For a month I have been plowing through Solzhenitsyn's November 1916. His dense style makes finishing a test of self-discipline since it goes on for a thousand pages. On the plus side I am learning a great deal about the people of Russia as the commoners are described during World War I and the lead up to the Communist Revolution.
But as I waded doggedly ahead I came across a couple sentences that made me pause and reflect. "One thing's for sure, no matter how many marvelous people you meet later on, there's no one like the friend of your youth. No one else will ever be so close. If only because there's no one else with whom you can relieve your past in such detail. Your friend knows all about it, has shared it..."
With even brief reflection I have to say Solzhenitsyn has really nailed it for me. Immediately to mind come images of ten or twelve people who fit that category. And I find that the farther back we go the more significant they become. The very earliest through adolescent years somehow have a claim on my friendship that is beyond my explanation. It must be that together we experienced some of those earliest life-shaping experiences that will never be shared with anyone else. They alone know what it was like to be there, to see, to hear, to feel, to smell what will forever be indelibly imprinted on our minds and personalities. We each expereinced the same, but differently so the events have different meanings for each but we each remember and it is ours.
I shared the "church" experience with one adolescent/teen friend. While we had very different family experiences and eventually different life goals we shared much in the social realm. We played sports together and dated girls together. I think we admired each other for our different strengths and challenged each other to succeed.
One warm Sunday evening we either had no dates or took them home early. We drove toether to my house and instead of just stopping to let me off, he quickly turned off the lights and turned off the moter. For several long minutes we sat in silence listening to the crickets. Both of us were feeling we were in the vicinity of a crossroads. We scarecly knew how to say our thoughts. But eventually we got to the question, "Is this all there is?" And each of us rolled that question around as we thought as deeply as we knew how about the direction of life and what were our options.
His conclusion was different from mine in that months later he would say my course is set while I said there is a different way I must take. But our different choices were being made together and that gives our relationship a different quality. We shared a quiet hour when we were being "real" together, dealing with crucial issues in our "real" amateur way. That makes my friend special and one I will treasure always. The author is exactly right, "...there's no one like the friend of your youth."
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A Nation of Nuts
Instead of wondering about the state of the union, Courtland Milloy, in a recent column in the Washington Post, (January 26, 2011) questions the nation's state of mind. He concludes that "we are one nutty nation." Of course some of us have suspected that for some time but Milloy gives us hard evidence that removes all doubt. In spite of the nations boasted education system and the claim that we are enlightened, practical people, recent trends would draw another conclusion.
He points out that the economic system is, as he says, "wacky" in that high unemplyment is good for the stock market, layoffs bring big bonuses for CEOs and tax cuts for the wealthy promise to produce jobs. What right-thinking people would construct that sort of system?
Then there are the ones who squeek through the recession managing to hang on to their houses now complaining that they are the victims of "frugality fatigue." That is assuaged with the purchase of 51-inch TVs. But if that fails to restore their souls there is the possibiltiyt of finding solace in getting high on bath salts. The only down side to that remedy is that it randomly prompts people to do such things as taking knives to slit their skin. But with a little creativity one can find other chemicals that provide equally unpredictable effects.
Milloy ticks off additional ways we have found to relieve our fears as well as self-destruct. Pills by the ton, booze by the gallon, heroin from liberated Afghanistan, cocain friendly South America, weed by the bale from Mexico. And wonder of wonders, "Starbucks is coming out with bucket-size cups of caffeine" to get us out of bed.
One might think the nation would now be coping with all its woes with joy and confidence. Instead the National Institute of Mental Health provides a list of common illnesses that afflict growing numbers. Among them are "generalized anxiety disorder," "anti'social personality disorder" and "poor behavioral controls." You can add to that "panic disorder" and you begin to understand why there are 300 million firearms in the hands of fearful citizens.
I would echo the closing lament of Milloy in this plaintive question: "How strong can the state of the union really be if our minds are so unsound?"
He points out that the economic system is, as he says, "wacky" in that high unemplyment is good for the stock market, layoffs bring big bonuses for CEOs and tax cuts for the wealthy promise to produce jobs. What right-thinking people would construct that sort of system?
Then there are the ones who squeek through the recession managing to hang on to their houses now complaining that they are the victims of "frugality fatigue." That is assuaged with the purchase of 51-inch TVs. But if that fails to restore their souls there is the possibiltiyt of finding solace in getting high on bath salts. The only down side to that remedy is that it randomly prompts people to do such things as taking knives to slit their skin. But with a little creativity one can find other chemicals that provide equally unpredictable effects.
Milloy ticks off additional ways we have found to relieve our fears as well as self-destruct. Pills by the ton, booze by the gallon, heroin from liberated Afghanistan, cocain friendly South America, weed by the bale from Mexico. And wonder of wonders, "Starbucks is coming out with bucket-size cups of caffeine" to get us out of bed.
One might think the nation would now be coping with all its woes with joy and confidence. Instead the National Institute of Mental Health provides a list of common illnesses that afflict growing numbers. Among them are "generalized anxiety disorder," "anti'social personality disorder" and "poor behavioral controls." You can add to that "panic disorder" and you begin to understand why there are 300 million firearms in the hands of fearful citizens.
I would echo the closing lament of Milloy in this plaintive question: "How strong can the state of the union really be if our minds are so unsound?"
Friday, January 7, 2011
Reading the Constitution
It's big news just now that the United States House of Representatives has read the US Constitution, outloud, in public. Not a bad idea. If our representatives are to rule constitutionally they ought to know what the constitution says. It might also be observed that they ought to know what it says to even be elected.
So now they know. But knowing, alas, hardly equals doing. Right off the bat they conveniently omited one or two ammendments which they considered unworthy of notice. Further the Constitution is always subject to interpretation which means that conclusions on any issue will not be unanimous. The Supreme Court regularly divides four to five on cases brought before it. One group of law makers will advocate one law as best for the country and then accuse the disenters of being unconstitutional.
I find that there are similar attitudes toward the Constitution as there are toward the Scriptures. According to some they hold the former in such high esteem as to be as holy as the latter. They give the Constitutions framers a special relationship with God that gives their work an infaliable aura and what they intended an eternal value.
In spite of the supposed high esteem for each document both become a pretzel to be twisted into what ever shape the reader finds advantageous. For a time some defenders of the Ten Commandments worked mightly to have them cast in bronze and posted on Court House walls and in schools. For all the seeming reverance attributed to that word from the Lord, law makers as well as their constiuents went right on cheating on their wives, visiting prostitutes, taking bribes, lying, and flaunting the law, apologizing only after being caught.
What are we to expect from those who announce their loyalty to the Constitution when they play fast and loose with the Scriptures. It is clear that for the majority their decisions will be guided by whatever seems to be to their political advantage rather than a moral conviction that is formed either by a secular document or Divine revelation.
So now they know. But knowing, alas, hardly equals doing. Right off the bat they conveniently omited one or two ammendments which they considered unworthy of notice. Further the Constitution is always subject to interpretation which means that conclusions on any issue will not be unanimous. The Supreme Court regularly divides four to five on cases brought before it. One group of law makers will advocate one law as best for the country and then accuse the disenters of being unconstitutional.
I find that there are similar attitudes toward the Constitution as there are toward the Scriptures. According to some they hold the former in such high esteem as to be as holy as the latter. They give the Constitutions framers a special relationship with God that gives their work an infaliable aura and what they intended an eternal value.
In spite of the supposed high esteem for each document both become a pretzel to be twisted into what ever shape the reader finds advantageous. For a time some defenders of the Ten Commandments worked mightly to have them cast in bronze and posted on Court House walls and in schools. For all the seeming reverance attributed to that word from the Lord, law makers as well as their constiuents went right on cheating on their wives, visiting prostitutes, taking bribes, lying, and flaunting the law, apologizing only after being caught.
What are we to expect from those who announce their loyalty to the Constitution when they play fast and loose with the Scriptures. It is clear that for the majority their decisions will be guided by whatever seems to be to their political advantage rather than a moral conviction that is formed either by a secular document or Divine revelation.
Monday, August 30, 2010
A Matter of Life and Death
The issue of Capital Punishment isn't high on the national agenda at the moment. But I was confronted with that reality in the reading of Richard North Patterson's Conviction.
This carefully researched novel published in 2005, presents the case of a young, Afro-American male, who is charged and tried along with his older brother in the horrendous abuse and murder of a young girl. Complicating the case is the fact that the younger brother is mentally challenged if not retarded. Following his conviction the appeals process is picked up by a white, female lawyer who enlists her son and father, also lawyers, to examine every aspect of his trial and conviction. What they find is that every means is used to block any effective challenge to the original verdict.
This oppostion is often based on the political ambition, demands for revenge, lazy detective work, equally lazy public defenders, racial bias and the conventional belief that someone has to die to satisfy justice.
Shorty after reading the book I saw two old movies, Young Mr. Lincoln and Twelve Angry Men. Both these dealt with murders and the role of public opinion in the fate of those charged. Both are powerful statements that the discernment of guilt is not easy and the public demand to convict and kill and based on emotions and pujudices that are blinding.
Neither the book nor the movies touch on the religious relevance to the issue. Of course, that is where I would begin in building such a case. I will not pursue that further; I would only say that if one examines the life and words of Jesus both will be found to establish the sacredness of human life and reveals a God who values and protects life rather than vengefully extracts the pound of flesh for every crime. I believe God expects the same respect and care of children.
This carefully researched novel published in 2005, presents the case of a young, Afro-American male, who is charged and tried along with his older brother in the horrendous abuse and murder of a young girl. Complicating the case is the fact that the younger brother is mentally challenged if not retarded. Following his conviction the appeals process is picked up by a white, female lawyer who enlists her son and father, also lawyers, to examine every aspect of his trial and conviction. What they find is that every means is used to block any effective challenge to the original verdict.
This oppostion is often based on the political ambition, demands for revenge, lazy detective work, equally lazy public defenders, racial bias and the conventional belief that someone has to die to satisfy justice.
Shorty after reading the book I saw two old movies, Young Mr. Lincoln and Twelve Angry Men. Both these dealt with murders and the role of public opinion in the fate of those charged. Both are powerful statements that the discernment of guilt is not easy and the public demand to convict and kill and based on emotions and pujudices that are blinding.
Neither the book nor the movies touch on the religious relevance to the issue. Of course, that is where I would begin in building such a case. I will not pursue that further; I would only say that if one examines the life and words of Jesus both will be found to establish the sacredness of human life and reveals a God who values and protects life rather than vengefully extracts the pound of flesh for every crime. I believe God expects the same respect and care of children.
Monday, May 17, 2010
"Justice Takes a Back Seat"
First off, let me be clear, if anyone feels the need to enter national politics, I say "go for it." Run for any federal office that can use your skills. And, if you are a devout Christian, that is okay by me. Give it your best shot. You may accomplish what no one has ever been able to do before.
But, let me also be clear. There is mounting evidence cited by people who seem to have a handle on the nature of politics and the way government functions that the best efforts of those who seek to bring about meaningful change are largely futile.
I refer first to a column by a columnist for Newsweek magazine, Lisa Miller. Writing in the May 10 issue she applauds the Catholic Bishops for their stand on immigration reform. They have found allies in Senators Schumer and Stupak who share their concerns for the "tired and poor." The bishops have looked diligently for others who might also take up the cause. Some say they might be willing to vote for reform "if it had a chance," but "they won't stake their political careers on it..." Miller concludes her column with this telling conclusion, "More evidence, if any were needed, that in an election year, justice takes a back seat to politics."
I would add, and what year is it in the life of a politician when reelection doesn't have a significant effect in the way one votes? Politics always seems to be in the driver's seat.
Even more devastating in its criticism of government at work is the book, Tempting Faith, an inside story of political seduction, by David Kuo. Mr. Kuo, according to the jacket blurb, "came to Washington wanting us use his Chritian faith to end abortion, strengthen marriage, and help the poor."
President George W. Bush had created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and in major speechs had promised funding and follow-through for this effort. There was honest acknowledgement of the superior effectiveness of these kinds of efforts over government run programs.
Kuo and others who joined in these concerns took the President at his word with the conviction that "he was one of them," an earnest Christian who could be trusted. Kuo, along with assistants, worked diligently in gathering grass roots support to assure that the White House and Congress would take their promises seriously and put proposals into action.
But as the process unfolded it gradually became tragically clear to Kuo that instead of "following the teachings of Jesus to serve the needy [he] found himself helping to manipulate relgious faith for political gain." The legislative process was used as a football, not to pass laws but to deepen purely symbolic fault lines. Grants were incestuously recycled to political cronies." In spite of lofty promises there was simply no attept to fund valuable programs. Even more galling key aides and Republican operative spoke of those working in the OFBCI with contempt and treated them as "useful idiots."
A clear example of religion being used for political gain cited by Kuo is the Nation Day of prayer. It's only purpose as described by Kuo is to placate Christian leadership. He says organizers such as Shirley Dobson go on radio and describe their encounter with the president and their time in the White House. "The event, however, held absolutely no significance." Congressman Tony Hall , one of the people who helped pass the bill creating the breakfast in the 1980's stopped going to the breakfasts, seeing them as worthless. One staffer called the breakfast a "Jacob and Esau thing," a reference to Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of cereal.
On his final day, Kuo delivered his resignation letter to Andy Card then summarized his experience this way. "The president had made great promses but they hadn't been delivered on. Worse than that, the White House hadn't tried. Worse than that, we had used people of faith fo further our political agenda and hadn't given them anything in return. And finally...your staff frequently refers to the faith-based initiative as the 'f*#$ing faith-based initiative.' "
The faith-based initiative may have be ill conceived or had real legal problems but it seems to me that the experience of Mr. Kuo strongly suggests that any effort that in any way even appears to compete with the prevailing priorities ofthe people in power will be given short shrift leaving the reformers with nothing but the memory of wasted time. Ultimately, where will the people in need be better served? Kuo concludes that Christians should "start with the things God has commanded us to do--pray, learn, listen him, and serve a hurting world."
But, let me also be clear. There is mounting evidence cited by people who seem to have a handle on the nature of politics and the way government functions that the best efforts of those who seek to bring about meaningful change are largely futile.
I refer first to a column by a columnist for Newsweek magazine, Lisa Miller. Writing in the May 10 issue she applauds the Catholic Bishops for their stand on immigration reform. They have found allies in Senators Schumer and Stupak who share their concerns for the "tired and poor." The bishops have looked diligently for others who might also take up the cause. Some say they might be willing to vote for reform "if it had a chance," but "they won't stake their political careers on it..." Miller concludes her column with this telling conclusion, "More evidence, if any were needed, that in an election year, justice takes a back seat to politics."
I would add, and what year is it in the life of a politician when reelection doesn't have a significant effect in the way one votes? Politics always seems to be in the driver's seat.
Even more devastating in its criticism of government at work is the book, Tempting Faith, an inside story of political seduction, by David Kuo. Mr. Kuo, according to the jacket blurb, "came to Washington wanting us use his Chritian faith to end abortion, strengthen marriage, and help the poor."
President George W. Bush had created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and in major speechs had promised funding and follow-through for this effort. There was honest acknowledgement of the superior effectiveness of these kinds of efforts over government run programs.
Kuo and others who joined in these concerns took the President at his word with the conviction that "he was one of them," an earnest Christian who could be trusted. Kuo, along with assistants, worked diligently in gathering grass roots support to assure that the White House and Congress would take their promises seriously and put proposals into action.
But as the process unfolded it gradually became tragically clear to Kuo that instead of "following the teachings of Jesus to serve the needy [he] found himself helping to manipulate relgious faith for political gain." The legislative process was used as a football, not to pass laws but to deepen purely symbolic fault lines. Grants were incestuously recycled to political cronies." In spite of lofty promises there was simply no attept to fund valuable programs. Even more galling key aides and Republican operative spoke of those working in the OFBCI with contempt and treated them as "useful idiots."
A clear example of religion being used for political gain cited by Kuo is the Nation Day of prayer. It's only purpose as described by Kuo is to placate Christian leadership. He says organizers such as Shirley Dobson go on radio and describe their encounter with the president and their time in the White House. "The event, however, held absolutely no significance." Congressman Tony Hall , one of the people who helped pass the bill creating the breakfast in the 1980's stopped going to the breakfasts, seeing them as worthless. One staffer called the breakfast a "Jacob and Esau thing," a reference to Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of cereal.
On his final day, Kuo delivered his resignation letter to Andy Card then summarized his experience this way. "The president had made great promses but they hadn't been delivered on. Worse than that, the White House hadn't tried. Worse than that, we had used people of faith fo further our political agenda and hadn't given them anything in return. And finally...your staff frequently refers to the faith-based initiative as the 'f*#$ing faith-based initiative.' "
The faith-based initiative may have be ill conceived or had real legal problems but it seems to me that the experience of Mr. Kuo strongly suggests that any effort that in any way even appears to compete with the prevailing priorities ofthe people in power will be given short shrift leaving the reformers with nothing but the memory of wasted time. Ultimately, where will the people in need be better served? Kuo concludes that Christians should "start with the things God has commanded us to do--pray, learn, listen him, and serve a hurting world."
Monday, March 29, 2010
Inspiration
I haven't given much thought to the phenomenon of "inspiration." I've been content to let it be a part of the origin of the scriptures and have refered to impressive programs, writings, music and worship experiences as inspirational. I've generally not delved too deeply into the role of inspiration, especially of scripture, because it seems to me some have made it into an argument to prove that all scripture is of equal value and its meaning lays on the surface because that is the way God said it
But once in a while as a preacher I have had an experience in the process of interpreting scripture that has caused me to consider more seriously the possibility of a spiritual revelation that comes from beyond my study and thought processes. It is a sudden insight that causes one to ask, "where did that come from?"
Recently I was preparing a bible study for a class at the Mennonite Retirement Community. Since it was in the Lenten season I chose a passage from Mark 10. I rather arbitrarily marked down verses 32-52, choosing a long section to make sure I wouldn't run out of material. It is an acount of Jesus traveling with the twelve disciples on his final trip to Jerusalem. There is this request from James and John to Jesus for preferential treatment when it came to upper level assignments in their version of the kingdom. Jesus counters with his probing questions which revel their ignorance of the nature of God's kingdom and concludes with the simple but profound key to greatness in that realm.
When I got to that point in my preparation I seemed to have gotten to the end of the story. In my bible there was not only a paragraph break but a dividing space of two lines which would indicate a break which would seem to say, "And now for something completely different." I read farther to make sure I had all the ends tied when it suddenly came to me that the author may have wanted to say something further about those self-seeking disciples who so brazenly angled for preferential treatment and nonchalantly answered Jesus' questions about how they would follow him.
For in the fianal paragraph of this chapter, vv. 46-52, Mark inserts the healing of the blind beggar and I suspect for good reason. It suddenly occured to me that the author wants to show the disciples for what they are, as blind as Bartimaeus, but unaware of it and certainly not willing to acknowledge it. For compare their approach to Jesus in contrast to that of Bartimaeus. "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." Bartimaeus only pleads for mercy, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
The two requests are startling in their difference. On the one hand the disciples ask for a open ended approval of anything they ask for. And on the other Jesus asks the the beggar what he would like to have done for him. The disciples receive a rebuff for their thoughtless ambition while the humble beggar receives a life changing gift. While the disciples prove to be blind to the ways and designs of their teacher the blind beggar's eyes are opened and becomes a carrier of the evidence of the new kingdom.
Has this connection never been thought of before? Of course it has. I am only a Johnny-come-lately who catches on to the obvious rather slowly. But in that moment when the connection became clear it felt like inspiration in that I had received a gift of new understanding that was meaningful and I could pass on to others. I will need to consider further inspiration and how this is similar or different from the experience of the writers of scripture.
But for now the only response I can think of is " Thanks be to God!"
But once in a while as a preacher I have had an experience in the process of interpreting scripture that has caused me to consider more seriously the possibility of a spiritual revelation that comes from beyond my study and thought processes. It is a sudden insight that causes one to ask, "where did that come from?"
Recently I was preparing a bible study for a class at the Mennonite Retirement Community. Since it was in the Lenten season I chose a passage from Mark 10. I rather arbitrarily marked down verses 32-52, choosing a long section to make sure I wouldn't run out of material. It is an acount of Jesus traveling with the twelve disciples on his final trip to Jerusalem. There is this request from James and John to Jesus for preferential treatment when it came to upper level assignments in their version of the kingdom. Jesus counters with his probing questions which revel their ignorance of the nature of God's kingdom and concludes with the simple but profound key to greatness in that realm.
When I got to that point in my preparation I seemed to have gotten to the end of the story. In my bible there was not only a paragraph break but a dividing space of two lines which would indicate a break which would seem to say, "And now for something completely different." I read farther to make sure I had all the ends tied when it suddenly came to me that the author may have wanted to say something further about those self-seeking disciples who so brazenly angled for preferential treatment and nonchalantly answered Jesus' questions about how they would follow him.
For in the fianal paragraph of this chapter, vv. 46-52, Mark inserts the healing of the blind beggar and I suspect for good reason. It suddenly occured to me that the author wants to show the disciples for what they are, as blind as Bartimaeus, but unaware of it and certainly not willing to acknowledge it. For compare their approach to Jesus in contrast to that of Bartimaeus. "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." Bartimaeus only pleads for mercy, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
The two requests are startling in their difference. On the one hand the disciples ask for a open ended approval of anything they ask for. And on the other Jesus asks the the beggar what he would like to have done for him. The disciples receive a rebuff for their thoughtless ambition while the humble beggar receives a life changing gift. While the disciples prove to be blind to the ways and designs of their teacher the blind beggar's eyes are opened and becomes a carrier of the evidence of the new kingdom.
Has this connection never been thought of before? Of course it has. I am only a Johnny-come-lately who catches on to the obvious rather slowly. But in that moment when the connection became clear it felt like inspiration in that I had received a gift of new understanding that was meaningful and I could pass on to others. I will need to consider further inspiration and how this is similar or different from the experience of the writers of scripture.
But for now the only response I can think of is " Thanks be to God!"
Friday, March 26, 2010
Maintaining the Peace
I over-slept this morning. I've decided I don't need an alarm and usually don't. Well, this morning I should have used one because I dozed 45 minutes too long. I raced off to my breakfast meeting and found that instead of being the first one there as I have been the last 20 years, I was the last. Had to squeeze in among the eight other breakfasters and when they looked quizzically my way I was ready.
"I decided to take a different view of the world," I explained. "this morning I even think we ought to repeal the 'health care' bill." Everyone burst out laughing. I guess coming from me that was a ridiculous streatch. I heard my friend beside me murmur, "I didn't think I would bring that up today."
He didn't and noone else did eather and we talked about real estate prices, NCAA playoff games, and the current trend to build smaller homes. It was a pleasant conversation with some good jokes thrown in for good measure.
You see, we've tried talking about politics and while noone has gotten hurt that I know of, it just seems safer to stick to non-controversial issues--the stuff we all either agree on or are not very deeply invested in. And, I suspect that as the rehetoric has heated up on the national level and in the media that we feel less comfortable identifying with one side or the other.
Of course, we know where everyone stands. I don't think I have pushed my views very hard but apparently what I think just comes through. Thus everyone thought it was out of character for me to even mention repealing the health care bill. We all respect each other for whatever view we hold and are ready to just let it be that way.
The reason I find this avoidance of issues acceptable is that in the matter of national politics what we individually hold doesn't really make any difference. If we were dealing with an issue with our life together in the church then I would find avoiding conversation unacceptable.
We will continue our Friday morning fellowship at breakfast in good spirits and even informative conversation some times even raising theological issues. Perhaps one of our more argumentive members will dare to voice a political opinion but I doubt that we will pursue it long nor in depth. And I am sure that in the mix there will be a joke or two to defuse the angst. Thus we will be a gathering of peacful people enjoying what each one brings and leaving the dead to bury their dead.
"I decided to take a different view of the world," I explained. "this morning I even think we ought to repeal the 'health care' bill." Everyone burst out laughing. I guess coming from me that was a ridiculous streatch. I heard my friend beside me murmur, "I didn't think I would bring that up today."
He didn't and noone else did eather and we talked about real estate prices, NCAA playoff games, and the current trend to build smaller homes. It was a pleasant conversation with some good jokes thrown in for good measure.
You see, we've tried talking about politics and while noone has gotten hurt that I know of, it just seems safer to stick to non-controversial issues--the stuff we all either agree on or are not very deeply invested in. And, I suspect that as the rehetoric has heated up on the national level and in the media that we feel less comfortable identifying with one side or the other.
Of course, we know where everyone stands. I don't think I have pushed my views very hard but apparently what I think just comes through. Thus everyone thought it was out of character for me to even mention repealing the health care bill. We all respect each other for whatever view we hold and are ready to just let it be that way.
The reason I find this avoidance of issues acceptable is that in the matter of national politics what we individually hold doesn't really make any difference. If we were dealing with an issue with our life together in the church then I would find avoiding conversation unacceptable.
We will continue our Friday morning fellowship at breakfast in good spirits and even informative conversation some times even raising theological issues. Perhaps one of our more argumentive members will dare to voice a political opinion but I doubt that we will pursue it long nor in depth. And I am sure that in the mix there will be a joke or two to defuse the angst. Thus we will be a gathering of peacful people enjoying what each one brings and leaving the dead to bury their dead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
