Bad Things are Bad, BUT ...

For quite a while I have been tussling with God over His goodness in light of some very bad circumstances. He did not seem to be very kind or loving toward someone who is very dear to me and I have held that against Him. It has had a markedly chilling effect on my spiritual journey. But this weekend--a breakthrough. Driving to and from Ft. Hood for a bike race, I took time to listen to a series of messages from Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and it feels like an epiphany.

The most impactful was Keller's message, "A Christian's Happiness." In this message Keller examines Romans 8:28-30 and draws out three principles: 1) Our bad things turn out for good (v.28); 2) Our good things cannot be lost (v.29); and 3) Our best things are yet to come (v.30). Key for me was principle number one. With respect to Romans 8:28, Keller first noted that "all things" are a part of the Christian's life experience. In other words, Christian life circumstances are no better than anyone else's. On this point I think that I had drifted into thinking (wrongly) that because God is a good and loving God, then the life circumstances of His people should have fewer bad things and that the bad things that occur should be lower magnitude bad things--more like inconveniences. I feel like I had lost sight of that which is true and had instead superimposed my sense of what God "should" do and be like over what He has promised. I was trying to rewrite God's promises to suit my preferences. Ouch! That realization hurts.

Second, Keller observed that when things do work together for good, it is because of God. From Romans 8:18-20 we see that apart from God, all things fall apart--and that is normal. In a fallen world, which has been humanity's life circumstance at least since Genesis 3, things devolve and the natural order of things is toward chaos, disunity, dysfunction, and disorder.

Finally, Keller declared that although bad things happen, they are worked for good. Bad things are bad. Bad things are not good. Bad things are not "blessings in disguise." Yet, God will take the bad things and weave them into good in His totality. As an example, Joseph's betrayal and abandonment by his brothers was not good--it was bad. Joseph being falsely accused was not good--it was bad. Joseph being imprisoned was not good--it was bad. But God took those truly bad things and used them to rescue and preserve Israel--and to elevate Joseph. And even if He had not elevated Joseph, the bad would still have been turned to good in God's totality.

Keller closed the entire message on the principle of "Our best is yet to come" by focusing on the greatness of God's glory. He said, Only God's extraordinary glory can deal with the hurts of our hearts, our grief, our losses, and our suffering. Somehow that gives me comfort, hope, and the start of a renewed, and hopefully revitalized, spiritual journey.

Religious Liberty AND the Law

I initially thought about entitling this post "Religious Liberty vs. the Law", but that just didn't say it quite right. There are many who seem to be setting up the religious liberty arguments as unduly adversarial and overarching--that my expression of religious liberty should trump all other considerations. But that is no way to live in a pluralistic and civil society. In fact, the only way to guarantee everyone's full and complete expression of religious liberty is for each individual to live in geographic and geopolitical isolation. Within the context of a society built on the rule of law, I believe that we must strive to protect each individuals' right to religious freedom. But religious liberty must fit within the context of a civil society.

Does the elected county clerk in Kentucky have the right to refuse to issue marriage licences to gay couples? At a personal level, yes, BUT NOT if she wants to keep her public job. As an elected official, she must choose whether or not she will do her job--plain and simple. If not, then she should be honorable and resign--not be obstinate and go to jail for contempt. By the way, it is VERY important to note that to the extent that she is prosecuted or jailed it is NOT about marriage licences; it is about failing to abide by a lawful Court Order.

If this involved a different underlying issue, we would not be having these discussions. If a state-employed cafeteria worker refused to serve an overweight patron his double cheeseburger, fries, and a shake because gluttony is a sin, there would not be any discussion of religious liberty. We would simply shake our heads and the worker would be unemployed. But in the bigger picture, the Kentucky situation is not about anyone's views on gay marriage; it is about how people will live together in a multi-faceted and non-theocratic society built on the rule of law.

And what a great society we live with. If there is a law that I do not agree with and that I believe is wrong, then I have free access to the legislative process to change the law. If I prevail in changing the offensive law, then good for me. But as a member of this society, I have a duty to abide by the laws that are in force; or to remove myself from their jurisdiction--or face the consequences.

The law is not antagonistic to religious liberty. In fact, without the rule of law, we would have no hope of continued religious liberty. What I believe is missing in this cultural dialogue--and would love to see and hear--is guidance and discussion from our religious leaders about how to live and love well in a multicultural, multi-faceted, and non-theocratic society where others' views and beliefs often differ from my own. The way the discourse seems to be going, I am not going to hold my breath. (Of course, I would also like to see a reasonable and electable presidential candidate--and world peace.)

-KP

Religious Freedom Restoration?

Merriam-Webster defines "restoration" as:

: the act or process of returning something to its original condition by repairing it, cleaning it, etc.

: the act of bringing back something that existed before

: the act of returning something that was stolen or taken.

By this definition I cannot understand what "religious freedoms" are being "restored". In the United States of America we live in what is surely among the most religiously free countries in the world. To get to my chosen place of worship, I drive past a variety of other places of worship (of various faiths)--each of which is "subsidized" by our society by not paying property taxes and having participants' contributions receive a favorable tax treatment; and each of which is allowed to open their doors to the public any time they want. So what needs to be restored? What has been stolen or taken? What needs to be repaired or cleaned to be returned to the original? What no longer exists that needs to be brought back?

Some might point to the general lack of vitality in the American church as something that needs to be restored. While I would tend to agree with that assessment, recent legislation has nothing to do with the renewal of people of faith. Recent legislation seems to be directed at allowing "people of faith" to disrespect those who hold a worldview or value system that at one or more points diverges from their own, under the guise of religious freedom. At the very least, it is the inconsistency that makes my blood boil.

The Indiana pizzeria that is representative of this issue refused to cater (provide their publicly-available, secular business service) a wedding for a same sex couple. The reported rationale was because the Christian business owner believes that same sex marriage is sin. Query: Does the pizzeria owner refuse to serve fat people? Isn't gluttony a sin? Does the pizzeria owner refuse to serve non-Christian people? Isn't not believing in Jesus a sin? Does the pizzeria refuse to serve adulterers? Drunkards? Greedy folks? All sinners in the pizzeria owner's worldview.

Looking back a couple of thousand years, did Jesus refuse to associate with (his publicly-available business service) sinners? Not at all! It seemed like wherever he went he was engaging with sinners (being cordial and civil) AND religious folks (being confrontive and even harsh). Might it have been that Jesus expected or hoped for higher and more noble actions from those who claimed to be people of faith? Sometimes I wonder what things would be like if people of faith spent as much time developing, growing, building, and living out their faith as they do attacking the thoughts, beliefs, and actions of those with whom they disagree.

We Americans do not live in a theocracy--never have and most likely never will. Even if our Founding Fathers were people of faith or were influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, they did not set out to establish a nation built on a particular religion. They set out to form a democracy that included and had a vital place for people of any faith or no faith. We need look no further than the Bill of Rights -- the behaviors and actions described here are the basis for a civil society, not a Christian, or Muslim, or [fill in faith tradition] society. As a multicultural and multi-faith society, rich and strong in its diversity and variety, we must all maintain a higher level of civility and respect of each others' thoughts and values.

Only then can all of us--those of one faith or another or of no faith--live out the Apostle Paul's words:

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. (Romans 12:18); and

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (Philippians 2:3)

Check the Brakes

Saturday's club ride was miserable--for the first 23 miles or so. My legs felt heavy and I was having to work much harder than expected to keep up with the group. What was wrong with me? Over-training? Did I need some time off the bike to recover fully? Am I just not cut out for this? A very fast, dark spiral of self-doubt and negativism. Then we stopped for a breather at the halfway water stop.

When I checked the rear brake, it had been rubbing on the wheel the whole time. Essentially I had been riding all morning with the brakes on. I felt like Charlie Brown's attempt to kick the football. The second half was a completely different experience. The self-doubt and negative self-talk went away and the rest of the ride was more like it should have been.

Why was my first thought that there must be something wrong with me? Why did I not think that something mechanical might be the issue? Why was I so quick to assume that I had lost the benefit of all of these months of training just from taking a couple of days midweek of not riding?

It would not have been easy to spot the brake issue while I was riding. I could have detected a flat tire pretty easily. An issue with the chain or the gears would have been apparent. But my rear brake is under my seat and I am not flexible enough, nor a good enough bike handler, to bend around and look under and behind my seat while I am riding down the road. But when I stopped and looked over my bike, the problem was easy to see--and correct. And once corrected, the ride was fundamentally different. I could expend my energy in moving the bike forward, not in getting past the engaged brake.

The writer of Hebrews may have had a similar experience in mind when he wrote, "throw off the sin that so easily entangles and run with endurance the race set before us." I wonder how much progress in Christlikeness or self-realization is hindered because we find ourselves fighting against the "engaged brakes" in our lives. I wonder how much more progress we could make if we regularly did a quick check to see that the brakes are released and the wheels are spinning freely?

Next time, or right now, check the brakes.

Shutdown Juxtaposition

In last Sunday's Houston Chronicle I came across two stories in the front page section that caused a double-take. The first was an article about the Miss Universe pageant that discussed how the Muslim extremists in Indonesia caused the pageant organizers to modify the swimsuit portion of the competition by intimidation and threats of violence. Now I really do not care much about the Miss Universe pageant and what kind of swimsuits they compete in. But I found myself reacting strongly against the notion that one group of people should bully another to get their way. The second article was about the Tea Party Republicans and their efforts to intimidate the Senate Democrats into making certain decisions to "change the rules" related to the Affordable Care Act with threats of economic violence and government shutdown. While I am no fan of the new healthcare law, the Tea Party's actions seem indistinguishable from those of the Muslim extremists. Does the Tea Party not see this?

I almost feel bad for John Boehner. He is trying to hold together a political party where a substantial minority have forgotten what it means to govern in a multi-faceted context. Is there a way to overturn the Affordable Care Act? Sure there is. Win enough seats in Congress--both houses--and repeal the law. On the other hand, since the Act is law, then the Tea Party should either work to negotiate changes, pass new legislation, or develop a message that resonates with the American people--not just their own small group of constituents.

In our republic each individual must sometimes set aside what she or he prefers in order to advance the greater good of the whole. I may not like very spending decision made by Congress or the state legislature, but I must still pay my taxes; some of which go to support programs and tasks that I support and some that do not. In any healthy relationship, there is give and take--not take it or leave it!

I do wish that political conservatives would understand two things. First, what goes around comes around. Can you imagine the outcry if the roles were reversed? Second, no one likes, or will support, a bully who intimidates and threatens to get their way.

Perhaps there is a need or an opening for a conservative party that also understands civility and what it measn to govern across political, economic, and cultural boundaries. The Republican Party in October of 2013 doesn't seem to grasp these concepts.