Quod Scripsi, Scripsi

Religion and Politics

It occurred to me today, while pondering further some of the salvos being fired in the Health Care “debate”, that Jesus was crucified by a majority vote in a two-party system. I really think Democracy in the West has given western Christians a false sense of power and control. Rome was a republic, but Paul did not go there to run for the Senate. When Christians vote and win, they practically declare a Theocracy. When the “wrong” candidate wins, you’d think they were using us as torches in the Rose Garden. It seems like a most excellent distraction from the things we were told actually matter. ”I was hungry…I was thirsty…”

False Dichotomies

I take some heat from family and friends for not being heavily engaged in the public debates of our day. One reason for that is my firm believe that ethical politicians are mythical beasts. A vote is an endorsement, it says “I want this person to hold this position, and I will share the responsibility for putting them there”. Considered that way, how many politicians can you say that about?

The main reason I’m not as engaged though is because almost every issue has been reduced to a false either/or and it’s nearly impossible to convince either side that it’s not a two-way argument. I’m seeing things like “no one should die because they cannot afford health care”. Can you spot the false choice?

Should someone die because they refuse health care willingly? Should someone die because they willingly made choices that precluded or restricted their access to health care? Examination of the terms used, the meanings and implications of the words, is difficult. People die every day because there aren’t sufficient organs for transplants, because there aren’t sufficient health care professionals to treat everyone who needs treatment, because they chose to live in a place where emergency medicine is nearly impossible. All of these can be bound up in the concept of  ”afford”, but it’s much more inflammatory when it just means “money”.

Even the miraculous healing of Jesus had a price, and in my opinion it was incredibly expensive by today’s standards. He healed people who had faith, sometimes almost unknowingly. Matthew 9:20-22 I’m not saying that human life should be weighed in gold, or that only the middle-class and above should have medicine and treatment. I am saying that this debate, like many others today, is too often reduced to either/or choices that make no sense and only serve to alienate and enrage. It’s hard to think about the details and intricacies though, it’s hard to consider what our words mean and how others might hear them. It’s easy to shout slogans and demonize the “other side”.

Worship in Spirit and Truth

I had an interesting discussion on Sunday with my wife and a friend. They had been to a worship service at the church we currently belong to that was very moving. It involved testimony on signs and audience participation. Evidently it was very moving.

My wife said that she kept thinking about how unimpressed I would be. She even mentioned something about wearing a Pharisee hat.

I’m not opposed to emotion in worship. I just don’t believe that it should be about emotional reaction, that it should be crafted specifically to elicit emotion as if that were some measure of “spirit and truth”. I think the Pharisee remark was based on my assertion that there is a right way and a wrong way to worship God. I’m just becoming more and more cynical about the whole concept of “personal” religion and the American “roll your own” mentality. I object to the idea that it’s your intent that matters, not your actions or words or forms. Where’s that scriptural precedent? Intent does matter, but so does what we do. Christ did not abolish the law and prophets, nor did he say that any of the ancient forms were wrong. He said that the forms and actions are not enough.

I think it does matter what we do when we say we’re “worshipping”. For what it’s worth, the Pharisees weren’t necessarily wrong, their doctrine was simply insufficient. You can get to Heaven by following every rule and law, but no human being other than Christ was able to do it.

Worship is about pleasing God, not us. Sermons aren’t worship. Fellowship isn’t worship. I don’t think we get to tell God what worship should be. I’ll need to read more on this issue, too.

I Just Want a Phone

My Razr is finally dying, and I’m casting about for a new cell phone. I have an iPod Touch, and really like it, but I don’t always need a portable computer. It’s also not small, and I can’t really see carrying a phone that large. So I just want a phone.

I don’t want a camera, PDA, “web enabled device”, portable music player, video conferencing device nor even a full address book. I carry a phone to make and receive phone calls, occasionally a text message. I can handle phone keys for entering text, and I really don’t like downloading pictures and video on my phone. I don’t watch much TV, so zero need for that on a device.

I want the smallest, lightest, thinnest phone I can get, with excellent reception and call quality. I tried the Sony Ericsson W580i for a while, and it’s not bad. I couldn’t figure out how to turn off the face buttons, and I don’t need the music stuff. What really aggravated me was the proprietary charger. The Razr uses mini-USB, just like my kid’s Nintendos and my PlayStation controllers and my portable hard drives. I have those cables everywhere. I really hate having yet another cable to carry around or keep in multiple locations. Also, mini-USB can charge from the computer.

So, small, thin, light; excellent reception and call quality, no extraneous features, USB charging. I wonder if such a beast exists. All of the “simple” phones I’ve seen so far have been, frankly, ugly as hell. They’re not thin or light or small. I bet if they took most of the crap out of the new Razr it would be half the size and just what I want. Not likely though. I guess I’ll keep looking.

Ireland and the Troubles

A friend mentioned to me the other day that he had seen an episode of “No Reservations” on the Travel Channel where the host, Anthony Bourdain, travelled to Northern Ireland. Bourdain met a Protestant family and ate with them, then met a Catholic family and ate with them. Then he brought both families together at a restaurant, without telling either family that the other was coming. I did not see the episode, but my friend related to me an observation that Mr. Bourdain apparently made about the types of grafitti and billboards he saw in the various neighborhoods.

Again, I’m going on second-hand reports, but his comments centered on the fact that Catholic areas had primarily images of gun-toting men in hoods,while the Protestant areas had images of smiling politicians and comments about the peace and the “laughter of our children”.

If that is the case, and his comments have been correctly reported, then I would humbly suggest that Mr. Bourdain is an insensitive jerk. Nothing as complex as the situation in Northern Ireland can be summarized in a 30 second segment on a travel show. It was, at best, irresponsible of him to try, at worst it could get someone killed.

Next I suppose Mr. Bourdain will go to Palestine and observe that Tel Aviv is very modern and the West Bank is full of holes. Maybe those folks should just move! Give that man a Nobel Prize.