how you earn God’s favor we would have done it.” This is really important and it makes me think of the word “wish” in the verse in mark. For Jesus’ disciples doing good for the poor is something that we WISH to do. There is a clear sense of privilege here. We GET to do good to the poor. Why? Why do we see it that way? Because we understand that the poor are His beloved. If we’ve hung around Jesus, like the disciples did, we understand His great love for them and BECAUSE we love him, we love them. Our love for the poor cannot be separated from our love for Him, and that is tremendous lesson for those involved in working with the poor. Just like I disconnected my love for Jesus from my service to the poor and became disillusioned and burnt out, Jesus is warning his disciples to keep those two things connected and to keep their love for Him first. THEN out of our love for Him, we love those He loves. With that in mind, we don’t do good to the poor because we think that if we just get it right we are going to end poverty. We do good to the poor because it please the heart of our Father. We love the poor because he loves them.

So, what does that look like? Often, we become so overwhelmed and confused that we don’t know where to start. A couple of weekends ago Brett and I attended a Breakthrough event, where I was challenge about my “confusion con.” We were talking about stories that we tell ourselves that may have benefits sometimes, but which we use indiscriminately to avoid things we don’t like. I realized that I run the “confused” con a lot. You see I came to terms several years ago with the fact that I can’t be right about everything, but I’ve never really come to terms with the fact that I may therefore be wrong sometimes. … So, I avoid being wrong by being confused. As long as I am confused, I don’t have to make a decision and if I don’t make a decision, I can’t be wrong! I’m not alone in running this con and I would even suggest that if churches can run cons collectively that is the Doxology con. We’ve spent a long time talking about our desire to be and make disciples for the good of the world, but we’ve hesitated to act because we weren’t sure how. We were afraid of taking wrong actions so we’ve taken no action. Believe me, I put myself at the top of this list – up until now. From now on, I will become GOOD at being WRONG. I will make mistakes and I may even be making one now, but oh well. So, first, I would like to ask you to take a chance on being wrong with me.

Second, quitting waiting for passion to tell you what to do. If you are passionate about a particular way to love the poor, go for it, but if you aren’t don’t hide behind the lack of passion. Jesus told us what to do. What if we started with feeding the hungry? Then we could move to giving the thirsty water. After that maybe we could try clothing the naked, giving strangers a place to stay, and visiting prisoners. I’ve spent the last two years whining to God about my lack of passion, but it has occurred to me recently that I have chosen to give up passion because I didn’t want to be passionate about the things and people that God wanted me to be passionate about. So, rather than trying to stir up passion or waiting to be motivated to care, I signed up to walk in the CROP Hunger Walk and I’m going to begin fundraising to help pay to feed the hungry in Austin and the rest of the world. What’s next? I’m not sure, but I don’t think I’m going to pass up a chance to do one of those things that sheep do. At some point, God my direct my efforts to a particular area, but I’m not going to worry about that right now. I’m just going to keep saying “yes” until some other direction becomes clear.

Third, expand your definition of “neighbor.” In the parable of the good Samaritan, the young ruler asks “Who is my neighbor?” He was trying to lessen his responsibilities by restricting who he was required to love. Jesus answer blew those kinds of restrictions apart. This week I read Dietrich Bonhoeffer, quoting and commenting on a statement by Friedrich Nietzsche. He wrote, “Nietzche, without knowing it, was speaking in the spirit of the New Testament when he attacked the legalistic and philistine misinterpretation of [the] commandment which bids us love our neighbor. He wrote: "You are assiduous in your attention to your neighbor and you find beautiful words to describe your assiduity. But I tell you that your love for your neighbor is a worthless love for yourself. You go to your neighbor to seek refuge from yourself and then you try to make a virtue of it; but I see through your [unselfishness]....Do I advise you to love your neighbor? I advise you rather to shun your neighbor and love whoever is furthest from you! If beyond his neighbor a man does not know this one who is furthest from him as his neighbor, then he does not serve his neighbor but himself; he takes refuge from free open spaces of responsibility in the comforting confinement of the fulfillment of duty.” It made me think of this passage.
, “43-47"You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that.”
Loving those who are like us, who are near to us, is natural and normal. We care for one another in this community because we are joined together. We have cast our lots together, so to speak. It is a good thing, but it is not an extraordinary thing. It is not the world changing, life altering, call of the life of the ages. Choosing to participate in things like the CROP Hunger Walk, are acts of spiritual discipline, just like prayer, studying the Bible, and tithing. We do it because we decided to, because we understand that the transformation of the world and our own transformation requires it. We don’t always FEEL like loving those far from us, but we do it because we understand that this is how we are transformed from goats to sheep. So, those are my thoughts. Yours?

New thoughts on local politics

If you haven't guessed, I, like many in the faith circles I run in, believe that American Evangelicalism has been co-opted by political conservatism and has seriously gotten off track in its calling to follow Jesus. On the other hand, I, and many in my faith circles, are concerned that we not repeat the mistake, by simply switching parties. I believe that followers of Christ are called to a greater allegiance to Him than to any political party or even national boundary. Still, the Bible does not refrain from discourse on the responsibilities of government and I see no benefit in repeating the behaviors of previous generations of Christians that viewed politics as dirty and taught that Christians had no business being involved. As a friend said to me recently, "In politics, there are players and there are victims." If you remove yourself from the process you will become a victim of those who have not.

Coupled with these ideas, I have struggled with the issue of Christian unity. At Doxology, we take pleasure in the fact that in our gatherings both liberals and conservatives can come together and worship despite their political differences. How then do we make a unified call to action in the political arena? Yesterday, in a conversation that I was privileged to participate in between two evangelical Christian leaders and one of my professors, a possible answer began to arise in my own thinking.

This professor, whom I greatly admire, challenged my evangelical friends with the question, "When was the last time your churches announced that there would be a city council meeting on Thursday and the issue of affordable housing will be on the agenda?" LOCAL POLITICS. Certainly, I am aware of the importance of local politics. Often the decisions of local city councils have a much more immediate and significant impact on the lives of citizens than the decisions at the state or national levels, but citizen participation in local governments is appallingly low.

Further, local politics generally do not share the partisan nature of state and national politics. As Christian church leader, I know that my church can come together in unity on issues of local social justice, even as they disagree about appropriate solutions at a state or national level. Let's face it, local problems are more discrete and concrete. Do we build a electric transfer station in the Mueller development? Do we grant a permit for Foundation Communities to build an affordable housing complex across the street from the church? I'm not saying that these questions are simple and without debate, but they are certainly easier to wrap your head around than questions about immigration reform or Medicaid eligibility requirements. The answers are also less clearly defined in terms of "Democrat" or "Republican."

Am I saying that Christians should not be involved in state or national political issues? No. I am saying, though, that we might at least pay some attention to the issues of injustice in our own backyards. Whether or not everyone believes in global warming, those who believe in the Bible should agree that that the poor neighborhoods should not have to house ALL of the landfills and water treatment facilities, that mold in schools is bad no matter which side of the city they are on, and that city pools should be opened and maintained on the same schedule no matter which neighborhood they are in.

In fact, I suspect that if Christians turned their attention to cleaning up our cities and caring for the disenfranchised within them, many issues that consume so much of the national debate could be minimized or eliminated. With this in mind, if you live in Austin, plan to attend "In the City, For the City" at the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum, on November 15. The two evangelical leaders that I mentioned are part of the group hosting this event and it will be worth your time.

I just read this passage where Dietrich Bonhoeffer quotes Friedrich Nietsche and thought it worth passing on.

Nietzche, without knowing it, was speaking in the spirit of the New Testament when he attacked the legalistic and philistine misinterpretation of [the] commandment which bids us love our neighbor. He wrote: "You are assiduous in your attention to your neighbor and you find beautiful words to describe your assiduity. But I tell you that your love for your neighbor is a worthless love for yourself. You go to your neighbor to seek refuge from yourself and then you try to make a virtue of it; but I see through your [unselfishness]....Do I advise you to love your neighbor? I advise you rather to shun your neighbor and love whoever is furthest from you! If beyond his neighbor a man does not know this one who is furthest from him as his neighbor, then he does not serve his neighbor but himself; he takes refuge from free open spaces of responsibility in the comforting confinement of the fulfillment of duty.

Email from President Obama

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

I'm Back

I can't believe it has been a year since I posted here. I quit posting for a variety of reasons, but I've recently decided to orient my life toward authenticity. So, though my fears tell me that I may lose relationships if I speak openly, I'm moving past those in pursuit of something real. So, in keeping with my declaration, here is something that I recently wrote for one of my classes. It is rather tongue-in-cheek. If anyone reads it, I hope you at least have a laugh.
_______________________________________________
The Search for Missing Conservatives

In following the news lately, I’m struck by a mystery that no one seems to be discussing… Where have all the conservatives gone? Were they spirited away in the twinkling of an eye?

Of course, there are a lot of people carrying guns to town hall meetings who claim to be conservatives and there are even legislators shouting in front of television cameras like Longhorns watching the Sooners make a touchdown, but I haven’t heard anyone defending the capacity of the invisible hand of the market and the rational decisions of consumers to achieve the most efficient solution to the country’s health care crisis. If the conservatives were around, someone would be talking about the ability of Americans to make their own decisions about insurance, and they would defend the people’s right to options. With no one arguing these things, it is certain that the conservatives have left the building.

So, who are these conservative impostors that gather at rallies, spend their afternoons talking into the can at the radio station or debating healthcare proposals in Washington? I think most of them are actually neo-liberals who embrace the role of government in solving problems and meeting societal needs. Unlike traditional liberals, though, they believe that government should solve the problems of those with the greatest resources. Currently, tax subsidies are provided to employers who offer health insurance to their employees. According to a study by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, these subsidies primarily benefit the wealthiest wage-earners in the country as you can see in the graph below.

In the current situation, "private" insurance receives all kinds of "public" support from government in the form of tax exemptions and subsidies, and "public" insurance has elements of private insurance, in that people pay premiums which are supposed to finance the group plans they are in. So, it seems pretty clear to me that the conservatives disappeared a long time ago and the neo-liberals who’ve stolen their identity have experienced tremendous success in transferring society’s responsibility to care for the wealthy to the government.

With conservatives in the country, the value of competition would be on the agenda and the power of individual market choices to drive inefficient and undesirable producers out of business would surely be heard on the afternoon talk shows, or in the paper, or at least on Twitter. Heck, conservatives would turn a deaf ear to any corporation on industry that whined about being driven out of the market, because that is what the market is supposed to do – separate the wheat from the chaff. However, in a letter that I recently received from “conservative” Senator John Cornyn, I was surprised to learn of his concern for protecting insurance companies from competition. He wrote, “I believe that a new government-run health insurance plan will devastate private insurance markets by acting as a competitor, regulator, and funder.”

Government already regulates and funds private insurance, so I can only believe that he is concerned that they be protected from further competition. He is convinced that offering a public insurance option would drive insurance companies out of business, which sounds a lot more like a bleeding heart liberal trying to save the spotted owl from extinction. The absence of Darwinian economics is to conservatives like the absence of water in the pond is to fish. When the pond is dry, don’t bother looking for the fish.

Finally, conservatives know that government programs are wasteful and inefficient. A lot of conservatives even dare to publicly admit that all government programs are tyrannical and committed to the harming of its citizens. While the neo-liberals have certainly sung the conservative tune in their predictions of death panels and bureaucrats sending women with breast cancer home to die, their fear that private insurance companies would be driven out of business suggests that either they believe that people are not rational decision makers and need government to protect them, or that they believe that a government program could be run even more efficiently than a private corporation. Either argument would cause a conservative to roll in their graves. Since America hasn’t experienced any earthquakes lately, I think the dead ones must be missing, too.

This is truly the epic mystery of our time. Perhaps the disappearance of American conservatives should be the subject of Dan Brown’s next book, because this certainly smacks of a conspiracy far bigger than missing symbols and secret societies. And, maybe if we find the conservatives, we’ll figure out where the bees went, too.

Moving from Bullshit to Honest Political Discussion

In the interest of protecting the loved-one referred to above, I will simply summarize his first email. It started by comparing Gov. Sarah Palin to Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden. It went on to expound on Gov. Palin's qualifications to lead and ended with a charge that Senator Obama refused to salute the flag, hated the national anthem, opposed offering medical assistance to babies born alive during an abortion, and was a close associate of known terrorists. This was a forwarded email from a member of our armed services. Here is my response:

I didn't intend to respond to the arguments below, because I didn't think you would read it anyway. On second thought, perhaps that is unfair. I could go point by point on the trash below and give you multiple sources and logical reasoning as to the absurdity of this email, but I'm going to choose one issue. If you read it and want to hear more, I'll be happy to oblige. Otherwise, please at least consider this. . . There are some good reasons to vote for McCain – find them! Love your country enough to do your homework and separate truth from fiction . . . and then vote accordingly.

As for "Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense.", here is an short excerpt from http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/palin-national-guard.htm. "The foreign deployments of units and the operation of missile interceptors are not the responsibility of state governors. That comes down from the regular U.S. military chain of command." Of course, you know this already. If you want more on this issue, the link has the whole article and this is from a nonpartisan source. If you don't like this source, let me know and I'll help you find the government documents that this is based on. Finally, if you want to engage in intelligent discussion about this campaign, I'd be happy to oblige.

I was pleased when he responded, saying that he knew that much of the email was "bullshit," but that is to be expected in political campaigns. Ultimately, we are left voting for the lesser of two evils, he said, and he questioned Obama's patriotism and leadership because he opposed the war in Iraq and dislikes the national anthem. I'm really proud of this young man for engaging in this conversation with me and this is my response to the second email.

I appreciate hearing your thoughts, and I can really identify with your feelings about the bullshit! On the surface, you’re talking about things like the national anthem, and I've got to tell you that’s just more political bullshit. The stuff about Obama not liking the national anthem came from a political commentary by John Semmens. He was writing a satirical piece and in the piece he had Obama saying some stuff about the national anthem. Obama never said it. Here’s a link from Snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp and here’s the link to the original article http://azconservative.org/Semmens118.htm. Just be sure you note the title of the article.

So, let’s put the bullshit behind us and have a serious talk about the issue that you are really concerned about. I think you are really concerned about Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq. You question his patriotism, because he opposed it, and you think that the reason he opposed it was because it was unpopular with the people. You’re afraid that he won’t be able to make the hard decisions if called upon in his role as commander-in-chief. Am I right about that? If so, we’re starting to get somewhere. That is a discussion worth having.

Let’s start with the willingness to make unpopular decisions, because that’s a quick one. Obama announced his opposition to the war before it began, while he was engaged in a fierce campaign for the Senate. When he said this, Bush’s approval rating and support for the war were at their highest. Politically, most people thought this was suicide, but he did it anyway. I think that is about as strong a proof as you can get that he is willing to stand against popular opinion, saying and doing what he believes is right.

So, what about patriotism? Shouldn’t patriots support their leaders during time of war? Thomas Jefferson didn’t think so. He said, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.” Or, consider Abraham Lincoln’s advice, “Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.” Abraham Lincoln was speaking directly to the Bush Doctrine…. 150 years before Bush was born! Albert Einstein, escaping from Hitler’s Nazi Germany said, “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”As Americans, it is our JOB to question our government about everything, but especially about decisions to go to war. Did you realize that the heart of our forefather’s complaints against the British was directly tied to the king’s constant war-making, which deprived the people of life and liberty as they worked to finance his wars?

So, the last question is, should we have gone to war in Iraq and what do we do about it now. Like Obama, I opposed this war from the beginning. I, however, was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, hoping that he had intelligence information that justified this war but that could not be revealed in advance. However, as the war progressed and it became obvious that the intelligence he had actually contradicted his justifications, it made me sick. I will be happy to explain why I opposed it. I believe that Obama’s reasons were close enough to my own for that to work in our discussion, but I don’t want to launch into it unless you want to read it. Instead, I’ll leave you with a few important quotes. If you want to respond to what I’ve already said, I’ll explain my position further, but this is enough for now.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive.

~C. S. Lewis

The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory.

~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

~Thomas Jefferson

Country First?

Rather than writing my own entry today, I want to point readers to an article by Jim Wallis. I think he makes an important point regarding faith and politics. I hope you'll read it. http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/09/fact-checking-and-faith-first.html