in the Middle.

When I was in high school, Jimmy Eat World released a song, "The Middle", two things about the song... it was, and still is, very good and it was one of those songs a high schooler could connect to... because you know they're all the same, and you're very different.

The concept jump back into my head recently.  Because it's weird being in the middle.  Home becomes very empty because it seems like there's only a few in the middle and it's intimidating trying to find those few in the middle without having to put some of your self on the line.
Here's the song by the way, because if you're anything like me once you get a song in your head you just have to listen to it: Jimmy Eat World "The Middle"

I can think of three areas in my life where I feel like I am predominantly in the middle. Identity, politics, theology.

ideologue identity and I

I just thought this too funny to not put on here.

I'm not particularly sure what has inspired this thought process as of late, be it the current debt ceiling fracas or something streaming from my prior post...  I suppose it would be the former at first, and then my ruminating on it that drew connections to the latter.  Of course, none of that matters, really.

I'm like most Americans, I think.  This whole political brinkmanship, infighting and partisanship has bugged me since I actually started paying attention in undergrad.  I suppose its no surprise that its come to this, I have a few friends who are hard-line and unforgiving in their ideology (or should I say dogma) on both ends of the spectrum.  I hate talking politics with them, you can guess why... there is no room for them being wrong, not even in the slightest. They are ideologues.

I'm no foreigner to the mindset of an ideologue.  I think I expressed the fact, even though never clearly stated, that I myself was an ideologue in several areas at one time.  I have since grown out of that; at least I don't think I'm still an unforgiving, dogmatic to a fault ideologue.  I am an idealist, yes, but I have been tempered by reality.  (What does that make me an idealist realist, or a realist idealist?).  Which means I know that I very well could be wrong in many things; I need only experience or reasoning far more sound (not louder) than mine to prove it, as has been proved in the past.  OK, I guess I still can be an unforgiving jerk, but that's only because some people's reasoning is faulty... but does that make a a jerk or an ideologue?  ...it's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.

Even still its difficult not to be an ideologue.  We are all informed by ideals and, thus, an ideology.  Even the apathetic are set on the ideal of apathy.  And I find that my main qualm is with ideologues in the arena of theology/philosophy and politics...

i'm a cynic and a skeptic

It's true.  I have increasingly become more and more cynical and I hate it.
It's because I am, at the same time, an idealist; this is an odd balance, I know.

To be honest I find it extremely frustrating, and I know I'm not the only one, thankfully.  Recently, at my wedding, I was having a conversation with one of my groomsmen who had just graduated from grad school, essentially a seminary, with a degree in counseling.  He said that he has increasingly become, like myself, a cynic, and also like me, hates it.  It's a very frustrating view to have on life, the world and everyone you know.  And yet, neither he or I can seem to fight it.
It seems like a loss of innocence or naivete, but I wouldn't call it that; I think it is more so the loss of ignorance and the frustrations that come when finite hopes become infinitely impossible to realize.  I do still have hope, but I know that, in all likelihood, they will remain only hope and never become a reality.

New York and The Church of England

What do those two things have in common?
Honestly, the only thing I know of right now is they have both been in the news lately on issues relating to gays.
You can read about it here:
Rowan Williams Backs Gay Bishops
and here:
New law clears way for gay marriage in New York
of the two I'm sure the one most widely known is the latter.
Gay marriage is one of those issues that I think have been wrestling with since college.  Mainly because in the 2000 and 2004 elections the Republicans (or at least this is how I feel) made it in issue in order to mobilize the Religious Right to vote and keep Bush in office.  I've gone through two phases I would say... one is the theological aspect, the other is the political aspect.  I would say that now after, at least, 7 years of wrestling with the issue, I have come to some conclusions.

America the Beautiful and the Despicable

I love America, or I should say the idea of America.
This idea is prevalent everywhere in our republic and its what I love.  The Bill of Rights is a great example of this,  and America's global greatness is a testament to how well its worked out.  I could go on and on, but to sum it up in a sentence, the rights to freedom in America has made it productive, progressive and powerful, to say in a word... great.
Of course there is a point where the idea encounters impedances.  Say what you want about partisanship or the taboo degradation (as opposed to moral degradation, taboo degradation is the degrading of things society deems taboo, like sexuality, drugs and rock n roll), but that's not what I am talking about here, and personally I don't think that's the problem; I could say that its merely the fruit of the problem I am talking about.  The real problem with America[ns] that I see is ignorant desire for the status quo and greed.

These two play off of each other, we want the status quo because we know how to work it to our financial advantage and we're greedy so we fight for the status quo.  This happens in industry, politics, education, labor unions, etc.  Prime example: the steel industry in the United States.  They were on top of the steel industry world thanks to Henry Bessemer and Andrew Carnegie, anti-trust evasion and World War 2, but then the world caught up.  New technologies came in to play, but for whatever reason the industry didn't jump on them like the rest of the world did and they began to lose global market share.  The steel labor unions kept striking and asking for more money, which was great for them, but only at first not for the industry at all, as now the overhead increased which served only to work for the competition.  The same thing was and probably still is at work in the auto industry; I can see it at work on Wall Street and I can see it working in teacher's unions, congress and the population at large.  Point being, we like the status quo, because we can make it work for us.

I don't know what it is about rocking the boat, but what works is rocking the boat and making changes (now I feel like I sound like Obama, but I'm a maverick!), that's the whole reason the government is set up the way it is, and the way the Constitution was written.  It was made so that it could change, warp and bend, congress is bicameral, goes through elections every 2 years and is subject to Presidential veto. The idea of amendments was to allow for further change, for instance the electoral college and the way Vice Presidents are elected.  With such a historical precedence as that I find it interesting that I see less change, or at least what I perceive.
I'm sure people have probably felt this way in the past, but it seems like the only seemingly Pax Americana was the 90s and maybe the 50s and the 20s.  Of course I find it interesting that both of those times eventually gave way to a sort of fall, the 60s for the 50s and the Depression for the 20s and this occured for various reasons, but I wonder if it was for similar reasons that I am speaking of here?  The status quo was definitely rocked in the 60s and it was definitely rocked in the 30s and both times I would say that it could have been prevented and I think the comfort of the status quo and the ability to work it for one's advantage probably played a role in why the boat wasn't rocked.  We need to rock the boat.  Either I'm really pessimistic, or prophetic, but I am led to believe that if we don't rock the boat in some places then it will be rocked for us.

Thoughts from President Cleveland

I read earlier this week that 20% of Americans take home 50% of the wealth, this leaves 50% of America's money to the other 80%.  I think this is a rather large income gap, and I don't know if its a good thing or a bad thing, but I am leaning bad thing.
I could argue that its a good thing because this is how supply-side economics works, give the rich their money and they can spend spend spend and when they do that it greases the economy, creating jobs and thereby distributing wealth.  And then the libertarian side of me thinks, well this is good as well, because if there are needy Americans the wealthy, with their wealth, can support them by their giving.  After all Grover Cleveland said, "[T]hough the people should support the Government, the Government should not support the people."  Going on to say, "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune." Which is why you give wealthy people money, so they can spend it and give it.  I mean its the great libertarian, classical liberal ideal!
Although I do have a slight issue with this, the wealthy with money now aren't necessarily so charitable and generous.  I mean lets be real there are far more people spending money and saving money than giving it to those in need.  Since reading Radical by David Platt I'm more convinced that Americans are far more concerned with the rat race, keeping up with the Jones, getting their American dream, etc., than ever.  The more consumerist a society becomes, the more "dreams" become transmitted through advertising, and the more gullible idiots with money, i.e. everyone, buy into those dreams then try and go get them.  So the friendliness and charity of fellow citizens is quickly vanishing to the consumerism and dream acquisition of our fellow citizens.
The idea of supply side economics, kind of like Reagan's, is great if you want to allow a bunch of money into the market.  Unfortunately I don't think this works if you leave such tax cuts in for so long that they simply become the market standard.  The only way such a policy is going to work is if you raises taxes so you can then cut taxes during another recession, or you just bottom out taxes to reproduce the effects.  (I must also say there are some that don't even think it was Reagan's policies that stimulated the economy as much as Carter's.  Take that conservatives?)
This all brings me to the idea of taxes.  If the wealthy are not distributing their money to the needy do we need to raise taxes to redistribute their wealth for them?  I mean the government may not do it nearly as efficiently, but at least they'll be doing it.  Or should we not so that the wealthy can spend their money, thereby stimulating economic growth thus distributing it that way? (I must add, I have read some that argue the wealthy aren't spending money so much as they are investing and saving it.  Whether or not that stimulates the economy I don't know.  I guess by investing it, it puts money into the financial system allowing banks to loan to business which allows business to grow and function.)  If this is our choice are we then protecting the rich and thereby allowing wealth to be concentrated with the few?  
Cleveland again has something to say to this.  

"Communism is a hateful thing, and a menace to peace and organized government.  But the Communism of combined wealth and capital, the outgrowth of overweening cupidity and selfishness, which insidiously undermines the justice and integrity of free institutions is not less dangerous than the communism of oppressed poverty and toil which, exasperated by injustice and discontent, attacks with wild disorder the citadel of rule.

He mocks the people who proposes that the Government shall protect the rich and that they in turn will care of the laboring poor"

 So what are we doing as a society?  Simply looking to provide for the needy by means of socialism through high taxes?  Or are we trying to simply protect the rich under the guise of supply side economics? I mean if you want such a economic policy to work, as I have stated, you need something to adjust, otherwise it simply becomes the market norm and the market adjusts to it.  Me personally?  I think we are mocking the people, because I think we are protecting the rich who have influence in Congress and influence Congress to keeping taxes relatively low.  I'm no conspiracy theorist, but lobbyist do what lobbyist do, and lobbyist work for those who pay them, and the people that pay money are the people with money, and that ain't the poor.  And unfortunately its not the particular slant of our fellow citizens to provide for people in need, like the farmer's in Cleveland's time, more money than the government would have given or does give.

SHOCKER! Though it shouldn't be

Well, this, in someways, is almost like a continuation of the last post that I had.
Mostly its on this idea of Pharisaicalism, not so much in this sense I used it last time.  Though that, nonetheless, is important.  Honestly, if someone is voting based solely on the two issues of gay marriage and abortion, they, like I said, are really voting in a Pharisaical manner.  Why? Well, because what are they trying to do?  They feel as if doing those two things is morally wrong and by voting on those two issues they are essentially forcing other individuals to comply to their own moral code.  It may even been done in the name of love but not the sort of love that changes hearts or minds. They are giving people the burden of living morally right without giving people Jesus who's burden is light.

Aside from that, however, I was shown quite well that I am a Pharisee all the same, unfortunately.  How? Well where do I begin?! Though the experience that brought this on was through me searching Scripture to see if something was allowed through my freedom in the Spirit.  Of course this mindset should have raised red flags everywhere, I can't think of anything more dangerous than going to Scripture to justify one's actions.  The other dangerous aspect was going to Scripture not expecting to be changed, but thankfully I was.  I looked in Romans 14, I don't know why I thought of that one, but I knew it was about some people who did things of faith quite differently from other people.
What I came away with wasn't really anything new, and even though I knew it, I learned it again in a new way.  I was reaffirmed that I have plenty of freedom in the Spirit to do many things it wasn't in the way that I was thinking.  My previous thought process was that I have the freedom to do things so long as it is honorable to God, you know not sinning.  However, here, in this Scripture, Paul wasn't speaking about two people doing things differently and they both being OK because neither of them were sinning; he is saying that they are OK because they are both trying to do these things in their desire to glorify God.
Well this was just a slap in the face to my own legalism.  Here I am thinking that if its not sinning I am able to do it, although others may disagree.  Where as I go to Scripture and God quite blatantly shows me that that in fact is a sinful way to live out life; instead of worrying about whether or not I can do something based on how it looks relative to sin, I should be basing it on whether or not my intent in it is to glorify God.  Which, of course, will take care of the aspect of whether or not it is sinful.  I am very thankful to have had read that passage.  I don't want to live my life through the lens of sin/not sin, but the lens of glorifying to God/not glorifying to God.  For one it does not make a mockery of the Cross that bore my sins and freed me to live a life of righteousness, all of which are for God's glory, by instead glorifying myself and my own ability to live ethical and seem upstanding.  And I am sure there are many other reasons, but that one for now has stuck out the most to me.

I must add a small caveat, where as all things may have the intent of glorifying God, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will.  There are things that cannot glorify God because they are sin, and things which God has said that He has no desire for cannot be given to Him as a gift, though I'm sure many would love to be able to do that.

A thought from a time ago...

Hmm, so I was thinking back on the last two elections I voted in, and all of this of course was brought on by a show on PBA with Max Lucado. The topic of Christianity's role in politics came up and naturally this brought up my thoughts about my distaste for it how its done, and that then naturally made me recall how I experienced the whole thing twice when I was in college.
The interviewer mentioned that it was a good thing how many politicians were being out-right about their faith; as if they not trying to hide or mask it and should thus be commended for it.    Yeah, whatever...

Ok, some are indeed quite Christian and quite commendable and truly faithful as one, but others just are not.  I recall in the Bush/Kerry election how they were both trying to sell America on how they were indeed Christian, or Obama/McCain both did the same thing.
And me being the faithful follower that I am should vote for the "true" Christian.  That being the one who is, specifically, anti gay-marriage and anti-abortion; quite the moral ethical issues of our day if one were to pick one, not to mention the family values candidate as well.  Where as I totally am in agreement with the conservative's, nay, Republican's, for I think conservative should connote something completely different than morals in the political arena, side of the ethical argument, I am totally and completely disgusted with how politicians try to use that to pander to me, specifically, and Christians, in general.  They try to buy our vote with that crap. The sad thing is, for most ignorant fools, it works, and then those same individuals who have been bought try and sell you on it, calling it a Christian duty.  Bull!
Thus, we are brought to my thinking about my voting history.  I voted for Kerry in the '04 election, mainly because I didn't like Bush's policies (No Child Left Behind, decision to take the War on Terror to Iraq).  I didn't tell any of my peers about this, and I'm quite certain many still don't know, because they were sold on the idea that the "Christian" thing to do was vote for Bush, so God could blah blah blah.  If I would have told them I desired to vote not for Bush, I would have been chastised, and indeed I recall feeling marginalized for even supposing the proposition that one might hypothetically vote for Kerry.
This of course only made me more hardened in my drive to not vote for Bush, because my faith and values there-in are not to make me a politicians political capital.
Further more as a Christian to vote simply in line with those two issues has got to be the stupidest thing I think anyone could do, not to mention not being a steward of our God given/American right to vote.  Think of the sort of destruction could happen because of that?  We vote a ton of moral conservatives who are economic, foreign and social policy idiots.  Even still to vote in such a way insures, which many would say this is a good thing, that people will follow our Christian morals.  Which sounds kind of like a Pharisee.
Is that what politics has brought Christianity too?  Legalism? Pharisicalism?
I think Christians need to be better students of politics and not just buy into whomever the moral candidate is.
Perhaps its what Jesus would do?