I have the real privileged to be invited to participate in a cool initiative called "Nazarenes Exploring Evolution," an attempt from members of my tribe, the Church of the Nazarene, to enter into respectful, personal discussions about creation and its implications for faith. The project will culminate in a book of essays and a conference next January for continued dialogue.
My essay talks a little about both my life journey and my theological journey to this point. It is an evolving position and something I've been working to continue to develop recently through my work in the NTS class "Theology of Creation," which I am finishing up now. Stay tuned.
In the meantime: Check out my essay here. I know the post went up last Thursday, but I already had something posted last Thursday and I like to keep my schedule.
Since Newt Gingrich, Republican Speakers have used an unofficial "rule" whereby no bill comes up for a vote unless a majority of the GOP is in favor. This rule, called the Hastert Rule (named inexplicably for Dennis Hastert, Gingrich's successor as Speaker and the guy who broke the rule most often - and not to be confused with Dennis Haysbert, noted worshiper of the god Jobu), is entirely responsible for the current Government Shutdown.
Yup, that's right. It's not about health care. Yeah, the GOP hates Obamacare and they'd love to repeal it or defund it or delay it - although the spending bills being held up right now have nothing to do with any of those things. Adding such a repeal to the bill is akin to adding an extra ten bucks to your mortgage payment and asking them to deliver a pizza.
Of course Congress does stuff like that all the time. Odd as it is, it's become common practice: to put outrageous things people don't care that much about on the same bill as something hugely important. Except, usually they combine stuff together to get it to pass. This time they've bastardized a bill to keep it from passing, all to get leverage for the next spending bill, the debt ceiling, which needs to be passed next week.
It's crazy good politics for sure. There's a sense of foresight and understanding of political realities that the current crop of Democrats could never dream of figuring out. I suspect they'll get a banner deal in exchange for the debt ceiling vote. It's also wildly irresponsible.
This is the perfect example of an "ends justify the means" mentality that I so often excoriate around these parts. Almost a million government employees are going without paychecks for a few weeks just so the GOP can get better leverage to lower spending on projects that have no real contribution to the National Debt.
In the end, we have to remember politics is politics, which means most everything anybody does is for public perception. Welcome to the land of dysfunction: there are no winners here.
With that, I flipped the dial and turned off the radio. That pretty much sums up all the problems right there.
Now I'll be optimistic and say I don't think this US Congressman is under some delusion that it is the job of the legislative branch to run the country (efficiently or otherwise). I'm pretty sure he knows what separation of powers means (although there's this nagging suspicion in the back of my mind that it's just as likely 90% of our elected officials have no idea about anything beyond what their aides give them in a thin manila folder every morning).
What I'll argue instead is that Congress (and by this I mean any Congressperson of any party, not just the particular nincompoops on the hot seat at the moment) banks on two things: 1) most Americans have no understanding at all of Civics and are blissfully ignorant of what their elected officials are supposed to be doing; and 2) that they'll be able to get away with whatever they do get away with simply because anyone charged with holding them accountable is functioning in the same opportunistic manner.
If you recall third grade, or maybe the 8th grade refresher course, the US government has three branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Legislative Branch (Congress) is charged with making laws. The Executive Branch is charged with carrying out (executing) those laws, essentially running the government. As bloated as it has become, the entirety of our Government bureaucracy falls under the Executive Branch; the government may make reports to Congress, but it reports to the President.
Congress has already way overstepped the bounds of its authority - passing bills with volumes of notes and directions to essentially tie the hands of the Executive Branch, giving no leeway for practicality or creativity in carrying out the laws. Instead of providing wide boundaries and goals for the functioning of the nation, Congress essentially makes our civil service corps robotic drones, carrying out orders with such specificity I wouldn't be surprised if the font choices on government forms are codified in law.
This is also why the President tends to meddle in the legislative process so much. There's really nothing else for him (and it seems like they've all be "hims" so far - although I have my doubts about a few: I'm looking at you, "James" K Polk!) to do once the laws get passed besides sign them and avoid lusty interns late at night.
This terrible conflation of the intended order came about, inevitably, because people with power want more of it and everyone, it seems, willing to go through the public flogging of an election campaign, wants to be in charge of the world, not just one half of one third of 1/435th of it.
No one trust each other. That's really the crux of most problems in the world. And it feels like the end of the world if someone breaks our trust - so we withhold. (Maybe we need a National Psychologist to manage our collective phobias and foibles?)
On top of this, we have a Judicial system that is decidedly passive. I know that will come as a shock to all those reliably railing against "activist" judges, but our judicial system won't even comment on anything without a suit being brought. They keep quiet unless asked to speak - and even then, they're pretty, well... judicious. In some systems, if the Judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, sees something fishy happening, they'll just speak up and stop it. Here, ours only steps in if someone asks. I'm not even going to comment on which one is better, simply that our system is less than convenient - the one group that could play referee won't (partly because both warring sides are too scared to lose to even ask).
So we find ourselves with a dysfunctional system, lacking accountability of any kind, overrun by moneyed** interests and power-hungry egotists. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by the follies that come out of DC or why anyone feels the need to defend any of them.
Just remember, the system we have is the best in the world - in the history of the world - it might not be perfect, but it's better than any alternative. In fact, don't even bother researching or experimenting with any alternatives, just take our word for it, this system rocks. Even with all its faults and failures, it's the best we're ever going to get, the pinnacle of human achievement. Seriously. I promise.
*I included the final clause "more efficiently" to accurately quote the man, obviously the focus and heft of the statement is on "running the government."
**Did you know that's how you spelled "moneyed?" Me neither. At least we all learned something from this post today.
This month, and apparently it's available now on Amazon, another book is coming out. I did not write this one, although I wrote a chapter in it. It has my name and thoughts and stuff included. It is also from a publishing company - a small, relatively young publishing company, but a really good one. If they can recoup the cost of publishing the book, I will make some small sum of money from it.
This post is shameless self-promotion, but of course, I would not have contributed to the book if I didn't think it was a good book. Quite frankly, it's a better book than I anticipated. My chapter is one of the least good parts of it - and my chapter ain't half bad.
The book is called "One in Christ," it focuses on shalom, in short. The subtitle is "Reconciliation, Justice, and Mutuality. Really it is about the Kingdom of God, the reality and future of a world in which people get along with each other, not for any other reason than because we are made to get along with each other.
The book is written in a cool narrative style - each chapter features a dramatic retelling of a passage of scripture, along with several real life narrative examples of a similar theme. The commentary and exposition is at a minimum to emphasis the evolving, relational aspect of life and faith. Hopefully, this technique allows readers to imagine the Kingdom as it is and as it is becoming - and also to imagine ways in which we can all participate and contribute to God's shalom in the world.
Christians believe in resurrection - that means we have to get along with each other, because we're always going to be here. Death is not the end; you can't wait someone out or ignore them. We need each other and we must get along with each other. That takes something special, something beyond our own abilities. We need the grace of God to be different, to be what we were created to be. Scripture helps us discover that grace and, hopefully, this book can help us better discover scripture and our place in the world.
Sorry for the long delay between reviews. After some ordering and shipping shennanigans, I ended up with two copies of God in My Everything, a book I wasn't sure I wanted in the first place.
I'm not a huge fan of those "five steps to an easy solution" books that are so popular among Christian publishers. There are a lot of them to choose from. I requested this one, hoping it would be something different.
The book starts out pretty dry and formulaic, discussing the place a Rule of Life has had in the life of the author, the concept's background, etc. The majority of the book explores twelve areas of life that make up the "trellis" of a Rule of Life - a series of practices given priority in the life of an individual to help maintain balance and wholeness.
The twelve ideas immediately rang of a neat bulleted list, but Shigematsu does well to speak of them in broad, overarching ways, creating pockets of understanding without resorting to specifics and details. I can picture a fight between author and editor the whole way through, but author seems to win out.
Shigematsu comes to ministry from a business background and there are some elements of formula that creep in from time to time - for example, he does an exquisite job of creating an open, vibrant picture of Sabbath and then insists Sabbath must be done one day a week. There is also a chapter on sexual expression, where he (rightly) explains that sexual expression is not always about sex, but spends most of the chapter talking about sexual ethics and very little time exploring ways in which sexuality can be expressed outside of physical intimacy.
Those critiques aside, the book is very good and should be a practical help to anyone who reads it seriously. I had been exposed to the idea of a Rule of Life during my seminary experience and had previously made use of some aspects of it for my own balance and sanity. I have since gotten away from those practices. I will be using this book as a jumping off point to regain some calm and stability moving forward and to help focus my life on Kingdom priorities.
I remain skeptical about those books which claim to make you a better Christian/spouse/parent/employee, and this book does not make that claim. However, God in My Everything, if taken seriously and prayerfully, could put you on the path to just those ends.
If the rest of my experience with this review project is as surprisingly beneficial as the first two, I will be quite satisfied.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze.com® book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
